Zealots disrupt Child Protection Conference

On Friday, 3rd June, The Transparency Project sponsored the 2016 Child Protection Conference—a followup to last year’s multi-discliplinary event “which discussed the different views and perspectives from experts, lawyers, social workers, parents and care leavers in an attempt to re-position the current unhealthily polarised debate around the child protection system”.

This year’s event picked up where last year’s left off. According to the media release,

In reaction to overwhelming feedback concluding that there are entrenched failings within the child protection system, this year’s conference will hear from social work practitioners, parents with experience of care proceedings, family lawyers, academics and journalists who will address and explore:

  • burgeoning criticism of how and why children are removed from their families by the state
  • concerns about the quality of decision making by social workers and the courts and delay in proceedings
  • lack of support for vulnerable families
  • the pressures on social workers who feel they are treated as personally responsible for a child protection system that is not working as well as it could

CPConf2016 was another great success—we weren’t able to attend, but we watched the hashtag, #CPConf2016, as it ‘trended’ on Twitter, and we read the tweets from participants, who described a vibrant, fascinating, and useful dialogue.

The Bog Papers

However, it seems that a few people were determined to undermine the conference’s goals of creating better, more transparent support for families and children. One of the organisers, Sarah Phillimore, alerted us to an unusual discovery: CPConf2016 toilet 2016-06-04Satanists running the planet? Say it ain’t so! Whoever left these leaflets behind (and it turns out that more than one was left) seems to have a few familiar preoccupations:

Oh dear…who could it be?

It was later revealed that our old friend Neelu Berry was the Bog Papers culprit. She was seen distributing the leaflets onsite during the conference, and it seemed that she was there as part of a loosely organised ‘gang’ of people affiliated with Maggie Tuttle, who’d come to preach their own brand of ‘child protection’ to conference-goers.

Meanwhile, back in the blogosphere…

We’re certain that it’s only by the purest co-inky-dink that Sabine’s latest blog post covered much of the same territory as the Bog Papers: CPConf2016-Sabine-Satanists 2016-06-04Her latest paranoid perambulation comes to us courtesy of Henry Makow, described on RationalWiki as

…what you get when you cross a men’s rights activist with a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Makow believes the world is controlled by nefarious JudeoMasonic/Satanic/Commie forces, spearheaded by the Rockefeller Foundation. He also believes that the aforementioned concocted feminism, so that women wouldn’t have children, as part of depopulation efforts.

So, totally rational and sane, then. Good to know.

And fascinating that Sabine’s blog post should be so closely echoed by the Bog Papers. Just saying.

Bring on the saboteurs

Admittedly, a few ridiculous leaflets left in the toilets at a conference are hardly earth-shattering news.

But it seems that a few conference attendees were less interested in joining the effort to find practical, humane solutions to a broken child protection system, and much more interested in creating as much havoc and disruption as possible.

For instance, one speaker at the conference was ‘Annie’, a courageous woman who shared her story of fighting to get her children back when they were removed from her care. Participants were warned that they must not take photos of Annie, as this would breach a Reporting Restrictions Order, placing them in contempt of court.

Another of the ‘gang’, a woman named Daniela Gulloti, ignored all warnings, and yesterday published a series of photos in which Annie was clearly visible, and easily identified.

When confronted and asked to remove them, Daniela stated that ‘others’ were also taking pictures during Annie’s presentation. Keep in mind: these illegal photographers are at least nominally on the same side as Annie.

Annie reacted much more reasonably than the culprits deserved:CPConf2016-Annie 2016-06-04Quite understandably, Annie is very upset about this breach of her children’s privacy. We hope this episode won’t stop her from sharing her story, and her insights, at future conferences.

The Tuttle gang’s actions leave us wondering: what could possibly motivate people—some of whom consider themselves victims of the child protection system—to interfere with and disrupt a conference designed to help parents find a voice in a system that has lost track of them?

What could make them decide to derail something that could make the system more humane, more transparent, and more focussed on positive outcomes?

Is it possible that these people really see no contradiction between their efforts to subvert the process, and feeling that the conference was valuable and worthwhile? Did Daniela, who took the illegal photos of Annie, think that she was doing something positive to help parents, in line with the aims of the conference, by publicly identifying Annie and her children?

Ultimately, while these people may believe that they are contributing to some sort of solution, their actions say that they’re much less interested in finding practical, viable strategies, and much more keen on spreading their own dogma, no matter how far-fetched and ludicrous.self sabotage cutting tree

76 thoughts on “Zealots disrupt Child Protection Conference

  1. Neelu is a closet clown.She should just stick a red nose on, wear size 14 shoes and drive around in an exploding car tooting a horn and scaring little children and be done with it. Poor love.

    The antics of the others exposes there is no constructive aim just disruption simply because they feel “entitled” and get some sort of pre pubescent buzz from being naughty.

    Annie maturely has issued a warning shot across the bow to these Kevin and Perry impersonators so best they cease and desist and go back to playing with their lego set .

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Such a well written post, EC!

    And oh, quelle surprise – one of the hoaxers’ self-professed child protection campaigners has elected to breach an order in place to protect the identities of vulnerable children, thereby putting them in harm’s way. Oh but…WE’RE the child abusers, right?!

