Monday, 1 August 2016



Anonymous #OpHampstead by
George Antoniou at Hampstead, Finchley, London, England.
Did you know the mother and her children could have safely escaped? Did you know that they decided to stop this child abuse and protect the other children so they went to the police on 4th Sep 2014 and gave them all the evidence so, they could investigate?
Did you know the children alleged that they were abused at schools, homes of teachers and at Christchurch Primary in Hampstead?
Did you know they said the abusers had distinguishing marks and TATTOOS on or around the genital area? They described and drew a few and included birth marks and nick names of the abusers such as "Shepherds bush" due to the particular woman abuser, Vanessa Fitzpatrick having extraordinarily hairy private parts. POLICE DID NOT SEARCH OR CHECK ANY ABUSER FOR SUCH MARKS.
Did you know they described the sexual abuse they were subjected to in great detail and graphics that even Dr Hodes, a leading paediatrician consultant with over 20 years experience and other professionals agreed that no one could provide such detail unless they had been sexually abused? THE POLICE DID NOT ARREST A SINGLE SUSPECT.
They described being forced to sniff cocaine, sacrifice babies by slitting their throat and then holding them up right so that the blood drains out. They then said they drank the blood and they and the abusers danced in the church with the baby skulls around their necks? They said this also happened at Christ Church. NO CRIME SCENE FORENSICALLY
They said some of the abusers, giving names and place of work, had secret doors in wardrobes in their homes leading to a secret room where the abuse also occurred? Did you know they said their father was the leader of the cult and kept baby skulls and plastic
willies that he makes In his shed in his home? NO HOME ADDRESS OF ANY
Did you know no computer, laptop or mobile phone belonging to an abuser was seized? NO ONE WAS ARRESTED.
Did you know that between 15th and 22nd Sep 2014 DR Hodes, instructed by the police, produced 3 written reports after two physical examinations of the children and confirmed throughout that the injuries to the anuses to the children were consistent with the allegations of sexual abuse as described by the children? NO ONE ARRESTED
Did you know that the father was invited to the police station for an interview on 15 Sep 2014? The police only asked him 3 questions similar to did you stick something in your sons bottom at Finchley swimming pool in 2013? He was asked nothing else. What he was asked was also a fabricated version of events as the children said that they were abused
by many abusers at Finchley swimming pool around 2011. The father was not even asked about the other abusers involved or the cult.
Did you know the father was interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire, half hour slot was allocated to this cause and aired on BBC in April 2015?
Did you know he lied and said that the police asked him questions about being the leader of a 100 plus satanic cult including members of schools, police social services, church and other walks of professional life? He said that the police asked him about the sexual abuse suffered by his children by the cult including the murder and cannibalism of babies?
Remember he was asked only 3 similar questions to did he insert something or anything in the boys bottom? NO PUBLIC AUTHORITY WISHES TO CORRECT THIS MISREPRESENTATION TO THE PUBLIC.
In fact Justice Ryder at the appeal hearing in Aug 2015 said he can think of many reasons why someone would lie on TV so it does not mean the father sexually abuses children. POINT DISMISSED. THAT WAS THE END OF THAT.
Did you know, ex Detective Constable Kylie Wilson confirmed in two reports that the police failed to investigate the children's claims and mishandled the ABE interviews of the children with leading questions by the interviewing officer which encouraged the "retractions" which were hurriedly obtained after the children were taken into care away from the mother on 11 Sep 2014? The Father was due contact with the children on
13th Sept. 2014 and the inconsistent and strange "retractions" of the allegations took place on the 17th Sep. Case closed 22nd Sept 2014. REPORTS IGNORED.
Did you know at the fact finding hearing before Justice Pauffley in March 2015 Dr. Hodes maintained her findings and said the allegations made by the children needed to be taken very seriously. SHE WAS AGAIN, IGNORED
Did you know Justice Pauffley's judgement does not consider the above failures of the police investigations and does not once mention the distinguishing marks and TATTOOS that the children alleged the abusers had?
Did you know Justice Pauffley in her judgement dated 19 March 2015 said that it was a curious fact that no police officer prior to the launch of the family proceedings had viewed / listened to the recordings of the children making the allegations of sexual abuse in graphic detail to police officer Yahirou on 4 Sep 2014? BÙT, police officer Yahirou had told
Justice Pauffley at the fact finding hearing when he gave evidence at court that two officers and a sergeant came to his house in the morning of 5th Sep 2014 and listened to the recordings in front of him before seizing them as evidence. In fact, the CRIS report shows other officers also listened to the recordings made by police officer Yahirou who said that the children had to be telling the truth due to the level of detail and description the children had given. WHAT ELSE HAS PAUFFLEY GOTTEN WRONG IN HER JUDGEMENT? WAS IT FACT FINDING OR FACT HIDING HEARING THAT TOOK PLACE IN MARCH 2015 AT THE HIGH COURT?
Did you know, there is an ongoing complaint lodged with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) into the failures of the police investigation into the allegations made by the children?
Did you know they upheld a previous complaint and confirmed that the police needed to answer the above questions (and more) relating to the investigation as their response was inadequate and designed to undermine the complaint made by the mother and her legal team?
Did you know the police recently responded in March 2016 and the report was produced by DCI Foulkes who was the same officer leading the investigation into the children's allegations in Sep 2014?
The police response exposes the cover up further, lacking objectivity and impartiality, as law says the complaint should be investigated by a independent person. Currently, a 99 page appeal is with the IPCC who are considering what to do as we speak.


