Why does Belinda fear 1 May, 2016?

In her last (strangely mangled) blog post on the Knight Foundation blog, Belinda expressed grave concerns over today’s date, 1 May, the ‘fire and fertility’ festival of Beltane. Despite her Oxford education, Belinda somehow manages to conflate the Celtic festival with the Syrian Temple of Baal, but never mind.

We think we know the real reason Belinda is worried about today’s date: it’s the day she must pay to the National Westminster Bank PLC the remainder of her mortgage on her lovely house in leafy Highgate.

Last April, Belinda wrote the following ‘Statement of Truth’ on her Knight Foundation blog, regarding her involvement with the dodgy Iran Aid charity:

McKenzie-1 Apr 2015.png

Funny that Belinda, who claims to be able to run large international charities, only just realised a year prior to the mortgage coming due, that she would have to set aside £20,000 per month to meet her obligations.

We know people who’d be delighted to see £20,000 per annum in income, but we suppose some people view ‘poverty’ through a different lens.

In any case, many questions have been raised about this mortgage. Possibly the most important is, “How could someone who claims to have inherited £4 million from her father require a mortgage?”

As commenter Pallas Athene recently pointed out,

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.

So…it would seem that Belinda’s story about having inherited a boatload of cash, which she then kindly dispensed to various charities, leaving nothing for herself, might be just a teeny-weeny little lie.

This leaves the question, though, of how she managed to afford to buy (and maintain) the ‘Highgate Hub’?

What about Iran Aid?

For years, ugly rumours have abounded about Belinda’s relationship to her charity, Iran Aid.

In fact, Belinda’s above statement was written in an attempt to clear her name, as it’s long been known that approximately £5 million per year was being siphoned off into an individual’s bank account in Germany.

This excerpt from a report by the Charity Commission explains some of the issues involved with Iran Aid:


3. In March 1998 the Charity Commission received allegations that the charity was being used by a terrorist organisation, the Mujaheddin el Khalq (MKO), to raise funds. Under the Terrorism Act 2001 the MKO is now a proscribed organisation. Those making the allegations insisted on their details remaining confidential. This is not unusual in Inquiry cases.

4. In view of the possible political motives of any complainants, the Commission took what steps it could to establish the bona fides of the allegations. As a result of these enquiries the allegations were considered to warrant further consideration. However, because of the difficulty in obtaining verifiable and reliable evidence either proving or disproving links with a terrorist organisation, investigators decided to concentrate their enquiries on whether or not the charity spent its funds on its intended beneficiaries. The trustees have always denied links with terrorist organisations.

5. A previous Inquiry in 1996 resulted in the charity being warned about its fundraising methods. Despite this warning complaints from the public about Iran Aid’s fundraising methods reduced but continued at an unacceptable level.

6. On 8 May 1998, the Commission instituted an Inquiry under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993.

Formal Actions Taken

7. On 22 July 1998, after obtaining information from the charity’s bankers about the destination of the charity’s funds, the Commission froze Iran Aid’s bank accounts. The Commission was concerned to find that the funds, some £5 million per year, were all paid into an individual’s account in a country other than Iran.

8. On 23 July 1998, on the basis of information already obtained about the charity’s activities and the possible risk to its funds, a temporary manager known technically as a Receiver and Manager was appointed. He was appointed to carry out a range of duties including: –

  • The management of the affairs of the charity whilst the Inquiry took place
  • An assessment of the methods used by the charity to distribute its funds
  • Formulating recommendations as to the long-term viability of the charity.

9. As soon the Receiver and Manager took control of the charity’s bank accounts the Commission unfroze them.

10. The Commission served Orders on the trustees requiring them to provide the charity’s records and in particular, those relating to payments to its beneficiaries.

11. On 6 November 2000, following a period of public notice, the Commission established a scheme. This had the effect of directing the Receiver and Manager to dissolve the charity and pass its net assets to a newly established independent charity, the Iran Aid Foundation (Charity 1082759). This new charity had been formed, following discussions by the Commission with supporters of the charity, for the purpose of receiving these assets.


12. In establishing how the charity operated and how it spent its funds the Commission came to the following findings and conclusions.