    Meanwhile, I’m amazed Neelu found time to write illegal handouts designed to harass genuine anti-child abuse campaigners, as she’s been so busy making crank calls and bullying innocent telephone receptionists:

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWDZvSpPR-nG8sEjDm0iGEg/videos

    But the joy is that every single one of them is hanging up on the mad psychotic bint.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks, AS!
      I’ve been ignoring Neelu’s phone antics lately, as her modus operandi is always the same–but there is always that satisfying moment when her victims hang up on her.🙂

      Like

      • The Lou Lotus telephone comedy routine becomes quite boring after a few minutes. I much prefer the famous Irish comedian Patrick Culinane and his hoax calls whereby he cleverly manipulates the listener into becoming so alarmed they ask if he needs an ambulance and he ends the call with the thigh slapper :”you can shove your ambulance up your arse”

        Liked by 1 person

    • There’s a running theme here. I was discussing a different set of conspiracy lunatics yesterday (specifically sovereign citizens/FMOTL as they seem to have billboards springing up across the country in a campaign that must be costing hundreds of thousands of pounds). They like the Hoaxteaders and others in the so called “truther” community, readily recruit vulnerable people to do their bidding.

      Those with mental health issues, those who have suffered bereavement, find themselves in trouble with money or the law are all readily used to do the bidding of the few that make money from this most disgusting of cons. As we discussed the freeman a number of people came forward to say that they had known vulnerable people who were victims, but also that they know of dishonest people who have gravitated to this sort of movement, recognising an opportunity to exploit and make money from these situations.

      In fact my own journey into become interested in these matters started after an old friend of mine and his family suffered at the hands of a conman who espoused Freeman of the Land nonsense. Having fled the country he now writes hate filled blogs accusing the family of Satanic rituals and paedophilia, mixed in with the usual Freeman nonsense. All the while attempting to drum up financial support for his fake web business.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hmm…I think I know the particular Freeman you’re referring to. He attended the demonstrations outside Christ Church last year, and has been a Hoaxtead promoter. There’s a discussion board called Quatloos, which I’m sure you’ve heard of, where people discuss this character and his ilk, and not in flattering terms.

        The Freeman leaders are leeches who prey on the financially desperate.

        Like

        • Yeah, I know Quatloos, but I’ll have to have a look to see if he’s been mentioned. I didn’t think he’s “player” enough to be known amongst the wider community, just a particularly nasty and vindictive individual who I’ve been unfortunate enough to have been relatively close to and who has seized upon the ideology. I’ll be gutted if he was in Hampstead for the protest, he is wanted by the police and not been back in the UK for a while. I’d have have rung him in so he could face the music for the fraud and harassment he has committed.

          Like

  3. Thanks again El C. Another balanced and fair post, in my view.

    To be fair to Daniela, she removed the photos as soon as she was asked. However, it was explained very clearly why photos must not be taken and must not be published on line. I do hope at next year’s event we will have made significant progress in the transparency project and parents WILL be able to talk more openly. But at the moment I am afraid they just can’t and we have to respect the current law about that.

    For all those who ask me – why do you keep going on about Hemming etc. It’s not serious, they are just some harmless nutters, stop giving them air time etc, etc, etc. The reason I do this – and will continue – is neatly encapsulated in what happened here

    Trained parent advocates have been proven to work. In NYC numbers of children going into care were significantly reduced. In Annie, parents in this country now have someone with the resilience, intelligence and drive to make a project a reality. But she can’t if she is driven underground by those who would rather drone on and on about satanists.

    to lose a child must be a terrible thing – be it to death or the care system. And I hope I never, ever come across as not mindful of that. But to lose your child and then set about making it more difficult for anyone else to keep theirs, is not something I can respect or understand.

    But if I am going to point a finger of blame, it won’t be at desperate,vulnerable parents. It will be at those ‘activists’ who seem to take a perverse pleasure in continuing to campaign as dangerous, irresponsible fools.

    Hemming, Josephs, McNeill and ALL who support them are the real problem here.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, the conference itself was excellent, from all reports. Well done to all who participated, and especially to the organisers. This is important work, and I hope that ultimately it will rob people like Josephs, Hemming, McNeill, McKenzie et al of the ammunition they need.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, absolutely–I hold responsible those who’ve been spearheading the whole ‘social services are coming to steal your babies!’ and ‘the country is ruled by Satanists’ campaign.

      The bereaved parents they draft to act as their foot soldiers have responsibility for their actions, but I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they have been talked into doing very foolish things on behalf of very malevolent people.

      Liked by 1 person

    • and i am not part of the gang u so call it. so please take my name out of there. I didnt get a log book so i wasnt told about no photos at the beginning. and i was there just because i was invited. If u had problems with people taking pictures then u should put signs at these conferences.

      Like

      • LOL…. The illiterati speaks!

        Firstly, this is a blog run by a third party- not the organisers of the conference. It reports the facts as they are found. And it would appear that the facts are that an individual – who has quite rightly been named here – wilfully breached the restrictions intimated by the organisers…. EC was 100% correct in exposing this matter!

        “Participants were warned that they must not take photos of Annie, as this would breach a Reporting Restrictions Order, placing them in contempt of court.”

        ….This seems fairly clear to me. Participants were WARNED.

        Besides which, the law of the land is that when you are on private property the default assumption is that photography is NOT permitted without permission. So no, there is NO onus on organisers to put notices up; it’s up to YOU as a photographer to get permission to take pictures.

