Abe gets more than he bargained for

/ 18/10/2015

When Abe and Ella set up their new blog (and we’re being generous here, including Ella…it’s unlikely she did much but nod apathetically), we’re quite certain they didn’t expect the reaction they’ve been getting from their readers.

If you listen to people like Angie Fag-Ash Disney and Barmy Bronny Llewellyn, the world has been waiting with bated breath to hear words drop like pearls from the lips of Abraham Christie and Ella Gareeva Draper. People have been waiting, all right, but they’re not mistaking his random drooling for pearls.

Abe’s new blog’s Comments section has been overrun with people demanding the truth. Of course, since he learned how to work the delete button, Abe has been mashing away at it furiously, trying to keep the place completely truth-free. But his commenters are definitely giving him a run for his money.

For example, in this exchange, a commenter challenges the basis of Abe’s wackadoo theory about hemp being an excellent substitute for blood transfusions:

Abe v Jojo AgainAbe/Nemesis tries to sound smart: “Edestrin is considered the backbone of DNA, essential as it is to DNA repair, function and transcription’.

‘Jojo Again’ cites a scholarly article, blowing Abe out of the water.

Undeterred, Abe gives it another shot, inserting as many big words as possible: “CVID is a clinically heterogeneous disease. Its main features are hypogammaglobulinemia and recurrent infections, which implies that blah blah blah I am a big important fellow and I know lots and lots of big words or at least I can cut and paste them from the internet so there hahahahaha’.

‘Jojo Again’ cuts to the chase: “CVID isn’t a disease caused by a lack of a particular source material. But what about the children?’

Abe v Jojo-1Abe/Nemesis) strings a bunch of science-y  words together to give the illusion that he has even the slightest grasp of his subject matter.

‘Jojo just gets deleted’ points out that he is talking out his arse, and notes that this comment, too, will be deleted (it was).

At this point, though, ‘Lulu’ and ‘Soosie’ jump in:

Abe v Jojo-2Abe v Lulu & SoosieLulu & Jojo v AbeOf course, it all gets deleted almost instantly, but the message is definitely getting through, and seem to be rattling him. In fact, at one point Abe let this one slip:

Abe = Drifloud & Nemesis GreenSadly, our mole couldn’t get a shot of the whole comment, but this does appear to confirm a theory we’ve held for some time.

Kudos to Jojo, Lulu, and Soosie, and all those whose comments were cut off in their prime by a ‘truther’ who seems more interested in squelching dissent than in shedding any real light on the matter.

quote-in-the-end-it-is-worse-to-suppress-dissent-than-to-run-the-risk-of-heresy-learned-hand-70-71-31

Related posts

52 thoughts on “Abe gets more than he bargained for”

  1. Much as Abe has it coming to him, I do wonder whether you’re now becoming guilty of what he’s guilty of – hanging onto something that is a dead topic, and persecuting people via the internet.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Not at all. Abraham and Ella spout lies from exile and need to be brought to justice. They are still harassing innocent members of the public.This is not a dead topic.

      Liked by 1 person

      • If your concern is that they are brought to justice then fair enough, but blogging isn’t going to make that happen. If you want to see these people in court then go to the police with well-reasoned charges and evidence, don’t just slag them off on the internet.

        Liked by 1 person

    • The children are safely away from Abraham and Ella now but they continue to plaster their names and faces on the internet too. You think that’s ok, Tom?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tom, if the site we were mocking were about butterfly-collecting or trainspotting, you might have a point. However, it isn’t – it’s a nasty, disgusting and illegal hate site, spreading lies and slander about lots of innocent people and exposing the confidential testimonies of two vulnerable children. They’re doing it all over YouTube too. So no, they get no sympathy from me. Perhaps you’d care to explain why they deserve yours.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I understand what you mean, but for many people this represents an opportunity to speak directly to the people who set this thing in motion, and who are now attempting to push it even further.

      Like

      • And I’m all in favour of that. I’m not in favour of trying to track down every last fucked up thing that Abe has done online, because that is stalking, not activism.

        Like

  2. Abe and Ellla have never had their day of reckoning in court. They made their mess and ran away, leaving others to clean up. People still suffer from the chaos their vindictive madness created.