13. The Commission’s Inquiry identified a number of concerns about the charity’s fund-raising methods. These concerns included:-

  • That some donors were misled into believing that they were personally sponsoring individual children when this was not in fact the case. The Commission concluded the sponsorship to be spurious and misleading.

14. During the previous Inquiry into the charity’s fund-raising activities, the Commission warned the trustees of the importance of conducting public fundraising properly. The present Inquiry highlighted similar concerns over the propriety of fundraising activities. In particular there were examples of misleading promotional literature, complaints by donors about high pressure “selling” techniques and an apparent failure to separate funds raised for different projects.

15. The Commission’s attempts to investigate fundraising issues further were hindered by the inability of the trustees to identify properly those volunteers responsible for fund-raising, and more particularly by the trustees’ inability or unwillingness to identify the co-ordinators apparently responsible for organising the volunteers.

The charity’s records

16. From the Commission’s enquiries it was apparent that the trustees had not met their obligations to maintain proper accounting records. These obligations arise under the requirements of the charity’s own governing document, statute and the common law duties of trustees. The Commission and the Receiver and Manager were unable properly to examine the books and records of the charity or to ascertain fully what accounting records existed. This was caused by a lack of co-operation on the part of the trustees, and an unlawful occupation of the charity’s premises that occurred between October 1998 and June 2000. As a result, the Commission was unable to conclude that the accounting records required by law existed or were properly kept. The occupation raised the following issues:-

17. The occupation of the charity’s premises started with the expressed intention of denying the Commission and Receiver and Manager the full access to records that both were legally entitled to receive. The trustees said that they played no part in this illegal occupation and could not identify any of those responsible, but the occupation had a deleterious effect on the Commission’s ability to scrutinise the charity’s records.

18. The occupation also raised serious concerns about the charity’s ability to operate in the future. Those in occupation made it clear that they were unwilling to permit any access to the charity’s premises and records unless the Commission allowed the charity to function as it did before the Receiver and Manager was appointed. The occupation ended with the destruction of all records that might have been expected to show how the charity distributed its funds.

19. Prior to the occupation the trustees had applied to the courts for a temporary injunction preventing the removal by the Receiver and Manager of the charity’s records. The High Court refused an application by the trustees of the charity to extend this temporary injunction and made it clear that the Receiver and Manager had a right of possession and control over the charity’s records. In the Court’s view the assurances given to the trustees about the security of the records were proper and entirely adequate.

Transmission of funds to Iran and their application.

20. During the course of the Inquiry neither the Commission, nor the Receiver and Manager, were able to see any substantive and verifiable evidence to show how the charity spent its funds in Iran, or even that the funds eventually arrived there. As a result the Commission was unable to confirm that funds reached Iran or were applied in the furtherance of the charity’s objects.

21. The trustees maintained that the methods used to transmit and distribute funds were necessary, taking into account the vulnerability of the recipients and the circumstances in Iran. However the way that this was carried out was inherently unaccountable, and was incapable of any independent verification.

22. The charity’s funds were all sent via a middleman based in the Middle East, but not in Iran. The Commission interviewed this intermediary in Germany with the aim of establishing the reason for the charity transmitting its funds in this way and how these funds might then reach the charity’s beneficiaries in Iran. Despite this interview, investigators were unable to establish sufficient details about the individual or his activities to suggest he was an appropriate person to handle these significant amounts of money. The trustees claimed to have references for him but would not show them to investigators.

23. The trustees effectively had no control over the distribution of funds once these left the charity’s bank accounts in this country. Furthermore the trustees were unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for certain missing funds having admitted that by their own reckoning, 10% of the funds sent to Iran could not be accounted for. The trustees were also unable to show that adequate financial controls were in place over the distribution of funds through a complex network of intermediaries.

24. During the Inquiry investigators sought information from other Government Departments including the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. These bodies had no knowledge of the charity operating in Iran. Representatives of Charities that operated in Iran were also asked whether they had had any contact with Iran Aid during their relief work; none had. These discussions also gave rise to serious doubts that a charity would be able to run such a large covert organisation inside Iran, supporting some 14,000 children, without it being detected by the authorities and stopped.