Did you know, Gabriel said that when he remembers what happened his vision goes blurry and he sees monsters and when he closes his eyes he sees his dad coming to kill him for speaking the truth?
Gabriel is 10 and Alisa 11 years old now.
The mother, Ella has not seen or spoken to her children since January 2015.


  1. Meh. Save for a tiny handful of terminally unhinged nutjobs, no one gives a shit about this case any more. Not even the paedophiles Abe and Ella can be bothered with it any more. Or Charlotte Ward. Or Belinda Mckenzie. Oh and pssst: we, the accused, are all still standing. Tough titty, fruitloops :)

    As Angela Power-Disney would say, move along, there's nothing to see here ;)

    1. You dirty nasty piece of work. You know the children are telling the truth & so do the majority. Your time will come, sooner then you think you fucking sicko.

    2. Er...nope.
      You lost. We won. Get over it, you strange woman.

  2. Did you all also know that the children withdrew their statements and described in great detail how they'd been forced to lie by their violent drug-dealing stepdad Abraham? And did you also know that Abraham even uploaded recordings of himself aggressively coaching the kids?! Unfortunately, however, Tim "accidentally forgot" to mention that. Happy to clear that up for the handful of people who might read it before Tim inevitably deletes my comment.

    1. You're a joke spineless piece of shit. We all know the truth and so do you.

    2. Er...nope. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your fat cellulite-addled arse. Weirdo.

  3. Does Tim know that he is talking absolute shite. Why doesn't he mention that Abraham beat the children and would wake them at all hours forcing them to repeat the vile story he had concocted in his sick mind.

    1. Hi uncknown. Do your research with open mind pls. The kids are telling the truth.

    2. can you show me the evidence for this please? and yes I know about the "spoons" farce - which affected my overall judgement and support of the case precisely zilch. So, evidence please!!!! I have never read or heard about any "beatings" so show me!

    3. Hmm,, you think it's fine to beat the shit out of children with large metal spoons, do you? You need help, mate. Tell you what - give John Graham a call on (01202) 510551. He can advise you on getting help for your child abuse addiction.

