Angela and friends post child porn on Facebook

***Please note: this post contains images that could cause distress to people who have experienced sexual abuse. View with caution.***

A couple of days ago, we noticed that Angela Power-Disney had posted a highly questionable and disturbing image on her Facebook profile. In the image, which appears to be a painting rather than a photograph, various men wearing what look like Nazi uniforms, and one who has removed his uniform to reveal a garter-belt and stockings, cavort in a room with four young pre-pubescent girls. The image is linked to a post entitled Satanic Pedophile Network Exposed in Australia.

We’ve chosen to show the image here (we have blurred the naked children out, unlike Angie’s original), not because we wish to promote it, but because we think it’s important to understand how very revolting it is.

Angela Power Disney-child porn-pixelated

We were heartened that at least a couple of Angie’s Facebook friends challenged her on her choice to post child sex abuse images to her Facebook profile:

Angela Power Disney-child porn-2 2016-02-17

However, we noted that a much larger number ‘liked’ it:

Angela Power DIsney-child porn-likes 2016-02-17

And many shared it to their own Facebook profiles: Ben Perez, Patrick Robert Easter, Lynne Coppell, Graham Sharratt, Mistee Dukart, Alan Alanson, Ed De Boer, and Kathy Truthseeker.

Frankly, we are astonished that people who claim to have the best interests of children at heart would see fit to like or share this disgusting, pornographic image. Okay, we weren’t surprised at Angie — she’ll do pretty much anything for a bit of publicity — but how can anyone really think that sharing a picture like this will in any way help an abused child?

In fact, this is the stuff of paedophiles’ dreams…or fantasies.

However, we were even more astonished at Facebook’s response when we reported this post:

Angela Power Disney-child porn-report 2016-02-17

Seriously, Facebook?

A picture of small naked girls amidst a group of lecherous-looking men does not violate your Community Standards? What sort of community are you running, then?

Perhaps we’re just naïve, though.

Apparently this isn’t the only instance of paedophilia that fits within Facebook’s vaunted Community Standards: last week the BBC reported that a number of secret groups for paedophiles are hosted on the social media giant:

Paedophiles are using secret groups on Facebook to post and swap obscene images of children, the BBC has found.

Settings on the social network mean the groups are invisible to most users and only members can see the content.

Children’s Commissioner for England Anne Longfield said Facebook was not doing enough to police the groups and protect children.

Facebook’s head of public policy told the BBC he was committed to removing “content that shouldn’t be there”.

A BBC investigation found a number of secret groups, created by and run for men with a sexual interest in children, including one being administered by a convicted paedophile who was still on the sex offenders’ register.

The groups have names that give a clear indication of their content and contain pornographic and highly suggestive images, many purporting to be of children. They also have sexually explicit comments posted by users.

We found pages specialising in pictures of girls in school uniform – accompanied by obscene posts.

Images appeared to be stolen from newspapers, blogs and even clothing catalogues, while some were photographs taken secretly, and up close, in public places. One user had even posted a video of a children’s dance show.

According to the BBC article, “Children’s Commissioner for England Anne Longfield said: ‘I’m shocked those don’t breach community standards, any parent or indeed child looking at those would know that they were not acceptable.'”

Indeed.

As far as we’re concerned, Angie’s pornographic image has no place on Facebook, or anywhere else.

Stop child porn

94 thoughts on “Angela and friends post child porn on Facebook

  1. Co-inkidinkily enough, I was posting this on another thread just before your post came up, EC. It appears there’s more trouble in paradise:

    Angie’s Facebook page is a hive of turmoil and she’s starting to crack in more ways than one. Her blatant posting of child porn comes as no surprise. After all, throughout the entire Hoaxtead fiasco the only people who have posted inappropriate images of children have been the hoaxers (somewhat ironically), most notably Abe and Charlotte. And now Angela.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks, Jake. Very interesting🙂

      The ‘Diamond Dogs cover is a classic:

      According to Wiki: “The cover artwork features Bowie as a striking half-man, half-dog grotesque painted by Belgian artist Guy Peellaert. It was controversial as the full painting clearly showed the hybrid’s genitalia. Very few copies of this original cover made their way into circulation at the time of the album’s release. According to the record-collector publication Goldmine price guides, these albums have been among the most expensive record collectibles of all time, as high as thousands of US dollars for a single copy. The genitalia were airbrushed out for the 1974 LP’s gatefold sleeve…”

      Here’s another cool one by the same artist:

      By the way, I love how Peeallaert has made Charlie a violinist – it kinda suits him:

      Mind you, Charlie’s a guy who’d look cool in any context. And don’t worry – I’ve resisted posting any “fiddling” or “G-string” puns, as they would be wholly inappropriate🙄

      Incidentally, as much as I appreciate Paellaert’s work, I still think the ‘nude children’ image is unacceptable and I’m not seeking to justify it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Couldn’t agree more ! I’ve always loved that Bowie cover – possibly my favorite of his – and, as an art/music geek, I’m embarrassed that I didn’t recognize it as Paellaert’s work. Had no idea about the airbrushed genitals !
        And yes, Charlie could pull off looking cool dressed as Tinky-Winky the Teletubby, complete with carefully accessorized purse (I was always the only girl in my crowd(s) who would have headed straight for Charlie had I been a groupie…)
        On serious notes : yes, Addled Angie’s pic is utterly inappropriate, to put it very mildly, and Facebook’s reaction to the complaint reminds me of why I avoid it. Assholes.
        Scintillating friction going on between Ang and Abe (this is getting better than ‘Eastenders’ & ‘The Young and the Restless’ combined !) Ah well… you can’t say they never tried !😉