25. The trustees did not co-operate fully with requests for information from the Commission’s investigators or the Receiver and Manager. Notwithstanding the trustees’ claims that records and evidence existed but were no longer available to them, the trustees did not assist even when the information requested was expected to be within their control and ability to deliver.


26. Having fully considered the evidence, including the trustees’ responses to our enquiries, the Commission was satisfied that that there had been, at the very least, mismanagement in the affairs of the charity. It was also necessary or desirable for the Commission to act to protect the property of the charity, or secure a proper application for the purpose of the charity. The conditions prescribed by section 18(1) of the Charities Act 1993, needed before the Commission could take formal remedial action, were therefore met.

27. A remedial scheme was established which had the effect of directing the Receiver and Manager to dissolve the charity and pass its assets to a new independent charity, the Iran Aid Foundation.

28. During the occupation of the charity’s premises Commission staff held meetings with a number of people who might have been able to influence the occupiers to allow the Commission access to the records. A final decision on the future of the charity was delayed while these discussions took place. During these discussions the idea of setting up a new charity to carry on the charitable work of Iran Aid, but under a differently constituted trustee body, emerged. The Commission was pleased to be able to facilitate this.

29. The Commission reported the illegal destruction of the records to the police, as an offence under section 11 of the Charities Act 1993 appeared to have been committed. At the time of publication of this report police enquiries are ongoing.

Wider Lessons

30. In order to support public confidence in the integrity of charity generally, the activities of any charity must be verifiable and accountable and permit effective supervision by the Court or the Commission should that prove necessary. A charity may be required to produce any document to the Commission where it is relevant to the Commission’s statutory functions.

31. Charities working in circumstances where the identity or other information about beneficiaries needs to remain confidential have the same requirement of any other charity to keep records that will, if called for, allow for effective supervision by the Commission.

32. S41 of the Charities Act 1993 requires charity trustees to ensure that accounting records be kept which are sufficient to show and explain all the charity’s transactions.

33. S 506 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 provides that a payment made (or to be made) to a body situated outside the United Kingdom shall not be qualifying expenditure for the purposes of tax concessions unless the charity concerned has taken such steps as may be reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that the payment will be applied for charitable purposes.

34. Charities that fundraise, especially when the fundraising activities take place across a wide area or through a network of volunteer collectors, must ensure that their control systems are sufficiently rigorous to ensure proper compliance with good practice so as not to bring the name of the charity, or charities in general, into disrepute.

35. Trustees must be able to devote sufficient time to their duties to effectively monitor the actions of their senior volunteers or staff. In the case of a charity which is run effectively on a day to day basis by volunteers the trustees should be aware of the identities and addresses of these individual and the duties they carry out

Oddly enough, an Iranian gentleman by the name of Esmail Vafa Yaghmaie, whom Belinda has repeatedly described as her ‘husband’ (although he has never lived with her in Highgate, and has never appeared on the title deeds to that property) was living in Germany during the time when the Iran Aid funds were being siphoned off.

Probably coincidence, we’re sure.

But if Belinda and her ‘husband’ had been skimming from the Iran Aid coffers, why would Belinda not simply buy her Highgate mansion outright? And why would she have been forced to mortgage the home in order to provide funds to her MKO/MEK friends?

A most confusing picture

In Belinda’s blog excerpt, above, she says,

By 2004 I had parted with some £1.7 million in all to this cause, including taking out a mortgage on my house. I made it very clear to my friends in the Iranian community that this money was mainly a loan and that in due course I would need it to be repaid in full, all bar £300,000 which I wrote off as an outright gift, but the rest, £1,400,000 would need to come back to me.

 This is what has been happening over the 10 years since that time; the Iranians have been faithfully repaying me what they owe me in the form of monthly payments which I dispense in turn to my own humanitarian causes and cases. More recently however, I began to request that the process of repayment be speeded up as I have to settle my mortgage to the tune of £300,000 in 2016. Accordingly, in 2015 the remaining monthly repayments have gone up to £20,000 a month which goes straight into a mortgage account for the purpose of meeting the 2016 deadline. By May 2016 the repayment of my loan and by extension the settlement of my mortgage account will be fully concluded.

