Rupert in London this week?

A few days ago, one of our readers drew our attention to this video featuring Angie’s protegé Rupert and Kevin Galalae, the not-at-all-crazy person, who travelled together to Rome to perform and film a hunger strike last month. To be honest we had trouble watching Rupert’s juvenile jiggle-cam efforts for more than a minute or so, but we’re told we didn’t miss much.

Anyhoo…if you fast-forward to about 53:20 here, you’ll hear Rupert try not to announce that he’ll be in the UK as of approximately June 15:

In the video, he expresses some apprehension about the reception he’s likely to receive: “I get threatened, I get called a meth addict and a paedophile…” he says, as he backtracks on his earlier threats to “kick down doors” in Hampstead. Seems that was “just hyperbole”.

We wonder: were his threats to “find someone from the cult and make them squeal” also just his adorable American way of expressing himself? We’re thinking yes.

“I do need to get up there and fulfill my obligations,” Rupert continues, by which we expect he means he’ll be waving his iPhone about and pretending to be a roving videographer hot on the trail of an imaginary cult in Hampstead.

He also mentions that he’ll probably be meeting people his audience is already familiar with—we suspect he’s referring to people like Charlie Veitch.

We wonder whether he’s aware that Veitch and Hoaxtead instigator extraordinaire Belinda McNeill have a bit of a history?

Soooo…good luck with that, Rupert old chum.

As we’ve mentioned in the past, the police are quite eager to speak with Rupert while he’s here, as apparently he left a bit of unfinished business in his wake during his last visit. We’re sure he understands what we’re talking about—pity he failed to share it with Angie before she donated so generously to his GoFundMe campaign.

No filming in or around schools

Another note from the police: should anyone happen to notice Rupert filming in the vicinity of any of a school, the police should be notified immediately: it is illegal and unacceptable for programme-makers, no matter how inept or amateurish, to loiter around schools or film children under the age of 18 without explicit parental consent.

Don’t approach Rupert or engage with him in any way, but notify the police and allow them to do their job.

While we’re on the topic of Rupert, we thought we’d share MK Ultra 666’s latest darkly humorous video on his upcoming visit. We think it captures it all beautifully:

So whenever Rupert does decide to start lurking in the pubs and doorways of Hampstead, all we can wish him is the best of British luck.

Hoaxtead bus

68 thoughts on “Rupert in London this week?

  1. You mean that you don’t think he’s got consent forms for stuff apart from filming on the street? Like people should be able to be on private property, their home, or school, and not get filmed, especially if these people are children? That the UK is very different from the US? That there’s a balancing exercise between freedom of speech and the press and people’s right to a private and family life?

    He might be in for a shock.

    Secretly filming children and broadcasting it is just low anyway. Some scumbag did that already anyway.

    People under sixteen and vulnerable people

    8.20 Broadcasters should pay particular attention to the privacy of people under sixteen. They do not lose their rights to privacy because, for example, of the fame or notoriety of their parents or because of events in their schools.

    8.21 Where a programme features an individual under sixteen or a vulnerable person in a way that infringes privacy, consent must be obtained from:

    a parent, guardian or other person of eighteen or over in loco parentis; and wherever possible, the individual concerned;
    unless the subject matter is trivial or uncontroversial and the participation minor, or it is warranted to proceed without consent.

    8.22 Persons under sixteen and vulnerable people should not be questioned about private matters without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person of eighteen or over in loco parentis (in the case of persons under sixteen), or a person with primary responsibility for their care (in the case of a vulnerable person), unless it is warranted to proceed without consent.

    Liked by 1 person

    • My other, more domprehensive comment on the subject seems to have been disappeared… But this is a quote from the OFCOM code which is merely the rules set by the BROADCAST regulator. – I’m afraid it’s not the law of the land per se. And doesn’t apply to half-assed tossers with toy cameras playing at ‘Journalists’ on Youtube!

      Liked by 1 person

      • That’s a shame, seeing as Rupert is only playing at being a broadcaster, no ethics need bother him.

        He’d still likely get his collar felt for filming children at a school. One can only hope.

        Liked by 1 person

        • What a fabulous broadcaster he is, bet everyone who donated likes to see videos like this one..check it out..LOL!

          Liked by 1 person

          • Please please tell me do that Loopy Roopy isnt going all John Lennon in doing a rooftop appearance?

            Whatever next? Live streaming week long vigil stark bollock naked in sack with ADP?

            At least that would give him something to sodding moan on about.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. LOL, do these hoaxer twunts not have editing facilities? How arrogant must they be to merrily upload video after feckin’ video that’s two or even three hours long and think that thousands of people are gonna be so enthralled by what they have to say on their grainy, barely audible $15 webcams that they’ll sit and listen to them for hour after hour after hour after hour…? Sorry, just referencing it has made me lose the will to live. So Christ knows what actually watching the damned thing would do to me!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Sooo, more back-tracking from the Roopster about “kicking down doors” and “making cult members squeal”, then.

    I wonder whether he’ll also back-track on his promise to go to Hampstead “with a little bit of fucking muscle” behind him and on his desire to “try out fucking little kids in the asshole” (see MK video above).

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’ll be so disappointed if this crackhead doesn’t come and try to kick down my door, as I REALLY want him to try :(

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I can’t abide watching more than a few seconds of the smug creep but when he says :

    “I get threatened, I get called a meth addict and a paedophile…”

    what does he expect when he makes a video stating he would like to rape a child just to see what it’s like before laughingly trying to back peddle. This is a classic Freudian Slip and not the sort of thing rational sane people say.
    Can’t recall anyone threatening the goat except to say they will contact authorities which is their duty after hearing of his threats against Londoners.

    Note that in his tragic videos of his trip to Rome he promotes one of those odd fake cigarettes that have now been found to be as dangerous, if not more so, than ordinary cigarettes. An all round nutbag but what else would he be when he’s promoted by the suspected charity scammer Angela Power-Disney.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Moreover, he has not been threatened by any of us. Unless he counts threatening to have him arrested. In terms of violent threats, however, didn’t happen.


    • Are you referring to that video where he eats spaghetti outside a café and postures and poses on the street while awaiting his meal? I laughed my head off at that one, he looked ridiculous standing in the middle of the road.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Do you think he’d follow cannabis crumbs up the steps into a Whicker Man? It’d make a great end to the documentary. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Roops Moshpit survival skills will be of little help when he drops the soap in HMP Pentonvilles Nonce wing shower block.Hey now that could go viral!

    Another classic masterwork falls from MK Ultra 666 table.


  8. It seems to me that all these buddies put deliberately false info out there in their videos as misdirection to try to put people off the scent. Take all of their suggestions of future plans with a very large handful of salt as it is pretty clear that they are very devious people. He could be there already… who knows.

    (Amateur pschology alert!)
    There is also a great narcissistic element at play here. Look at me, look how easily you can be fooled etc.
    Except for the truly deluded or the scammers, they seem to get a thrill/buzz out of doing this as it make them like feel like secret spy warrior types.


    Liked by 1 person

    • I fully agree. I don’t take Rupert terribly seriously, but it does concern me that he seems to have plans to video innocent folk in Hampstead for his ridiculous videos.

      When he claims to have no agenda I can only laugh: who’s paying his way to get here? Who pays the piper calls the tune, and I think we all know who paid this particular piper.


      • When Roopy was talking about coming to the UK last time, I think someone made the point that he could be barred from entering the country due to the threats he’s issued online, which I believe were reported to the police at the time. Any thoughts?


  9. Oh Dear…….

    Let me be clear that I agree absolutely that it’s unacceptable to be loitering around schools stalking the kids and staff – whether taking pictures or otherwise. BUT…………..

    ‘it is illegal for programme-makers, no matter how inept or amateurish, to film children under the age of 18 without explicit parental consent.’

    Sorry, but this is just plain wrong; and very dangerously so! I’m told it’s an almost-daily occurance for newsgatherers to have to summon the Police to deal when some ‘chimp’ insists that they or their kids can’t be filmed! And people HAVE got badly hurt due to this myth! – It’s been put to me that it’s only a matter of time before somebody loses their life!

    “No one has the right to ask a photographer to stop, to ask for a copy of the photos or to force them to delete the photographs, unless the images that have been taken are indecent.” – Avon and Sommerset Police.

    To ensure I’m on the right track with this I have made a point of checking with both Ian Chambers (a Media Paralegal) and another individual (who does not want to be named) who is a properly trained/qualified news cameraman – and is also a former lecturer in TV who authored and delivered the SQA-Approved HN Media Law unit at [redacted] College for their TV production course. – I’m very sure there are other sources which will allow you to cross check what I’m saying here…..

    No it’s not ‘illegal to film children under the age of 18 without explicit parental consent’… There are no laws or restriction on photographing people (including children), buildings, objects or anything else in a public place, or in any place open to the public where photography is not expressly prohibited.

    For clarity, no-one requires your permission to take your picture or that of your child!

    With the exception of the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, all of which of course make it illegal to capture an indecent photograph of a child, there are no separate laws impacting on the photography of children!

    – And this is actually a very dangerous misconception that has in the past lead to very serious disorder, including physical assault and serious injury to legitimate photographers and film-makers as they went about their daily business.

    There are caveats however…..

    In England and Wales if you take photographs on private land without the knowledge or permission of the landowner this may constitute evidence of trespass. – Contrary to popular belief there IS also a law of trespass in Scotland and the situation is similar; although here it is a civil matter and as such the police have no jurisdiction.

    The default position is that you should, when on private land, always assume you are not permitted to take photographs unless you have written permission.

    Photography is typically expressly prohibited in shopping centres, museums and art galleries, concerts and theatrical events, and within municipal buildings – particularly including courts and their precincts. – The latter can be a contempt of court.

    The ‘curtilage’ of many commercial buildings is also ‘private property’… Surprisingly, if you’re working in London you should be aware that the entire Canary Warf Estate (streets and all) is private property. And even though their ‘PR’ is at odds with this, even amateurs with vaguely professional-looking equipment are routinely and very rudely ‘marched off’ the estate! – Distraught Japanese tourists are not uncommon!

    Many public parks throughout the UK have bars/restrictions on photography. Professional photography (without expensive and specific permits) is generally banned in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square as well as the Royal Parks – with an exception for bona-fide newsgathering.

    …Some schools and childrens’ sports venues may choose to restrict photography at some events. Such venues are of course private property (where the siteholder can impose any rules they wish) but no such restrictions could normally be imposed or enforced in a public location.

    The laws that DO impact on photography of unwilling/unwitting subjects are those relating to privacy and public order. – i.e those relating to harassment, stalking, breach of the peace etc…

    For instance the classic example of using a long lens to peer into someone’s house or private gardens where they might have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ (that phrase is important) – even from a public road – then this might well be open to legal sanction. The starting point for this is The Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR. Similarly, capturing an image for the purpose of defaming your subject(s) is unacceptable – but it’s quite a complex area that requires more specialised input.

    More immediately useful and relevant are the harassment/breach of the peace laws… These are largely outside the scope of Media Law per se and again more specialised advice is required. However if a photographer’s behaviour is such that it causes a reasonable person to fear for their personal safety, or that of another person…

    i.e. They fear that “an act [may be] done or threatened to be done which either actually harms a person, or in his presence, his property, or is likely to cause such harm being done.” And/Or the Scots definition – “conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community. ”

    …Then it is entirely reasonable for a Constable to be summoned and for them to deal with the matter appropriately.,-assault-and-hate-crime/harassment-and-stalking/ – Advice from an English Police Force on Stalking/harassment. – – Advice from an English Police Force on public photography. – Scotland-specific. – Advice for professional producers working in London.

    Liked by 1 person

    • So, some numpty calling himself a made up name, filming a woman and a child, in her garden, even if this is from the road, filming himself asking if they eat babies, is probably causing some alarm and distress.

      I was more thinking of people trying to film in schools and other places, not in public, I probably wasn’t clear.

      I doubt if he’d get much sympathy if he was lamped. The problem is people have been filmed more than once by this lot. I’d think they might have good reason to be fearful, but I don’t want to exaggerate the threat of Rupert.

      Anyway. Puppytooth. Lol. There are other ways to avoid being filmed, even in the background. Not that I think this lot are bothered about stuff like that.

