Charlotte Ward, Belinda’s loyal and trusted gatekeeper

Charlotte’s gone right off the deep end lately on her ‘blog’, posting links to commercial child sex abuse sites and then claiming they’re ‘safe to visit’ (hint: she’s lying).

But today I thought I’d take a look at her recent impassioned defense of Belinda McKenzie.

In the Gospel According to Charlotte, Belinda (known fraud artist who leads her followers into battle, only to abandon them to their fates when the going gets even a tiny bit rough) practically qualifies for sainthood. She runs through the usual ‘Saint Belinda helped poor Hollie Greig by exposing the Satanists who were abusing her’ nonsense. (Reality: Robert Green, Ann Greig’s mouthpiece who eventually did prison time for his part in the hoax, didn’t even think of adding allegations of ‘Satanic’ ritual abuse to his deranged narrative until he was told that SRA would ‘sex it up a bit’ and get him more attention.)

And then there was Iran Aid…

Then Charlotte takes on the Iran Aid accusations. Did you know that ‘the Iran Aid myth is a lie propogated by Satanists to discredit Belinda’? Me neither! What a revelation that was!Belinda and Iran AidAnd let’s get this straight: the charity is most definitely not ‘repaying Belinda the huge amount she lent them….because she wanted to help Iranian children’.

In fact, the ‘charity’ is defunct, and has been for years. It was closed by the Charities Commission, after they tried to investigate but were stymied first by a months-long occupation of the ‘charity’s’ offices, and then by a mysterious fire which consumed all the evidence of illegal funnelling of millions of pounds to a bank account in Germany. Most peculiar indeed.

If any money is being repaid, it’s coming from the MEK (Mojahedin-e-Khalq), also known as MKO, who allegedly received a largish loan from Belinda. By the bye, this is the same MEK/MKO that operated the notorious Camp Ashraf in Iraq, where Esmail Vafa Yaghmaei’s 16-year-old son was held for 2 years because his father, Belinda’s ‘husband’ or something, wouldn’t lift a finger to have him released.

Oh, right, that. I guess it slipped what passes for Charlotte’s mind.

Belinda, Landlady from Hell or Lady Bountiful?

But my favourite part of Charlotte’s attempt to rehabilitate the image of her absentee idol revolves around Declan and Lola Heavey, rent-paying tenants in Belinda’s house, who Belinda wanted rid of.

Here’s Charlotte’s fawning description:

Belinda, landlady from hellFascinating. Charlotte, who brags about taking advantage of people any way she can, is outraged—outraged, I tell you!—that a pair of paying tenants might be taking advantage of poor sweet Belinda. It is to barf.

But that’s not all: here’s Charlotte’s version of how Saint Belinda got rid of her unwanted tenants:

Belinda-landlady from hell2Wow, so Belinda was practically doing them a favour by making them homeless again!

As it happens, this piece of Charlotte’s post was drawn to my attention by one of our loyal readers, who attempted to make the following comment:

Where shall I start? I will have to narrow it down to just a couple of lines, as an example of your content:

‘…But what Belinda had done in putting up with all that was give these people the right to claim Housing Benefit. So they would never be homeless again. So they were able to move out and get another house…’

WRONG. Belinda did not give them the right to claim housing benefit, that came from their status and financial circumstances when renting a property. Claiming housing benefit does not in any way ensure getting housing in future, that again is down to status and financial circumstances as well as a host of other considerations you will find if you look into housing benefit rules and guidance. Whether or not the couple were able to get another house had nothing to do with Belinda giving them housing. Being evicted may technically make you homeless, but whether or not the local authority has a duty to house is quite another thing. With no children or serious health needs it is very unlikely they would have qualified for (council) housing. Of course anyone can rent privately if they can afford it. Housing benefit can be applied for for any property, to help pay the rent, whether it is granted in full or part is, again, dependent of an assessment and housing benefit rules and has nothing to do with the person who lets out the property. So stop making her out to be a saint.

Belinda did not rent the couple the property out of the goodness of her heart alone, she charged rent for it. But it could be she was kind in offering the flat to them rather than to others. That much I will give you as I don’t know.

My gripe here is not with Belinda, it is with your fraudulent writing. Making things up that are not true. Preaching. You are misleading people and LYING, as shown in the example above, just a short extract of the whole. And yet you profess to be spiritually on the right path, to be an ethical warrior. Ethical warriors do not LIE or misrepresent. Especially once their ‘mistake’ is pointed out to them.


I’m sure I don’t have to tell you what happened to that comment. Three guesses?

As usual, Charlotte takes her role as gatekeeper seriously: she locks out anyone who might contradict her charming narrative of Belinda, Patron Saint of the Homeless. If I were Belinda, I’d be offering her a raise.





22 thoughts on “Charlotte Ward, Belinda’s loyal and trusted gatekeeper

  1. Odd that… Because the ENGLISH Charity commission has this information on them…

    Iran Aid… Registered Charity 326460…


    Other names – None
    Governing document – NO INFORMATION RECORDED
    Area of benefit – NO INFORMATION RECORDED
    Organisation type – STANDARD REGISTRATION
    Where it operated – NO INFORMATION RECORDED
    Registration history – 29 November 2001 Removed – CEASED TO BE CHARITABLE
    11 November 1983 – Registered

    Charitable objects

    Search the OSCR register, by name, number or whatever you like and you find NOTHING! They were never a Scottish Charity! There is THIS though!

