Why we’re not giving up – a summary of HR’s collective achievements so far

Finding online facts about the alleged abusers seems to be the perfect purpose of life for Hampstead Research: they do it excellently and with passion and enthusiasm. More online powers to Jaqui Farmer and her Video Man!

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Why we’re not giving up – a summary of HR’s collective achievements so far

  1. 30 april 2015
    Dear Sabine,
    I have already tried to put this information on another of your posts but it seems that you chose not to publish it.
    I will try again as I (and others) have shown that the infomation in Hampstead Research’s VID 17 about RD’s links to illegal online activity is completely spurious and amounts to a false allegation baased on no evidence at all.
    As someone who deals in science not hearsay, you shouuld acknowledge this.
    I will repost below what i said earlier to avoid writing it all out again.
    Read all the comments on the VID 17 page here
    https://vid.me/Z3bO/ccps-17-dearman-pornographer
    try to ignore all the stupid comments and also watch the video here
    https://vid.me/5XUz

    Sabine, you can verify this for yourself by doing exactly as suggested in this video.
    You can use your own site IP whistleblowerkids.uk on sameip.net and you will still get the same ‘recommended for you’ sites coming up. These are completely unrelated to the initial site IP you search for.
    Ergo – completely false allegations

    best regards
    Anonymous

    “if you are referring to your VID17, this is a completely false suggestion. There is no evidence whatsoever.
    You used the site sameip.net to look up RDs IP address to find any related sites.
    As is pointed out in the video by Bigbubba here
    https://vid.me/5XUz
    and also in the comments on the VID 17 video page by ambersmith
    https://vid.me/Z3bO/ccps-17-dearman-pornographer
    you failed to notice that the IP addreses ‘recommended for you’ on sameip.net are actually paid for ads and are not related at all to the original Ip you search for.
    This is the same for any IP address you search for. The ‘recommended for you’ links just show the same load of paid for links in a cycle. The ones you found that you said contain child porn, come up regardless of the initial IP you search on. Watch the video.
    I do not understand why you are still suggesting that you have any evidence whatsoever, unless there is something else you know that I have not seen.

    IT guy shows that the IP you searched belongs to RD but he does not really address the fact that it has nothing at all to do with any of the other ones that come up on that site.
    You really should sort this out before it goes any further as it is plainly not evidence once you understand what is happening. Indeed, It may well harm your campaign if you pursue this false claim. Ask your legal team to check.
    Anyone else can check by trying the same thing shown in Bugbubba’s video. It does not matter whether the original IP address you search on is RD’s IP or the whistleblowerkids.uk IP address. it will still show up those paid for links as ‘recommended for you’. These will not show up if you use an adblocker like adblockplus in Firefox
    I hope you show this message on here if this is your only “evidence” take some action by pointing out the mistake and deleting the video 17. I f you do not publish this message, I will be very disappointed as I really do have the best interest of the innocents involved here.

    best wishes
    Anonymous

    Like

  2. 30 april 2015
    Many thanks for your reply, Sabine.
    I have already posted this info on the Hampstead Research blog pointing out these errors many times but i have simply been blocked – my posts are just not shown. I can only surmise that they do not want to admit this.
    I feel it is a grave error in trying to bring some sort of justice in this case. It does no good to these children for someone to come up with very serious allegations which are provably false and then to simply ignore it when it is pointed out.
    After all your efforts, the last thing that is needed are false allegations that just damage credibility. It has to be evidence based. Even if one wants to find evidence of something, if it is not real it should be not be offered as such and if it has been shown to be false, it should be withdrawn.
    I am all for a proper and much more thorough investigation but this really does not help anyone except those who will seize on it – quite rightly, too – as evidence of “more false claims” and conducting witchhunts.

    best wishes,
    Anonymous

    Like

    • The Armenian Genocide 100 years ago was perpetrated by the same Satanist pschopath child rapists and murderes we are dealing with today. They go all the way back to Babylon and beyond. They worship, and have always worshiped, Baal, or Sama-El, Satan, etc. who they consider “God”.They see humanity as nothing more than herd animals, to do with as they please. This is a caption to an horrific photo taken from Preston James’s “Khazarian Mafia part 2”, at Veterans Today.

      “This incredibly evil live crucifixion of young Armenian teenage girls after their brutal rapes was ordered by the Khazarian Mafia Chieftains to terrorize the captred Armenians as well as their Turkish oppresors as a stark reminder of what happens to those that resist Khazarian Mafia rule. Railroad spikes were driven through these young girls’ wrists and feet into wooden beams. They were told “if you want to believe in Jesus Christ then you can die like he did.”

      I couldn’t upload the photo.

      Liked by 1 person

  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.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I too have posted to hampstead research and been blocked……we all must be mindful of controlled opposition designed to discredit and dismantle any truth research by gradually inserting deliberately fictitious information….a straw man…..into your arguement…..to destroy your cause….

    Keep in mind there will be attempts to cover up any allegations of sexual misconduct if it exists at this level.
    Also never forget there is a desire to destroy alternative media and to discredit it.
    Lastly also remember there is a plan to destroy Christian values and honesty, truth around the world….so just note in this event…..it is “Christchurch” under attack…..whether real ( but needs discrediting ) or fabricated…..and needs to be used to discredit social media and the church……just keep that in the back of your mind……

    Like

  5. I’m not really sure which post to put this comment on but as this post is about the overall research so far I thought this might be the place…

    Yesterday I posted a comment on the ‘When Ricky met Vicky’ video. I stated that after reading the police transcript with Ricky which was posted on YouTube I saw a red flag. When the officer is questioning him about the large changing room at the swimming pool that he took the children into Ricky says something very strange. He states that he in fact took a photo of the children in the changing room.
    Now I have two children of my own and I have been swimming quite a number of times with them.
    It would never, ever cross my mind to take a photo of them in the changing room.
    Why did the officer not see this as strange? Perhaps he did…

    Another point I’d like to add here is regarding child pedophilia.
    It seems that it is happening in ever facet of our society. From schools to children’s homes, politicians to families we are faced with another story on the news every day.
    It has made me question why it is happening on such a large scale. Why do these people take the innocence of children? It makes me angry to my very core and if there is a hell I hope these people end up there.

    Anyway, I came across an interview which has answered many of my questions about this issue.
    I will post a link below. Please BEWARE that this interview discusses sodomy, mind control and Satanism.

    In the House of the Strong Man Sodomy is the Key:
    http://www.whale.to/b/knox1.html

    Liked by 1 person

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