Young Journalist of the Year? Not likely.

Are we the only ones who remember hearing Angela Power-Disney claiming that she had won the ‘Young Journalist of the Year’ award back when she was, well, young?

It’s a strange claim, given that no one here has ever been able to find anything with her byline on it, but then Angie is pretty elderly, and so it’s entirely possible that her “award-winning journalism” took place in the decades before the internet existed. Possibly even before the printing press was invented.

Certainly, if Angie ever had any journalistic skills to speak of, she seems to have completely forgotten them now.

Just in case, one of our readers, Miss Camden Town Baths 1946, helpfully supplied us with links to two decades’ worth of winners’ lists for the UK Press Awards: one covers the period from 1970 to 1979, while the other covers 1980 to 1989.

Funnily enough, they had neglected to include Angie’s name in either list! We just cannot understand it. Must be some sort of oversight.

We’re sure she’ll be happy to clear things up with us, just as she was so forthcoming with the accounts from her charity scamming last spring. Or, as Roger Flutterby pointed out:

angelas-lies-2016-10-23

To which Mik responded:

angies-lies-mik-2016-10-23

But we think for today we’ll let Spiny Norman’s niece have the last word. Kids are just so articulate these days, don’t you find?

angies-lies-spiny-norman-2016-10-23

newspapers-444447_960_720

118 thoughts on “Young Journalist of the Year? Not likely.

  1. Far be it for me to question Miss Camden Town’s investigative techniques but as this document from Vikileaks* attests, she appears not to have searched back far enough…

    *The Victorian equivalent of Wikileaks (now available on wax cylinder).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The question on my mind at the moment is, where are Ella Draper and Abrahamic Christie right now? Have they fled abroad? Are they still together? Does she feel guilt over abusing and abandoning her children through gambling them?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Abe & Ella pissed off to Spain in February 2015. They’re thought to still be there, though they’re believed to flit between Spain and Morocco.

      Like

    • @Bob I am hoping that Ella & Abe are growing tired of each other and want to seperate but realise they’ve left themselves unable to come back home.That’s got to hurt when you can’t go back to the place you think of as home.No one to blame but themselves and they know it.

      Like

  3. Two new vids from Rupert!
    (Thanks to Agent M for letting us know about these.)

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    HEALTH WARNING: RUPERT ATTEMPTS TO DO A COCKNEY ACCENT IN THE SECOND VIDEO.

    Liked by 1 person

    • From the BBC “Arshid Hussain, 40, was jailed for 35 years while siblings Basharat, 39, and Bannaras, 36, were jailed for 25 and 19 years respectively.”

      So glad that justice is being done in these cases. About time!

      Liked by 1 person

    • From that article:

      “I’m glad I have finally got justice after 13 years and the men who abused me will face the consequences.

      “But I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if people had listened to me all of those years ago.

      “How many girls could have been saved from suffering what I suffered?”

      This is a theme that seems to recur often with this type of case. Very often the ‘warning bell’ has been sounded years before, but the Police and prosecuting authorities have either ignored reports or acted in ways which provide offenders with effective protection and/or immunity. – I don’t doubt that a lot of what we read is exaggerated and conflated. But equally well, I don’t doubt for a microsecond that various officials were in one way or another complicit in the abuse. Something similar is (and continues to be) true of a local case I have recently learned much of.

      http://hollie-greig-book-closed.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/questions-questions.html

      Where are the conspiritards on this case? The guy is ex-Army Intelligence, claimed to be a Mason and ‘well-in’ with a certain (now also disgraced – for financial irregularity) local politico etc. He ‘ticks ALL the boxes’ – what’s more his background is readily checkable, is for real, and the bastard is now ACTUALLY doing time! When he was arrested his ongoing project was building canoes so he could take little girls canoeing in the local country park. It’s also known he was actively producing videos of child abuse…. Then there’s his wife’s part in the debacle – she’s still wandering about free sporting her MBE!

      Where are you on this one Angie? Mel? McKenzie? Gerrish? Icke? – Still ‘crying wolf’ about things that DIDN’T happen in order to paint the picture that only loonies blow whistles! That’s where!

      Liked by 1 person

      • I think the point is these ‘types’ of failure are common enough. It’s said this was a matter people not wanting to rock the political correctness boat – what’s the explanation in the (distinctly-Aryan and reputably somewhat racist) Hugh Mitchell case then? And is it really as simple as ‘not wanting to appear racist’? Personally I’m not buying that one, and even if it were true, it renders each and every individual who took that line unfit to continue in post as clearly their values and morals are unacceptable lacking.

