More Pookster78 v Guidance 2222

Well, I was going to write a review of Deborah Mahmoudieh’s latest video, but who cares, really? Honestly, the woman has nothing of interest to say. I had to make two cups of coffee just to slog through a dreary 20-minute diatribe that went something like “blah blah blah British children EU legislation something something terribly important blah blah must believe the children and so on and so forth.”

There you go. I watch this tripe so you don’t have to.

Instead, here’s a clip of Debs in better times:

Much more interesting than Mahmoudieh’s drivel is the ongoing sparring match between Code and/or Guidance 2222 and Pookster78. Granted, Pookster is engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but some of their ripostes have definite entertainment value.

For instance, at one point Pookster notes that Abe and Ella’s infamous ‘half-dressed in a giant hemp field’ pictures look as though they were taken in the Rif mountains of Morocco. Hardly a surprise, given that the area is one of that country’s largest hemp-growing areas. However, Guidance 2222 has trouble wrapping his wee brain around it:

Guidance 2222 v Pookster78-1Is it just me, or is Guidance revealing that Pookster has somehow had access to unauthorised (by Abe and Ella) info’? Like I said, he’s not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Pookster78 v Guidance 2222-2Can anyone translate this?

i dont know that guy but will have a look I have Told Abe what i think & its up to them i still Believe the Children Told the Truth the first time so if i Believe you about ricky which i don’t then this might be some bad Tavistock Sandy hook shit with the child abuse subject going into full swing with truther’s being exposed and divide everyone on side’s and against one another plus change laws with the net while its all still going on & what you gonna do who knows time will tell I Believe the Children they were safe and tried to tell the video’s were shocking leaked by sabine who worked for cern then belinda had HR up ready for this internet traffic donate buttons while other truther’s kept quiet B&B some were to fast to say hoax alex jones mate then the bbc getting involved the whole thing is not normal I AM watching so are others and we are gonna try to put a stop to child sex abuse

Maybe I’m missing the point, and this is some kind of post-modern deconstructionist literary statement, but I doubt it. Cody, for the love of Jah, would you please do the world a favour and learn the correct use of capitalisation and punctuation? There’s a good boy.

Nope, no idea why Pookster78 might have thought Ella and Abe were in the Rif Mountains.

Nope, no idea why Pookster78 might have thought Ella and Abe were in the Rif Mountains.

24 thoughts on “More Pookster78 v Guidance 2222

  1. So what Deborah is saying, is that even though the allegations against Abraham Christie are contradicted by the earlier allegations against the children’s father, Abraham still needs to be investigated, and arrested?

    It would work both ways Deborah. Does she scream that Abraham Christie must get back to the UK?

    I imagine she gets a bit confused about the law too.

    I managed about ten seconds but I did catch the investigating when children retract bit. The problem is the children had the physical injuries that Abraham gave them when he was torturing them, and that Ella said were caused by their father. She got found out lying, a really scummy child abusing lying deflect blame somewhere else lie so she didn’t caught condoning her children being abused by being throw at walls. That sort of lie. Which is why even Belinda tried to say the children should live with their grandparents. It seems even she KNOWS Abraham is a violent child abuser. It was that obvious he’s scum that even they weren’t completely taken in.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oddly, I’ve never heard Deborah demand that Abe return to the UK, nor that he be arrested for child abuse. Yet she claims to be all in favour of putting more ‘teeth’ in child protection laws. Very strange.

      Like

  2. What Debs seems to be doing is reading an essay which is her interpretation of EU law.

    Quite a bit of what she says is about empowering and taking care of the child through the legal process – the idea that the child making an accusation should be taken seriously and get a ‘legal guardian’ who is with them throughout the process. I’m all for this. One of the criticisms I have of the Hampstead Police interview I saw, was that it was done far too late in the evening (not child friendly) and on a ‘one-to-one’ with a police officer. I thought each of the children should have had a guardian ad litem with them.

    She says that under EU law ‘Unlike in other crimes child abuse suspects are legally considered guilty until proven innocent’.
    This is interesting.
    Does anyone know where she gets this idea from? Post a link please?
    It sounds contrary to the legal rights afforded people in most civilized countries.

    Liked by 1 person

    • …and contravenes the EU directive about the presumption of innocence.

      I don’t spend all my time swimming at the baths you know.

      Liked by 1 person

    • sounds like bollox to me. I know of no country on the planet where anyone is considered guilty until proved innocent.
      Love how they keep referring to EU law yet on the other hand they claim the EU is part of the NWO plot. Cherry picking which parts of law they like as usual.

      Liked by 1 person

          • This is part of what bemuses me about them: they bellow and whine about the ‘sheeple’ accepting everything they hear in the mainstream media, but when it comes to thinking their way through what they’re hearing and arriving at independent conclusions, they pretty much suck. They’re far happier to follow one another around complacently.

            Like

    • I do know.

