We’ve talked a great deal about Belinda McKenzie’s ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ and how its malignant agenda seems to underpin much of the Hampstead hoax.
We’ve mentioned that Belinda, Sabine, and their fellow leeches prey on the desperate and vulnerable, and often twist their stories beyond all recognition to make them fit their campaigns—which usually have nothing to do with the ‘best interests of the child’, and everything to do with the ‘best interests of Belinda et al’. What we really haven’t addressed, though, is the context in which these desperate families fit, and what it is that tempts them to allow these dangerous people into their lives.
Several weeks ago, a member of our team ran across a story that illustrates the sorry state of child welfare in this country. We think it goes a long way toward explaining the fear, anger, and outright paranoia about ‘child-snatching’ that opens the door to people like Belinda, Sabine, Deborah Mahmoudieh, and their ilk.
‘Annie’, author of the Surviving Safeguarding blog, is a child abuse survivor who had her baby taken from her at birth. She was brave enough to share this story with journalist Louise Tickle of The Guardian.
It’s a painful story to read, and must have been even harder to tell, so kudos to Annie, and to Louise for writing it with such sensitivity.
In the late afternoon of Friday 12 July 2013, in the calm, modern maternity wing of North Tyneside general hospital, 16-year-old Peter Bertram made a video of his mother holding his newborn baby brother. Peter’s video, made on his mother’s phone, lasts just over five minutes. In it, Annie Bertram, 33, sits in a hospital chair cradling her sleeping six-day-old son, Huw. Her long, chestnut hair is pulled back in a band; she looks exhausted. “Mamma’s just back from court,” she says, in a soft geordie accent. “I tried really hard to keep you. My barrister wanted me to agree to them taking you away, but I said I would rather fight and lose, because then at least I’d know I’d fought.”
Annie strokes Huw’s tiny hand with one finger. “Please don’t ever think you didn’t mean the world to me. Because you did. And you do.” Tears roll down her cheeks. “And I so want you to have a good life and to be happy, and I can’t bear” – her voice breaks – “the thought of anybody hurting you.” Huge sobs shake her. The baby, eyes closed, sleeps on, his face turned peacefully towards his mother.
Earlier that day, Annie had left the hospital to attend Newcastle family court in a last, desperate effort to be allowed to keep her baby. Social workers at North Tyneside council had applied for an interim care order. If approved by a judge, this would mean social services could remove Annie’s baby and put him into foster care, pending a longer-term plan for his future. Huw was Annie’s fifth child; three of the others, aged seven, eight and 16, had been subject to care applications at various points in their lives. Rosie, four, spent periods with her father. In December 2012, as soon as social workers discovered Annie was pregnant, they told her they intended to remove the baby at birth. …
HOAXTEAD RESEARCH 
An incredibly sad story, but a story that was told with honesty and sensitivity.
It tells of the pain, fear and desperation that many of the parents faced when Social Services decided that “it was in the child’s best interests” To remove a child from its birth parents. Often those parents would be from a disadvantaged background, albeit financially or other factors such as limited education or past history such as drug or substance abuse. Often those parents, once branded with that history would not be allowed credit (by Social Services) for real efforts to that they had made to improve their own lives and to put the past behind them.
Through the efforts of real campaigners for reform in the Families Court system, the system is slowly but surely changing. That is evident by the findings of people such as Lord Justice Munby.
Just as the slow pace of the wheels of justice (which turn slowly for criminal matters) changes within the LEGAL system for child protection also happen slowly. Like it or not – its a fact.
Anything connected to the welfare of children will always be incredibly emotive. People will often “clutch at straws” to keep their children (understandably) The people involved are often desperate and willing to try and do anything that gives them the slightest glimmer of hope. They may be tempted by anyone that offers them the slightest promise of hope, sometimes after being told by members of the legal profession that their case is doomed – those professionals do not give such advice based upon nastiness or wanton abandonment of any hope – they are often giving an opinion as an honest appraisal of the facts before them. It reflects the law and procedures operating at that moment of time. Its not what a parent want’s to hear
The Association of McKenzie friends (or at least its principles) have been the purveyors of hope to the desperate. Its been their prefered method of drawing people to their activities.
