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!And 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:
Fascinating. 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:
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.