    They conducted their campaign online, and continue to do so with vigour. Is it not fair to question and hold them to account? Where is the appropriate redress in this case?

    So far they have only been interviewed by the namby pamby interviewers they chose themselves.

    When confronted with the truth, they delete and run away, just like they have in real life. If this is persecution online, then it seems just, in this instance.

    Reading comments made on their blog could be about as near as Abe and Ella are going to come to a ‘hearing’. It is a virtual court of sorts, and seemingly the only possibility of communication and action at the moment. I do understand the point you are making though, Tom. However, this is the very first instance of anyone actually confronting Abe and Ella’ directly, and so cannot be seen to be ‘hanging on to something’.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Tell me tootsie, have you ever been stalked online and had people make up vicious rumours about you? Because I have, and it is deeply unpleasant.

      Not that I particularly care about Abe/Ella’s wellbeing, just that it’s really unpleasant behaviour. If you are better than Abe/Ella then actually be better than them, rather than saying ‘well they behaved like shit so I can behave like shit in revenge/redress’. The failure of the justice system to deal with these fuckers is not a license for you or anyone else to treat them like shit.

      I guess the point I’m making it more of a question – if you aren’t going to try to get the authorities to prosecute these dangerous individuals then at what point does this become ‘hanging onto something’ and an online persecution rather than a struggle for truth and justice?

      Liked by 1 person

      • @Tom I have been stalked online, yes it is deeply unpleasant. Yes people have made up vicious rumours about every person, practically, that has dared to question the narrative Ella and Abe are putting out there. Yes, you are right, two wrongs don’t make a right. Yes, it is childish, at some level, yes, mea culpa. But despite owning this, I am glad that questions were asked directly.

        How is asking Ella and Abe questions ‘treating them like shit?’ Would they not be asked exactly the same questions in court, which they would invariably end up in, if they were not on the run? Would the barristers asking them be accused of ‘treating them like shit’ too?

        And why do you think I and others have not tried to ‘get the authorities to prosecute these dangerous individuals’? I and many others have.

        How effective have the ‘authorities’ been, so far? Have these ‘authorities’ managed to bring ‘these dangerous individuals’ to account?

        Liked by 1 person

        • There’s a lot more here than just asking questions. There are definitely elements of personal vengeance and moments that come across like a witch-hunt. That’s my point – do you discuss the ethics of what you’re doing? I mean you as a community, not you individually. Are there some things you won’t do?

          Liked by 1 person

          • What is it you are afraid of anyone here doing, Tom? Please specify. I would like to allay your fears. What is it, exactly, that you are finding so difficult? Ethics must prevail over all other considerations, yes, such issues are considered, and will be considered in future.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I guess that what I’m ‘afraid of’ is that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you. I obviously don’t know all the ins and outs as well as you do but I do know from personal experience that when you get heavily involved in something like this that the justified sense of anger turns into an angry sense of justification without you even noticing that it is happening.

            I do detect at moments (and only at moments, not overall) feelings of internet vigilantism towards these fuckwits. And like I keep saying – I’m on your side, I think they’ve got it coming to them, but if you’ve tried the legal route and that didn’t work and you don’t have the resources to hire detectives to find these people and deliver them, mob-justice style, to the people they’ve made horrible accusations against, then I’m not sure what’s left to try.

            So, if your intention is to both warn people about these figures then ok, I’m with you. If your intention is to take the piss and mock them for their wanton stupidity and attention-seeking behaviour, as well as express your disgust about their lack of care for the consequences, then great, I’m with you. But I’m sure you’re aware that there have been moments where it has crossed over into something it shouldn’t be, and needn’t be, otherwise you would not have written the new piece (which I think is very good stuff).

            I guess I’m just offering a warning that when you engage with the darkness of the human soul it does do something to you, can make you a bit numb to the way you choose to fight against it. We’ve all been there where we know we’re right about something and it pisses us off that we can’t get the right people or institutions to take us seriously so we consider doing or actually do something we shouldn’t, and it does come from a sense of righteous vengeance. I get it. I’m guilty of it. So I’m just trying to offer a warning against it, which does seem to have been heard so maybe we should leave it there.