By drawing people to their activities draws attention to their “need” for funds and the subtle requests for funds via things such as the “DONATE”” button. they trade upon peoples misery and desperation. Its no different to collecting money for any cause which plays on peoples emotional strings (such as funds for African orphans in an orphanage)
The help they offer is at best third rate, Often they will cherry pick the facts and “forget” to consider many factors in a situation that at best is fragile. Its not about helping the person – its about maximum effect so as to maximise collections of “DONATIONS”
One only has to ask how many times have their efforts have resulted in a success – NOT ONCE (since the Association of McKenzie Friends was started).
Belinda’s organisation has been involved in several attempts to snatch children away from the authorities. (Belinda – some of your (past) loyal supporters have talked and given dates and names)
The case below is believed to not be in isolation. Belinda is clever, she loads the gun and lets others fire the bullets. The “Forced Adoption Group” mentioned is the Association of McKenzie friends (in one of its various guises)
It was no coincidence that Sabine was ready to help them after they were arrested.
No charges were brought either against Pedro or Belinda / Sabine due to insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. The fact is that the authorities thwarted the attempt, due to a mole close to Belinda (Well done that mole)
Belinda and her activities are on the radar – and its only a matter of time before she is brought to task for her activities. The motive for her activities is believed to be financial rather than auteristic
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sabine and Belinda take advantage of the broken system: they drive further wedges between the courts, social services, and families, because it suits their agenda to do so.
I do recall reading about the Pedro case, but it’s very difficult to determine exactly what happened there by reading what’s available online–all that’s clear is that Sabine jumped on the sinking boat and tried to scupper it even further. Good that a mole thwarted that effort–we need more of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it was more that she drilled holes into a boat barely afloat, then sold a dream as a life raft and that never arrived.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I like your analogy better. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill are motivated by making money through scams, they become involved in these cases with the vulnerable and desperate to milk them for money, but their incompetent self-serving actions always leaves such clients in a worse position…extradition, jail and the loss of their children forever. In the case of Melissa Laird, a huge unnecessary legal bill, for which they celebrated they did not have to personally contribute to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
SV – similar “cases” included: The Musas, Vicky Haigh, Nigel Cooper (who soon distance himself from Belinda / Sabine), Hollie Greig, Melissa Laird – plus numerous other failed cases that will not be named to protect the identity of the children, which is of course in accordance with numerous Court orders (from different Courts all over the country) to stop Sabine publishing details of the Internet. Those orders are to protect the children.
The version of events published by Sabine and Belinda is often vastly different to the facts and reality.The version they publish is tailored to further their own causes rather than the person they pretend to be helping.
How often have we heard in the past Sabine and Belinda attacking solicitors or counsel via their various blogs? Yet, they DO NOT choose to represent themselves in Court when matters directly concern and risk either their own liberty or finances.
They turn instead to the very people that they have complained about (they only complain when it is not them at risk,) They then create a false illusion that they can do a better job than the people trained, experienced and qualified to deal with the matter in hand)Those people are in the form of lawyers, solicitors and counsel. How hypocritical can a person be?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Very good points about not representing themselves, JV!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I’ve noticed this as well. They are very keen to butt into other people’s legal affairs, but with their own, they actually want to win, not just spout off about child-snatching.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Belinda was never going to make any money from the Hollie Greig myth, the only person who benefited from it was Anne Greig. She just stood back and waited and left them all to it.
LikeLike
I don’t feel that’s the case Sherlock.
A number of my circle firmly accept the conclusions reached by the CICA. And that is so because, having left the ‘beaten path’ it seems there is a kernel of truth at the centre of the case. Had that been properly addressed it would have taken the matter along a very different bearing. – But hey! Roads can be walked from either direction, they still connect eventually. I won’t elaborate on these matters here as it is not my intention to provide those who are excited by these things with any more salacious entertainment. But from that point, on examining events, we form the opinion that Anne Greig was trying to stir up trouble for a group of individuals that she ‘thought’ were associated with her husband in his ‘commercial endeavours’. She seems to have imagined that her complaints would immediately trigger a series of police raids, fuel the boilers at the steamie, cause those named great practical and emotional distress and wreck their lives.
