AFTER #BBC on Radio 4 and the Victoria Derbyshire program: where do the #WhistleblowerKids go?

Victims Unite!

Angela and Iwere both interviewed by Melanie Abbott for Radio 4. “The Report” is supposed to be broadcast tomorrow, Thursday at 8pm. I was very angry after the interview, before I realised the reasons: biased questions pushing THEIR agenda – just like the 33 points by the producer Eleanor Plowden of the Victoria Derbyshire program that interviewed the father. Hence I shall withdraw my ‘implicit consent’.

Here are the key points discussed with Neelu, another victim of the case, as she had to spend a weekend in a prison cell:

View original post 3,650 more words


7 thoughts on “AFTER #BBC on Radio 4 and the Victoria Derbyshire program: where do the #WhistleblowerKids go?

  1. (this comment is related to Sabine’s conversation with Angela, my responce. I could not get it to post on Hampstead research…if Sabine wants to re post it there, go ahead.)

    Sabine, You are a hero! 

    I am just listening to your chat with Angela. I hear (what of course must be) your exhaustion! You are doing so much! I am so sorry for the toll this is taking. You are at the front line taking on a great big giant that manages to morf itself and become invisible etc. You need continued support so you can keep going. 

    I was really concerned when I heard you being asked by Angela to come back to the UK. I think the danger of you being back and getting arrested is too great! You may not be able to work on matters from Germany as easily, however, you can still work! In the UK, who knows what crazy actions could be used against you. It would be impossible for you to help from a prison cell! I am also concerned about you mentioning personal matters that ended up online. I am not sure how the decision to post this came about, but I am concerned. Why had Angela not told you she was recording before she started recording? I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but hearing anyone say the words ‘trust me’ in this case, especially when they themselves have admittedly stopped trusting (which is understandable) leaves me feeling uneasy. 

    Perhaps it is time to pass off some of the work you are doing with a few more folks. Share the load even more? I realize this could be challenging and I know you are getting lots of tips from the crowd following this. If you need more support, lets make that a priority and figure out how to do that, what you need. Let’s be clear here, this is a very strongly infiltrated mass group of people, on many levels of society and as the light gets brighter and they get more and more exposed, they will get more and more desperate! 

    You are at the center of the wheel so to speak. That is how this has developed. It does not mean it is all up to you, we all are having to figure this out together, where do we stand and how does that look in real life. We are not going to give up, your strong, powerful actions are moving this along. You are not alone in your feelings of being isolated either. As the world around us continues to crumble, most do not want to look at what is real, most, I would say don’t even see the truth when they are staring right at it! That is the form this corruption and sickness has taken, very subtly hidden in plain site…So those of us who are seeing truth, are also feeling isolated. Call us the isolation group! 🙂 

    This is no bully you or we or the children are facing! This is much greater, a very dangerous satanic ring that has so many branches. Until things have progressed to the point of becoming clear that you are safe to return, ie, the police that are wanting to speak up-do so, judges who want truth-speak out, the kids are set free-to their mum, proceedings get on track- a true path, etc.. When you are given assurances, then… come home. We do have your back, but we also have the children’s back, yet, we are not at the point of being able to protect them! We are getting there though. You will know when it is time to return. Not because someone else tells you to trust them.

    What a great distraction from the case it would be if you went back and were arrested! Very convenient for those trying to keep this down. You are being hounorable right there in front of your computer! Don’t mistake your absence from London as not being powerful. We are all taking these steps along side of you…you are not alone, and you are doing wonders from where you are. It feels like ‘they’ know the power you have and want to trap you! So I respectfully disagree with Angela on her points about doing a brave thing… Let others take on the amount you have and see where they end up. The fact is they are after you and Ella. You are being brave and showing us all how that is done from where you sit, you are also being smart! Angela is contradicting herself saying that evil will rise to the top, yet then putting pressure on you, that if you don’t do anything, nothing will happen. I appreciate that you need to talk things out to gain renewed sense of perspective, or gain more energy, or simply, support, however I caution you in your tired state of mind that you are perhaps more vulnerable and more prone to persuasion. (I say this with concern for you, not as a judgement)

