Twitter mob descends on Butlincat

It’s always fun to watch the Hoaxtead pushers turn on one another and start bashing away…and we haven’t had a really good dust-up since Abrella turned on Bronny and accused her of being an MI5 plant.

So it was with some enjoyment that we watched this imbroglio unfold this morning on Twitter:

Twitter mob-Butlincat 1

Translation: Catherine (a friend of both Bronny and Angie, unsurprisingly) suspects Butlincat (sometime friend of Charlotte Alton Ward) of being a turncoat! (She also thinks ‘they’ are going to bump her off…ah, if only….)

Door2Door, aka Jim McMenamin, balks at this. After all, Butlincat is old! How could he be a traitor to their cause?

Twitter mob-Butlincat 2

And besides, says Jim, we don’t want to give him away to the ‘GoatShedMob’ (oh, that Jim, always got a witty nickname up his sleeve!). Catherine doesn’t care. She got blocked. That’s all she knows, and all she wants to know.

Meanwhile, Scotsman turns up, wondering what all the fuss is about.

Twitter mob-Butlincat 3

Catherine tries to exert her brilliant cross-examination skills, but she’s rebuffed by Leighton, who tells her she’s an idiot. Go, Leighton!

Abe/Drifloud pokes his head in to point an accusatory finger at Leighton, only to be told by Jim that most people don’t believe in Hoaxtead anyway. Scotsman, who’s starting to bear an uncanny resemblance to Father Jack, bellows something incoherent and slides back into his drunken stupour.

Twitter mob-Butlincat 4

Ah, here comes Butlincat now. Strangely, he seems a little grumpy about being called a traitor. Feck it. Block the lot of ’em.

Twitter mob-Butlincat 5

Ooh! Jim’s got an actual picture of the elusive Butlincat! (So do we. He’s Perp 9 in our Perps list, which you’ll find conveniently located in the sidebar of this blog.)

Twitter mob-Butlincat 6

Jim might not like Butlincat, but he doesn’t want to give him away. Whatever anyone might call him, Jim’s no snitch. (See previous note above, re ‘too late’.)

Twitter mob-Butlincat 8

Catherine reasserts her original beef, but now Jim is off on his own personal pity party. People block him without telling him, did you know that? We hope you’re all thoroughly ashamed of yourselves, hurting Jim’s feelings like that.

Twitter mob-Butlincat 9

“By the way, Catherine, what were we talking about again?”

“Fer feck’s sake, Jim, how many times have I got to tell you? LET’S GET IT STRAIGHT! THEY’VE BLOCKED ME! YOUR FRIENDS HAVE BLOCKED ME!”

“Oh, yeah, well, they blocked me too. But you don’t see me whingeing on about it”.

Twitter mob-Butlincat 10

And up pops Father Jack again, growling and waving his bottle. “Drink! Feck! Arse-biscuits! What’s going on here?”

And so it goes.

Honestly, with the Hoaxtead crew ripping into one another like this, who needs Eastenders?

streetfight

 

45 thoughts on “Twitter mob descends on Butlincat

  1. Jims picture of Butlincat probably is the one from the Perps poster. For someone who said he had had enough of it all back in September he sure is spending a lot of time tweeting about it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. What a bunch of fruitloops.

    Of course every time I get sucked in and just have to peer down the rabbit hole…this time Butlincat and a rant on his blog about a judge that directed a jury and apparently has no power to and the jury should have removed the judge etc etc.

    He even points to a decision from the House of Lords or so we are led to believe but when I sought out the Lords paper they actually say the opposite. But then the clincher- I didn’t realise the Butlincat post was by…yahhh..Patrick Cullinane (Victim of Jews). You don;t need an Asylum these days, all these nutters find each other like heat seeking missiles.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. LOL! Can’t stop laughing at Abe/Drifloud’s astonishment at someone thinking the “children’s assertions they were raped by those they named” are baseless!!!

    Abe can’t get it into his tiny mind that most people (including CSA survivors) know his claims (and I say ‘his’ because that’s what that they are) are indeed BASELESS.