        That’s the law ANYWHERE that is an enclosed space…

        In a shopping centre, at an amusement park, in a theatre or cinema etc. etc. Outside on the public street is (usually) a different matter. Although even in that case you would be in contempt of court in this instance had you identified the woman as you’ve breached an injunction.

        Bottom line is that you (that IS how you spell it by the way; Y-O-U) and the rest of the ignoramuses that were taking pictures without permission were WAY out of order! Besides which, there is the point that not everyone wants their face plastered all over Fuckwitbook just because you fancy behaving like an ignorant teenager.

        You’d do well to remember that ignorance of the law is, in law, no excuse. Hell mend you!

        Like

      • I think I know who this is. And no, you were not ‘invited’. You sent me an email asking for a free ticket. To describe yourself as ‘invited’ on this blog and elsewhere demonstrates your fundamental dishonesty and your inflated self importance.
        If you are who I think you are – you have caused a great deal of distress and worry to a vulnerable woman and you should be ashamed of yourself.
        If you are not who I think you are – apologies. But as you hide behind anonymity, I can’t know.

        Like

        • Sorry, on re-reading it must be Daniela who is the anonymous commentator. I was thinking of someone else.

          However, Daniela I recall that you and I had a particular conversation after I had been told you had taken pictures. I explained exactly why these pictures couldn’t be published. You nodded, said you hadn’t been give a delegate pack with the ground rules in and said you understood. I said I didn’t criticise you for not knowing, but you knew now.

          You then went ahead and published the photographs on Facebook. Why?

          I give you credit for removing them when you were asked. But by then, the potential damage had been done.

          Liked by 1 person

      • It’s a little difficult to remove your name when you identify yourself as ‘Anonymous’ here.

        And while there were no signs at the event, I’m assured by the organisers that attendees were indeed informed that no pictures of ‘Annie’ could be taken onsite, and that publishing any images of her could harm her and her children. I would think that should have been enough to dissuade you.

        Like

    • Will it though?

      Has Neelu breached any bail conditions?

      I’m fearful that if Neelu and Sabine get not guilty verdicts then they will carry on…

      If they get guilty on any charge/s, they will still carry on…

      Regardless this Hampstead case is going to run…and run…

      Liked by 2 people

      • The Hampstead hoax is running out of steam. There is no new material being produced, the Satan Hunters are regurgitating the same tired old shit. For the Satan Hunter’s promoting this hoax, they are in the same boat as Islamic State in that they are fighting a losing battle and their ending is inevitable.

        Liked by 2 people

      • FA, I understand your feelings, but I’m daring to hope that this thing is beginning to wind down, just as the Hollie case did. Sure, there are still a few nutters out there promoting it (George Antoniou, aka Greek Trucker, I’m looking at you), but by and large it’s receded into the past, and the vast majority of people understand that it was a falsehood.

        Like

      • Firstly, there is no ‘Hampstead Case’ except in so far as there is a case against Christie and Draper for physically and emotionally abusing P & Q. And that case has sexual overtones, which adds to its seriousness. But primarily this is matter of a cynical HOAX instigated by a cheap low-level career criminal and his dried up old scrubber of a partner and orchestrated by a career-hoaxer. – Let’s not grant it any grace it doesn’t deserve.

        Secondly – and with no disrespect to you or your religion SV – it’s completely irrelevant what particular group they have targeted. Satan Hunters, Santa Hunters, those convinced that Jesus communicates with then through a 1960s food mixer and that the guy who works down the chip shop really IS Elvis…. They’re just looking for something to hitch a Little Red Wagon to! They’re just Hoaxers whipping up an audience of Conspiretards…

        Thirdly, this hoax was nothing more than a badly-executed redux of something that had been tried and failed previously. If you do a little research you’ll discover the tale of Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy, a sleazy bludging druggy from one of the grottiest sink estates in Aberdeen. Ogilvy tried to frame his daughter’s Grandfather by coaching her to repeat a perverted tale he himself had made up, into a mobile phone. Unfortunately for him, when he handed the phone to the police their techs also recovered evidence of him doing this coaching! As a result the authorites moved and he is barred from contact with the child. – And is all over the internet in typical conspiretard mode trying to blame everyone but himself for his failures in life.

        Ogilvy is just about the last person still promoting the Hollie Grieg hoax, and has been trying for years to tie it to the string of sick, fanciful excuses he uses in relation to his own attempted but failed hoax… In this way he is known and connected to the “McKenzie network” and he is in direct contact (is a sock for) Robert Green.

        Ogilvy is game and insane. But from a professional hoax-promoter’s point of view he is problematic. He’s a gutter-illiterate for a start – can’t even spell the word “I”. Certainly can’t hold an idea together and appearance-wise is the sort of man…. Well think of a cross between Rab C Nesbit and Iggy Pop! – He looks, sounds and behaves like a derelict; which, actually, he is! The Green connection is a little problematic too as the romance between him and McKenzie seems to have waned.

        However, she’s not one to let a good scam go out!

        Where Ogilvy is a typical dishevelled waster, Christie is in comparison a little more erudite and presentable (Yes! I know! – The irony!) and has at least created some sort of back story for his druggie ways. In fact Christie is a dealer and career criminal. But has tried to paint a gloss of respectability over his activities by pretending to be a ‘nutritionist’ of sorts, complete with phoney PhD and company Directorship!