  4. See:

  5. RICHPLANET TV Documentary Jimmy Saville and MI5 & The Intelligence Controlled media.


  7. Too close to call: The Belgian Experience.

  8. From #NEELU
    should we put out a press release in facebook about today??? INVITATION: SILENT VIGIL & PRAYERS BEING HELD 11AM TODAY, SUNDAY 28 AUGUST 2016 OUTSIDE HOLBORN POLICE STATION, 10 Lamb's Conduit St, London WC1N 3NR, UK STARTING AT 11AM
    Sabine McNeill was kidnapped again by London Borough of Camden Police on 4th August 2016, despite 6 day false trials Crown V Neelu Berry T20150661 & Crown V Sabine McNeill T20160121 between 11-18 July 2016, AT BLACKFRIARS CROWN COURT Pocock Street London ending in a "No Case To Answer" when it emerged that there had been no Police records or investigation and no evidence was put to the jury that the two child rights campaigners had conspired to intimidate a church cult accused of horrific crimes against babies and children. Sabine's door was threatened with being smashed open, her laptop seized and she was kidnapped for the fifth time and returned later that day. Her bail conditions were later removed but she was asked to attend for a bail return date at Colindale Police Station with her lawyer at 12:45pm on Saturday 27th August 2016. This was obviously to lure her to a Police cell at Holborn Police Station for the whole Bank Holiday weekend, just like Neelu Berry & Christine Anne Sands were locked up at Holborn Police Station for the Bank Holiday weekend 04-06 April 2015.
    Neelu found the same Police teams on duty who did the weekend shifts on the 4 occasions she was locked up in the cells at HOLBORN POLICE STATION under Inspector Phillips, Sergeant Andrews, PC Betsy Davey (under Sergeant Anwen Gardiner & Inspector Hornby)
    How the Crown & Crown Prosecution Service ran the trial before HHJ Worsley, for 6 days, relying on the perjury of false witnesses, deems all convictions in all lower courts in the UK, as UNSAFE!
    The Royal Commission now has the proof sets of powerful paedophile protection frauds in the corruption claims filed by the two child rights campaigners and is in the process of taking remedial action of removing corrupt officers. The considerations are management issues on whether all senior officers will be removed from public office simultaneously or whether it will be a gradual process starting at the top.

    Sorry to hear. Only goes to prove the depths and extent of the cover-up and injustice endemic in Britain. The police have become the puppets of the corrupt agencies in government determined to close this story down. Let's hope it has the opposite effect. Anyone aware needs to advertise this as widely as possible.


  10. The underage sex implications of the political/judicial/policing network.

  11. Court hearing for latest farcical arrest of Sabine is tomorrow 9.30am Highbury & Islington Magistrates Court public gallery SUPPORT REQUESTED FROM THOSE WHO CAN MAKE IT

  12. A recent interview with the children's parents here: Creating new neural pathways with hemp leading to Best Achievable Evidence? Creating artificial schizophrenia in mind control programming. So astounding its hard to credit. Why do I feel the obsession with conspiracy and Tavistock has replaced natural parental emotions and reaction to the lost children. It would all be incredible were it not supported by THE FACTS. I can only say if I was the parent I would be tearing my hair out and expressing OUTRAGE at the authorities. "Nobody knows where they are." THIS FOLKS IS HAPPENING IN BRITAIN TODAY!

  13. Angela Power-Disney Just a rumour that one of the children was shot and injured in an assassination attempt on Dearman in the Phillipines where he had sickeningly been allowed to take them on holiday
    Like · Reply · 7 hrs
    Elizabeth Butcher
    Elizabeth Butcher OMG !
    Like · Reply · 1 hr
    Tim Veater
    Tim Veater Really? Is this true????? The public needs to know what decisions have been made regarding these children and whether they have been placed in danger by virtue of them. Has anyone tried an information request of Barnett under the Freedom of Information Act?
    Like · Reply · 8 mins
    Tim Veater
    Tim Veater What is needed above everything is a focused and coordinated effort to obtain information and demand accountability. Apparently the parents mention a "Free the children" campaign, but I haven't seen anything about it as yet. The decisions by the authorities in this case are unconscionable and the secrecy surrounding it highly suspicious. Any decision to allow the father to take the children abroad, and particularly the Phillipines where abuse at all levels is rife, could not be defended under any circumstances. If it happened, whoever authorised it should be known and held responsible for the negligence involved.