      It’s to do with consent. U16s cannot consent so unlike with adults, that doesn’t get treated the same way in prosecutions. That’s the presumption of guilt bit. Sex happened, U16, guilty of rape. There’s also a defence available if the child is 13 plus, the person reasonably believed they were over 16, which obviously may not be the case. The UN wan

      She’s cobbled bits from a UN doc and EU suggestions for prosecutions.

      I haven’t got links to hand.

      The children were interviewed so late because Abraham and Ella didn’t want the interview to go ahead without them taking someone else to the police station. The police went to get them in the day time. Not child friendly I agree, but what could they do?

      The person with the child can be in another room. They don’t have to be in the interview. I thought there was a third person in some interviews.

      Liked by 1 person

      • If you can find links can you post them. No rush.

        If it’s an issue of ‘consent’ then it’s a pity the hoaxteders don’t take on board that neither of the children in this case are old enough to give permission for their images to be used.

        From what I’ve just read a guardian ad litem isn’t necessary if there’s a supportive parents there (who isn’t involved in the abuse) and as I understand it Ella was in the Police station at the same time.

        From what I saw the third person in the interviews was the ‘controller’ and in charge of the video. I still think it’d be good practice to have a ‘friendly’ face with you. I know if I’d been interviewed by a police officer as a kid I’d have been scared.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Here’s the UN report

          http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/uploads/UN%20Convention%20on%20rights%20of%20the%20child.pdf

          Deborah the screamer keeps on about this

          “29. The Committee reminds the State party that under the Optional Protocol, the term “child” applies to all persons under the age of 18 years and therefore, it urges the State party to revise its legislation to ensure that all children up to 18 years of age are protected from all types of offences covered by the Optional Protocol. Furthermore, the Committee urges the State party to:
          (a) Ensure that, in the rebuttable presumption of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it includes a provision that for child victims, the burden of proof would be reversed; ….”

          But to understand that you would have to look up the act it refers to and the “rebuttable presumption”.

          You also need to remember that the age of consent in the UK is 16 and the UN considers everyone under 18 children. There’s a gap, mismatch, whatever you want to describe it as, between some sexual offences and the UN protocols for 16 & 17 year olds. Some offences in the UK such as trafficking, indecent images, prostitiution, will use 18 as the age where the law is applied differently, others will use 16 years.

          http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpga_20030042_en.pdf

          http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/#a04

          The UN seems to be a bit confused TBH. The rebuttable presumptions are about consent, or non consent to sex, not someone having to prove a sexual act didn’t happen. If for example someone has sex with an unconcious person = rape.

          “Section 75 lists the circumstances in which rebuttable evidential presumptions about the absence of consent apply. If the defendant did the relevant act, as defined in section 77 (the sexual activity within sections 1-4), and the circumstances specified in subsection (2) exist and the defendant knew they existed, then the complainant is to be taken not to have consented.”

          That’s a bit garbled from me, and I’m sure someone with legal training would be able to explain better, I might have got things wrong, but Deborah doesn’t even seem to have gone back to the act that the UN is referring to.

          I’m not even sure I agree with what the UN is trying to say the law should be. For example, should a defendant have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a 17 year old wasn’t too drunk to consent and if they fail they go to prison?

          Whatever the UN report says, there is not much that applies to this case. Mainly because they were tortured into making the allegations and the children are under the age of consent anyway.

          That’s my take on it and is possibly incorrect.

          The EU stuff I need to look up again.

          Like

          • I’ve been looking at this.

            Burden of proof means that there’s a “duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her.”

            I think what Debs is on about is the part of the UN Convention report that says:
            “Ensure that, in the rebuttable presumption of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it includes a provision that for child victims, the burden of proof would be reversed; ….”

            This makes sense when you think that child victims are not necessarily good witnesses and adults can run rings round them, so an adult defendant should be expected to provide proof of innocence when it comes to evidence.

            It’s a bit of a leap to go from the ‘burden of proof being reversed’ to “suspects are legally considered guilty until proven innocent”. Everyone in court is considered innocent to start with and the evidence is weighed by judge and jury. It seems to me that issue is the ‘burden of proof’ and not innocence or guilt. That’s how I see it anyway. I admit I’m no expert.

            At first reading the UN Convention report seems to have lots of good things in it but it’s a bit vague and a lot of work needs to be done to clarify it’s content. We can only hope that while the legal authorities in the UK are deciphering it they don’t water it down too much. We’re long overdue for some legal changes of the kind suggested in the UN Convention report.

            Liked by 1 person

          • @ Big Earl. The UN is only referring to the rebuttable presumptions though. Which are to do with capacity to consent. That can be impaired due to drugs, cognitive ability etc. U16s are already deemed not able to consent so the rebuttable presumptions wouldn’t be needed to show an U16 didn’t consent. That’s a given if the act took place. It could be relevant to 16 & 17 year olds. The defendant would have to show the 16 year old had the capacity to consent. Is that what the UN means?

            Agree that it doesn’t say guilty until proven innocent though.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I note that Sabine doesn’t seem to talk much about the necessity to protect the identity and privacy of victims–last I heard, she was referring to that imperative as ‘secret courts’ or some damn thing.

            Like

Comments are closed.