Of course, the police need a great deal more than some incoherent, logistically impossible fairy tale before they are ’empowered’ to go and knock on somebody’s door, take them away in handcuffs, remove computers etc. We see that moron Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy has, in the past few days tried to raise that spectre again. So I shall make clear that there is nothing wrong or suspicious in the fact that of the 20-odd people accused none were interviewed in respect of “Hollie’s” allegations. The simple fact of the matter is that Hollie’s statement combined with Anne’s allegations did not provide sufficient grounds for the police to interview… The story was just too stupid!
I trust that everyone sees the similarity between this and the Hampstead hoax.
Whilst accepting that Anne Greig’s efforts were ‘organic’ – those of a particularly stupid woman trying to lash out – as an ‘M.O.’ it’s fairly simple formula… Use a ridiculous story to lay something at the feet of the police that they CANNOT investigate in the ‘required’ manner then leverage the fact that the ‘required’ police raids never take place to lay claim to a cover up! From that a lively bru-ha-ha can be created, the collection tins rattled and it’s Bollies all round!
The Hollie Greig case of course did have other elements involved. There seem to have been individuals at the opposite end of that ‘other path’ I mentioned who became somewhat panicked and tried to scupper the case for their own reasons in their own way. – No matter, we have recently had the satisfaction of seeing one of their number ‘put away’ and the road, as I said, can be walked from either direction – the others need only pack their bags as we do know the police have been given the correct pointers now.
But those ‘other elements’ are an aside really… Ask yourself where Robert Green ‘lay legal advisor’ emerged from. What movement? And who is at the (rotten) ‘head’ of it? And who banged the gong and rattled the tin? There is no bigger fool than a man who thinks with his ‘little head’. – As he posed for ‘happy family’ style snaps first with Anne and Hollie, and we hear serenaded McKenzie on his out-of-tune guitar (Yes! Really Robert! A fucking tuner’s what? Fifteen quid! FFS!) as she set him up for the drop at Dunblane – it was obvious he was being lead-on by Mckenzie… His ‘Alberts’ in one hand, and a collection tin in the other!
To some extent, Anne Greig’s plan was a success off course. People’s lives were disrupted, arguably even ‘wrecked’. Beyond the CICA findings we think it inappropriate to offer any opinion of the characters accused by Anne Greig. But it is not ‘siding’ or ‘endorsing’ those people to state the simple fact they could have had no possible involvement in the alleged abuse of Hollie Greig. – And actually, if one does look at the evidence, such as it is, it implicates Anne Greig herself! – Another similarity to the Hampstead Hoax in that the accuser turns out (in my mere opinion of course) to be one of the abusers. – Certainly there is an abuse in therm of illegally parading these alleged victims of sex crimes about like exhibits in a freak show.
Who benefits with these things? – The Ringmasters, always the Ringmasters! Rarely the lead act!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well I know quite a bit about it as I was part of the Hollie Hoax team, you can disagree with me if you like but there are facts, and that was one of them
LikeLike
Can I just ask that we not get into an argument about the details of the HG hoax here? Thx.
LikeLiked by 1 person
– What “was one of them” facts? That you were a member of the Hollie Hoax team? That is not what I questioned, nor does it particularly interest me. – The Hollie Greig hoax did attract attention from individuals other than amateur internet ‘sleuths’. And there is far more known than is – and will remain – unreported. The case, all aspects of it, remains of interest to several serious professionals. And in general the first you will really hear of their activities is when convictions are achieved. Those with cause to fear the knock of justice at their door should still be sure of its inevitability. As I said, a road can be travelled in either direction.
From what particular part of ‘thin air’ did Robert Green actually emerge? And who ultimately co-ordinated and ran the hoax? – To what end exactly? Were there no collection tins in evidence? And did the whole exercise not function in terms of ‘PR’ for McKenzie’s nefarious projects and activites? Are you now trying to exonerate for her ‘tireless efforts’. Or suggest that Robert Green’s performance at his early trial was anything other than a wholly irrelevant farce? Perhaps we might see that pattern repeated in some other place quite soon, further evidencing the M.O. in action – which would tend to corroborate it further.