    As for the police, while I am sure there are some that may still be connected to their hearts, for the most part I think they have had that pounded (one way or another) out of them, (victims). I think it is a bit naive to take their kindness as real kindness. It is a tactic that they are trained to use. Look at Neelu, she had a seemingly ‘good police’ listen to her… need I say more!  This is not about loosing a job, the threats are much greater for those caught in it! The police were not listening for listening sake, but entrapment sake! As for the surprise about the ‘enemy’s’ that are showing up (like the BBC), while investigating the SRA, follow any money trail and that is where this sickness intertwines. So potentially any corporation, any banking system, all dabble in controlling the masses, all play a part in NWO, all are on sides. 

    I realize it feels like 90% bad to the core folk we are up against, but it’s probably more like 10% but the catch is, that 10% are the ones in power positions so they get to control the other 90%! There’s a great image of a very big fish with its mouth open swimming after a smaller fish, no chance for that little one, but behind the big fish, he doesn’t see the even bigger looking fish, with the mouth shape open, but in fact that fish is really a shape of a bigger fish made up of many many many little fish!!  The break through that Angela speaks about is comming…we little fish are busy forming into our shape, stay on track because we are falling into place and the masses will take action! I too, like Angela don’t think of myself as being an anarchists, however, my trust in the system has been pushed over an edge…once we can see the rotten core, we know what that produces. At that point we need to get creative and think outside of the box. 

    Well done Sabine, you are needing some kindness and support your way, perhaps a massage… You are carrying a heavy load. We want to help, we are gathering… Lights turned on! 

    Liked by 3 people

      • Very wise decision Sabine! All wise decisions are from God, Truthseekers observations and advice are certainly reliable for the current situation. I have worked voluntarily helping victims and survivors and have learned the hard way that your decision is the wise course for the moment because no police or public servants can be trusted unless they themselves have also bravely spoken out publically.
        Our systems of Govt operate under fear of reprisal and many occult operatives have directly infiltrated our Governments.

        Yes we must move Onwards and upwards! and God will direct our globally combined efforts whilst the satanists blindly follow their insane master, by continuing their desperate attemps to remain occult [hidden], thanks to the great work you and others are doing.The only course of action available for the evil ones is to continue to disregard the law and break the law. This will be their downfall.


  2. I found the BBC interview with Victoria Derbyshire and the natural father very disturbing. We should note that the interview was made at the request of the father and with approval of Judge Pauffrey and circulated on the internet by the BBC, so we must assume it is intended for public viewing and discussion. See the abbreviated version here: The full version lasts the obligatory twenty-five minutes. The comments below relate first, to the two and a half minute excerpt put out by the BBC that accompanies the news item (here: This appears right at the beginning (2.0mins in) of the complete programme. The second part of the article is a largely verbatim report of the full conversation.

    A comparison the two reveals what appears to be two different ‘takes’ of the same initial script. We do not know what editing went on, but given the emphasis afforded to the obvious emotion, several takes of the same scene may serve to have bearing on the apparent spontaneity of it.


    The excerpt appears to have been chosen for maximum emotional effect and is highly staged. Note for example the theatrical back-lighting placing the studio into darkness and deep contrast to the subject’s visual features. This lighting scheme is often used to create artificial drama and suspense in the film world. (Are there any professional lighting engineers out there able to elucidate?) It is perhaps worth contrasting this one with the famous Panorama Lady Diana interview here The differences are immediately noticeable. In a relatively short interview, lighting is designed to convey an almost sub-conscious effect on the mind of the viewer. What was the intention here?Was the lighting in the P and Q father’s interview to add gravitas or to make him appear LESS credible and more malign? Certainly, the lighting for an interview is considered in advance, and is arranged for a purpose by the director. It is not accidental.

