JOINING THE DIRTY DOTS, one video at a time: #BBC #Police #WhistleblowerKids #HampsteadResearch

When Tricky (Ricky Dearman, UK father) met Vicky (Victoria Derbyshire, BBC) – the latest fabulous video by the wonderful people around the Super Hampstead Research crew leading the ‘tunnelers’ of the world wide web:

I can’t express my gratitude enough. For it seems that everything was worth it, as I am preparing to visit Brussels again.

Here’s the current update of the Petition that got me to the EU Parliament in March last year for the first time with my six minutes of unrehearsed passion (I am half Slavic!).

Remember: petition 1707/2013 evolved from

We are now working on two reports in the light of the EU Child Protection Directive 2011/92/EU. FOLLOW this blog to watch this space!


6 thoughts on “JOINING THE DIRTY DOTS, one video at a time: #BBC #Police #WhistleblowerKids #HampsteadResearch

  1. I’ve watched this interview 3x now and I still can’t believe how many times he slips up! I mean the whole thing was a complete shambles. I hope the Police involved, SS, and everyone else helping this cover up saw this interview and hung their heads in shame.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. So, Victoria was also a victim of an abusive dad who still denies that he abused the kids (a dad who still denies abuses that took place in the past); she hasn’t spoken to him in 20 years; yet, she is siding with another dad whose two children accuse of abuse. Her seeming denial in spite of her own childhood might indicate that unless she’s gone totally numb or/and sold her soul for her career, she may well be from the same type of family as dearman and the children, and pieces between ricky and Vicky may fit together though they seem unrelated.


  3. Many years ago I disturbed burglars in the large building where I was staying. Some weeks after I had enquired what had happened, a police car arrived at my place of work and I was asked to sit in the back whilst they drove me around a couple of second hand furniture shops to see if I recognised any stolen items. I thought then, and think now, this was a largely pointless exercise, intended merely to give the impression of doing something and to keep me quiet. It may well be a common technique. I have other examples I could give since.

    The drive around for the kids is just such an example, fulfilling two functions I would suggest: indicate there was action and a genuine attempt to substantiate the children’s accounts when in fact it was anything but; and to confuse rather enlighten the children so that it could be used to undermine their accounts.

    If the police attempt had been genuine the stated locations would have been immediately identified as “potential crime scenes” and secured from access to allow detailed forensic investigation; all named persons interviewed under caution; requests made regarding intimate search; computer equipment seized from school and named persons at the very least. Instead all individuals appear to have been pre-warned allowing plenty of time for a clean-up!

    In the case of the father, his recent BBC interview proves either that the police informed him of wider allegations that he was the leader of a satanic cult doing outrageous things to children but decided not to formally question him on them; or that he lied, because the police transcript of the interview proves he was only asked about alleged incidents at Finsbury swimming baths. Either way it is not good for him or the police.The case shouts incompetence at best; corruption at worst on the part of the police.

    Then there is a catalogue of police errors as regards to how they dealt with the evidence available to them and to the children.

    At the very least they should have watched the private videoed interviews, much later placed in the public domain, before interviewing the children. All the earlier allegations should have been specifically logged, and the interviews arranged around them with a view to eliciting as much detail as possible. Instead, apparently this was not done and the tapes were merely dispatched to a police warehouse somewhere and never properly viewed or documented as evidence. The uncharitable conclusion might be that the intention was that they would never see the light of day again. The error of course is perpetuated by the high court judge. As these earlier tapes are wholly persuasive and compatible with later police videos, we can see why this might be if the intention was never to seriously investigate the complaint.

    As regards the police interviews themselves, these are so full of errors and anomalies it is hard to know where to start.

    The police need to explain why, once the serious nature of the allegations was apparent, they did not seek the assistance of the Met’s own child abuse specialists? There is no claim as far as I can see that they even consulted them! How could it be, they should explain, that both male and female children were interviewed by a male officer alone (apart from another person in control of the machinery)? So basic is this it defies description how it was allowed to happen. It must be against all standard interview codes. There may be some excuse in the case of the initial interview if little prior notice was given, but cannot be excused thereafter.

    For the children to be without an adult ‘friend’ or parent to support them, or given the alleged abuse, to be interviewed by only an adult male; or that interviews should be arranged at a late hour for small children; or that they should be left unaccompanied in a bare and frightening environment alone for up to twenty minutes at a time; or that without explanation they should be removed from their mother whilst never properly addressing the substantive threats, and exposed to the alleged abuser; or not properly eliciting the specific WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHOM of the allegations thoroughly is inexplicable and indefensible.

    Nor for that matter after six days removal from parents, regard the children’s testimony as valid and believable, whilst trashing all previous, and even at this alleged ‘retraction’ interview refusing to acknowledge the reassertion of facts even as the ‘retraction’ was being subtly coerced by veiled promises and threats. That even at this late stage the children were not returned to their mother was a betrayal of the inferred promise and a further outrage. The final confirmation of a deeply compromised process was the fact that the case was dropped and declared as “not confirmed” PRIOR to receipt of the medical reports that were broadly supportive of the allegations of abuse. Nor it seems, other than hair follicle, were any tests carried out to indicate whether the boy’s allegations that he was forced by his father to snort cocaine, submit to injections of anaesthetic substances or otherwise contaminated or infected by adult sexual activity properly investigated.

    All in all, and at every level, this case illustrates very disturbing features that must be properly investigated if others are not to be similarly mistreated.


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