        There is some suggestion that he connects directly to the “McKenzie network” via Bill ‘your garden furniture is evil’ Baloney. But by whatever means, he does seem to be/have been very much a part of Belinda McKenzie’s ‘stable’.

        Where Ogilvy made the mistake of physically handing the device he made the recording on to the police, Christie thought he would be a little ‘smarter’. The videos were uploaded to YouTube rather than handed straight over . And there seems to be some suggestion that the recording device was destroyed. When he ‘involved the police’ he did so obliquely… Placing his brother-in-law, and SC, on a very uncomfortable spot where he was well out of his depth. It’s almost clever!

        – Sadly though Christie isn’t all that bright! And his coaching the children in their performance is pretty poor…. One commentator noted that it was like watching someone coaching their weans (children) to recite a Burns poem for their Granny to watch. And that’s really what made most people of ANY sort of intelligence at all immediately reject this hoax for what it is… The kid’s performance, coupled to Christie’s manic goading them on; it just doesn’t stand up!

        …..And that’s really the low-ebb from which the Hampstead hoax descends. Like the original Ogilvy failure it’s a crock of shit from the get-go.

        That’s NOT to underestimate or underplay the damage this hoax has done. Nor would I seek to provide one iota of mitigation for any of the players who have attempted to hook into it be that through stupidity or their own self-interest. But as I said, there is no ‘case’ here only an out-and-out hoax.

        Run and run and run? – No,it’s got no legs! The only mileage in this hoax is that long road to perdition along which those who perpetrated it need to be herded.

        Liked by 1 person

        • You’re right, of course. I misspoke in calling it a ‘case’–except inasmuch as it has spawned various criminal charges which we won’t talk about here. It’s a hoax through and through, as we’ve been saying for almost a year and a half now.

          I do think there’s a good reason that the hoaxers targeted Satanism: it’s not about the actual beliefs of Satanists, but rather about playing on and amplifying the fears and ignorance of people who have latched onto an especially virulent and simple-minded form of evangelical Christianity.

          Thank you for pointing out the similarity between Abe Christie and Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy. I agree with you that the common denominator there is Belinda, whose fingerprints are all over Hoaxtead, the Hollie hoax, etc.

          Like

        • Re Satan hunters. What actually happened last year was that a bunch of largely Christian vigilantes were persecuting Christians in and outside a church. Ok, they thought they were Satanists but the truth is that there’s a divide between Anglicans and Evangelicals. I know a few Evangeloons* who see the Anglican church as fair game in the spiritual battle between good and evil. It’s not much of a leap in their minds to go from Anglican to Satanism.

          I’m Anglican and was told once by an Evangeloon that I’m the wrong sort of Christian and have a demon in me. I’ve called him Desmond.

          *I’m not picking on all Evangelicals – just the loony end.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Yes, that’s an important point.

            In his book, The Sussex Devils, Marc Heal describes the difference between the loony end of the evangelical spectrum and the mainstream Anglican church quite well. I read the book a few months ago, and found some fascinating parallels between Derry Mainwaring-Knight and Abraham Christie.

            https://unbound.co.uk/books/the-sussex-devils

            Like

          • I think anyone brought up in central Scotland knows only too well how insane Christian sects can be Earl. Probably a big part of the reason why some of the most ‘spiritual’ people you will meet around here are staunchly irreligious!

            I don’t really feel though that those at the centre of the hoax are driven by any kind of real belief or faith, however misguided. I think its as simple and cynical as tuning into something the majority of people will only ‘know’ from a Hammer Horror interpretation. And they do that to get a predictably hysterical reaction which they then milk to death.

            “I’ve called him Desmond.”

            Oh Dear…. 😉 Ian Chambers is here… We have beer and there is a keyboard in the room. When I read that comment out he immediately started playing this tune…

            …..In almost the same style! I suspect the spirits have moved him!

            Like

    • Indeed not being part of solution can be part of the problem
      Agencies prioritize finite resources and where viable will sit on cases as many resolve,blow out without costly interventions.Whilst zero tolerance would be cheaper in the long run currently gathering/building a foolproof case is the Modus operandi.

      The police will be fully aware that the likes of Neelu,Sabine are crossing legal bounderies but they will be looking towards adult mental health services to pick up the tab both exhibiting sectionable behaviours.

      Unless someone or a group take civil action against individuals it will be softly softly catchy monkey from the plod.

      Same applies to the likes of Angie in regard to benefit fraud, DWP will collate information and dive in only when case data ticks enough boxes for the dawn knock.

      Why people choose to lead s

      Liked by 2 people

      • I agree the authorities all operate on a linear tick box system, and they have to do this as the Satan Hunter are slippery eels who will use any loop hole to wriggle out of their legal predicaments. Every legal success they get more arrogant and confident in their abuse of the innocent, so the legal movers have to move carefully and slowly. The ultimate authority of ending the Hampstead abusive campaigns is with the Hamsptead residents and victims, who must make complaints to the police, to initiate the criminal process, and take civil legal actions.