        Liked by 2 people

  2. I don’t think the Rolling Stones would take too kindly to being pictured in such a way.

    I don’t really use Facebook that much, I did have a little poke around mainly due to some of the pages/people mentioned here. I noticed the above picture is on the eaten lives matter page, with a John Taylor calling them a “pedo”

    There is also a good example of the sticking of fingers in ears and la la la when Abe is mentioned.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think you’re right about the Rolling Stones–I confess I’m mystified as to why they were chosen for this picture, except that they might be perceived as ‘elite’ (read: rich and famous) and therefore legitimate targets for the conspiraloons.

      As for John Taylor, he’s on our ‘Perps list’ in the right sidebar of the blog. He’s a nasty piece of work who is given to making death threats.

      Like

      • Their Satanic Majesties..Sympathy For The Devil..surely you know the Stones are a Cult creation (like The Beatles) and are devil worshipers.

        Even in their wildest days The Stones would not have been foolish enough to have an album cover like this. I recall the image of The Stones- it’s from a book from the late 70s which was a big seller and was paintings of rock’n’roll stars in similar scenes except – the children have been added in and were not in the original paintings. Some pervert has added that part.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Now that sections of the MSM are becoming aware of the lack of control maybe a co-ordinated campaign should start up? The Hoaxtead case is a good starting point as we’ve all tried numerous times to get FB, Youtube, WordPress et al to abide by their own standards and remove content from the internet. It’s so frustrating. But as Sam says they’re totally cavalier about paying their fair share of tax, they’re a law unto themselves and I don’t think they care unless they’re confronted and then they just come out with some marketing spiel. This is the global communications economy, lawless, amoral, frightening, unaccountable; a monster preying on the young and gullible.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I am not sure of UK or USA laws but this image in it’s original form on Angela Power-Disney’s website is classed as a Child Abuse Image in Australia and would result in a prosecution with a possible 10 year jail sentence.

    I also got the brush off from Facebook so I have reported the image (and it’s original source which has other drawings of children involved in abuse – also illegal) to the Australian Federal Police.

    Facebook have allowed this image to be accessed in Australia and have now been alerted several times by me and others on here. They are guilty of publishing child abuse images. Until a Facebook executive goes to jail these offenses will continue. I am quite alarmed how these entities can get away with it. I’ve cancelled my Facebook page and did so with Twitter 3 years ago, I want nothing to do with this stuff.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree. Facebook has some very peculiar ideas about what’s acceptable: they ban pictures of women breastfeeding, but allow pictures of commercial child sex abuse.

      I’m glad you reported the image to the police; I hope they’ll be able to do something about it.

      Like

      • I have had the same reply as you EC when I reported it:

        “Your Report
        Yesterday
        You anonymously reported Angela Power-Disney’s post for containing nudity.

        Thanks for your feedback
        Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards. Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. We reviewed the post you reported for containing nudity and found that it doesn’t violate our Community Standards.”

        I think I will now click the unhappy face.😦

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Facebook’s ‘community’ policies make no sense at all. I reported a sock puppet account that was being to spread racist hate material, it was reviewed and facebook had no problem with it. Then, three days later, I got an update from them saying they had banned the fake account.

    As to the image/s – I think it’s a function of desensitisation. Chris Spivey did the same thing – the more ludicrous and baseless his accusations became, the more he was prone to posting brutally violent imagery or pictures sexualising children. The longer you see yourself as a single-minded warrior for social justice, the less and less you end up caring about the methods you use.

    This is one of the reasons I keep warning you guys. Trust me when I say that if you keep this up for too long then you will become like them, because everyone does. There are two sorts of people who engage with this sort of topic – people who go crazy and end up posting child porn to try to make a point, and people who decide enough is enough and walk away.

    Like

  5. Facebook uses moderators based in India who have a different set of values to what they consider is depraved, also they probably are so inundated with items to moderate they don’t look at them properly. It is the problem of globalist internet giants that they are unable to handle the significant volume and diversity of cultural conflict that content causes when posted to their networks. These internet giants need to be broken up.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Facebook appear to be very inconsistent in what they consider to be inappropriate. They once removed a picture of me smoking a hookah from my page, complaining that they don’t want to promote drug use. I was actually smoking apple flavoured tobacco on the pipe that my completely anti-drug friend brought back from India.

    As long as it brings attention to APD, APD doesn’t care what she posts, or who it harms, including her own family. It is all about her. Now that she has invested time and emotion in Abraham and Ella, she can’t bring herself to see what a nasty little thug he is. Abraham is a life long criminal and child abuser, yet she describes him as if he is some spiritual, insightful guru, using an unorthodox method of counselling sexually abused children. I don’t think she actually believes that, she simply doesn’t care.
    In reality he is a simple, immature man that aggressively tries to control and con everybody around him. That is abundantly clear in the JC recording.

    It’s the same every time from Abraham’s fans. All they have is an opinion that coaching the children would be impossible. It’s a very arrogant opinion, because they feel so sure of their opinion that they will directly accuse people of very serious crimes, and even post pictures, names, addresses and phone numbers, based purely on that opinion.

    Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.