Deborah Mahmoudieh loses her Facebook page

We imagine the spittle is a-flying in the Mahmoudieh house right about now, as the bombastic Deb comes to terms with the fact that she’s about to lose her Facebook page.

When we last saw her, Debs was doing a passable imitation of Yosemite Sam, hopping from foot to foot in impotent rage:

Yosemite Sam

It was a bit dangerous to stick around, but one of our operatives crept in, dodging bullets and flying spit, to gather the following screenshots:

Deborah Mahmoudieh-FB-1-2016-01-15

Looks like Facebook has finally roused itself to do something about the proliferation of Hoaxtead propaganda on its pages, and Deb is a pretty obvious target, given her frequent illegal rants on the topic.

She writes, “As a direct result of writing and sharing this FB-Note in various groups, I am no longer allowed to write anymore (sic) ‘notes’ on FB”.

Here are a couple of excerpts of the notes in question:

Deborah Mahmoudieh-FB-2 2016-01-15

Yeah, that whole ‘list of criminals’ thing is a problem, Debs. You see, people in this country aren’t considered criminals until they’re convicted of a crime. And since none of the people originally named actually committed any of the acts Abe and Ella accused them of, they haven’t been convicted. And they never will be. So naming them like this? That’s a bad thing.

Deborah Mahmoudieh-FB-2-2016-01-15

Also: the fact that all the allegations were dismissed as false should be a clue: the allegations were false. And that means it’s illegal to go around saying that the originally named people actually committed any crimes.

Deborah Mahmoudieh-FB-2016-01-15

And so, it seems that in addition to having her ability to write Facebook Notes removed, Debs is now about to lose her actual page. We’ll let you know if the thing actually disappears as promised.

You see, Deb? This is why you cannot have nice things.

Why we can't have nice things



85 thoughts on “Deborah Mahmoudieh loses her Facebook page

    • serial liar, but then, she has been around Belinda, long term, known to use NLP, and trigger vulnerable people, alot of them.

      Me too, and others very strong, have fallen prey, we really did not see some of this coming.

      Lately, some very strong advocates, that ignored all of this building, and told me to, too, are taking a look, realising that, indeed, these conspiritards, are creating bigger problems, than any of us thought they could.

      But, if people look, actually, we have all carried on and alot has still been achieved, despite them, in spite of them, and nothing to do with their faux spearheading supposedly, fake claims of making anything happen at all.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I agree, Sheva. Despite all their efforts to make this story go viral online, it’s remained a small story in a small corner of the internet. People like Deborah are trying their best to push it further, but they just don’t have the evidence, or the skills, to get it out there.


      • You mean this: Neurolinguistic programming? Right?

        “The theory itself doesn’t actually hold, so you can’t build further theory on it. That said, it promises to get people to do what you want, and it does just that! Even if the theory is rubbish, that you have a theory increases your confidence that what you are doing will work. You then apply the master hack of controlling other humans – confidently demanding they do what you want – and they do what you want. Voila, one self-fulfilling prophecy on the rocks.” – Rationalwiki

        That sounds evil.

        Liked by 1 person

        • You’re right, it’s pretty nasty stuff, whichever way you look at it. NLP has been discredited as a technique in itself, but as you say, the expectation that you will have great powers to exert control over others is usually enough to make that happen, especially when your ‘victims’ are easily swayed. It’s an extreme form of placebo effect.

          Liked by 1 person

  1. Did she honestly believe she could get away with adding names of innocent people??
    The woman is insane (as are the 3 people who left simpering comments under her post.)

    Liked by 3 people

    • Correct me if I’m misreading the situation here but I’m not sure that this is a ban as such. It appears to be that FB have removed some of Ma Mad-Moo’s posts and that she’s responding by deactivating her account in some kind of protest slash hissy fit. (And a deactivated account can’t be fully closed and can be reactivated at any time.) I don’t think you would get 24 hours’ notice if FB were banning you – they’d just ban you.

      Liked by 3 people

    • They all studiously ignored the RoadtoChangeEu , instead, promoting, of course, the walk for justice, by ben fellows as disney took over stonehenge, and when i pointed out their error, i was ostracised again, so Sid was also encouraged to walk, as long as he carried the HG posters, which made it nr impossible for me to raise much interest for him.

      Matty meanwhile, gained lots of media attention, and his blog was a pleasure to read, i shared all, on his journey, not one of them shared, nor noticed that policies were changed, nor, the real messages, Stop the Silence

      Liked by 1 person

  2. And how out of the loop is this idiot? She’s just posted a 2013 tale from the Daily Express (always accurate) about the odious criminal and discredited “whistleblower” Chris Fay who has caused so much grief to innocent people as one of his victims, the 91 year old Lord Brammall – whose heroic war efforts allow the disgusting Mahmoudiehs of the world to live freely – is quietly told by the plod he is no longer to be investigated.

