LET’S RESPOND to the #Pauffley judgment – with www.meetup.com

15 03 24 MeetupWell, dear Supporters,

in the absence of the petition with nearly 16,000 of you, I was prompted by the call from Spanish victims turned starfighters and activists. They want to organise an international conference. So I started this online initiative for

And then there is this ‘virtual meeting‘:

www.meetup.com is a platform designed for organising events, it offers scope for

  • a leadership team – responsible for the website as a whole
  • organisers and co-organisers
  • assistant organisers and event organisers

all with different levels of control powers and editing permissions.

So, please

  • join the group, if you feel like it, especially if you want to organise or attend events!
Advertisements

16 thoughts on “LET’S RESPOND to the #Pauffley judgment – with www.meetup.com

  1. Stunned…

    There is something I find hard to understand
    Why was it impossible to protect the children?
    Why didn’t they leave London (the country) for a safe/er place to live?
    Why didn’t they seek judicial help beforehand?
    Why a family court and not a criminal court in the first place?

    and a lot more questions
    All in all – There are quite a few incongruities I can’t grasp.

    All my best wishes!

    Liked by 1 person

    • 1. Because it is POLICY to snatch children.
      2. They came back from Morocco and report the crimes to protect all other children.
      3. Ella sacked 2 solicitors and a barrister who didn’t work in her interest.
      4. Because family courts use their secrecy to hide paedophilia and now satanism.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dear Sabine

        thank you very much for your reply
        Still – may I ask some more questions?
        It’s only because I can’t grasp the monstrosity of it all.

        You say – It’s policy to snatch children –
        and Ella DIDN’T KNOW? She was that naive? She wasn’t ALARMED enough? She wasn’t WARNED enough? She DIDN’T have an idea what kind of a man Mr D. is and what to expect from him? She didn’t know anything about the cult and Mr D’s (her former 2nd husband’s? or separated partner’s) involvement? She separated (divorced?) from Mr D in 2007 when the children were still very small – but they have been sexually abused since the age of 3 and 4? (see: Aangirfan) and she did not notice anything? Is she suffering PTD too?

        They came back… to protect all other children.
        The way they did? Impossible. What did they expect? Without consulting a lawyer first?
        Bad advice? How could they be so full of trust?

        Ella must be full of dispair now. But it doesn’t show (PTD?)

        I’m writing from Germany – the judicial system is different – I don’t know the judicial procedure in England. So it was for the lawyers who didn’t give it the right direction (criminal court)?
        It’s a hell of a mess. Hopefully, the Russian consulate and state will help (at least financially by funding the legal costs).

        Every mother’s heart is bleeding for the children. They are not safe.
        Is there any hope left?

        Like

  2. Nike
    March 25, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    I think you have asked many valid questions Nike, deserving a response from the mother and step-father. I still take the view that the substance of both children’s allegations – on Dame Pauffley’s much trumpeted “Balance of Probabilities” – is true rather than false, but there are and always have been, aspects of the step-father’s narrative and alleged behaviour that give rise for concern.

    We hear the step-father questioning in some of the videos. Judge Pauffley put great store by the text of a telephone conversation. Belatedly claims have been made of physical and emotional abuse by him towards the children. If the latter are in fact accurate and not just a concoction or exaggeration to shift the focus of attention from the alleged perpetrators, it is bound to raise questions as to why the mother allowed it. The signs are that both were surprised and shocked by the allegations, in which case we must assume she was unaware of what had been happening over a period of years, until the step-father’s persistent questioning revealed all. It is certainly a reasonable question to pose to the mother how she might have missed signs in two children of the sort of abuse now claimed. “Papa Hemp’s” apparent obsession with cannabis and the mother’s acceptance of it, even extending to the children being encouraged to partake, whilst possibly being deprived of adequate nourishment, are also worrying factors.

    However saying all this, I still do not believe the children’s account was substantially given to them by the mother or step-father, though they may have encouraged an exaggerated account in certain particulars. The reason I take this view is because both the latter appear genuinely surprised and shocked by the revelations and because the children’s account is believable by virtue of their transparent fluency, naivety and lack of self-awareness. They tell the same story independently; they remain consistent irrespective of different times and interviewers – including the police in the first four interviews. They have to over-come their own reticence and “fears” to reveal them; the accurate technical details such as the injection locations in the neck and back of hand that they were unlikely to have gained except by direct experience; the none verbal indicators such as the need for effort and assistance cutting a child’s neck or the demonstration as to how an object was inserted with disarming accuracy; intimate details of named individuals; the way in which on so many counts the description of procedures equates exactly with known satanic ones; so many examples of factual details correlating known ones on adult relationships and details of premises used; the way the father’s behaviour and business interests strangely fit the pattern described. (This list is not intended to be definitively comprehensive!)

    Even in the so-called “retraction” on the 17th September 2015 after six days “in care”, the details of which we are in total ignorance, it is a most unconvincing. Yet incredibly it is afforded credence by the judge, whilst rubbishing all previous ones! We might reasonably ask why the children should be regarded as being reliable in the last if all former ones were a tissue of lies? As has been described elsewhere, even whilst trying to impress and seek approval from the interviewing detective, the boy keeps trying to reiterate his earlier account and the girl begins with the remark, apparently, “What do you want me to say?” which is hardly reassuring. There is no guarantee that the children, in the midst of all the emotional trauma of being removed, have not been subtly and relatively easily coaxed to withdrawal their earlier version of events, helpfully and persistently assisted by the policeman saying that they “Won’t be in any trouble if they do.” It may have been well-intentioned, we don’t know, but it could hardly be regarded as wholly honest, given the fact that it removed them from their mother and allowed them to be accessed by their worst fear.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I don’t know who the woman with the American accent is but all her unnecessary shouting, to be honest, embarrasses me.

