To those of you who don’t yet follow the very interesting and informative blog belonging to Ms Anna Raccoon: you’re missing out. For example, yesterday morning Ms Raccoon addressed the important issue of secrets—and who should be entrusted with their guardianship. It’s a thought-provoking article, and well worth a read.
One of the ideas raised in the post is that of being very cautious about the sharing of deeply personal information. Most people will respect a confidence, but some are less trustworthy than others; and there are some who, when entrusted with one’s deepest secrets, will store them up until the day when they can use them against you.
For some reason, this put us in mind of Angela Fag-Ash Disney. Can’t think why.
Oh, maybe it’s because Angie has a nasty habit of winkling confidences and bits of personal information out of people, and then waiting until the worst possible moment to “disclose” everything she knows…in the most public way she can.
Most recently, her catty exposé of private messages from the recently deceased Max Spiers got her in trouble with some of her friends, including Miles Johnston, who promptly took down all the Bases 43 videos he’d made of Angie last summer.
Angie’s response? On Monday’s Conscious Consumer Nutwork broadcast, she lambasted Mr Johnston, divulging personal info he’d shared with her:
T0 be clear: we’re no fan of Mr Johnston or his work. But watching Angie disclose the most personal information about him, gleaned during private conversations, is just plain painful.
I am hugely averse to secrecy. So every other week I’m going to dip in my in-box and start off-loading responsibly secrets and confidences unless to do so would put anybody’s life in danger and I should maybe make a disclaimer that I don’t have a monopoly on the truth.
Is it just us, or does this sound like a not-very-veiled threat? “Cross me and you will find your most personal disclosures aired out in public”?
She talks about things we’re quite certain Mr Johnston would never have divulged to her, had he known what she’d do with them.
At one point it seems he made the mistake of disclosing details of some abuse that occurred when he was a child at school. Angie the great crusader for survivors of child sexual abuse uses this very private information against him, and then adds in some completely gratuitous innuendo:
I noticed when he was interviewing myself and an American survivor called Sandy he was getting very triggered.
If we displayed any kind of…you know, women like us we’ve learned to be tough and hard and harsh and apparently strong, and he was getting triggered. Every time we were displaying the alpha-whatever female traits he was getting very triggered and very triggering.
And so I said to him, “You dissociate Miles…you act out, whats going on…what’s that? What’s your deal with?”
“Triggered”? What does that mean, precisely? Is that a polite word for ‘aroused’? Is she trying to hint at sadomasochistic tendencies, with her emphasis on “alpha-whatever female traits”?
And note that Angie’s response to her supposed friend’s “triggering” is to dig for more information from him, as though she were a psychotherapist exploring a difficult issue with a client. The problem is, of course, that a) she has absolutely no qualifications to do such a thing, and b) she has no compunction about sharing what she finds, should her ‘client’ do anything she doesn’t like.
Not content with breaching the bonds of confidentiality and spreading vicious innuendo about him, Angie tries to torpedo her erstwhile friend’s reputation:
I try and stay away from those questions: “Is he cointelpro? A shill? Is he a troll? But I got a strange message off Miles last night about Hampstead….the [message] was, ‘I wish you’d shut up about that case you insist on going about”. And he said, “It’s a trap. Curiosity killed the cat”.
What? What is this narrative and if there is a narrative to blow something up huge like McMartin and then discredit it spectacularly and then take every other disclosure down with it, I’m not participating in that. I’m thinking of [RD’s children] and the other 20 at least children and when I hear truth I know I’m not alone in saying I’m not letting this one go. I’m not.
The other bizarre thing is that I’ve had angry messages off Miles today probably because he feared I was going to do what I’ve just done but…. You know we didn’t die. I don’t hate you Miles, and I don’t think you’re into kiddie porn but I’ve got red flags.
Well then. Thank goodness she doesn’t think he’s into ‘kiddie porn’, but only has ‘red flags’. That must be a huge relief to him.
The message from Angie here couldn’t be clearer: cross her in any way—whether by expressing doubts about the hoax she’s been promoting, or by removing videos about her from your YouTube channel—and you will find your confidences thrown out into the public arena, for the rest of the world to pick over.
Others who have become entangled with Angie—Rupert and Jake, we’re looking at you—might have done well to consider her habit of spreading destructive gossip before they decided to cosy up to her.
We remember Rupert telling Angie that he had things to tell her, but he didn’t want to do so onscreen. Whatever those private things were, we expect we’ll all hear about them soon enough, if Rupert deviates in any way from his mission as prescribed by Angie.
Angie’s chief weapon is the secrets people tell her. And don’t think for a moment that she will hesitate to press the Launch button.