Investigation into Illegal Secret Civil Hearing of Criminal Matters of a Most Serious Nature #whistleblowerkids

15 04 06 PetitionHere is a new petition offering an innovative context for the problem of the ‘whistleblower kids’ and their Russian mother and grandparents:

  • two children report the abuse of their UK father and his associates to their mother who takes them to Barnet Police;
  • 20 child victims, 70 adult abusers, 8 schools and a church are allegedly involved with Satanic ritual and sexual abuse;
  • the children get punished by being separated from their family and the Police closes the case;
  • secret legal proceedings are a witch hunt ending in the mother and her McKenzie Friend leaving the country to avoid imprisonment due to ‘harassment’ on behalf of the Police and ‘contempt of court’ on behalf of LB Barnet who initiated the proceedings against the mother;
  • they result in a judgement by Mrs Justice Pauffley which exonerates the father and his associates and assassinates the character of the mother and her partner;
  • the simultaneous publication to the mass media perpetuates the witch hunt in mainstream and internet media.

As McKenzie Friends, we expect custody to be given to the abusive father, based on decades of observations.

Are there ways forward towards sanity?

This petition is asking the Council of the European Union, the United Nations and the International Court of Justice in The Hague to investigate. It addresses the same principle as what I submitted to the Petitions Committee of the EU Parliament:

On this video, Bill Maloney is suggesting amnesty for paedophiles who come forward to denounce paedophile rings.

After three of my petitions have been taken down, I started http://www.meetup.com/whistleblowerkids/ to facilitate collaborations among supporters.

Do find your level of collaboration / contribution / awareness raising / making a difference!…

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Investigation into Illegal Secret Civil Hearing of Criminal Matters of a Most Serious Nature #whistleblowerkids

  1. @ Sabine

    “secret legal proceedings are a witch hunt … they result in a judgement by Mrs Justice Pauffley which exonerates the father and his associates and assassinates the character of the mother and her partner …
    the … publication [of the judgment] perpetuates the witch hunt”

    I agree with your complaint that the fact-finding hearing in the family division, into allegations of widespread witchcraft in Hampstead, was held in private. I have long agreed with you that family court hearings should be held in open court. Well said. So far so good.

    However, the particular hearing concerned was, all said and done, held for no other reason than that allegations had been made of witchcraft, in Hampstead. In the circumstances, the hearing could hardly have been anything other than the witch hunt it was, whether it had been held in private, or in public.

    In the event, the witch hunt concluded that there had been no witches or witchcraft in the lives, in those days lived in Hampstead, of the two children who were the subjects of the care proceedings.

    Whilst I agree that it would have been better if the witch hunt had been conducted in open court rather than in private, I am glad that at least the judgment was published when the witching hunting was over. What the publication of the judgment ought to have accomplished, is the end of the amateur witch hunt, in the wider community. This attempt to restore normality does not seem to have worked, but it was at least worth a try.

    I do not understand why you are complaining about the publication of the judgment, which contains the conclusions of the (so-to-speak) “unsuccessful” Hampstead witch hunt (if I may describe a hunt for witches and witchcraft that failed to find either “unsuccessful”.)

    The publication of the judgment has failed to discourage amateur witch hunters from continuing to believe in the existence of a massive witchcraft operation in Hampstead. They continue to hunt for evidence of witchcraft that the court did not consider. They demand a more “full and thorough” hunt for the Hampstead witches whom they believe have been doing – well – the sorts of disgusting things associated with the word “witchcraft”, things to do with Satan, and rituals, and abuse, dancing, and perverted sex, human sacrifices, cannibalism, and all such things witch-like that had been alleged to have been going on.

    But I think that NOT publishing the judgment would have been even LESS successful in discouraging the amateur witch hunters (to whom, it has to be said, your blogs attract like no others), than publishing the judgment has proved to be.

    In short, I agree with you that the professional hunt for witches, which was led by Ms Pauffley, ought to have been held in public. I disagree with you, in your apparent disapproval of her publishing the judgment, leading to media reports, of which you have written far more than anybody else I know. I consider that the judgment NOT remaining as secret of the witch-hunting hearing, was beneficial, rather than harmful.

    The only other point, is that the leader of the witches was alleged to be Ricky Dearman, whom you have admitted the court “exonerated”. But you later have described Mr Dearman as an “abusive” father. But the only abuse that Mr Dearman was ever accused of, was practising witchcraft with and upon his children. This rather suggests to me that you think that the court that was paid to hunt down the Hampstead witches didn’t do a proper job of it, and should start all over again. You seem still to think that there were indeed rather a lot of some witches operating in Hampstead, and that Mr Dearman was one of them. You’d like the witch hunt to be restarted, and this time for it to find some witches, especially if one of them is Mr Dearman. Correct?

    I may be being confused in that perhaps you are using the term “witch hunt” metaphorically, in a manner suggestive of a witch hunt being something bad. This is confusing, when you use that metaphor in a context in which it was not bad, but rather absolutely essential, to conduct a *literal* witch hunt in case there had been any witchcraft afoot in Hampstead. Many of the visitors to your blog also want there to be another literal witch hunt, even more full and thorough than the one that failed to find any witches, and exonerated everybody accused of literal witchcraft, including Ricky, of being witches at all.

    Can you see how confusing it is, to refer to a bad metaphorical witch hunt, within a good witch hunt, which you consider not to have been good enough, because it didn’t find any witches, not even Mr Dearman?

    Like

  2. Corrections:

    I consider that the judgment NOT remaining as secret as [not “of”] the witch-hunting hearing, was beneficial, rather than harmful.

    rather a lot of [delete “some”] witches

    Like

  3. Got this reply today to my witness statement reporting the crime of fraud committed by Mrs J Pauffley, DC Rogers and DI Cannon. They would like to pass it off as a complaint it seems:

    Dear Drifloud,
    Thank you for your e mail received in the Commissioner’s Private Office, which I acknowledge.
    I am sorry to read that you have concerns regarding the conduct of Metropolitan Police officers.
    I have forwarded your e mail to the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS). They have responsibility for ensuring all complaints regarding the organisation are correctly recorded and responded to in the most appropriate manner.
    The DPS will make contact with you in due course, however in the meantime you can contact them by writing to the following address:
    DPS Complaints Support Team
    22nd Floor
    Empress State Building
    Lillie Road
    London
    SW6 1TR
    Yours sincerely
    James

    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