            Liked by 2 people

            • If you don’t mind, I’m going to copy your comment here and move it onto the page under my post about this topic. I think it’s an excellent response, that more readers should see.

              Like

  3. I would like to say that I have seen some comments on that blog this morning that are unhelpful and could sabotage any progress.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. But, if there is any truth in the comment:

    ‘….conviction in 2006 for possession of child porn or your 18-month sentence for child molestation?’, please put it up here, ‘AkhaldanSolo’.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Thanks for the mention. Glad you captured the above. Abraham must be wearing his finger out hitting that “Delete” button! 😀

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Total comedy gold, and as mad and unaware of the actual way the law works, in a way very similar to Ella and Abe. They are all nuts!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • He had a run in with the Inland Revenue in the 1980s which eventually led to his house being repossessed. According to an article in the Guardian the amount he owed had been widely over estimated.

      The question is: Do you think he behaves like this because he had a bad experience or did his initial run in with the Inland Revenue escalate because he behaved like this?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. From the 2003 Guardian article:

    “Patrick Cullinane’s life has been ruined by the Inland Revenue. The government department has bankrupted him, kicked him out of his home, and driven him to a mental breakdown. His brothers and sisters have walked away from him and he has been unable to find work.”

    “Mr Cullinane believes he was the victim of the Revenue’s desire to obtain a “scalp” in its investigations into tax abuse in the film industry. But he is also a victim of tax legislation whereby the Revenue can assume all taxpayers are guilty until proven innocent. The problem is that a court case in 1995, two years after he was found guilty of non-payment of tax, re-established this principle and also that it is the taxpayer’s job to provide information for an assessment, not the Revenue’s.”

    “Twenty years war with the Revenue

    1982 Patrick Cullinane starts working at Elstree Studios as a stage hand for Warner Bros. He is put on emergency PAYE tax rate. Asks for a rebate, but is denied.

    1983 Warner shifts entire workforce to PAYE. Mr Cullinane continues to be taxed on emergency rate. Asks for rebate but is rejected.

    1986 Employs an accountant to pursue rebate. Revenue agrees to put him on basic tax, but refuses rebate.

    1987 Without his knowledge, he becomes target of first investigation by the Revenue’s new Film Industry Unit. Revenue demands unpaid tax of £500.

    1988-1991 Revenue demands escalate and Mr Cullinane becomes unemployed. He does not work again in the 1990s.

    1992 Revenue inspectors estimate Cullinane’s unpaid tax bill as £68,000, based on an estimate of £17,500 a year rental income over seven years from two spare rooms in his home, plus £90,000 from self-employed income from 1984-1988. Mr Cullinane is not allowed to see documents.

    1996 Revenue obtains bankruptcy order against Mr Cullinane.

    1998 Mr Cullinane’s house is repossessed after bailiffs and police kick down his door.

    1999 His house is sold for £125,000. The Revenue takes £18,000 while accountants KMPG, employed by the Revenue to look after Mr Cullinane’s assets, take £32,000. The Secretary of State takes £10,000, the mortgage lender takes back its £26,000, agents and valuers take £9,000, VAT is £10,000 and so on. Mr Cullinane is left with nothing.

    2000 Mr Cullinane begins court action to obtain his tax documents from the Revenue, but loses. The Revenue says it is under no obligation to reveal internal documents to prove case, and four judges agree.

    2003 In February the Revenue writes to Mr Cullinane saying it will now release “copies of our investigation folder”. In March he receives 200 pages of internal documents, which indicate that tax bills against Mr Cullinane were based on flimsy information or, in most cases, no information at all. Revenue denies wrongdoing.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/may/10/tax.scamsandfraud

    Interestingly in the first paragraph quoted it says his brothers and sisters have abandoned him – rather than rallied around.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Far be it from me to extend the hand of friendship to Mr Cullinane–his rabid anti-Semitism alone makes me want to hurl–but this article does show how ‘the system’ does indeed create fertile ground for paranoia. It certainly answers a few of our questions. Thanks for sharing it, FS.

      Like

  10. Pingback: Are the stalked becoming the stalkers? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  11. Pingback: Abe and Ella have a brand new sycophant! | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  12. Pingback: Where did Abe’s missing phone go? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.