I’ve no doubt that the ‘Hollie Greig Project’ went very VERY wrong for Mistress McKenzie. – Like some of her other efforts such as Charles Seven or Starchild, it has done more to expose her than fill her coffers… But I serously doubt if this woman crosses the threshold of her house of a morning without the hope there is a quid in it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My apologies EC… I simply highlight the common threads between it and Hampstead – many elements of which seem to have been ‘recycled’ from the Hollie hoax.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And above should read:
“And there is far more known THAT is – and will remain – unreported. “
LikeLiked by 1 person
The thing that is relevant to me is that victims of alleged sexual offences should have their privacy protected. If the victim, or alleged victim is a child, the parent can’t waive anonymity. I’m thinking Vicky Haigh and the Hampstead case here. If the person doesn’t have capacity to weigh information and make those decisions for themselves, I’m thinking the case mentioned, then that should be treated very cautiously and not done by a parent on a vulnerable person’s behalf.
There are common themes and people in common to these cases.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If they,
Belinda et al,
can’t do their “work” for the good of the people,
for free,
then they shouldn’t be involved.
Monetary reasons is their motivation, plus egos.
Not for the greater good.
Their expenses are very little.
They all have free bus passes,
so just why do they need donations?
THEY DON’T.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree. They only ‘need’ donations if their overall goal is to win a campaign, as they would say, ‘in the court of public opinion’. To me, this phrase, which both B & S use often, tells us all we need to know about their attempts at legal dabbling. They seem to believe that the families they work for are expendable, in the interests of the larger picture of swaying public opinion toward their own loony beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wasn’t arguing either do you have to be do rude? I was simply pointing out or trying to, that even though Belinda and Robert were heavily involved in it, and Sabine tried to be but just need up in tears, the PayPal account they had, went strate in to Anne’s bank account. Thanks, there is no need to be so rude.
LikeLike
Hi, Sherlock. I was definitely not intending rudeness, only trying to direct the conversation back to the topic at hand. I apologise if that came across heavy-handed. We all value your perspective here, as well as that of IC.
I know that some of our commenters here come from differing positions on the Hollie G. case, and that’s perfectly fine–we’re all grownups and can tolerate differences in opinion, I hope.
However, I am also keenly aware that one of the things that has caused the Hoaxtead pushers to self-destruct is their tendency toward in-fighting, and if possible, I’d really like to head that off here. I take your point that I could have done it a bit more gently, and I’ll try to be careful about that in future.
LikeLiked by 2 people
IIRC Sherlock there were a few ‘collection points’. I certainly remember the account you speak of, which was ‘exposed’ online. But I am sure there were others. – Plus there is the wider ‘PR’ effect. Had Green been successful in his bid to become a ‘star’ on the conspiritainment circuit (an ambition he seems not to have given up on) he would have been a highly lucrative ‘asset’ for McKenzie to manage… Aother for her ‘stable’ of scams and ripoffs.
As far as McKenzie is concerned, I wouldn’t give that woman a god-damned inch to wriggle in!
LikeLiked by 2 people
No. Absolutely not. We are a wide and diverse group, and as long as I’m here, no one who supports our overall goals gets turned away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fantastic article and one that shows why you need ‘real’ help if you’re in that situation and not the assistance of people who don’t know their legal arses from elbows and mix it all up with conspiracies about the NWO.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, and what really struck me is that the state itself has much to answer for here: why are we not doing everything we can to assist parents and children to stay together? It’s more expensive to provide proper mental health and social services, but in the long run it’s far better for everyone concerned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was going to add a line like ‘I can’t see things improving under the current Government’ and then say something about austerity but I didn’t want to start an argument!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except you’re right of course. Don’t want the blog turning into a Guardian mouthpiece but the article above should be read alongside this brilliant piece on Neoliberalism by George Monbiot.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
LikeLiked by 1 person
You won’t get one from me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
McKenzie & her meddling McKenzie “Friends” are fanatics who assume every case of a removed child is a ‘kidnap’ & probably so the so-called Satanist Cult can dine on that child on Wednesdays. I have no doubt Social Services in the UK get things horribly wrong sometimes but it’s the age we live in. The pressures on families now are enormous. I thank God I had very old fashioned parents who were not very wealthy but in a era where but both had jobs and buying a house was never out of their reach as was the norm in their day.
