Another Level-Headed Hoaxteader Strikes!

Sorry, folks. The Hoaxteaders are getting way too good at debating. If they keep sending geniuses like this dude to shower us with their intellect and analyses, we’ve got no chance:


Incidentally, these comments were not responses to anything Agent C had said. They were an unprovoked attack on her on the comment page of a video of Penny Pullen and Neelu Berry telling the World how they’d proved dozens of people guilty of child abuse, through the use of…water-dowsing!

See more Hoaxtead trolls here:


19 thoughts on “Another Level-Headed Hoaxteader Strikes!

  1. Report them to Jacqui Farmer she will deal with them, they don’t like swearing and profanities on there.

    Another one for Question Time, or perhaps Mastermind… what would their specialist subject be ..?
    Swear Words from the 1800 century.
    How to keep Debate Civil
    What not to say to make yourself look stupid

    General knowledge might prove a little difficult.


    Take out all of the swear words and there is nothing really left for debate, is there?

    PEEP PEEP PEEP time up.


  2. Oh my goodness, that is shocking!! What a potty mouth!
    Has massive anger issues too. It worries me, having small children, that phycos like that are allowed to roam the streets!

    Why do they have to resort to abuse? I wish we knew where these unstable people were, I for one would never go near where they lived.

    I have to wonder how many of these foul mouthed idiots are angry because they are the paedophiles and don’t like to think they are being exposed so go into violent scripts of abuse.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hyacinth, my darling! Well, if there’s a space at your dinner party, can I take his place? Or have you already given it to Nutty Nelly and her magic rods?


  3. I hope people such as the motor mouthed abuser never gets to sit on a jury! Can you imagine it, you would not stand a chance, sod the fact that you could well be innocent! I wonder how many innocent people have been imprisoned because they had nutters like that sitting on a jury?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Scarlett I could squeeze you in pet, always room at my candle lit dinners for you.

    I could even make some humble pie for Sabine Belinda Ella Jacqui Abe Neelu Angie and freeze some for those who could not make it.

    Black tie though, and party dresses.

    For desert a huge Scoop of Rocky Road

    Liked by 1 person

  5. What is there to debate, really? The released medical records prove Abraham physically abused the children. He should be arrested!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well done mate, the same medical records prove that the children were sexually abused by their father, Ricky Dearman. This was the consensus of the examining doctor featured, coupled with comments from the children that they were suffering from nightmares that their father was going to kill them.

      Now because this a rebuttal to the above comment and this blogger’s line of thinking, they will undoubtedly not publish this comment, rather edit it for their own means. Proving that this blog has no place for informed and rational debate.


      • Well I’m pleasantly surprised. So Scarlet, what are your thoughts on how the medical records portray the father?


        • How do you mean? The medical report is, well, a medical report, so it merely deals with medical factors. Even if it proved sexual abuse, which independent experts confirm it doesn’t, it wouldn’t specify who the abuser is. And lest we forget that the only person who has been cited as an abuser (though not a sexual abuser) by the children is Abraham. A man, incidentally, who has previous convictions for violence, drug and dishonesty and a Police caution for assaulting his own son.


      • I repeat. We don’t censor comments, unlike that crazy lady over at Hampstead “Research”. A quick browse of our posts will show you that all comments are approved, including abuse, slander and death threats, so I’m not sure what you’re basing that accusation on. Apology accepted but you’ve done your credibility no favours by opening with that remark.

        Now to business:

        The medical report was universally dismissed by a number of medical experts and the medial examiner who conducted it is facing investigation.

        Secondly, even in that report, nothing confirmed that RD had abused the children.

        Moreover, anal scarring is extremely common and can be caused by a range of minor factors, such as constipation.

        Besides, don’t you think that if the children had been regularly raped week in week out by dozens of adults, as you allege, that there’d be infinitely more damage than a tiny scar mark?

        Finally, would you mind please explaining how a tiny scar is proof that a school closes down once a week for an orgy with the kids and that thousands of babies have been cooked and eaten at McDonald’s without anyone ever getting caught or reported? What are we missing?

        Oh and feel free to look into Abraham Christie, the mum’s partner, whom the children named as a serial abuser who had beat them, thrown them against walls, kicked them in the privates, subjected them to naked water torture and threatened to drown them or bury them alive. For some reason, none of your associates seem remotely bothered by that, despite all their bluster about RD being worthy of investigation. What are they scared of? Do they perhaps have something to hide?

        Anyway, feel free to post some proof of the extremely serious allegations that your associates continue to level against the Hampstead community (we’re very open-minded here). Or give Barnet Police or Crimestoppers a ring. Thanks.


  6. Pingback: The Medical Report: Q&A | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  7. What medical experts disputed the report then? And on what grounds would Dr Deborah Hodes be under investigation? She’s a proven professional, having hand in the Baby P case also. How can Judge Pauffley, having no medical background or knowledge undermine the opinion of a medical professional? – She’s an establishment stooge, that’s how she can. And those naturally occurring anal scars were a product of “blunt penetrating instruments”, the documents detail. Without any empirical evidence on the Mcdonalds allegation it’s impossible to say definitively either way. For the record, I don’t align myself with Hampstead Research and I don’t condone the protests outside the school. Public campaigning efforts in the area aren’t affecting the right people. Plus I fear Hampstead Research could potentially be a psy-op, but I don’t know to what end – your blog would inevitably be a part of it if it was though. One thing that struck me was a plea from HR to stop using the world Satanism. To take that word out of equation would be an effort to hide the truth.


    • “And on what grounds would Dr Deborah Hodes be under investigation? She’s a proven professional”

      ^ Is that a serious point? Because someone is professional, they’re perfect and can never be investigated?

      But fair enough, just to clarify, there may not be a formal investigation but the report was criticised by independent medical experts, as I stated, and significantly amended. This is what the court report had to say about it:

      “128. Subsequently, Dr Hodes took this case to a peer review meeting. As explained in her Amended Medical Report of 4 December 2014, her anogenital findings in relation to both children were then significantly amended. The previously confirmed fissures were said to be irregularities in the ruggae (folds, wrinkles or ridges) and their clinical significance was described as ‘possible normal variant’.”

      By the way, you’ve just made a serious allegation about a judge. Would you mind sharing your supporting proof with the rest of us? Thanks in advance.

      Your comments about McDonald’s are naïve at best. It is indeed possible to state categorically that these events did not occur, as they are logistically unfeasible. Moreover, have you ever been in a McDonald’s kitchen? Hygiene fascism would be putting it mildly. Oh and we’re talking about an extremely busy McDonald’s in a bustling part of London, with an open kitchen in full view of tens of thousands of customers. And you’re saying that “thousands of babies” were ritualistically cooked and eaten there without anyone ever getting caught or reported. Oh and yeah, that particular McDonald’s closed down 10 months before these events are alleged to have occurred 😉

      By the way, as regards your accusation that we’re a “psy-op”, I have one simple response we’re done here.


  8. Forcing an enema into the rectum can cause irritation and damage to surrounding tissue. Never force the tube into the rectum. If problems persist, try administration at a later time or call your doctor. Blood that is present in the stool after the enema may indicate rectal damage or an underlying medical problem. Consult with a physician immediately regarding any rectal bleeding.


  9. Pingback: ‘Forensic linguist’ or fortune-teller? Another Hoaxtead ‘expert’ debunked | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.