#BBC #CoveringUp or #Reporting? Responses to the @VicDerbyshire program #WhistleblowerKids

15 04 21 BBCBelinda McKenzie and I got this letter with a long list of bullet points from Eleanor Plowden, the Senior Planning Producer of the Victoria Derbyshire programme that interviewed RD, the father. My responses are the indented bullet points, as we expect the father to be given custody of his children – as Ian Josephs has been predicting for decades: Why Ian Josephs advises mothers NOT to report crimes of abusive fathers: you lose your children

“We anticipate the following points, which arise from the judgement, will  be made in our programme and would like to ask you for your response:

Custody Battle? No: Residence Order!

1. You and your former partnerhave been involved in a long-running dispute over custody of your children.

  • No, the issues were domestic violence rather than custody, as Ella had a Residence Order in place and two Non-Molestation Orders. Our Application for a Non-Molestation Order was ignored by both Judge Mayer and Judge Pauffley.

2. You and Mr Christie have not participated by being present in the court – your absence was deliberate.

  • Ella had nine Police in plain clothes outside her door, without an arrest warrant. Harriet Harman MP said in 2006 in Parliament that 200 parents a year are imprisoned by secret family courts.
  • Prison is NOT a place from where you can succeed having contact with your children, let along getting them back, as we saw with Melissa Laird, victim of the same Council and the same judge Mayer. As McKenzie Friends, we have seen enough examples. That’s why I fled before Ella did.
  • As can be seen from the Police report, a ‘strategy meeting’ was held on 09.09.14 and set up Mr Christie as the scapegoat and fall guy. Ella was to be declared ‘mentally unstable’.

The Online Phenomenon

3. You and other people supporting your case have posted material relating to your children, this case, and allegations of abuse, on the internet and social media. By 10 March 2015 more than 4 million people worldwide had viewed online materialrelating to this case. The Judgement states that it is inevitable that a large proportion of those have a sexual interest in children.

  • The 4 million estimate is based on which research? One of the blogger’s profiles had 27 million views!
  • What is Mrs Justice Pauffley’s speculation based on “that it is inevitable that … have a sexual interest in children?” Why does she even think that?
  • Why would so many cover-ups by internet corporations be carried out, if everything was prim, proper and just?

4. Material continued to be posted on the internet up until publication of the Judgement.

5. False allegations continue to be made on social media websites.

  • If the children had been listened to by Judge Mayer, none of the current escalation would have happened! Why did she transfer jurisdiction to her High Court colleague?
  • If Mrs Justice Pauffley had listened to the children, they would have been returned and their trauma would have lessened. Instead, a spiritual battle is evolving asking people which side they are on: the children’s and mother’s or the father’s.

6. Claims have been made about the children’s father, former head teacher and other teachers, professionals and parents at the former school.

7. Many of these individuals are now living in fear having been identified on the internet as abusers of children.

8. Police have had to protect parents and children at the school.

  • Only because they are all in it together. After all, the children named 16 Police stations / constables.

9. The Judgement states that those responsible for posting the material derive a good deal of personal satisfaction from attracting interest to their “spiteful work”

  • I don’t. I wish I didn’t have to do what I’m doing. But knowing what I know and NOT acting on it, is not possible for me.

The Gory Details of Satanic Rituals

10. Allegations and suggestions have been made that P and Q were part of a large group of children from north London who had been sexually abused, made to abuse one another and that they had belonged to a satanic cult in which there was significant paedophile activity. Babies were supplied from all over the world. They were bought, injected with drugs and then sent by TNT or DHL to London. The assertions were that babies had been abused, tortured and then sacrificed. Their throats were slit, blood was drunk and cult members would then dance wearing babies’ skulls (sometimes with blood and hair still attached) on their bodies. All the cult members wore shoes made of baby skin produced by the owner of a specified shoe repair shop. Itwas alleged that children would be anally abused by adult members of the cult using plastic penises or “willies.”

The Judge judges the global internet community and the BBC the mother and partner

11. The Judgement found that none of the allegations were true, and the judge stated that everything you and your partner Abraham Christie and the children said about those matters was fabricated, and that the claims are baseless.  The judge further stated that those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish.

  • Strange that I have seen at least the same evidence as the judge and I come to different conclusions. What do you think is the difference between a systems analyst and a High Court judge? I reckon it’s “emotional intelligence.”

12. Years of conflict over the issue of contact your antipathy for Mr Dearman provided fertile territory for the creation of false allegations and their reiteration by the children

  • No, no. The father chose not to see the children for over 2 years. To put the children’s testimonies away as ‘false allegations’ is in my view preposterous.

13. P and Q were forced by you and Mr Christie to provide concocted accounts of horrific events.

  • P and Q were ‘forced’ to break the ‘deal’ they had with their father not to talk, under the threat of being killed! The daughter said on video “Police don’t help. They know that we talked. He’s going to come and kill us.” Foster parents reported that the children had nightmares, for fear of being killed.

14. The stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. The judge describedthe treatment of the children by you and  Mr Christie as “torture”.

  • What verbal exaggerations…

15. In sessions with you and Mr Christie, the children were effectively persecutedso as to compel them to tell false stories

  • What a speculation…

16. You and Mr Christie made the children take part in filmed mobile phone recordings in which they relayed fabricated satanic practices

  • What makes you NOT believe the children, I wonder? Did you watch all of the videos?

17. In two police interviews they repeated allegations similar in content to the mobile recordings.

  • Yes, the consistency between the children talking separately and independently to different adults at different times over weeks proves the veracity of their allegations.

18. In a third interview both children withdrew their allegations, and stated they had been made to say things by Abraham Christie which were not true.

19. Your absence from the fact finding proceedings in court was deliberate.

  • It was unfortunate, since secret family courts turn ‘evidence’ into ‘facts’, when it not opposed. We’ve seen this with what was the worst case, until this one came along: the Nigerian couple whose seven children were taken and who were sentenced to seven years in prison. The mother was in HMP Holloway, in the cell adjacent to US Melissa Laird.

Legitimising the Secrecy of Family Courts? 

20. The internet campaign has continued, despite injunctions restraining you from publishing information from the proceedings on the internet or elsewhere.

  • You don’t know what the mother has published. The Penal Order was against the mother and myself as if we were co-ordinating our online activities. My application to set it aside was supposed to be heard today. So far, I have not had a response to my request for an adjournment or communication via skype.
  • The restraining aka gagging orders are part of the problem, not a solution, to operate in the best interest of children, when 1,000 a children are taken a month, or 1 every 20 minutes, as Channel IV publishes.
  • See also The untold story of gagging orders in the Independent.

21. You have been prepared to campaign using the internet but were not willing to take part in the inquiry.

  • Why this accusatory implication? Ella had been part of the inquiry, together with me and Belinda McKenzie until the hearing on 26 January 2015. Then it was clear to both Ella and Belinda that the judge had no intention to return the children. She had ignored the mother’s issues in this Position Statement which contained the ‘thinly veiled threat’ of online exposure.

22. P and Q have sufferedsignificantly andwere made to absorb and repeat claims against blameless people including their father.

  • They were made to absorb lies that they themselves are supposed to have made. That’s betrayal.

23. Physical injuries described by the children were caused by Mr Christie.

24. Mr Christie, your partner has a background of criminality for drugs offences, violence and dishonesty – and recently received a police caution for assaulting his son

  • This has NOTHING to do with the CHILDREN’s allegations!

More allegations instead of Listening to the Children?

25. There is good evidence that the children ingested cannabis in the three months before going into care. The judgement states it may have been part of your and Mr Christie’s plans as to gain the children’s compliance

  • Why this allegation? Do you know the difference between cannabis and hemp?
  • Hemp juice is available from Holland & Barretts. The hair sample test results show significantly more cannabis during the school period from March till the end of June than during the holiday months and since Mr Christie came on the scene in June.

26. The posting of film clips featuring the children speaking about sexual matters has exposed P and Q to the potential for very serious embarrassment and humiliation in the years ahead and maybe through the whole of the rest of their lives.

  • It would be kinder to worry about the PRESENT state of the children and deal with their separation from their family, the inequality of contact between father (weekly) and mother (originally fortnightly),  how the grandparents saw them and the reasons for Barnet Council still keeping them under their control after seven months!

Turning Fictions into Facts: methinks, you protesteth too much… 

27. Neither child has been sexually abused by any of the following – Ricky Dearman, teachers at their former school, the parents of students at that school, the priest at the adjacent church, teachers at any schools, members of the Metropolitan Police, social workers employed by the London Borough of Camden, officers of Cafcass or anyone else mentioned by Ms Draper or Mr Christie.

  • And because Mrs Justice Pauflly said so, it must be true?

28. There was no satanic or other cult at which babies were murdered and children were sexually abused.

  • dto

29. All of the material promulgated by you now published on the internet is utter nonsense.

  • Everybody is entitled to their opinions.

30. The children’s false stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. “Torture” is the mostaccurate way to describe what was done by you in collaboration with Mr Christie in collaboration with you.

  • Why were the torturers named by the children not investigated?

31, Both children were assaulted by Mr Christie by being hit with a metal spoon on multiple occasions over their head and legs, by being pushed into walls, punched, pinched and kicked. Water was poured over them as they knelt semi-clothed.

  • Great exaggeration. They always only accused the father and his associates. Never the mother. And they explicitly said that Abraham does NOT do ‘it’.