We’re not clear how this works. Either she is using the money she receives from the MEK/MKO for ‘humanitarian causes and cases’, or she is using it to settle her mortgage. Not both.

Blackmailed by the MEK/MKO?

And oddly enough,  a website called Iran-Interlink.org , which appears to have an anti-MEK/MKO slant, reported in January 2015 that Belinda’s ‘husband’ was complaining that the MEK had duped poor Belinda:

Iran Interlink, January 30 2015:… Yaghmaei wrote to expose the MEK’s deception of an English activist and friend Belinda McKenzie. The MEK took money from her through unethical influence after persuading her to re-mortgage her house and hand over around £300,000 which they promised would be repaid “after the overthrow of the Iranian regime”…

Internal critic Esmail Vafa Yaghmaei wrote to expose the MEK’s deception of an English activist and friend Belinda McKenzie. The MEK took money from her through unethical influence after persuading her to re-mortgage her house and hand over around £300,000 which they promised would be repaid “after the overthrow of the Iranian regime”. Yaghmaei tells the MEK he will sue if they don’t return her money now. The MEK responded through the NCRI to say ‘these are the actions of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry’, and accused Yaghmaei and McKenzie of being part of a conspiracy to start a new court case against the MEK…..

The MEK also published tens of receipts and cheques made out to Yaghmaei and two other former NCRI members, Karim Ghassim and Mohammad Reza Rowhani, saying they have received thousands of pounds from the NCRI, but with no further explanation. The MEK admits it took McKenzie’s money but said it agreed to pay this back after the MEK “topples the Iranian regime”. The MEK also offered a veiled threat by accusing McKenzie of having worked with Iran Aid charity – which was closed by the Charity Commission – with the implication that she had been involved in its wrongdoing [money laundry].

Yaghmaei responded to the MEK/NCRI saying “the receipts and cheques were for the rent of an apartment which I shared with one of your MEK members. At the same time we gave our social security payments to you.” He adds sarcastically, “those payments were for a few thousand French Franks in those times. Now suddenly you say you have paid me hundreds of thousands of Euros, yet offer no evidence and no explanation; what would I possibly do for you for this amount of money?” He finishes with a dig; “Anyway, what is the source of your money, and have you paid tax on it in France?”

So which is it, Belinda?

Are your Iranian friends ‘faithfully repaying’ your £1.7 million loan; or must they be arm-twisted into paying back a £300,000 loan? And is it correct that the MEK/MKO is threatening you with exposure over the Iran Aid fraud? Is this why you’re feeling a bit frazzled about the old cash flow these days?

As for that mortgage repayment, given the lacklustre performance of the Hampstead SRA hoax, which never really lived up to the initial hype, and seems to have netted a  rather paltry sum for the ‘Knight Foundation’, we can see why Belinda might be hitting the bottle a little too hard these days.

Belinda McK and Esmail Vafa Yaghmaei 2016-04-30

41 thoughts on “Why does Belinda fear 1 May, 2016?

  1. I don’t believe she ‘loaned’ anyone £1.7 million. This is a classic scam. The money has been set aside in an offshore bank account by McKenzie the Grifter to be siphoned back to her in the form of loan repayments. This is no different to what large corporations and wealthy individuals are doing all the time. Creating false ‘loans’ and securing mortgages to give the appearance of being short of money.

    I challenge Belinda McKenzie to reveal who she ‘loaned’ this money to (how convenient the paper-work was destroyed yet her ‘loan’ still has some sort of record) along with all communications and details. She needs to ve reported to the HM Revenue and Customs . I know enough about accounting to easily see her companies and trusts are just classic tax avoidance schemes.

    The fact she is even writing about this (who actually writes about their personal finances on the net?..no-one I know of) means she is trying to divert attention and confuse.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The more I read of McKenzie’s involvement with Iranian dissidents the more i think she is probably terrified she has crossed a line. These are ruthless people (on both sides). I have the experience of a good Iranian friend who died when a fire-bomb was lobbed through his Kensington front window for an infraction far less then McKenzie’s involvement. I also have a friend who was a highly successful Iranian jeweler in London , a supporter of the current regime and who sent his 2 brothers back to Iran 10 years ago to do some business. They have never been heard of again.