        Indeed, what’s the explanation in any other case where the authorities have failed to take effective action? As another example, when (white as a skunk’s stripe) Gordon Mathieson was caught in a public park ( a place where children play and old people walk their dogs) with another man’s penis in his mouth! What explanation, other than corruption and amorality on the part of the justice system is for him being let off the hook? – Again, the core issue here is the morals, judgement and fitness to serve in public office. And the Hampstead case, though certainly of another kind and different level of gravity…. From where I’m sitting it’s failure after failure after failure on the part of the authorities. And that’s particularly true of some of the people who orchestrated it – Belinda ‘Teflon’ McKenzie. How does SHE get away with it?

        Like

  4. There is no possibility whatsoever that Angela Power-Disney has any kind of qualification or training in journalism, this is evidenced by the fact she does not know the very basics. Not even to the extent you might expect from a kid who had done Media Studies at school. – Then, there is the fact that at least some of her movements and associates from ‘back in the day’ are known. ….Mainly because THEY were stupid enough to try and operate in an area that actually WAS used by the local press and media to billet their ‘cubs’.

    Angela, let’s recall, is best remembered from those days for impersonating one Judith Sweeney – an actual actress who has had a long career in the theatre and is highly respected and liked by most who come into contact with her. Many of THOSE people were trainees back in the day – late 70s/early 80s London. And many of THOSE people remember well Andrea Davidson’s little housing scam. – The papers were well-onto them. All the hangers-on have marked cards….. Angie would be wise to stop waving hers in the air!

    Like

    • So are you saying Angies a talentless, lying, charity scamming, religious hypocrite? do you reckon her tales of being hunted naked through forests by aliens who despite crossing the galaxy and solving spacetime paradox couldn’t find some bint in a wood? y’know you may be on to something.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I get the feeling the aliens just parked their flying saucers in a circle at the edge of the woods, with the lights all flashing – while Angie ran around in circles and the spacemen fucked off down the pub for a few Newky Browns….. A much better deal than having to deal with Angie on heat IMHO – pretty wise these intergalactic megabeings. That or it was a particularly bad batch of acid Neelu cooked up in 1984. – The year, not the book or the movie.

        Like

        • Quite likely that interstellar visitors popped over to gift humanity with mechanisms for harmonic development and access to infinite free beer.Unfortunately on observing Angie decided (down at the pub) that neither the lifeforms or the beer have evolved sufficiently to make intervention viable at this juncture.They may check in again on those slimey bipeds in about another 3 billion years or so if they can be arsed.

          Thanks a bundle Angie.

          Like

    • It’s a debauched world. And this is one of the more grotesque cases to emerge in recent times, it highlights the question of how the Police assess and monitor the psychological suitability and stability of those who serve. Otherwise, I’m not sure what point it makes relevant to the Hampstead hoax.. There is no serious debate over the fact that terrible, debauched things happen. Or that the authorities often fail to the point where their fitness for purpose is in grave question. – Other that to further highlight how those who cry wolf facilitate this though, I cannot see the relevance of simply posting links to newspaper articles without comment or highlight.

      Like

  5. Here are a few snippets from Chris Spivey’s latest drivelfest. Divvy never runs out of ways to make my flesh crawl. Here he is now, begging quite aggressively for cash, claiming to have the only troofer blog in the World that isn’t run by the security services and banging on seemingly ad infinitum about Max Spiers’s death being a false flag and Max being cloned…er…or something. Old charmer that he is, Divvy even slags off Max’s grieving mother and posts several pics of Max’s family, including one of his child (which I’ve obscured in the screenshot below).

    http://chrisspivey.org/the-brady-bunch

    Footnote: Spivey’s biggest supporters include Angela Power-Disney and Danielle la Verité.

    Liked by 1 person

    • How strange, I’ve just been looking at Spivey’s shite too.

      Saying donations are his only source of income, he’s another lying fraud. Don’t state benefits count as income now?

      I ended up on his site because of links from Neelu’s fb page and that facial recognition nonsense.

      Both of them are spouting bollox.

      I’m waiting to hear whether Tom Cahill’s claim of Spivey and the bestiality images of Spivey’s ex and one of his dogs come to anything.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yep, that’s how I ended up there, LOL. Neelu says she can state for certain that some of those pics aren’t the real Queen, as she looks slimmer in the older ones! 😀

        Spivey’s no better. That pic of the Paris victim looks nothing like Max Spiers. But because the photo of Max has lighting effects on it, it means he has no ears and a fake nose. Seriously, Spivey is the epitome of dickheadery.