    "Your people do not know and that's what worries me." Secrecy in government is the poison that affects all of us sooner or later because it is part of intentional deceit. Government is not run by the wishes of the people but to reflect the corporate and private desires of a few in positions of power and indeed. Indeed as Blair demonstrated, it is often diametrically opposed to the will of the people, on a totally misleading prospectus. Somehow or other the people must reassert its sovereignty and ensure that as long as the current parliamentary system lasts, it is reflective of it. To do so, given the behaviour of the rump labour party, the only option as I see it is a total clear-out of sitting members, to be replaced to reflect the mood and the will of the people. This is clearly what happened in Scotland and in the Brexit vote but the process is continuing, and for all his faults and opposition, Corbyn best represents it. Unfortunately Tories have rigged the system and are continuing to do so to give themselves an unfair advantage, by using the 'fixed term parliament' to delay as long as possible the next election and by introducing boundary changes to boot. The Liberal Democrats stupidly fell into a trap and were decimated in the process which some of us could see coming. The PLP is also now in terminal decline which is just what the tories wanted. The only light at the end of the tunnel (which could be an on-coming express!) is the new membership directly as a result of Corbyn articulating the pent-up desires of the people, previously betrayed.

  15. In reply to this @ Desmond During 4 hours ago
    "Did you know that the children accuse their father and his cult with seamless accuracy and compelling detail? Did you know that a full genital inspection of the named satanists would take up virtually no time,or resources? A well lit room, a hi definition camera, you get the picture."

    Yes. I am well aware. I have written extensively on the subject, highlighting the crass investigation and subsequent injustice to the children, the mother and to those who attempted to represent their case. It points undoubtedly to yet another establishment cover-up of disgraceful goings on in the heart of London, Local Government and other prominent institutions. The fate of the children, wrapped in secrecy, is unknown and must be of concern.

    After all, this is not just a deeply personal matter for the family. It raises issues of public policy: of how cogent and credible reports by children are treated by the authoritities. Are they believed or betrayed? Insofar as it undermines our confidence in the police and courts to act with fairness and probity in the interests of children who report abuse, it is indesputably a public matter in which all fair-minded citizens should be interested.

    I therefore reject the view promulgated by police and courts that this is a purely private matter between them and the parties involved, beyond the scope of public discussion. Secrecy in such matters leads only to distrust, suspicion and even worse evils that affect all of us. The wholly laudible human emotions of empathy and compassion for the unjustly mistreated, are what motivate those who have tried in numerous ways, to get this case properly investigated. For the judge in the case to suggest quite the opposite did her profound discredit.

    It also clearly demonstrates the Government's hypocrisy and duplicity over child sexual abuse, in the context of the ritual practices described. It has signally failed to admit or intervene, preferring instead to persecute the innocent and vindicate the accused. This goes to the very heart of the disparity between the nature of the civic society we inhabit and between what the government claims to believe and what it actually does in such situations. It is a salutory and compelling reminder of a rottenness at the very core of the constitutional 'onion'.

  16. From here:

    You may be right Kane but it would be more charitable to take the view that not everybody doing good things, can do everything. There are so many evils and injustices in the world, not all of them get a champion. Indeed most don't.

    Who for example has represented the interests of the thousands that have been executed by the State in Iran and Saudi Arabia - to name just two?

    Closer to home what do we hear of the sixty or seventy thousand children in Local Authority care and their circumstances or the many thousands living through hell at home?

    In short each to his own, with the hope that every little effort counts and contributes to the whole.

    Having said that, I do think in many respects, the Hampstead case is pretty unique and in its way a watershed moment, not only for what was revealed, but also for the extraordinary lengths to which the State and its organs have gone, to cover it up.

    Sabine exemplifies the way the criminal law has been misused and Jake quite possibly in the misuse of laws designed to help the mentally ill and protect the public.

    We are all very aware of the way in which the old communist USSR liked to lock up dissidents in mental hospitals and how we in the west condemned the shocking practice. Now it seems similar methods are being adopted here.

    One wonders if Jake would have been 'sectioned' if he had not been involved in publicising the Hampstead case?

    In other words is the procedure under the Mental Health Act, 1983, being misused for an ulterior purpose?