In NSW & Victoria in Oz where I now live something like 100,000 calls each year to social services to report suspect child abuse /neglect cases go unheeded. I should imagine in the UK the numbers are far higher. They probably tend to err on the safe side and thus mistakes will happen.
As in this example where a mother has now been charged in the past few days of murdering her baby after claiming a ‘black’ man snatched the child while she was in the park. (alarmingly she looks like a young Lotus Princess)
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/woman-charged-with-murder-of-heidelberg-west-toddler-sanaya-sahib-20160412-go4mvx.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read the article, very well written and convinced me something has gone too far in the system. It is easy for social services to become a destructive force that has no counterbalance, and that is something that needs to be redressed. I think the appointment of independent guardians carrying weight in the process is a very good thing.
@SV: Re sabine and other unscrupulous, uneducated wannabe paralegals: There is a big loophole in the system that does not afford vulnerable people the protection other professionals working with them (are supposed to) adhere to. Other professionals that work with vulnerable people (and you are vulnerable by the very fact social services are trying to take your child) have to be vetted by DBS and require qualifications in their field of practice. They have to abide by guidance and ethical frameworks. Such loopholes mean those who have been preyed upon by the likes of Sabine and Belinda have no complaints or appeals procedure, no ‘striking off’ within their profession, no fear of reprisal. These people are left more damaged than without them, as they DO always cause harm. We have seen this with each and every case Sablinda have been associated with. They should remember the golden rule of helpers: ‘Primum non nocere’ : ‘first do no harm’. It is a disgrace that this loophole in safeguarding has been left wide open to predators. Anyone working as an ‘independent’ volunteer (mckenzie friend) is not required to show they are ‘safe’ . Rich pickings for the vultures. I don’t even think it is always about money. There is one video in which Belinda explains she always feels anxious until she goes out and shouts on a megaphone or does some other annoying activity. It sounds like she fills a void or tries to cure her anxiety by doing ‘something’ whilst not considering the consequences for others. The first criteria for operating in this field should be a normal level of intelligence in order to be able to interpret complex legal documents, something which ‘the other side’ has shown it is patently unable to do.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If Belinda feels anxious,
she’d do better and so would everyone she represents,
going for a long walk to calm herself down.
There’s some nice walks near Beachy Head.
LikeLike
Good points Mark. A thought occurs to me that if Belinda McKenzie has an anxiety problem, she can do yoga, safe for her and everyone else she comes into contact with.
LikeLike
SV – Yoga??
There is a really strange group already involved with yoga, Sabine (too disabled to walk unaided) Ella – the ultimate yoga teacher? Ummm
LikeLike
Belinda would be in good company then!
LikeLike
Very well said, Mark. Nice to see you here again. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m wondering if one of Angela’s boys has been on holiday lately?
Just been looking at some photos she’s put up of her daughter’s birthday and the younger boy is stood at the bar, he seems to have tan lines on his left wrist.
Did he accompany Angela on holiday or did he go somewhere else separate to her?
LikeLike
I can’t see the relevance – and am more than a little reluctant to drag her boys, particularly the younger one, into it any more than is necessary. – The question remains over Angie’s alleged travel. Why did she take off? Who was/is she on the run from exactly? Angry neighbours perhaps?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can I second this? I am reluctant to drag APD’s family into a mess that is frankly not of their making unless it is directly relevant,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grizzly is still very grizzly.
I shall pass on your regards.
The photo is of the younger boy.
I wouldn’t bring her children in to it, but they’re all over 18 and she doesn’t care about plastering their photos on facebook.
Even worse, she doesn’t hesitate to plaster the 2 Hampstead children, all over the internet.
I know 2 “wrongs” might not make a right, but it still hasn’t been resolved whether she did actually go on holiday.
Seems really weird to allege you’ve gone abroad, then come back to Ireland and shack up at a hotel for a few nights.