    Next the costume department: note the interviewee is dressed smartly in dark suit and blue tie, is clean shaven with what appears to be a recent hair cut. Perhaps just a touch of rouge for the cheeks and a little lipstick for the cameras? As anyone appearing on TV will know this is standard practice to avoid a pale unhealthy appearance. These are all non-verbal clues to impart respectability in the mind of the audience. Normally this would be nothing out of the way. However in the circumstances, and given the dramatic variance with his widely circulated video acting performances, or indeed with the behaviour alleged by the children to have taken place, it cannot be dismissed as unimportant. Was professional guidance in operation?

    As to the other verbal and non-verbal clues, the most prominent feature is the extended initial period where he is overcome with emotion and unable to speak at all. This takes up over a minute of a very brief (2.27 mins) interview. This could be genuine or it could be contrived. Given his amateur acting background, I would suggest the latter may be the more likely? It elicits at 43 seconds, a reassuring “It’s OK. It’s OK” from the interviewer, who leans forward and appears to touch his leg. At 55 seconds he appears to wipe away a tear, although there is no evidence of such, although his eyes might be said to be ‘watery’. This is a device we have seen frequently in public officials when required and is taught in acting schools where ’emotion’ has to be created on demand for the desired contextual effect. Whether he was demonstrating the device here is open to debate but it cannot be excluded. Another is the ‘tear-sniffing’ at 1.02. This appears wholly artificial as there appear to have been no real tears as yet. It appears to have been done only for effect, to create an impression of crying. Also the way he throws his head back, as if in despair.

    From this point (1.0 min) he recounts the children’s allegations against him, in a very attenuated form. He says through his ‘tears’, “They say I sexually abused them.” With an accompanying shake of the head (important gesture, genuine or otherwise) “and that I was selling them to people.” Then very emotionally he adds “My kids … my kids are wonderful” Again at this point (1.31) he wipes his right eye, although no tears are apparent. He goes on “And I’d been selling them in this satanic cult thing” (shaking his head in disbelief) “they named sixty, seventy, eighty people. They said that we were killing babies, and we was (sic) shipping… (he hardly completes the word almost as a correction and looks to the ceiling as if to indicate the unbelievable nature of the charges before continuing) and we were cooking …. (he appears to self edit here) they were showing with their hands movements how they would get their hands on the knives and we would cut the babies’ necks and drain the blood and drink the blood I mean it’s just horrific upon horrific detail.” What a strange way of describing something he wishes us to believe was pure fantasy and had never in fact taken place?


    In the FULL version (here: he says at the beginning, “I’m OK with what they said, its more that it had come from my children.” As pointed out earlier, the start sessions in the two video releases are different though following roughly the same narrative and the emotional delivery. What is the reason for this?

    “They said I was the leader of a satanic sex cult paedophile ring …. it’s ludicrous.” Note this was an opportunity for a flat and adamant denial of all the claims. “Ludicrous” hardly has the same ring of truth or innocence does it?

    “They were told to recount what I had done … or was supposed to have done …. including all these other people (7.20) Death threats, today, yesterday still, comments – ‘paedo’. I understand. I get it” (8.00) Why if he has been falsely accused and totally innocent of the the charges would he “Get it”? Shouldn’t he rather be outraged at the injustice of it all?

    Then at 9.00, after the interviewer reads out Judge Pauffley’s judgement exonerating him he makes the most extraordinary facial expression that can best be described as, “well I never – just fancy that!” or perhaps as the French would “C’est la vie!” The reader will have to make their own judgement. Further, rather intriguingly immediately after at this point there is an obvious ‘jump’ indicating editing has taken place. What we wonder was removed?

    After the police interview he apparently realises he won’t be charged “Thank God I won’t be …. none of that” “Not that – it was empty …. couldn’t be anything else” and he decides “Ricky you got to take things forward, get to see your children more … basically to be eventually the carer of my children” This makes it clear as feared, what the apparently agreed course of action is.