    Jake is not the only case that I know of, that may be suspect of purpose. (The 'UK Column' has referred to many) If that is the situation here, the action taken would be quite unlawful.

    My experience even with very delusional people, is that mental heath professionals were very reluctant to 'section' someone, so there is a genuine reservation about Jake's case, given the circumstances described by Angela that I have just learned.

    Who were the THREE people (two specialist doctors plus another) who are required to certify in Jake's case and what were the reasons cited for example?

    Hopefully Jake is legally repesented in this matter.

    An outline of the topic can be found below.

  17. I apologise in advance for the length of the following but I hope you agree that Jake's case of being 'sectioned' for 'delusional thoughts', hospitalised and treated, in the context of him being a campaigner for the Hampstead children and mother, whether in conformity with his wishes or without, deserves proper consideration:

    It is worth noting that that procedures under the mental health act 1983 are designed to ensure that only genuine cases demanding 'sectioning' are allowed, but that they are less onerous and transparent than for criminal cases. Once instituted, they also enable medical procedures against the will of the patient, i.e. by force, if considered necessary. There is little oversight or protection from unnececessary treatment, which can have significant behavioural and cognitive consequences. At least in the case of criminal charges, there is always a day in open court with the opportunity to defend one's self and the presumption of innocence. In the mental health case openness is not assured and the onus of proof is reversed. So for those with a malign intent to use statutory procedures improperly for an ulterior motive (such as to remove a 'troublesome priest' so to speak) the 'sectioning' route offers many advantages.

    I find it very worrying that the psychiatric nurse apparently referred back to the police as the cause of the action, not the mental health team, where it should rest.

    As with Hampstead, where according to the CRIS account where the police took the initiative AGAINST the advice of the specialist social worker, and effectively ignored the advice of the specialist doctor, we see here further signs of police involvement in what should surely have been a wholly medical assessment.

    Although police have powers for emergency 'sectioning' under Section 135 and 136 ( I assume the latter procedure was not used as a warrant is required.

    So the valid and necessary question that needs to be posed is, what was the police involvement in this case and how did it impact on the decision process? Was undue influence applied for an ulterior motive - namely to prevent Jake continuing his campaign regarding the Hampstead case to public attention?

    The opportunity exists to challenge it and I hope Jake takes it although his statement that he is feeling 'psychotic' is not encouraging.

  18. continued...
    The important consideration is what doctors and professionals were involved in the decision, and on what basis/risk assessment did they section him? Further what medication has he been subjected to and was it with his consent or not? (His statement that he was speaking/thinking more slowly seems to suggest that he has been prescribed tranquillisers or even anti psychotic medication)

    To be 'sectioned' the Act first requires him to be diagnosed in one of the specified mental illness categories, though these could arguably encompass most of the population at one time or another, given that it includes all of the following
     depression
     bipolar disorder
     anxiety disorder
     obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
     eating disorders,
     and personality disorders. It also includes other conditions such as dementia, changes in behaviour due to brain injury, mental disorders due to drug use and autistic spectrum disorders. The definition includes learning disability only where it is
    associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible
    behaviour." Nevertheless it is important to know with which of these he has been formally been diagnosed.

    But in addition to be 'sectioned' the three professional must ALL AGREE that (to quote the Act) "it is in the interests of the person's own health, his own safety, or to protect the safety of other people" to do so.

    That this was fulfilled in Jake's case, appears on the face of it to be questionable, particularly if his belief he was being targetted by internet trolls about the true events of Hampstead were used to support a diagnosis of so called "delusional beliefs".

    The following Code came into force on 1 April 2015:

    One of its first and most important principles is that, "Where it is possible to treat a patient safely and lawfully without detaining them under the Act, the patient should not be detained."

    In Jake's case it is hard to see how this obligation was applied or fulfilled.

  19. In reply to Jim McMenamin on Facebook re. the police:

    No doubt countless policemen and women do countless good deeds to protect the vulnerable and chase those individuals that have hurt others. There may be something in their claim that they are the 'thin blue line' (between order and chaos) - I wouldn't like to say.

    There certainly seems to be a significant section of the population that appears to think nothing of robbing, stealing, selling dangerous addictive drugs and doing violent things to others to the point of rape and murder.

    If we didn't have an organised police force, it would presumably be back to 'every man for himself', tribal loyalties and vendetta. To some extent in parallel sub-cultures, this already exists.

    The more brutal the society, the more brutal and physically forceful the police necessarily become. It is a trend that sadly we have witnessed, particularly in the large urban areas but no part of the country has been unaffected.

    When a gang member in a television documentary last night claimed it was easy to obtain illicit firearms brought in from the east, and that everyone who was anybody (in that crime world) had them, all citizens have cause for concern.

    For the police who are charged with confronting them, it is a real and present danger from which we are largely protected. We cannot ignore this fact when viewing the increasing militarisation of the police or the often dubious circumstances when individuals have been shot dead.

    So we should not underestimate the idealism that may inspire a young person to join the police force. But neither should we ignore that power seldom comes without attendant corruption.

    In some forces there has been little to distinguish between those that break the law and those expected to uphold it. Policemen learn to be realistic and pragmatic about the human condition and society.

    It is perhaps one of the biggest reasons for the insouciance towards the exploitation of young people in various towns and institutions.

    It may even be a partial, but far from complete explanation, for the way the Hampstead children's allegations were dealt with. Another is the deep seated reluctance by the police to admit incompetence or fault. All the other possible reasons for the obvious incompetence displayed in that case have been discussed at length previously.

  20. In reply to Angela Power Disney re Jake Clarke activist 'sectioned' under the Mental Health Acts:

    I quite understand your frustration with the system Angela, but it is all that we have. It can only be opposed by using the machinery available to do so. This may be ineffective, but so largely are all those extra-curricular methods such as protests, letters and videos as we have seen in the Hampstead case. This is not to say they are totally useless but whether they actually achieve anything significant is another matter. The juggernaut that is the state and its institutions appear to blunder on in their insensitive and defective way.

    The Hampstead children remain 'in care' and have not been returned to their mother, despite overwhelming reasons they should be; their defenders continue to be targetted.

    You know Jake much better than me so you will probably be aware of any possible previous mental problems and his state of mind immediately before he was 'sectioned'.

    As I understand it, he actually sought out 'counselling' help which may have been ill advised given the previous and subsequent action. I also understand he complained to the police about the internet harassment, which in the circumstances of what we know about Hampstead may have been a tad naive!

    What ever we think of the past, he and we have to deal with the current situation where he has been compulsorily hospitalised. I am unclear from his comments whether he was passive about this or objected to it.

    If the latter he hasn't made this clear and he should do, both to us and the authorities. Further he should be properly advised to use the statutory avenues available to him, to appeal and protest, if that is how he feels.

    You know him much better than me and have been in close contact I understand for some time, so hopefully you will be able to advise accordingly and get feed-back. You may also be in the picture as to his close relatives who hopefully will have his best interests at heart.

    What is certain is there needs to be SOMEONE to keep in touch with him and protect his interests, specifically allowed for and permitted by the relevant legislation under which he is held. I agree its all very ominous and disquieting.