      Liked by 1 person

      • There was a case up here in Scotland where a Polish chap was fined £100 for a breach of the peace simply for photographing a drunk woman in distress. On the face of it an unsafe conviction. – There was a bit of an outcry and really the case should have been appealed.

        But the general direction of thought is that his actions probably constituted harassment. – What’s not reported is that he didn’t just film the incident from a distance, but got ‘in the woman’s face’ so to speak.

        “So, some numpty calling himself a made up name, filming a woman and a child, in her garden, even if this is from the road, filming himself asking if they eat babies, is probably causing some alarm and distress.”

        That would seem cut and dried to me, yes; she should have reported this to the police, pointing out the fear alarm and distress this caused her.

        “I was more thinking of people trying to film in schools and other places, not in public, I probably wasn’t clear.”

        Schools are private/municipal buildings. As such, although the public may have access to them, it’s up tot he controlling authority to say what goes on within them/on their grounds. – Photographing over a school boundary would, in my opinion, be behaviour that might cause fear/alarm. – Personally I’d call the cops on that basis.

        Liked by 1 person

        • That was a classic example of illegal harassment but sadly the manner in which the victim acted is quite normal. It’s only afterwards that such harassment begins to prey on their minds and as time goes by they get quite fearful.
          Typical of these cowardly false accusers : if anyone turned up to their home and started to harangue them about killing babies they would sh*t themselves and be calling the coppers.

          They are classic hypocrites, screeching about government cover-ups and bent police and councils and so on but more than happy to put their hands out for their social security or moaning about pot holes and the tube service (all apparently controlled by the Rothschilds) while screaming blue murder if and civil servant happens to make a mistake.

          Liked by 1 person

    • I have spoken with the police and in the context that anyone deciding to film outside of Hampstead schools it will result in a fast and hard police response. People such as Rupert will be considering the types of people who have funded his trip, what he has said, and who he associates with, seen as a threat to the wellbeing of children, staff and parents – his actions would be intimidating and harrassing, and will be treated accordingly.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks, Joe. Very useful info, and a lot more detailed than what we were told by the police (who, to be fair, aren’t specialists in media law).


      • You’re welcome EC. – I’m not a media law specialist either; simply a professional who knows their job and how the law impacts on it; which is true of most of my legitimate colleagues.

        Unfortunately individual officers and officials are too-often ill-informed about what exactly their rights and powers are. There are numerous examples of them over-stepping the mark in harassing photographers. And this has resulted in the ironic situation where inappropriate Police action actually feeds disorder and endangerment of people going about their lawful business…… As well as threatening freedom of speech.

        This has been sufficiently high-profile in the past 8-10 years that the ACPO, Crown Office and other authorites have issued clear guidance to all forces; and really there’s no excuse for officers remaining ignorant. – Of this myth, bear in mind that as well as putting innocent people in danger from hot-headed misinformed members of the public, an individual who is detained on the wrong basis may well have an ‘out’…. Which means for instance that if Rupert was lifted for ‘filming near a school’, that’s potentially a wrongful arrest!

        If the Police are handing out wrong information that should really be raised with the relevant force HQ. – Everyone should have ‘got the memo’ by now; if somebody hasn’t, they need brought up to speed before a mistake is made and either somebody gets hurt or a ‘wrong ‘un’ walks.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. I imagine Rupert’s contribution will be very similar to his contribution for Galalae. That is, film shit, speak shit, smoke shit.

    Judging by Rupert’s videos with Angie, he doesn’t appear to even know much about the case other than seeing some of the videos on YT, and listening to the crap spoke by Angie et al. Rupert might get a bit of a shock once if he looks closer and meets with these loons. Though spending time with Galalae was probably a good warm up.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. They might have a cunning plan to film the people filming him so its imperative folk are prepared to film them too etc ad nauseum.
    May be worth liaising with Guiness book of records for an adjudicator to be present to ensure fair play in this attempt to smash the world daisy chain filming record.
    He can also witness and formally record Ruperts disapearing up his own arse trick in ground breaking time whilst he`s at it.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. So has the fragrant Angela Power-Disney ever published this video of blood on the church floor or reported it to police so they could gather forensic evidence- something they would be duty bound to do ? No thought not. Creep.