32. The long term emotional and psychological harm of what was done to the children is incalculable. The impact of the internet campaign is likely to have the most devastating consequence for P and Q.

  • The internet campaign is the only chance to ever get these and other children back to where they belong.

33. There are rumours you have fled abroad. You have not been seen by anyone in authority since 12 February 2012, nor communicated with the court or local authority since 17th. Nor have you had contact with or made any inquiry about the children.

  • How can she, when the only reason behind this is the desire to put her behind bars?
  • That’s how the Nigerian Musas were put behind bars: in a secret family court…

Eleanor Plowden wrote back: Thanks for your email following my letter  to Ella Draper – we note your response. 

38 thoughts on “#BBC #CoveringUp or #Reporting? Responses to the @VicDerbyshire program #WhistleblowerKids

  1. Well done Sabine- it’s just so obvious the BBC didn’t do their own homework and have taken the Pauffley’s Piffle as fact. It’s also obvious the BBC interview was a (weak) attempt to get sympathy for the Ricky “Ham” Dweebman. It’s also obvious- by all the comments on Victoria Derbyshire’s Facebook site that people WHO HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN THE CHILDREN’S FOOTAGE are not buying that crap. It has also brought a few trolls out to play! Keep up the good work Sabine. Praying for truth and justice. This thing is out in the public domain now!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Slightly off-thread here, but..
      Birthday Wishes to Alisa

      A friend who’s very into energy waves healing – love, suggested that everyone wishing Alisa – and Gabriel of course – love and strength on 24th April, focus their attention on sending these love vibrations to the children. She says the more people doing this at the same time intensifies the energy. It’s quite difficult trying to link up everyone around the Earth at the same moment, but can I propose two particular times, say midday and 7pm GMT, for five minutes each occasion? Of course, any other times are also fine – it’s the intention/thought that counts.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I’ve been reposting your links on Victoria Derbyshire’s facebook page. Most were poste this morning and I went to repost this article and noticed that all my posts have been removed from Victoria’s page!!! WHY???
    Where’s the freedom of speech? Typical of the BBC

    Liked by 3 people

  3. These are my fears too Sabine, it’s all to justify handing the children over to the father, boy this man has power huh. I am afraid much of the social media sights I frequent have posted nothing of this case to my knowledge until now. UK database on Facebook barred me from discussing the case, as in how the children allege the babies are acquired. I was challenging a claim made of how could so many children go missing and parents not be reporting them? I was using banal language and it was ‘greyed out’…. No one else could see it, I was silenced for repeating what the children said.

    Like

    • @Deeply suspicious, April 21, 2015 at 5:26 pm

      “…These are my fears too Sabine, it’s all to justify handing the children over to the father, boy this man has power huh…”

      It’s the ZIONISTS’ influence and power…

      Like

  4. I have to say I find it astounding that people supposedly bright and intelligent still entertain the idea that these children have made up there story under duress. I have had three children of my own so I know what can come out of a child’s mouth! I have no doubt in my mind Sabine that they are telling it as it is. I am just as horrified as I was the first time I watched them. No one could convince me that these innocent children would know of such horrors if they hadn’t seen them with there own eyes. What has been stolen from them can never be undone….they will be irreparably damaged by what they’ve been forced to witness and endure. How couldn’t they be! These two are brave beyond words, to feel such fear and in there innocence still speak out. My heart aches for them and every other child lost to this immoral self serving cult. I could never imagine myself hurting a child for my own gain. When we talk about satanism I think Devil worship but really it’s just another ba ba religious ideal emanating from the minds of people whose unquenchable thirst for power propels there psyche to function at the lowest vibrational level. They destroy or kill these little children being so easily terrified which is like an aphrodisiac as we know and so easily gobbled up!. There isn’t anything to be gained for them as I believe we incarnate on our journeys to perfect ourselves so you could say there booking themselves into there own personal mad house and throwing away the key. You are what you are and nobody can undertake the journey for you…you can’t take darkness into light…..I hadn’t realised how prevalent Satanism was “birds of a feather do flock together” Any belief system that hurts anybody is wrong. To me these people are no more then small minded inadequate psychopaths. I will stand by those children because they deserve to be heard. I’m sure there’s a reason why we are suddenly acutely aware of so many horrors being perpetrated around the globe ~ In truth I just want to shut my eyes and pretend it isn’t happening ~ maybe the people manipulating society and pulling the strings are getting desperate because we aren’t quite as stupid as they think!

    Like

    • Mary – no one believes that the children made up the story.

      Those terms are used only by people who are in the circle because there is nothing else they can think to say.

      The complication here is that R. Dearman is probably rather low on the totem pole as are his accomplices and they take orders from on high, the judges, parliament figures etc.