    Deborah Mahmoudieh is a sick piece of goods and scoop up every tale, false or real & use it to reinforce their twisted beliefs. No-one is spared- the innocent & guilty – from her wrath. It would be so easy to destroy people like Mahmoudieh by turning their tactics upon them & accusing them of all & sundry.

    Liked by 2 people

      • fascinated by that phone call on your website with that very angry man in Canberra basically claiming he could order hits on his enemies. Not the sort of person who does any good for victims.

        Liked by 1 person

        • and this was next….. the thread below the first is all on one issue from the hoaxteaders, the law on recording calls, ………………pfftttt……… that’s such a big deal, compared, to death threats, and the false allegations, but it is all they can latch on to…..and of course isn’t it the ‘troofers’ and common law advocates who say: ‘record, record, record’, anyway, John knows his stuff and can stand his ground, this Laurence is really vile……


          • Yes your pal was asking legitimate questions and the other chap was skirting around all over the place.

            I now know who he is : he is part of the Aboriginal Embassy at the old Parliament House in Canberra (where Ms Barnett ludicrously claims former PMs held cult pedo orgies). He has been arrested a few times for his very aggressive behavior and claims it’s because he’s Indigenous. But I know for a fact the old-timer Indigenous folk while supporting the Embassy are so annoyed with the antics of fools like this.

            They operate in the ‘Dreamtime’ meaning things will change but not necessarily in our lifetime (hopefully they will) but aggressive actions are an anathema to them. The old-timers like the art of gentle persuasion and by demonstrating the unfairness of bad treatment such as demonstrated on their famous ‘freedom rides’ in Oz in the 1960s inspired by the US examples. That convinced the majority of Aussies to vote to give Aboriginals full citizen status in a referendum.

            That bloke was the sort of person who undoes years of hard work by sensible sane intelligent Indigenous Aussies .

            Liked by 3 people

    • We’ve been accused of that sort of thing in the past–I’m thinking of the letters about Angela–but I think it’s important to remember that while we could lash out in that way, we choose not to.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. They all had fair warning, from me, anyways 🙂 I told Angie ages ago, not to get me started, and i told them i would stop, when they did, as they increased, then so did i…..every action has a reaction….but we are more than their equal…as i have pointed out, numerous times,i have needed to be working, privately, and did they think i surrendered ? sacrificed ? no i survive, yes, i survive, we survive, and are thriving, Matty McVarish really does deserve a medal. Check out his EU achievements, and notice the gaping hole, that they totally shunned his work, is yet more evidence…….as is their ignorance towards John Brown and others.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Pingback: Deborah Mahmoudieh loses her Facebook page | Sheva's Cross of Change Blog

  5. haha …. look i was all settling down to hibernate, and do some sorting and prepare to re start springtime, i hardly know how to do owt,,,,,but, just had to sort of throw stuff out, message was recieved, where it mattered most, and i will try harder 🙂

    i have become lazy, grammatically, but the i, is a sign of my ever lasting himility 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  6. This is what Deb M is referring to when she writes this bit in her fb notes:


    As you can see para 26 is referring to the general difficulty children have in denouncing sexual crimes as well as to cyberspace crime, which our Debs should know a lot about. It means that the police should continue to pursue those who have offended, even in the event that the children do not make allegations. It does not specifically say anything about retractions.

    It says:

    ‘…To ensure successful investigations and prosecutions of the offences referred to in this Directive, their initiation should not depend, in principle, on a report or accusation made by the victim or by his or her representative….

    However, a cursory search of other EU child-protection law online quickly threw this up:


    on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA

    It DOES specifically mention retractions (withdrawal of statements):

    Article 15

    Investigation and prosecution

    1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that investigations into or the prosecution of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 are not dependent on a report or accusation being made by the victim or by his or her representative, and that criminal proceedings may continue even if that person has withdrawn his or her statements.

    I draw your attention to the word MAY, Debs. You must do what you have not done, and consider the whole of the evidence in this case. The history, context, conflicting evidence, and the intelligence that informed the actions of the police. Stuff you were not shown, luv.

    As Pauffley said:

    161. The individuals who have watched online film clips, read online articles and believed
    in the allegations would do well to reflect that ‘things may not be what they seem’ and
    that it is all too easy to be duped on the basis of partial information.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, these are extremely important points, DPP. As in everything to do with Hoaxtead, it seems that some people are seeing what they want to see, and interpreting it in ways that favour their own biases.

      That little word ‘may’ can mean so much. It gives the authorities permission to continue investigating a case in the event that a retraction occurs, but there is still evidence to support an investigation. In cases where there’s no evidence, and a credible retraction has occurred, it’s perfectly fine to drop it and move on to real cases.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Interesting Court Judgement on a person being arrested as opposed to being questioned under caution : the general rule being arrest should only happen if there is a risk of the person fleeing.