    What assets they did recover were sent here…

    Jings crivvens halp ma boab its a braw bright moonlicht nicht the nicht as we allegedly say round these parts!

    Liked by 1 person

    • I know, it’d be a simple matter for Belinda to say X charity at address Y is paying me back, but she doesn’t. Perhap the “charity” is a person who is paying her back?

      Her story doesn’t check out.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Yeh, right! The charity is paying Belinda back! Which is why they mention it on their accounts! NOT

    Click to access 0001082759_AC_20120930_E_C.PDF

    Or is she the only person to receive grant money!

    And lodgers have rights too, even ones that scurry about.

    I’m not sure about the MeK money. It was never proved! Obviously in Hoaxteader land that means she’s guilty, but here? The charity certainly couldn’t account for where the money went.

    The people who seem to have been most vocal about her are Iranians with a grudge. Maybe Zoroastrian = Satanist, or Shia = Satanist, or even Not Bothered About Religion Personally = Satanist.

    If Belinda really wanted a copy of the letter (from Scotland? for a London based charity?) she should do a subject access request under the DPA.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Weirdly, Charlotte says “I do not know for a fact whether Belinda is MI5 …”. Even Belinda’s biggest fan seems to sense something a bit rum about her!

    I note from her headlines that she is having a go at Starbucks. I wonder if she is one of those people who takes dead cockroaches in a matchbox into restaurants in order to extort a free meal?

    I would urge people not only to not click Charlie’s links, but also not to open up some of her stories which include thumbnails.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. It looks to me that she is getting more desperate as time goes by, maybe she is lonely out there in willoughbyland.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. LOL! You gotta laugh when she says that she moved into Belinda’s after her previous landlord had taken an “irrational dislike” to Jacco de Boer!

    Methinks she made a typo and meant a “rational dislike.” 😀

    Liked by 1 person

    • I know, there’s a great deal in that post that just sent me into gales of laughter. Wish we could find her previous landlord for comment!


  6. The tenancy tale is quite comical too, well it is for anyone with a working knowledge of housing law, not funny for the tenants of course.

    It’s quite a common mistake, people often assume that there is an assured short hold tenancy, but where a tenant occupies the same building as the landlord, does not share facilities and the building was not built originally as flats, the tenant is likely to be an ‘Occupier with basic protection’. Although such a tenant has little security of tenure, the landlord still needs to give written notice in writing of one month, where the tenant pays monthly, to end at the end of a rent period. Assuming that there is no fixed term, the tenancy ends at the end of the notice, the landlord still has to get a court order and use bailiffs if necessary, they can’t evict themselves. The court has no discretion as long as notice has been served correctly they have to order possession.

    It can be complex and we only have second hand info but from the discription the above status seems the most likely.

    They were not lodgers as described by Charlotte and they weren’t an ASS tenant either as assumed by McKenzie as we can see in the link above when she issued the notice.

    Most things related to tenancy law are civil maters, but illegal eviction and harassment of tenants can also be criminal offences, although getting the police to act is unlikely, they take the view that they can only get involved to keep the peace.

    With an ASS tenancy there are various grounds that can be used by a landlord to get possession from the court some mandatory and others the court will have discretion, they also have different lengths of notice.

    It looks like McKenzie tried to use the two months rent arrears mandatory ground by refusing to accept rent, like the court has never seen someone try that before, lol. She didn’t need to anyway, lol again.

    It looks like she either tried to claim that they were lodgers by removing the door, they still wouldn’t have been lodgers anyway, she didn’t need to either. Or it could have been an attempt to harass the tenants.

    These lay legal advisers are really good, lol. If only she had followed the correct procedure it might not have taken so long to evict.

    To be fair many landlords are reluctant to take tenants on benefits,melt alone someone homeless, so maybe that was kind, I’m sure the £1000 a month helped too. They also seemed to share similar interests.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It seemed really off to me. Like this landlady saying to someone, I want you to leave, tenants saying no, and landlady not knowing what to do next, mucking up the notices, court hearings and procedure and then finally everything gets done properly.

      Taking the door off is just nasty even if she was legally entitled to. Belinda admitted herself that her tenants were vulnerable.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Somewhere about there’s a video of the tenants being evicted. It’s very sad. I don’t really think Belinda is the Lady Bountiful that Charlotte would like to portray.


      • Well, she wouldn’t be entitled to take the door off.

        Just an attempt by a clueless person to play clever with the law.

        Liked by 1 person

        • LMAO! “Attempts by clueless people to play clever with the law” sounds like a great summing up of the Assn of McKenzie Friends’ approach!


    • Belinda’s encyclopaedic knowledge of the law never ceases to amaze and astound.

      Thanks for this–it sheds a bit of light on the situation.


Comments are closed.