LikeLike
I take your point about Angie not caring about how she uses them… And I have no qualms about picking apart HER stories in relation to them – such as the fairy story about the blowout… They certainly don’t have the same right to privacy as the families she and her kind have targeted. But until they start digging holes for themsleves I’m reluctant to dig too far in that direction. If the boy’s been away it proves noting either way about Angie’s movements. – Which, as you suggest, remain quite odd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Belinda’s own words 28th August 2015:
Haunting her now??
LikeLiked by 2 people
And another interesting snippet from Belinda on the same date – at least she admits they have been unsuccessful in Court when representing or helping anyone…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
What happened to the 4 million quid her supposedly wealthy father left her in 1996….?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good question. I’ve wondered this myself–how long would it take to go through that much money?
LikeLike
Actually – as far as I can ascertain, her father didn’t leave her anything…or, anything like what she says. Her father was Ian Irvine Boswell, born 1917, died 1996. As wills are a public document I went searching for his will… but couldn’t find it on https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/#wills, where all probated grants and wills are available to view for a tenner. That puzzled me a bit, but after a little bit of digging (I’m not a solicitor, so don’t know the detail about these things) I discovered the intestacy rules…. so his wife, who was alive inherited most of his estate. She died in 2006. From what I could find out – her brother was probably the main inheritor after the mother. He is a landowner and businessman, I won’t name him here as it’s irrelevant and he seems to be a pillar of the community. And is probably totally embarrassed by her antics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello, all. I want to say a few words in response to the small outbreak of unkind comments that just recently occurred here.
As far as I’m aware, this blog is one of the very few places online that’s mounted a direct opposition to the Hampstead SRA hoax. As such, we’ve attracted a very wide and diverse set of readers, many of whom like to contribute via this comments section. That’s great, and we take some pride in the fact that we can provide a safe space for people to express themselves.
We understand that feelings can run high about this subject, and sometimes misunderstandings can arise. That’s fine, too–we’re all human. There’s no need to apologise for that, as it happens at times to the best of us.
But I believe we can and should make room for people who don’t necessarily agree with us on all points. From time to time we’ve published posts about how the other side’s petty in-fighting provides us with great entertainment. I don’t want our occasional disagreements to turn into their entertainment.
If you don’t like something someone has said, you’re well within your rights to disagree politely. I assume that everyone here is capable of handling a bit of polite disagreement from time to time.
I’m very proud of this blog and the community that’s arisen from it–all of us. I think everyone here deserves to have a voice, and I’d like to think that those who comment here share that principle.
Here endeth the sermon. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well said! Totally agree!
LikeLiked by 2 people
EC- Very fair,and totally objective – examine the facts and dispel the hoax
LikeLiked by 2 people
If I read it correctly, the advise that Annie found online, was that perceptions can be changed with perseverance. In Annie’s case it would appear that while social services did not necessarily change their minds, her efforts did catch the attention of the judge; and in turn push social services to admit that they could have handled things better.
The advice given by Belinda et al is exactly the opposite. That the parent should view social services and the court as the enemy. That social services are child snatchers, and the court likewise.
It seems to me that the only chance Ella has to regain any sort of relationship with her children is to engage with the system and take responsibility for her actions. It can’t be helping the systems perception of her if she continues to hide away in a different country. I guess that’s the difference between Annie and Ella. Annie fought and engaged, Ella just ran. A lot of the time, social services gets it right.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In Ella’s case, I think they absolutely did get it right. It’s always easy to imagine what one might do in another’s place, but I don’t know too many parents who would up and leave the country if they thought they had even a remote chance of getting their children back. I think the court bent over backward to accommodate Ella, but she’s shown no sign of wanting to return and fight for her children. To me, this says a great deal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is correct. My mother, most mothers fought and will fight like a tigress for their children and would never abandon them especially if they really believed they had been inducted into some (fantasy) Satanic cult.
Fleeing with her criminal boyfriend is like admitting guilt but she (Abe’s motives too difficult to work out- is he mad or just bad?) cannot be too bright to think she can wage a campaign via the internet and win.
Sometimes I think this crew- Abella, McKenzie & Co and their internet loonies really are the ones possessed by The Devil as it’s them that seem to do his work spreading hate & destruction in their wake.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Why does Belinda fear 1 May, 2016? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH
Pingback: Zealots disrupt Child Protection Conference | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH