Here’s a question for the ages: why do so many of the Hoaxtead mob, who portray themselves as the sworn enemies of child molesters and paedophiles everwhere, seem so determined to defend certain people who’ve been accused—or convicted—of child molestation and paedophilia?
Brian Pead comes to mind: in 2010 he was convicted of having offered to pay a 14-year-old girl £300 for sex:
Brian Pead, 56, of Days Lane, Sidcup, was trapped in an online police sting by an undercover officer posing as a teenager.
The man, who worked as a therapist for a counselling agency for vulnerable youngsters, including victims of sexual abuse, in Hackney, East London, later claimed the chats were part of research for his job.
And yet, despite this conviction, his friend Sabine McNeill has stood staunchly by him, even writing a letter to the Home Secretary to plead that Mr Pead ought not to be denied contact with his grandchildren. According to Sabine, Mr Pead was not a paedophile, you see, but a noble whistleblower.
Then there’s the case of Peter Hofschroer, who is currently on trial, accused of having 36,000 child sexual abuse images on his computer.
According to the York Press:
Peter Hofschroer, 60 of no fixed address, denies 16 charges of downloading indecent images of children.
The charges relate to more than 36,000 pictures and videos on computer equipment seized from the Hofschroer family home in Rosedale Avenue, Acomb, on December 7, 2012, from a laptop carried by Peter Hofschroer at York Magistrates Court on December 1, 2014, and on computer equipment found in an Irish car driven by Peter Hofschroer in November and December 2014.
The jury has heard when some of the charges were laid, Peter Hofschroer told officers among other things: “Your police force is utterly corrupt”, “I am an investigative journalist, you are trying to stitch me up”, “have you ever tried to catch a real criminal” and “I have enough evidence to put half of you in jail.”
To hear the troofers tell it, Mr Hofschroer is yet another victim of a conspiracy, stitched up from the start because he dared to speak out against institutionalised corruption in North Yorkshire. His own family has taken part in betraying poor Peter:
[T]hey were all trying to set him up on various false charges. One was a firearms charge (he had antique weapons that could not fire), another was material allegedly found on a computer. He believed the material was planted by people wishing to protect an international paedophile ring from his exposure. He had been speaking out about North Yorkshire involvement with Jimmy Savile, and about police and council corruption.
The jury in Mr Hofschroer’s trial has heard a different story though: his nephew Martin stated that he’d had to change jobs after Mr Hofschroer contacted his employers, accusing him of being a pervert, a fraudster, and a criminal. In addition, Mr Hofschroer had been preparing to prosecute his brother Robert over a long-running dispute about the care of their elderly parents.
Hofschroer, 60, of no fixed address, denies 16 charges of downloading indecent images of children. They cover more than 36,000 videos and pictures ranging from the lowest to the most serious categories of illegal pornography.
Opening the prosecution, Mr Hampton said the defence does not dispute that the indecent images found on two computer hard drives and two computer towers in his home on December 7, 2012, on the laptop he was carrying at court on December 1, 2014, and on a laptop and a computer tower in his car, also in December 2014, were illegal.
“The ultimate question in this case is who put the images on the computers we are talking about,” Mr Hampton told the jury.
Hofschroer is expected to claim he is “the victim of an elaborate and cunning conspiracy by his brother and his nephew who have, in fact, framed him by putting those images found in 2012 on his computer equipment without his knowledge,” said the barrister.
“He will tell you he is the victim of a further conspiracy,” said Mr Hampton. “He will suggest to you that this includes police officers employed by North Yorkshire Police who have fabricated evidence against him ….. and that they did so for reasons I am sure he will explain, to discredit him.”
This makes us wonder: had a resident of Hampstead, for example, been found with more than 36,000 child sex abuse images on various computing devices, would Neelu or Butlincat have posted the following notices online? We’re thinking probably not.
So what is it about Mr Pead and/or Mr Hofschroer that makes the Hoaxtead mob hand them a free pass?
We’re guessing that it’s because both men loudly declared themselves to be ‘whistleblowers’ against systems they said were corrupt; and both claimed to have been framed for terrible crimes as a way for those corrupt establishments to shut them up. This is the kind of narrative that’s irresistible to a Hoaxteader: it sends them into an hypnotic trance, and renders allegations (or convictions) of paedophilia completely invisible to them.
Apparently if you’re a paedophile who wants to build an unquestioning following of conspiraloons, the trick to having people ignore your alleged (or confirmed) crimes is to belong to the Sooper Seekrit Society of Persecuted Whistleblowers. The secret handshake is accompanied by a cry of, “They’re all utterly corrupt!” followed by an explanation of how one could, if one wished, expose the entire vast fraudulent system and its nefarious ways.
Hey, it worked for Abraham Christie!