    Liked by 1 person

      • What I’d like to know is why they don’t??.. but, no, they would rather believe that the children suffered horrendous sexual satanic abuse (even with a distinct lack of any evidence)…and they think WE’RE the sick and twisted ones?? None of them can think about that logically. LOL!

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Oh what a load of twittering nonsense.

    Does Butlincat have an opinion on anything?

    His blog appears to be an endless reposting of other people’s material.

    I did have a search on Twitter the other day to see what Drifabe had to say. Much of it appeared to be exchanges like the above and the predictable everyone is a satanic, Martian, baby eating, MI5 etc, I really do not have the patience for anymore.

    In amongst the bollocks there appeared to be excerpts of the transcript from the fact finding hearing. The home made videos are mentioned, thinking of the post the other day about these. One excerpt mentioned that the videos were handed in to the police by a friend of a friend of Abe’s, he had given to keep safe. Apparently this friend watched them, recognised one of the parents mentioned as his friend, this friend passed them to the police and possibly contacted a lawyer. Another confirms that Ella was told that the children would need to be re interviewed by the police.

    I can’t quite believe that Drifabe can get away with posting such material on Twitter.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think the only mitigating factor in Abe being on Twitter is that he doesn’t know his arse from his elbow when it comes to using the thing. Fortunately, his special way of tweeting keeps his material effectively restricted to a very few people.

      That said, I’d be up for a campaign to get his account taken down. Anyone?

      Like

      • If Google has been served with a notice to remove certain links, how on earth is Twitter hosting excerpts from a court transcript!

        Having said that, it was interesting to see that the issue re the home made videos is more complex than I thought.

        Liked by 2 people

    • That is very interesting, did you save a link?

      I have been under the impression that Jean Clement handed copies to the police.

      I’ve always wondered about the issue of the video recordings. If I remember correctly, the CRIS report does mention something about Fernandez watching the videos and reporting back to other officers. Yet, Pauffley seemed to believe that nobody had watched them. I wonder if she was just mistaken, or she meant all the other officers, apart from Fernandez.

      Liked by 1 person

        • So, from those bits of information, Ella Draper had videos but the police never asked for them, they may have been on devices that were sent to the property store, or may not, but, here’s the thing, someone saw it who was named by the children, and they WENT TO THE POLICE VOLUNTARILY AND PROVIDED THE VIDEOS THEMSELVES! They must have been pretty sure of their innocence! Like very sure! Or brazen, but I’m guessing that it was the former.

          Liked by 1 person

          • So, the first thing someone does when they hear what the children have accused them of, is let the police know, and provide the evidence of the children naming them, it is as good as dropping thir trousers for their genitals to be examined in my book. The accused came forward to clear their name. What they have wanted to settle this case all along.

            Like

          • Makes you wonder what is in the rest of the transcript……

            I don’t suppose any of the Hoaxteaders have ever wondered how easy it is for police officers to view a recording on a device, that they don’t necessarily have the password to, that may be used as evidence, that they might want to ensure is not interfered with and that Mr Plod doesn’t end up accidentally damaging data on, or whether there have been forensic cuts, and how much time and effort it takes for everything to be retrieved from, say, a laptop, and how they would go about viewing such things.

            In a normal case that wasn’t private it might be worth clubbing together to get the whole transcript. I think this one is just too sensitive for the court to agree to that, rightly so. Does make you wonder at the drip feeding. Hmmm

            Liked by 1 person

        • Thank you, that is certainly very interesting. The mind boggles to who the friend was that Abraham gave the copy. Such as Finbar, Jean Clement, Rob his taxi friend, or someone never mentioned before.

          I find the Finbar footage quite interesting. It appears to have been taken secretly, which begs the question as to why he would take secret footage. Plus, it was released unedited, with the bit where Ella admits they were already thinking of leaving the country. I can’t imagine Ella wanting that released, and she claims she never wanted any of it released. So who released it and was that handed to police at some point?

          Liked by 1 person

          • I can sort of understand them sending videos to Jean-Clement, a police special whose help they were seeking, but then going on and distributing them more widely, the mind boggles. Like they don’t care about those two children at all. Or perhaps the ‘safekeeping’ bit hints at them believing their devices would be seized. Perhaps even at paranoia.

            Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.