      Perhaps McKenzie is unraveling. If she raised money for a terrorist group it would have been quite normal for her to receive a percentage. It’s the Middle East way. In fact of she didn’t receive a percentage it would be unique. These are not people to be messed with or to start making waves over. She needs to watch her back. Hampstead is like kindergarten compared to people she has been dealing with in the past. They have long memories and bide their time.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I’ve started coming to this conclusion as well–as I put this post together, it all began to make more sense. As you say, she seems to be unraveling, and seemingly with good reason.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Absolutely jaw-dropping post and comments…I am blown away. Looks like karmic adjustment is in the works for Busted Bellender – and from where I’m sitting, it can’t come soon enough!

          Liked by 1 person

  2. I thought the Highgate Hub was in the names of her 3 sons’ or the names of their Companies of which Belinda is associated.

    I still don’t understand how you get a Mortgage when you’re not employed?

    Is there any evidence that Belinda has ever been employed by anyone?

    I don’t buy anything she says as being the truth.

    Why would you disclose your personal business unless you are putting out the begging bowl?

    It’s all hogwash.

    If she was even a couple of months in arrears with a Mortgage she’d be being chased.

    Belinda would never convince me that she was speaking any truth.

    I don’t know what her problem is.

    All she has to do is sell the Highgate Hub and downsize.

    A single woman hardly requires a huge pad.

    It’s a load of Bill Baloney.

    Liked by 2 people

    • She could easily get a mortgage if she had other assets. Sometimes it’s tax effective to have a mortgage even if you could buy the house outright.
      Remember for real scam merchants it’s in the blood. They never stop seeking ‘free’ money. That’s why there are so many rich people with money they can never spend in several lifetimes.
      She’s grifting again and putting out the begging bowl. The requests will soon follow. Probably for McKenzie Devils.
      ## she could not have got legal aid to fight that recent case where they won. Not with an asset like that property.

      Liked by 1 person

    • According to the property register, the Highgate Hub is in Belinda’s name:
      Highgate Hub registry

      I do think it’s possible to get a mortgage if you have sufficient investment income, but I completely agree that it makes little sense to publish details about one’s financial affairs the way she has. Like Angie, she waves vaguely at the issue, but never shows any actual facts. That might convince some of the gullible people who follow her, but the rest of us remain sceptical.


  3. What a good post EC, Spot on

    Ghost of Sam, Your post sums up Iranian mindset very well. First and foremost, they have a very different attitude to females than the norm in the UK. Secondly they can be ruthless and with very long memories.

    Lets hope Belinda has not crossed the wrong people, otherwise share prices (created by the potential loss of a valuable market – Belinda’s consumption) in Gordon’s may fall.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I have suspected all along that Belinda McKenzie was involved in regime change in Iran. McKenzie could not have got involved in such a politically sensitive project without the collusion of British Intelligence. I suspect the weak efforts of the Charity Commission and the lack of major police action over the Iran charity all has the marks of official interference.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. SV – I suspect you may be right (In part),It was a politically sensitive project, however the task for the Charity Commissioner would have been collecting sufficent evidence to secure a prosecution. That was thwarted by the “protesters” who remain unidentified in terms of individual contribution to the protest

    As it says in the report – ” The occupation ended with the destruction of all records that might have been expected to show how the charity distributed its funds.”

    I strongly suspect that there is a simpler explanation than “official Interference” That is that Belinda McKenzie did indeed find a goose that laid golden eggs. That was a cause (in the form of Iran Aid) that jerked at peoples emotions and as such created considerable income in terms of donations.

    McKenzie seemed to have found a method of extracting those funds by using complex and involved international dealings, shadowed by political sensitivity. Her scheme included (at the end of the donation / charity chain) claimed donations to a country that she knew was unlikely to account for or verify funds received (if any).

    The destruction of records, and the difficulties in obtaining any verification at the end of the chain all meant that Belinda had found an incredible opportunity.

    Without substantive evidence of wrong doing then a prosecution would have failed, hence the lack of major Police action.

    Fortunately the door that had been open for Iran Aid has since been closed on McKenzie.

    Its unlikely that she will ever find such a great money making opportunity ever again, and now her activities are scrutinised and sooner or later she will be caught out.