      This person sued after turning up for police appointment but was then arrested fingerprinted etc: his fear : that the arrest would lay on file while he was innocent, He won the case.

      Another fascinating piece on when there is TOO MUCH evidence. Fascinating to read this bit about those pesky Talmudic Illuminati : “Under ancient Jewish law, if a suspect on trial was unanimously found guilty by all judges, then the suspect was acquitted”.

      This is the Hoaxers to a tee : their dot joining on the flimsiest of claims'(just surfing the net will do it) leads them to compiling what they think is ‘evidence.

      Liked by 1 person

      • One of the outstanding factors in this case is the profound ignorance of those who promote it. It wouldn’t occur to any of them to actually try and determine why the police acted as they did. Far easier for these intellectually lazy people to point fingers and scream, “Conspiracy!! Cover-up!!”


  7. Deb M is an idiot and a moron. She has absolutely no understanding of law at all. Not even the basics. She spends her time reading EU directives and quoting them as law when anyone with any scintilla of legal knowledge will tell you they are not directly applicable – i.e. they have to be enshrined in UK legislation, and that is where Deb M and her thicko mate Sabine should be looking (she is equally guilty of being an idiot).

    If she was such a “European law expert” she might have come across Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states :”Everyone………. shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” and she wouldn’t be conducting her “prove your innocence” mob rule witch hunt.

    Liked by 2 people

    • That’s right, there are many laws which contradict, or at least, cause confusion, or don’t align with each other. This is part of general proceedings in a court of law, teasing out the exact meaning, what should apply to specific situations, what weight should be given to which direction, points of law.

      UK law and EU law are matters that come under such consideration, indeed, some EU law is not adopted by UK etc, or ‘enshrined;, as you rightly point out, ‘Poke it with a stick’ Some people need more than a nudge. Debs has been told all this before on her YT pages, something she could not tolerate.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Well said, PiWaS.

      And in fact, it’s even worse than that, as half the EU directives she cites (and yes, Debs – that’s directives, as you yourself call them – not laws) don’t exist.

      She insists, for example, that there’s an EU directive that states that children never lie and that it must be automatically assumed that they’re telling the truth when they report abuse. But predictably, she got so sick of so many of us asking her to specify which directive she was referring to that she just blocked us (without having been able to answer, of course).

      She then denied that she’d ever claimed to be an EU law expert, even though she frequently does and even though she’s listed as an EU law expert at the top of several official legal letters posted online by Sabine.

      Basically, Deborah is a liar, a charlatan, a fraud and, let’s face it, a bit weird.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Interesting video here, sorry about the quality, that demonstrates just how easy it is to get children not only to embellish stories but to actually believe that events that didn’t even occur really did. Very illuminating and relevant to the whole Hoaxtead case

        Liked by 1 person

        • Especially interesting from 8 mins to 12 mins when it shows the results of an experiment in the suggestibility of children and just how embedded in their psyche some of those suggestions (of events that never happened) can become to the extent that they still repeat them several months later. All who cling to the idea that kids can’t be ‘coached’ should be made to watch this.

          Liked by 1 person

      • This ghastly woman also ignores the most recent UN recommendations to the UK on child abuse (they seize upon passages referring to child trafficking in Africa & Asia as applying to the UK when it does not say this) : ( as well as recommending claimed victims are treated fairly) : that those accused of child sex assaults should also being accorded full legal rights of the Presumption Of Innocence so as to ensure any trial is not perverted by media sensationalism and thus : children will be protected.

        Deborah Mahmoudieh is NO friend to genuinely abused children. She & her fanatical cohorts create an atmosphere of hysteria and risk turning the general public off.

        Liked by 2 people

      • And then, it turns out Debs she knew all along and was duping the public about the enforcement potential or force of law a directive actually has:
        Deb M writes:
        linked to from:

        ‘…Many among those who, like myself, have survived child abuse of every kind are finding it very traumatic to
        live with our dire suspicions and the blatant hypocrisy of UK Family Courts. It is a source of continual dismay
        to witness so little being done after so much has been learned and said.
        Page 3 of 41
        Take for example, EU Child Protection Directives: at every level they are perfectly designed to adequately
        and promptly address all forms of abuse against children; to prevent those crimes, arrest, investigate and
        prosecute suspects, to protect children at every level and to attend to child-victims’ needs.
        The Directives reflect a detailed and extensive understanding and knowledge of risks to children, the crimes,
        their impact, the abusers and the kind of pressures and influences placed on child victims reporting abuse to
        According to UK Family Courts and Police and their associated child-protection agencies, E.U. Child
        Protection Directives can be casually dismissed as ‘unrealistic,’ i.e. fit only for life in a perfect world; while no
        one has officially or publicly stated this, their collective actions and inactions speak for themselves…’

        Liked by 1 person

  8. I’ve just reported a number of Deborah’s Facebook posts. Even if FB doesn’t accept that they breach their community rules (which, by the way, they do), Debs will at least receive notification that someone has anonymously reported her. Which is immensely satisfying.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. This blog has just descended into cyber-stalking and bullying. You should stop now because nothing you’re doing is good.