    This was a sleepy Sunday morning in a suburb, not a 1000 strong rally in Hyde Park.

    Posting her lack of discernment, in my opinion, is not helpful to the cause, that being to discredit the authorities, not the residents of Hampstead, though it seems a small number are involved in some very nasty activities or at least need to be properly investigated for such.

    The authorities will follow Cameron’s earlier lead on This Morning and deem such a witch-hunt.

    We need to exercise discretion so as not to invite criticism – let us not forget this is about getting authorities to release the kids to Mum not get the backs up of the local residents.

    Hope I got the point over.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20251939

    Liked by 1 person

    • I absolutely agree with your comment entirely that the residents of Hampstead should be left alone, it will do nothing to benefit the cause and is just harassment, a shame that people have to behave that way. It is far better to direct efforts towards the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

      Like

    • Agreed RabbiT. The campaign for justice for the children cannot afford to give any ammunition to those who wish to discredit or ignore it. You will notice how this has already been done by authorities that tend to pick on isolated incidents or circumstances reported by the children, that they then demolish as being impossible or unsubstantiated, as a method of discrediting the whole. We know this is an old trick but it remains an effective tool of the defendant or apologist. They will do the same with any boorish or irrational behaviour by those who wish to protest. What we need to appreciate, which clearly Judge Paullfrey does not, is the psychology of the child in such matters. She places great stress on the fact that in relating the stories they appear to remain unemotional, and uses this fact to support her view that the accounts are unreliable. It is hard to imagine a more untrustworthy stance to take. Similarly and discreditably, the Metropolitan Police use the reference to a quantity of semen as proof that the boy is generally unreliable.

      Anyone who knows anything about the development of a child’s perception, unravelled by Jean Piaget and other researchers, knows that the ability to make moral judgements only start to emerge, shaped by their earlier experience, from about the age of eight onwards. Before that their approach is to accept whatever they experience as unquestionably ‘normal’, and indeed that they must be responsible for it as well. (It is touchingly demonstrated when the boy is asked by the detective why he thought the adults treated him so badly.) This fits this case precisely. We note the dialogue relating to them touching one another inappropriately, which they only accept is “wrong” (clearly a moral assessment) when the parents impose this judgement onto them.

      Similarly, knowledge of children’s appreciation of numbers and quantities helps to explain apparent inconsistencies. We see it when the daughter is asked to estimate the number of people involved; we see it when the boy is asked to speak of times, distances and quantities. It demonstrates the interviewers ignorance of child development to pursue topics beyond the children’s competence. It is hard to discuss the intimate reported details without appearing prurient, so without going into detail of the boy’s comment on which the Met places such emphasis, I will only say that from a child’s perspective the account may not be without substance. It is unfair to project the adults mature informed knowledge onto the child in order to undermine its essential truth. I have no doubt at all that the boy’s account in respect of what adults did to his “willie” is truthful as far as he could describe it and was not implanted maliciously by his mother or step-father. “Quantities” in this regard of course could equally be a subjective interpretation of what he saw in others. In my view, the key indicator of truth was his autonomic behavioural responses when being asked questions, including grimaces and demonstrative actions. In addition the ‘clincher’ indicator in my mind on this particular, is that no coaching intended to convince of abuse would ever have included, as indeed the boy does, that certain actions by named adults were pleasurable.

      Like

  4. Tim Veater
    March 25, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    It’s very late (02:54 am), so I’ll make it short. Thanks a lot for your detailed response.

    All the questions put aside, there’s no doubt that the children have been victims to ritual sexual abuse – and it’s incomprehensible and cruel to have them removed from their mother and allowed to be accessed by their worst fear (as you’ve stated) and it’s far from over for them. Their confidence and trust must be deeply shattered. Surely, their grandparents won’t give up on them. They need support in every way possible. Growing public awareness is of utmost importance.
    The cry for justice won’t be silenced.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Dear Ella

    if you are reading this by any chance – May I tell you something?

    Listening to that guy Abraham Christie – I must say his behavior makes me angry.
    He obviously doesn’t know his place and role. Doesn’t he know that it’s not for him to ask all these questions to children, to have conversations with them on such sensitive topics?
    Ella – Where have YOU been?
    Why did you allow this to be going on? I’m sorry to say – It’s some kind of abuse too.
    One gets the impression of some kind of ‘keyhole video’ being made, even while sitting outside in open space. Your partner made promises to the children he completely failed to fulfill.
    Some kind of pompous nitwit? (sorry) But WHY did’t you consult some neutral therapist to have these interviews and have them documented in a professional manner?

    The way it’s done is bent on harming your credibility. Your personal credibility, your partner’s credibility. Very strange and unfortunate.

    No intention to inflict harm – but dear Ella, your role in this is quite an unfavorable one.
    There must be limits, and it’s for YOU to line them out; both of you adults failed in that respect.

    And the dog seems to feel very unhappy tooo… what’s wrong?

    Ella – self empowerment. For oneself and in relationships. Something is terribly missing.
    Such precious children broken inside.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s