    At 10.42 after reading out a highly prejudiced list of mistreatment by the step-father, the interviewee is asked “Can you imagine what your children have been through?” It takes him a full ten seconds of contemplation before he replies “Eight and nine … these guys are super heroes to me, these kids, I tell them when I see them …. we’re talking about their heads … mixed up, messed up, ummmm …. just sick … I feel really sorry for their mum because there are two kids here … they are amazing children … and sadly she’s not being part of their lives.” In other words, no he can’t. Evidence of disassociation perhaps?

    The interview moves on. At 12.00 reference is made to the allegations repeated by the children in the police interviews. When ‘satanic ritual abuse’ is mentioned, inexplicably the father smiles and rubs his nose. I am not sure that is a reaction that might be expected by a person unjustly accused of abhorrent behaviour against children?

    At 13.00 when he starts to relate his violent actions to his wife, inexplicably the video breaks down. It is the only time it happens. We have to form our own conclusions as to why this is.

    She inquires how he felt when they ‘withdrew’ their allegation on the third police interview, again he takes almost ten seconds of thought before answering. “This, I felt pleased about.” Is it fair to say a ‘smug’ smile crosses his face or just perhaps relief? At 12.00 to the question “Why?” A rambling response that appears to focus on his ‘forced’ separation from his children, or is it the prospective separation from their mother?

    Then a question relating to how the “long term damage on the children of the internet campaign” might be mitigated another vague response. Then at 17.00, “there is no reason why the children should not come and live with me, and they would have a wonderful life, as they did when they were one, two and three years old when all this started when I left their mum. We can get back to that.” In view of the children’s allegations this can only be viewed as chilling I would suggest.

    “How are they now?” At 18.00 “They are very good” said with a broad smile. “When I started seeing them under supervision, they were not good. They were …..they did (n’t?)( WANT TO SEE ME?) …. they were touch and go…. in their state of mind …. as in their behaviour … just very difficult with each other ….(lack?) of patience with me ….I’d put them right … give them lots of love … the transition from then to now … they are two different children. ”

    At 19.30 “Hey, if I’ve done something wrong, find it, bring it to the table, ultimately this is about the children being safe, being well, being happy so …. I absolutely know it will be back to what it was. Its just going to take a lot of time, patience and love. There will be a shadow …. its not going to over-rule or overwhelm the children and myself’s life. It just won’t.”

    20.20 “What has the impact been on you?” “Imagine what the children must have done in their own psychi, in their own minds to eventually give up to beatings and stuff – to say this stuff.”
    “What was it that hurt the most with those allegations?”
    “Knowing that they wanted to say it in the first place.”
    “How are you now?”
    “Your a mother yea? Any father or mum in their right mind would want to protect …. yes what a great job. Yes its hard. It’s a gift . How I feel is getting the children to feel protected again. Priority to feel safe to be normal.”

    “The mother is abroad. Is there anything you would want to happen to her?”
    “Yes, I’m very angry with her. Very upset with her. She has to come back and stand up in court and face what she’s done. Who in their right mind would put videos of their children on the internet? Sadly there are consequences and we have got to face these consequences.”

    The interview ends with his reasons for doing the interview which include “Clearing his name.”

    Is it fair to observe that not once in the whole interview, let alone at the commencement of it, does he make a clear, concise, unambiguous rejection of all or any of the allegations or attempt an explanation, other than mistreatment by his ex-wife and partner, or why the children made made the claims about him that they did. His account is rambling and I would say, unconvincing, aided by the unchallenging interviewing style. Neither the distinctive timbre of voice, indirect gaze, facial gestures or verbal expression, inspire confidence in his innocence or future reliability.

    As to the BBC production it leaves in no doubt what its intentions were, confirmed by the multiple highly supportive text messages that had been received. If we had expected a balanced view or searching questioning we would have been disappointed. Indeed there is evidence of more than one ‘spontaneous’ take, of editing to remove or disrupt sections that were inconvenient, and of coaching and other techniques to heighten the desired effect innocent party abused. Such are the strange twists to this story, one is left wondering yet again the extent of interference by a hidden hand, though I for one am not convinced by it. END.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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