        I have said before that we could organise a crowd funding campaign to help individuals take legal action against the Satan Hunter. There may be a reputable individual who can be trusted to become the trustee of any funds for the innocents that the Satan Hunter has abused.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Let’s be careful not to stray into the realm of speculating about the pending court case–there’ll be plenty of time afterwards to dissect it, but I’m afraid that is the Topic That Dare Not Speak Its Name (at least for now).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Not sure why post truncation occured was concluding…”
        …Why people choose to lead stupid lives and coerse others to do likewise is ultimately known only to them albeit even thats not a given.
        These folk are outstanding in their field as indeed are mushrooms and cowpats.On consideration thats a bad analogy since the latter actually have a useful role in the overall scheme of things🙂

        Liked by 1 person

        • Oh, strange! I don’t know how your comment got truncated, other than the fact that WordPress can get weird and temperamental from time to time.

          Like

          • No doubt WordPress has its periodic wrinkles but I suspect its the nut behind the wheel (moi) that is the guily party in this instance.

            Is it possible to edit once posted?

            Being new to wordpress can you recommend a link(s) for newcomers to familiarize with the do`s/donts,cans/cants,faqs etc? Ta.

            Liked by 1 person

          • To be honest, when WordPress goes wonky for commenters, there’s not much to be done about it, other than to notify me and let me help out. The glitches, when they occur, seem to be fairly random, and can include things like telling the commenter that they’re ‘posting too fast’ (whatever that means!) or simply crashing and erasing the comment altogether.

            In general, if you would like to go back and edit a post, either for grammar or to correct a fact, please don’t hesitate to ask me–I’m happy to help.

            Like

  4. A point often made among my own contacts is that one effect of the Conspiritainment/Conspiretard scene is to disrupt and undermine honest grass-roots grass movements that might otherwise bring authorities’ feet to the fire. It is with only a light dusting of sarcasm that we routinely suggest to Conspiretards we encounter that IF there really is some great ‘illuminatti’ scheme to establish a new world order then that are serving its purposes well by ensuring that the majority of people with an IQ at least in double-digits will see dissent as only the wittering of the mentally ill and inadequate.

    More seriously, those of us who actually DO stand against the more prosaic and endemic corruption, incompetence and downright dishonesty that infests the various authorities that we have to deal with in this world, are a bit pissed off at very real problems being conflated with these fairy stories.

    As this story was passed around the group this morning no-one was surprised though all are saddened. It’s just another everyday example of how conspiretards work to undermine real, just causes…. They’re always part of the problem these days; never any part of the solution.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, this is exactly right, Joe. One of the reasons the Hoaxtead case has importance to me is that it symbolises the co-optation of real dissent, turning it into a mockery. And meanwhile, real problems go unaddressed, as the headless chickens dash about the barnyard, squealing that ‘Satanists rule the world!’ and so forth.

      Like

  5. Many thanks for writing this very astute article.

    I have often wondered what makes peoples cogs turn in such a way to want to drive wedges in something positive into something negative.

    I have been on the Child Protection and Family Law conference scene for over ten years, many I have organised myself, I will say at each one of them,[double figures] there is a cohort of people sent on the path of disruption, last years #CPConf2015 was not much different, there were talks of people wanting to protest outside and wreck havoc, why?, oh and last year we had the toilet paper leaflets too being handed out.

    Many of these people who do purport to be victims are the very people we are trying to address the balance, we try not exclude anyone form attending the conferences, we don’t often agree with their ethics and actions but they have the right to air their grievances on a proper platform before the right people.

    One particular “Conference” I remember ended up with police with guns having to be called, yep, it was held in Parliament, apologies I don’t remember the year, suffice to say we were in the presence of Vicky Haigh, and, well one could imagine how that conference ended.

    There seems to be those people that despite being given the platform it is still not good enough for them, Maggie Tuttle in particular had been to many of my previous conferences and often was not engaging in ways that would see what she wanted to be discussed, oh, I was also slandered to the hilt by her for no reason, without a foundation either, still, I suppose it’s what drives these people to the pit of disapproval no matter what the issues are about.

    These disruptive’s often don’t understand what they are yakking about, some I will say often get drawn into the agenda’s because it seems to be the “In Thing” I see it all too often on Bookface, they want to be part of the crowd, it does nothing to address their issues though.

    In the past few days I have received a large amount of comments and responses to the #CPConf2016 and on the face of it the negative and harsh comments are drowned out by the positive responses, having these responses one can pain the picture to see just where and how we move forward with the conferences, the negatives I will say were from people who were not even in attendance or took any part in the conference at all.

    I enjoy criticisms from time to time because it can show sometimes do we need to do things different, I do not however enjoy a platform like #CPConf2016 used to promote an agenda, from a cohort who’ve tried for many years to infiltrate people and failed quite spectacularly.

    On Friday I was informed by a delegate of someone taking the photographs, I asked them to cease, twice, Sarah P asked more than once as well to cease, it did nothing as we have seen, there was no engagement from the person either to the conference, she simply remained outside the main hall.

    One of the sad things that with my work and presence on Social Media I am often called upon by these very people named in the above article, more often than not its to help them with their cases, I am also quite often pre-warned of those setting out to want to cause havoc, usually I can pick up and nip it in the bud quite quickly, sadly those on Friday slipped under my radar.

    Does anyone know what these people who print the leaflets and cause havoc really want, their need and drive is simply incoherent, babble and utter moo poo!

    Thanks again for the article

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks for this, Jerry. Your experience of the nutters over the years is really interesting. It seems they have no interest in practical, workable solutions–for them, it’s all about making as much noise as possible. The sad thing is that many of them could really benefit from taking part in creating that solution, but they won’t. They’d rather skulk around taking illegal photos and depositing leaflets in toilets. Makes absolutely no sense to me, I’m afraid.

      Like

  6. I think this is a really interesting comment on human psychology which I have noticed in fellow ‘professionals’ – having a bit of a spat with one on Twitter now, my resolve to ‘be nice’ having lasted about 5 minutes.

    Many seem to have a drive NOT for resolution of problems but to simply enjoy fermenting problems. Presumably this gives them some kind of validation and they get attention, even of a negative kind. To solve the problem would rob them of their stage where they can continue to strut, so of course they don’t want to solve the problem.

    I remember hearing a Radio 4 interview with a psychologist (I WISH I could remember the name!) who was asked why some people did terrible things and the response was – ‘those who cannot create can always destroy’, which I found chilling but which made perfect sense.

    We all want to feel we ‘matter’, that we have an ‘impact’. Those of us with egos in check and healthy sense of self proportion can get our validation in hopefully healthy and constructive ways. But I am guessing there are quite a lot of inadequate people out there with the dangerous combination of low self esteem but massive sense of entitlement.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, the drive to have an impact, any impact, seems strong. It’s a real shame when it leads people to being destructive, though–cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face comes to mind.

      Like

    • Indeed unbridled unearnt entitlement. With freedoms come responsibilities.So many take but do not give back,they deman the freedom to do as they please but want others to do the tedious responsibility bit to keep the show on the road… in extremis anarchy where the guy or gal (musnt forget the gals) with the biggest pointy stick runs the whole shebang.

      Just cant help feeling the very first folk to cry foul when prodded by a tiny stick would be the very same “entitled” weak ,feckless,terminally self obsessed whinging gutter snippers…Rant over🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • The internet has given these types the ability to have their impact. It’s given a new lease of life to the Green Ink and Poison Pen Letter writers who have never been able to have such an extraordinary impact before.

      They have always been with us but now they can link up in a common cause, something they did not have the ability to do before the internet. And they can still remain anonymous but instead of causing havoc in the local village with their poison they can spread it worldwide.

      And politicians have failed to take into account the arrival of the internet can have on innocent people. Instead they waffle and ignore how libels can be spread worldwide. They prattle on about ‘free speech’ or similar rubbish even as those they aid these spreaders of gossip- Google, Facebook etc scrounge off and defraud the ordinary or honest taxpayer while accepting no responsibility.

      Like

  7. Jerry, I saw no leaflets in the Gents. Could it be that they had been given to some of the women outside and dumped in the bogs( or used as toilet -tissue)?
    Why can’t Annie be photographed?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Annie will be an assumed name. If she is recognised on the internet by people who know her they will be able to link the case under discussion back to her children.

      Liked by 1 person

      • That’s right, FS. Annie is an assumed name, and the court order is to prevent her children being named. People doing stupid things like photographing her make it possible for her to be found online and named publicly, which could harm her and her children.

        The sad thing is that Annie is a very brave and intelligent woman, and a huge asset to the movement towards better parent advocacy in the family courts. The person (people?) who took her picture are either very stupid or very malevolent, and are acting directly contrary to the interests of parents who want to see changes in the system.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Because – as was set out exhaustively in the Ground Rules – she is only allowed to tell her story on condition of strict anonymity. She is subject to a Reporting Restrictions Order which means that she and her children MUST NOT BE IDENTIFIED.

      If they are identified then that is a contempt of court. The ultimate sanction for that is imprisonment.

      If people didn’t understand the very clear reasons against taking pictures of Annie at the conference, then I wish they had asked me or any of the other organisers to explain.

      I did explain to one. Who published the photos anyway.

      I just don’t know what to say about this other than it makes me both sad and angry. If people want to trash what Annie is doing then I have utterly no respect for them and I will do my utmost to see that they are not permitted to step over the threshold of any event I organise ever again.

      Liked by 1 person

    • This is why, as in the order at the bottom. I am sure she could be photographed, it’s the publishing of the photographs that could be the problem.

      http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/2991.html

      “This order prohibits the publishing or broadcasting ….. [of] any identifiable picture being or including a picture of either the children, their carer or parent”

      Here is Louise Tickle’s article:

      http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/20/children-taken-into-care-mother-fighting-to-get-baby-back-louise-tickle

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, it isn’t the photo itself that is the problem – it is the publication. But I make the reasonable assumption that anyone taking a photo on a smart phone is likely to publish it – Facebook, instagram whatever.

        And in reality I think there is little risk that simply a blurry shot of someone is going to automatically lead to their identification and breach of RRO etc, etc.

        But while the risk may be small, the consequences are HUGE. And people needed to respect that and we set it out very clearly for them.

        One of my biggest hopes is by CPConf2017 ‘Annie’ can walk up to the lecture and tell everyone her real name, without fear of punishment. She deserves that much.

        But until then it is deeply, deeply sad that some numpties want to try and ruin things for her.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. I do remember reading about the very sad death of the little boy, Jonas Stadden.

    I have read something on Chris Spivey’s blogshite. He describes Jonas’ mother and Maggie Tuttle as good friends, and it appears from a photo on the site that all three of them were in one place long enough to pose for a group photo.

    I won’t put a link. There are surviving children that may have been named.

    This bit was interesting though. Jonas’ parents obviously and totally understandably want answers and to know if his death could have been avoided, if someone was to blame. It appears they didn’t accept the official explanation about the circumstances leading to Jonas dying. They took some sort of legal action about Jonas Stadden’s death. The judgment says:

    “23.On 21/01/14 I see a copy of an email from Christopher Booker to a C Blitton (?) which he has also sent to Ian Josephs and Sue Reid of the Daily Mail, opining that ‘this really smells of a nasty system cover-up’.

    24.My opinion of Mr. Booker, Ms. Reid and Mr. Josephs is that they are entirely unhelpful as protagonists in the necessary debate about the child protection system as they operate from a partial and blinkered agenda that the system is ‘evil’ and ‘corrupt’. They frequently make assertions based on no evidence or on mistaken understanding of clear facts. I note Mr. Booker feels able to make such strong views known about ‘cover ups’ without taking into account the further tests that have been requested on that same day by Dr Stalker. I would be delighted to provide further information if requested to support my serious concerns about the trustworthiness of this group of people. I will simply say at this stage that I think they do much more harm than good and are responsible for spreading fear and distrust amongst a very vulnerable group of people. I therefore disregard Mr. Booker’s intervention.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • YdychyncachuTracey
      Good Morning having re read your post I can agree with you that early on in our case there was a conference that I was asked to attend in London where there were some pictures taken of all of us including the lady you mentioned. She happens to be a friend of one of the legal team members that I dealt with then. This though does not mean that I necessarily agree with everything that I hear though and certainly I do not comment on something that I know nothing about.
      Everyone has their own opinion on our case too but I can assure you that we have the evidence now that supports the fact that JJ would have more than likely been here today had he been given the opportunity to have the medical assistance when it was requested nearly five days before we found out he had died.

      It was reported to the press that he had seen a Dr four days before he died yet after submitting D’SAR’s to various companies and departments it has now been confirmed in writing that he DID NOT GET SEEN BY ANY MEDICAL STAFF….so therefore he did not get the basic duty of care by the very people who claim to be child protection…or the temporary foster parents that had him, at the very least he should have been taken to the GP to ascertain whether or not antibiotics or pediatric assessment was necessary which was what he so desperately needed….

      Unfortunately due to ongoing legal action I cannot publish the documents that I hold that prove what I have claimed to be true. If I could I would most certainly provide anyone with those copies but at the moment it could very easily jeopardize my case against those concerned.

      With regard to Christopher Booker I spoke with him on several occasions and he has seen some of the documents that I have had through he has not seen them all, as some were received much later on. He has also read my extremely detailed diary of events that I kept up until JJ died.

      The article that he produced was based on what he had actually seen up until that point.There is indeed many more documents now that prove this Dr that you refer too in your post was trying to tell people “that nothing could have been done to save JJ” even though he had not seen a Dr to have the chance. The disturbing fact is that the test samples apparently leaked away during transit so therefore they could not be analysed !!!

      This woman has also been known to have made serious allegations in other cases that I have seen the original paperwork for and I have also seen the relevant corresponding papers that prove the allegations to be false, hence no trust in this woman’s capabilities of telling the truth.

      I hope this clarify’s some of the comments that you have made and I post this without prejudice and look forward to any reply’s.

      Like

  9. This is bang out of order! I don’t have any dispute with you over the issue of leaflets and sabateours but I can tell you quite categorically that Jonas’s mum was NOT involved in any of it. Whoever Neelu & her clan may have been using, it certainly wasn’t Sara – she doesn’t even know who Neelu is, although did say some nutter tried talking to her about satanic abuse in the lift at the station.

    I know Sara very well having spent over 2 years helping her with her case, working with her in person on an almost daily basis and I also know Sarah Phillimore produced an excellent report for Sara based on the details we had surrounding Jonas’s passing, so Sara attended the Conference in the hope that she might get to speak with Sarah, not to try & cause trouble. She knew nothing about the leaflets and certainly did not give permission for JJ’s name to be used in this way – it’s utterly dispicable and having spoken with her tonight, she is totally distraught to think someone would accuse her of being a part of this.

    Sara has a good heart (albeit a little niaive sometimes) and just wants some form of justice for her son. This sort of low-level crap is not in her nature. In response to someone elses comments which came across a bit ‘strokey beard’ about the whole thing, I have no qualms in telling anyone that I have seen ALL the case paperwork and I know for a fact that Jonas’s death was a)avoidable, b) brushed under the carpet and c) lied about to the media by Peter ‘Haringey’ Lewis. (Don’t even get me started on that sicko – I’ve had him lined up for defamation myself, so I know exactly what he’s capable of)

    I also know for a fact that Sara is aware of the Hoax, has no belief in satanic rituals and has not been in touch with Maggie for some time. My personal belief is that Sara was a ‘means to an end’ for Maggie and she has now outlived her usefulness, so Maggie has moved on.

    The irony of this site supposedly dispelling the myth of Hampstead but then perpetrating damaging information about an innocent person is profound. Who on earth told you Sara was ‘handing out leaflets’?? It beggars belief!!

    Like

    • Rose, thanks for commenting. If SaraAnn had nothing to do with distributing the leaflets, I will apologise to her, but I do know that her website was listed on the leaflets along with anti-SRA sites, and sites maintained by Sabine McNeill, designed to deepen the mistrust and anger that the conference was working so hard to breach. This is the material which was distributed onsite. Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this; I would like to think so.