      The BBC and other outlets hire people who they can control because they too have been compromised.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. It is prudent to remain sceptical about any claim by a child, particularly if it borders on the unbelievable or extreme. By the same token, it should never be dismissed out of hand. Indeed the rule is to believe unless or until it is proved otherwise. Almost as extraordinary as the children’s reports is the claim by Pauffrey that it all resulted from coaching by two ‘evil’ individuals (mother and step-father) in a period of about three months, yet she asks us to believe her, presumably as being more credible! The assertion this was achieved by ‘torture’ without evidence is not only flawed jurisprudence it is ‘over egging the mix’.

    The absence of any firm evidence for the theory of ‘coaching through torture’, the judge has failed to provide an alternative remotely plausible explanation of the children’s accounts. The step father’s admitted and deplorable actions, we may regard as excessive and inappropriate physical parenting, but by any definition falls far short of ‘torture’ nor is it related to imparting a particular story. There is no evidence from either of the adults, the children or third parties that this was happening. Perhaps most tellingly, neither did the natural father ever make such a claim, perhaps the first who would have been motivated to do so, if there had been any trace of it in his presence. Were they being ‘brain washed’, and were the natural father the loving, caring person the judge wants us to believe, might not it been expected they would have intimated to him what was going on?

    Pauffley’s conclusion holds no credibility simply because the children’s testimony is cogent and patently honest. For her to have seized on two ambivalent, hardly convincing ‘retraction’ conversations, after six days enforced separation from parents (and each other?) as reliable, whilst apparently not even considering the earlier allegations, repeated in police interview, as worthy of consideration, and then basing her whole judgement on this fundamental error, can only be regarded as an intentional error that must constitute a misfeasance in public office at the very least.

    She appears to reject the children’s clearly stated claims on the basis that they are too preposterous to be believed. This may have been understandable in the 70’s and 80’s when the public was far more naive but it surely cannot be acceptable for a judge to adopt that position now. After all that has been revealed and all that is known about internet child abuse, up to and including murder, and of all the high-level child abuse emerging from previous decades, most recently by (allegedly) a past Home Secretary and one of the most prominent Jewish leaders in the House of Lords, surely rules out ‘unlikelihood’ as a justification for dismissing the children’s accounts. Perhaps Judge Pauffley is unaware of what has and does happen in the world of porn and sexual exploitation, which even the British government now admits operates on a multi-billion pound level. Only a Carmelite nun could claim the accounts were too outrageous to be taken seriously.

    No reasonable person could come to any conclusion, other than that the children’s accounts are believable. Yet a trained and experienced High Court judge takes the opposite view, based on an illogical and unsupported belief that the children were tortured into learning and regurgitating a bizarre script. This simply defies logic and common sense. To have any chance of viability two children apart from one another would have to have been word perfect to corroborate one another, yet from independent positions and remain consistent throughout on different days, with different interviewers. Even when being interviewed by police this was maintained and significantly without any indication of nervousness or shame. This was an exercise in honesty and relief, in the belief that if they at last told the truth as far as they were able – to “face their fear” as they bravely put it – they would be protected from those they feared. Sadly they were let down, indeed betrayed by the very people charged with the duty to do otherwise.

    Finally, no reasonable person could dismiss the multiplicity of sexual and other detailed informations, far beyond the possible knowledge of the average eight and nine year old; nor the medical evidence that the judge unconscionably attempted to discredit; or the specific references to buildings, places and people; nor the anatomical distinguishing features that could only have been obtained by intimate interaction. Where is the evidence that each and every claim was meticulously checked out and disproved? Nowhere because as a police detective of many years standing was prepared to state, there was no thorough investigation carried out. An experienced High Court judge apparently found this acceptable!

    There were of course many more indicators the children were telling the truth as far as they were able. How else to explain the descriptions of “sticky skin”, of blood tasting of “metal”, of adult anatomy of specified persons, the subjective experience of being anally abused, information on dildos and their manufacture, accurate representation of the act of severing heads, so on and so, all pointing to the fact this was NOT inculcated by torture or anything else but real time experience. The suggestion that it all resulted from watching the “Mask of Zorro”, apparently accepted by the judge, deserves only utter astonishment and contempt.

    We now have been subjected to a media exercise that can only be described as propaganda, just replicating the judges deplorable reasoning, culminating in a nauseous BBC interview of the natural father, against whom the principle allegations were laid. If anything it underscores the children’s and mother’s worst fears. If somebody in government doesn’t quickly get a handle on this lamentable situation, the reputation of Britain in the eyes of the world, will plummet even further, to the disgrace of us all.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. When mr dearman cries not a single tear comes out of his eyes, despite he pretends to collect invisible tears with his finger, while pretending to sob away. He really is a Z serie actor. What he really think and is, it’s written in his eyes.

    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