  21. From the beginning this has been a complicated and sordid affair, involving dark and influential forces and agencies determined to keep it covered. They may have been successful were it not for the video relases and internet which disseminated them. Subsequently it has been an exercise in 'containment and control', unethically using the levers of power through the police and courts, to stifle information, debate and criminal consequences. None of this could conceivably happen, unless there was intervention at a very senior and powerful level, reaching to the upper echelons of political and judicial life. Beside the social consequences for people and particularly children, this must be one of the most worrying aspects: the failure of systems to protect the innocent and pursue the guilty; indeed a resolute refusal to do so. This is not just incompetence if failure to act but an intentional obstruction to reveal by the powers that be, the only justification for which must be high level fear of the consequences, should the truth out. We can only surmise what this could entail - reputional damage to notable figures or institutions may be sufficient; criminal acts involving same; or the involvement of secret societies or agencies - are the only ones of sufficient import that I can think of that would justify the extraordinary lengths to which the executive has gone to kill the story. The latest revelations to further discredit individuals, could of course be part of that exercise or they may be shockingly true of themselves. There is no doubt that all intelligence agencies (including British ones) have used sex (and the more extreme the better!) to entrap and control, and I have always thought this may be an element, that by its very nature, cannot be revealed, without disasterous reputational consequences for the state, were it to be the case. Nor can we exclude the Russian/American connections that are apparent or fail to see how they might be used to gain information on crimial networks or subvert them. So all of this is possible. Who is true and who is false in this affair is very difficult to divine, and it is probably far more complicated than we can even imagine. In such cases individual rights and protections sadly take second place to the secret world of strategic decision making and 'national interests'. However those on the outside, as it were, need to keep focused on the welfare of the children. There is absolutely no excuse in an open society with (still hopefully) Christian liberal values, that children in such dubious circumstances (and I still do not doubt for a moment their recorded testimony) should be secreted away so that no-one really knows how they are being treated, or if indeed as has been suggested, made available to the very people they accused or allowed to travel unsupervised to foreign parts and subjected to even greater dangers and injury, without any recourse tofamily knowledge or protection. If the British 'child care' system still allows this in 2016, clearly it is not fit for purpose and we should all feel responsible and ashamed. Individuals have bravely and to their not insignificant cost, have endeavoured to bring the case before the public eye and there has been huge interest and outrage internationally, but unless there is a well organised, focused and influential campaign, the effort falls on stoney ground. This should be a case taken up by a high-profile human/civil rights barrister, with the backing of a respected organistion. That none have come forward speaks volumes of itself. In the meantime we should not let the issue fade until it is absolutely clear that the childrens rights, wishes and interests are being properly protected, and how can this be guaranteed if they are kept incommunicado by a Soviet-style State? See also:

  22. Spiny Norman has left a new comment on your post "Is this the real reason why the Government is thre...":
    From 'Satanic Views' (posted on HR blog):
    "Dear Angela Power Disney.
    Get out more and embrace the real world. You make shit up as you go along. There was no assassination attempt in the Philippines, and you are totally ignorant to the movements or present situation of RD and his children.
    Dear David Lloyd.
    It is a matter of primary importance by all those presently looking after the wellbeing of the RD children that they are not put into a position of being identified or discovered via the internet. Look all you like, but you will never find these children until they are old enough to deal with pervy stalkers who want to abduct them and masturbate over their images.
    Dear Tim Veator.
    We are all thankful that nobody made you judge, jury and executioner.
    Ella Draper if she returns to the UK will be arrested and charged for a variety of laws she has broken. The RD children have put on record they do not wish to be with this person and her abusive partner Abraham Christie, who would likely torture, abuse and murder them. Ella Draper used her children, abused their trust and did extreme damage to their wellbeing. Ella Draper will likely never return to the UK. Ella Draper will never have legal access or custody of her children before they turn 18. All children have a right to privacy and security whilst they grow up. Neither you or any other Satan Hunter has a stake in their lives, or any right to demand they become the objects of your vanity, manipulation or lust.
    Yours in Satan.
    James Hind"
    Posted by Spiny Norman to Veater Ecosan: "The World About Us" at 23 February 2017 at 10:33

  23. "James Hind" (aka 'Julian Vayne ( and "Spiny Norman" (aka Ricky Dearman), both clearly supportive of a 'Satanist' ideology and philosophy, posted this communication elsewhere on this blog. It is only the latest of innumerable such marked by expletives, abuse and veiled threats to a swathe of individuals that have attempted to put the children's case before the public, none of which, as far as can be ascertained, has elicited any Police response, in stark contrast to the persecution and prosecution of the latter group. That the Brtish Courts would decide to place the children in the hands of self-declared 'Satanists' and individuals agaist whom they made very specific, credible allegations of rape, torture and murder, rather than the natural mother or maternal grandparents, defies all logical, humanitarian or legal explanation. It is also a blunder that demands a full and open Public Enquiry to ensure it is never repeated.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.