      Like

    • If you meant my comment, I meant what I said about the totally understandable bit and the rest. If it comes across as sarcastic, it wasn’t what I intended. I’m sorry, and I don’t want to hurt his family. I’m not heartless, and I have known of people being used to further the agenda of campaigners myself. That’s the sort of stuff that really annoys me.

      Liked by 1 person

      • YdychyncachuTracey… thank you for your comment I have responded to El Coyote’s question in my reply below… I hope someone on here will either work out who is responsible for this horrible attempt to discredit me and hopefully put it to rights. The way i’m feeling just now is that I cannot trust anyone ans that I am totally wasting my time in trying to get help for both our family and others in my area who are desperate to find people that will help them too. I just want to know who it was that said they saw me doing something that they could not possibly have done as I did’nt even know about any of this until Amber sent me a link to it !!!

        Like

        • Sara, I’ve removed your name from the post, and will be trying to find out how your name was associated with Neelu’s and Maggie’s in the context of the conference.

          Like

          • El Coyote…thank you and I really hope that you can find out then maybe Sarah will also see it was not me. Why on earth would I fork out so much money to get a train to be able to attend. A chance that may help me and others to be able to meet, listen & talk to those who wanted to, and for them to offer any help that we all so desperately need. Only then to be stupid enough to do something as awful as that, it makes no sense !!
            I was offered to have my name put on the free ticket list and was so very grateful to be allowed to attend and to hear what the different speakers had to say. I feel so betrayed by who ever did this, my family and I are still grieving for the loss of JJ and the fact the the other two are still locked in the system…..

            Like

  10. Thanks for the comment/reply I am so sick of people trying to blacken both me and my family, I went there in good faith and I met some really good people, one of whom I have met with since and is extremely lovely person and was willing to help me but may now thanks to all this rubbish may not !! Thought this was going to be a chance to get to know more people who are on the same page not people who were going to use Jonas as a means to enhance their own gains…..

    Like

    • Sara, thanks for commenting. We have no interest in using your son as a means to enhance our own work, but I do have a question for you: your website was listed on the leaflet that was distributed by Neelu and her people. Do you know why that would be?

      Like

      • As far as i’m concerned the only reason that my Facebook account (JusticeforJonas) was listed on this leaflet is because it was lifted direct from the wordpress.com website of Sabine McNeill where she was reporting on some of the most serious cases including my own and that of Vicky Haigh and Gloria & Chiwar Musa.
        I have had no contact with anyone either before or during the conference that would link me to what is on these leaflets or to distribute them, and I most certainly do not know any details of these cases and therefore I cannot and will not comment on them.
        I would like to know what the reason is behind these outrageous claims and why someone would wish to discredit me in this way.
        I do know is I am genuine in what I say and my post re the conference was because I was genuinely grateful to meet the person who wrote a opinion/report for me for Jonas’ case. I was told about the conference and that I should try and attend if possible as it was being run by the very person I thought I could trust especially after what she had written for us.
        I am appalled at the way I have been accused of doing something I had no part in and without a shred of evidence !!!
        My family and I have been through hell and back since Jonas died and my distrust in everyone along the way has just been increased by 100%
        I was not made aware that this conference was invitation only I was offered the chance to attend by being put on the list, it cost a small fortune for me to get to it and this is what happens…totally sickening…

        Liked by 1 person

        • Sara, first may I offer you my sincerest condolences on the loss of your son. I understand that you must have gone to the conference hoping to make connections with others in similar situations, and to find ways to help one another.

          I am very sorry we linked your name with those who were obviously trying to sabotage the conference organisers’ efforts, and I’ll remove your name from the article immediately. Please accept my apologies.

          Like

          • El Coyote…thank you for your sincere condolences and apologies gratefully accepted, I am totally devastated at what has happened and I assure you I am not responsible for any of this that has been said against me, i wish I knew who did it and why, many thanks Sara.

            Liked by 1 person

    • Sara, I wasn’t being sarcastic. It is totally understandable that you’d want answers. Even if it turned out you went about that in a poorly judged way, I don’t really think I am in any place to judge a grieving parent, and honestly, I haven’t been delving in to your life to even be able to think something like that.

      What I do have an issue with is people who lead vulnerable people astray, and use them for their own campaigning ends but end up doing them no good. The same people pop up again and again unfortunately.

      I think most people who meet you, if they are worth knowing, will be able to form their own opinion about you, or offer you honest and impartial advice that helps you, and not do stuff mainly to further their campaigning or career.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. I am really sorry if the conference has now gone sour for Sara and I agree it is despicable for anyone to use the death of her son to promote any agenda – unless it’s about arguing for greater openness from those in authority so other parents aren’t left feeling as sad and bewildered as Sara clearly is.

    BUT Sara’s son is now being used by some really nasty people to promote their really nasty agenda. If this is without her permission or encouragement, it would really help if she could make this clear as often as possible.

    I do not know who distributed the leaflets. I did not find out about them until about 5pm. I wish I had seen who it was as I would have been very happy to make a statement to the police.

    Like

    • phillimoresarah Thank you Sarah I hope you read my messages and replies accordingly I am hoping that this has now cleared my name and that my character will be restored…

      Like

  12. Pingback: The sad story of little RoofieTroofie | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.