    • Actually, buddy, I’d say we’ve all been incredibly restrained, considering the harassment, abuse, slander, libel and death threats many of us have endured for the last year at the hands of the people you seem inexplicably keen to defend. Thanks for stopping by.

      Liked by 1 person

      • In what way am I ‘inexplicably keen to defend’ them?

        Are you really so self-righteous that you think stalking someone (however nasty) on the internet is a good thing? And that anyone who says you shouldn’t be doing it is automatically defending the person you’re stalking?

        That’s absolutely fucking pathetic. And the sign of a cult mentality.


        • Deborah Mahmoudieh thinks she is some sort of legal expert. She speaks at events where vulnerable people attend with life changing cases going on go. She cannot even provide the correct link to EU directives she quotes. She’s been posting a dead link for months. The thing is, some people really do think she’s all that she says she is. It could end up with them being led down the path that ends up with them losing any contact with their children. I feel for those people. She has a pernicious (my opinion anyway) agenda that may be her overiding objective rather than providing decent support as a McKenzie Friend. I think she’s dangerous, misguided and unable to see other points of view. Exactly the sort of person who shouldn’t be getting involved in legal cases.

          It isn’t a joke.

          And she’s not just some private person posting a few things on social media either. She’s got a campaigning history older than this case. If she wants to campaign for certain things, she needs to get used to people disagreeing with her.

          People have being asking her to disprove something. Not particularly nice. The irony of that is seemingly lost on her though.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Tom, can you explain further what you mean by ‘cyber-stalking and bullying’ please?

      You’ve taken issue with us before, and I’d be interested to know what alternative approach you’d suggest in the face of people who seem unable to move past the conspiranoid mindset, and who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being shills, paedophile enablers, or outright paedophiles.

      As it happens, I’m just in the middle of writing a post about the good we’ve done as a blog community here, so I’ll be interested in your insights.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Following people around on twitter, trying to identify google+ accounts and the like – this isn’t healthy behaviour. It doesn’t do any good for society, all it does is give you something to blog about. Who gives a fuck what someone anonymously posts on twitter if no one but the most gullible and stupid of readers believes it?

        Do you honestly have nothing better to do than blog about how Drifledore is secretly such and such and how he once clicked like on this pervy youtube video? Do you honestly think it matters? All you’re really doing with this petty crap is slinging mud. Now, the people to whom the mud is sticking no doubt deserve it, but I’m not concerned about them, I’m concerned about you and the people who follow this blog. Because what you’re actually engaged in now is not the dispelling of false allegations (a worthy thing to do) but is just trying to dig up as much shit as you can. That’s it. It’s like some petty teenage vendetta, and the longer you keep going with this the worse it will damage you.

        Put another way: at what point do you stop? At what point (realistically, not some fantasy where these cunts are thrown in the clink and exposed on national primetime) do you decide to call it a day, say you’ve done what you could do and move on to other things? Because if you’re still doing this in a year then I have to wonder why – is it about them, or you? The longer this goes on, the more it seems this is about you. You can’t let go. You feel compelled to keep on stalking these nasty idiots. That doesn’t speak highly of your mental state. When all’s said and done, they’re just a small band of fuckwits making untrue allegations in a world full of people making untrue allegations. It’s not like a war got started off the back of their lies.

        Meanwhile, look at the response of your reader above – because I’m not in favour of cyber-stalking I must somehow be defending Abe and the rest of his merry band of fuckwits. That’s not a good mentality to be encouraging in other people. It’s vindictive, stupid and yes, guilty of all the same things as Abe, Ella, Belinda and the rest. That’s what you’re now causing, and you can’t deny it because it’s here in black and white…

        Liked by 1 person

    • Really, it is the hoaxers, teams plan and send out people to stalk, follow, it’s happened to me for years, before this case, and many others.

      It all came from the same types, running the HG hoax, i tend to deal with what is presented to me, served up, by those that stalk me or my friends.

      Given the immense harm caused by these people, i think it is fair that some have watched them, in return, and recently, it has led to us being able to usurp some of Sabine’s attempts to still appear to be the leader, or whatever it is.

      From my and many others’ perspective, this blog has done immense good, actually.

      I guess it just depends on whether you are directly or indirectly effected.


  10. Pingback: When should we stop? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.