    Liked by 3 people

    • ” The occupation ended with the destruction of all records that might have been expected to show how the charity distributed its funds.” Except for her loan records.

      I think she would only have support of any intelligence service in that they would ignore her actions on the premise : any enemy of my enemy is my friend. She served a purpose just as all those Iraqi dissidents who told the Americans & Brits complete lies about Saddam Hussein but who were soon dispensed with when they had served their purpose.
      Some have been murdered and others live in constant fear surrounded by bodyguards.

      The Iranian regime remains intact. There will be a little black book in some Mullah’s office that has ‘Belinda McKenzie’ underlined as an enemy of Iran.

      Liked by 3 people

      • And I wouldn’t be surprised if all her efforts after including Hampstead were a deliberate diversion on her part. An attempt to show the world she’s just an eccentric crazy lady so leave her alone.

        In all the videos I see of McKenzie she always looks vaguely disinterested in other protestors and even the cause. When a nutty hoaxer is on camera rambling on to her she always looks like she’s thinking : “oh I wish he would shut the fuck up or get on with it”.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, this was my conclusion as well, JW: she found a country where her activities could not be scrutinised, and to avoid repercussions in the UK, she funnelled the money through an account in Germany. Once it was in that account, she could do with it as she pleased.

      And as you say, once the evidence had been destroyed in the Iran Aid offices, the police really had nothing to go on. All the Charity Commission could do was express its disapproval, and try to ensure that Belinda didn’t continue with that particular line of business.

      In fact, Belinda later had the gall to form something she called the ‘Association for Charities’, in which she turned around and blasted the Charity Commission for shutting down her cash pipeline from Iran Aid! http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/commission-blamed-deaths/article/619281

      Truly, she has no shame.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. I think the lid is being prised of the can of worms now.
    As Ghost of Sam suggests, all the recent misery may be a smoke screen.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Some of the donors to Iran Aid were naive students such as myself (not so naive that they got more than one donation out of me though) most were elderly grandparents who could be easily manipulated by stories of children in peril. The collectors, rather bizarrely it seems now, showed me photographs and letters from donors addressed to individual children. I suspect there were quite a few people who discovered huge holes in their parents or grandparents finances after Iran Aid had visited them.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. Something else occurred to me – the loan “repayments” are actually income, since Belinda cannot prove that she ever loaned the money in the first place. So month after month she apparently has been receiving large sums of money for years…. do HMRC know this?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Also – she’s lying about the dates, the mortgage was taken out in 2008 – does anyone know why she keeps going on about 2004?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Simple… The whole bloody fairy story exists for the sole purpose of causing confusion. She is hoping to exploit the fact that the average person’s investigative skills and resources are limited.

      The reality is that the house was mortgaged to provide input to another, far more routine project. Basically, she released some of the (ill-gotten I suspect) capital from her primary asset. Has she not an interest in at least one (actually probably more) new age shop somewhere? …As a for instance. Basically, she’s squaring up to retire and move to the country… Has been for some time now.

      We don’t know the details of her mortgage arrangement of course – but what exactly did she borrow and when? Does this tie in to any of her other ‘money movements’? For example the establishment of that shop, or some other change in its ownership…

      I would encourage others to investigate the possibility that she has been actively thinking of relocating for at least two years… Is there an Estate Agent in the house?

      The more people who, quite independently of each other and from varying directions, reach the same or very similar conclusions the better.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think she’s playing a game of smoke and mirrors.

        Posting financial details about herself is just bizarre. There must be a reason for it (always is with this cun*ing fox). Perhaps the house was paid for and she took a mortgage as a loan. I believe she is hiding or disguising assets. I believe she got a percentage of the Iran Aid money and she’s had to wash it somehow.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I would not doubt any of that for a microsecond Sam… The trick with that sort of ‘laundry’ operation though is to keep your head down. She hasn’t. Not clever.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Would the new age business interest have been in Glastonbury, perchance?

        Interesting idea that she could be getting ready to move to the country–I’d welcome more research on this, if any reader should happen to be an estate agent.


        • I’ve asked about her supposed business involvement in Glastonbury – no one has heard of her. The people I asked are long-standing shop owners themselves and pretty much know everyone in town. Needless to say, if anything crops up, you’ll be the first to know..