    How brain dead is this Rupert character: someone makes a claim on Youtube and he instantly accepts it as though true, I swear if the right person told them to set fire to their hair or beard they would do so unquestioned.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, I’m fascinated that while Angie claims to have this ‘evidence’ of blood stains on the floor, she never bothered to take any photos. Considering that these people all seem to carry at least two phones with them at all times, it seems an unforgivable oversight.


      • Still, at least she sprung into action when she saw it…by pissing off to the pub for a piss-up with Neelu and the Polymouth Poet, instead of reporting the dastardly crime.


    • LOL! From what I can gather the townspeople in her neck of the woods are well onto her as a lying scamming ‘mare!

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Rupert fields a question about chemtrails and says:
    “My best advice is that if you see heavy spraying in your area don’t go outside between 24 and 72 hours afterwards or unless it rains….it usually takes care of it. I noticed that when they do a nice big spray over the course of a couple of days, within two to four days, I hear and increased amount of sneezing and coughing and celebrity deaths of course, but mostly just people sneezing and coughing.

    Sneezing and coughing and celebrity deaths……did I hear that right?

    Liked by 1 person

    • That is just how you would go about assassinating a celebrity isn’t it – spraying chemicals from tens of thousands of feet up! Couldn’t fail to to be effective [[sarcasm]].

      I find it so odd that people think this is a new phenomenon. They certainly existed in the early 1970s, I can remember asking what they were when I was a small child.


  14. I suppose you choose your causes but I’m not minded to take much notice of Rupert because he’s not on his own ground, putting his own house in order and believe me, from this perspective, Virginia is a mess. While he’s in Italy and London on wild goose chases he’s ignoring the fact that his state still has the death penatly (shame) and that there’s a massive disparity in the numbers of white and black people in prison. (Guess who there’s more of?) The figures are on the net, easy to find. There’s still no universal free health care in America and according to the Virginia Healthcare Foundation there are more than 900,000 people in his state without insurance. I’ve read that some 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate and that Virginians meet the national average for non-readers.
    You want to change the world Rupert? You want to be an activist? Do something about Virginia!

    Liked by 1 person

    • The scammers have diverted the energies of a lot of people into blind allies. There are a lot of real problems in the world which would benefit from the attention of activists. There are unanswered questions about 9-11, but elaborate theories about Hollywood style special effects and controlled demolition have served to completely obscure them.


      • A fair number of us are of the opinion that this is one of the main reasons for their existence F.S. And they do seem to operate across a wide range of fields where dissent might well be inconvenient for certain authorities.


        • There are certainly rumours about quite a few of the characters we have come across having MI5 or CIA connections (Rupert of course has family connections). We know there are government agents who infiltrate protest groups, but would any of them be as deliberately high profile or generally crass as Belinda or Christine Ann Sands?

          Hello my internet connection just went! If I were Angie I would say THEY are trying to stop me getting too near the truth!

          Liked by 1 person

          • I think there is ‘some’ evidence to suggest that the media – across all its forms – is manipulated and interfered with. – And that includes the weird and not-so-wonderful world of social media and the internet. McKenzie and a couple of other lunatics DO genuinely have ‘establishment’ links. And her apparent immunity from prosecution is HIGHLY suspicious. – I’m told McKenzie has been ‘at it’ since at least Greenham Common times!

            “Would any of them be as deliberately high profile or generally crass as Belinda or Christine Ann Sands? It’s not IMpossible. But the general consensus is that these notions of them actually BEING part of the security services are as much part of their smoke-and-mirrors scamming activities as any more direct fraud or obvious shenanigans they might indulge in.

            ‘Licensed to con’ they may well be; but only tacitly. And I do believe there is a point where they will become more idiot than useful. – At which the ‘powers that be’ will have little option but to act as they ought to have done a long time ago.

            Liked by 1 person

    • I hear Black & Decker do a good range that might meet his needs. – About a 10mm spade bit should do the trick.


  15. Pingback: Rupert’s Mummy to the Rescue! | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  16. Pingback: Why Rupert just can’t get no respect | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.