          Liked by 2 people

  9. Oooohh Nails and heads! I see many accurate conclusions are being reached here…

    Let’s see if a few more little lights can be lit… The Celtic connection…

    McKenzie, and one or two others, have had particular issues these past two or three years since they attracted the attention of certain parties north of the border who have a particular interest in…

    (a) Shutting down child abusers;

    (b) Shutting down charity scammers;

    (c) Outing bent officials;

    (d) Shutting down scammers generally.

    These parties work in relative silence and obscurity. In relation to this type of work they require no donations, don’t seek followers, don’t have books, tours or DVDs to sell. They are simply pissed off at what goes on, for various reasons…

    Belinda, who I know is a keen reader of this blog, is indeed particularly keen recently to conflate some of the Celtic traditions and celebrations with the bizarre Hammer horror fantasies she trades in… Why?

    Well… It’s grist to the rumour mill for a start. But she’s also rather angry at those ungrateful little Scots for not immediately welcoming her as a potential Lady Laird and obediently tugging their Tammies on hearing her cut glass tones…

    I understand there was once a plan to permanently invade a certain Kingdom a short drive from Auld Reekie, (convenient for the London shuttle) which for those who don’t know is a city which makes much of its ancient roots… You can barely move for ghost tours, black buses and folk dressed up as witches buying sausage rolls from Greggs! Oh and any excuse for a fire festival! – Nothing like a bit of pyromania to have the pubs bursting at the seams!

    But it has been made very clear to Belinda that if she dares set foot in Scotland she will have everyone from senior Police Officers, legitimate Journalists, what we might coyly call ‘new agers’ etc… Constantly on her back, all of whom want to see her behind bars. She has pissed-off SO many people!

    I believe if you dig far enough you will discover this was always part of McKenzie’s retirement plan… To bail out of London to a place where she could still stir shit, be in easy reach of the action, but basically retire rock-solid financially with only the occasional ego-stroke to keep her out the way of the buses.

    The only way she can (could ever) pay the debt (which part funded another business) is to sell the house – that was always so. She will walk away with £1 – 1.2 Million at a reasonable estimation. She will have ‘trickle down’ income from her ‘other business interests’… And if she plays her cards right another ‘tragic’ conspiracy tale on which to base her future ramblings writings and tin-rattling…

    But of course Belinda being Belinda greed does seem to have the better of her. And a certain ship having once come in for her, there she is rocking the boat again to see what last few Shekels might emerge. And what a dangerous ship that is! As the one or two little rifle shots across her dingy bows indicate.

    Incidentally, we heard of her poking around Fife a while back via certain contacts we have in the Property business. The same contacts tell us their contacts tell them that same customer is now poking around Devon… Torbay we believe.

    I believe the Krankies live there; should be right up her street!

    Liked by 2 people

  10. We’re all having a lovely Beltane here in Glastonbury. The wicker man has been erected on the Tor and the human sacrifices have been offered to our dark pagan/”Satanic” overlords….we’ve eaten a couple of babies… but frankly, I thought they were a bit bland, probably need a dash of menstrual blood to perk them up a bit. Oh, look there’s Araya Soma… sitting in the shop. You’d think someone so committed to combatting evil pagans and druids would be out with her army of minions doing something… but no she’s sitting in the shop, hoping to make a few bob out of the people she despises and slanders… funny old world.

    Liked by 3 people

    • She’s busily writing a nasty letter to Ken Livingstone for having the temerity to try and infer her beloved Adolf Hitler – history’s most misunderstood man – was a collaborator with those dirty baby-eating Freemason Illuminati Jews.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I loved the remake of The Wicker Man with Nicholas Cage (and the original version too) but they aren’t fiction are they?. With the Hoaxers we are only a few steps away from burning someone on a pyre as a sacrifice. Have the Hoaxers ever considered it may be them who are in the grip of The Devil and are doing his dirty work? I think this is a theme that could be expanded upon.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Interesting to see that John Graham (Butlincat) has no recent opinions about Sabine or Belinda

    In the past his comments have included:

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Pingback: Jake’s rants get around…and around | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.