        Liked by 1 person

      • £300 a month to keep his site running…what in hell is he doing over there? This site chugs along under its own steam, using good old WordPress.com (free platform and server). I’d love to know what’s so special about Spivey’s site that it’s costing him that much to run.

        Like

        • It’s a .org domain name…. About £15/year to keep going. It’s hosted at 82.221.131.47 – Iceland, OrangeWebsite.com. And, right enough, you might pay between 200 and 350 Euro a month for a dedicated server… But why would you unless you had a use for it?

          Now, given the load of old shite he has on his blog, he’d struggle to make use of the €9.90/month ‘gold’ plan. So here’s a question…. Assuming for a minute Spivey’s got himself a dedicated server, what ‘dark web’ stuff might he be hosing under its Icelandic hood? – Because there’s nothing on his ‘open’ page that might occupy 2 x 1TB Hard Drive and 15TB Bandwidth. That’s the sort of power you’d need if you were hosting your own video service! – Does Chris Spivey sell videos?

          So, which is it Chris? Lying through your teeth about your hosting fees? Or using an Icelandic server to flog porn, as so many grubby little scrotes do? – Those are the only two explanations I can come up with. Glad to have it all clarified for me though, over to you Spiv.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Old Spivey seems quite envious that when he asks people for money to supposedly keep his site running he doesn’t get as much money as others he deems below him get with their GoFundMe accounts.
      His site is a joke and his posts there make no sense at all and his obsession with photo comparisons make him seem all the madder. The bloke has problems but he just can’t see them.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Well said SN.

    Neelu is consistent – I do wonder if its a ploy on her part in a desperate bid to avoid any action by the Police (a claim of mental illness on her part?)

    Liked by 1 person

      • Indeed, I pity the police when she reports back for her bail. More interviews? Questions of mental state? Questions of risk to others?

        I wonder if Belinda will be there to support her?

        I must admit, I watched the video clip below and wonder if the main part was actually a male alter ego of Neelu and the consequences for the people around the main character are the inspiration to Neelu – why else would she talk such utter bollocks so often?

        Like

  7. You may well have had a valid case for setting up a rebuttal to the Hampstead claims but now it looks like a Jihad . My advise, park and leave it and let the law do its job.

    Like

    • If only there was some credible sign of the law actually doing its job! Or some indication that this ‘McKenzie Industries Inc.’ scam wasn’t to be followed up soon with yet another – it is just one case after all! About the only people who would benefit from a shut-down IMHO are the low-life hoaxers and scammers who would otherwise be making such a good living! – And, of course, drawing the ‘heat’ away from actual abuse cases.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It is rather like using antibiotics, if the infection isn’t completely killed off it will keep coming back with increased resistance. Hampstead was an expansion of the modus operandi developed in the Hollies Greg case. Who knows what the next McKenzie scam will be if her activities aren’t properly exposed this time.

        Like

    • I might agree with you if it weren’t for the fact that so many of those who continue to promote this hoax—which has had devastating effects on many innocent children and families—were not also continual liars and scam artists. Drawing this to public attention helps underscore the fact that the hoax is, well, a hoax.

      Like

    • Anon, the Hampstead community is still under attack and it still isn’t going to sit back and take it. And there are still plenty of non-Hampstead residents too who feel compelled to take a stand against this kind of thing before it happens somewhere else. Thanks for asking.

      Like

  8. Sorry “FAnny Adams” I didnt realise it was a requirement to give your real name to comment “Fanny Adams” or your CV.

    As for “drawing heat away”, how so?

    Did any real cases get dismissed specifically because of this case, do you have an example ?

    Liked by 1 person

    • What this ridiculous “case” has achieved is to make it much harder for real victims of abuse to be believed, certain people who will remain nameless (ANGIE) and her MK ultra supersoldier clowns are making the word survivor more laughable by the day, what sort of shit would make up stories about being abused? they are sick fucks and I for one love trolling them because they are attention seeking morons.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Anon, I think Fanny was just curious about what your involvement/interest in this case is. And with all due respect, her question was a little more polite and mature than your response.

      Re. your “drawing heat away” question, one point that has often been made about this case is the significant breach of trust which occurred when the videos of the children were uploaded. The subsequent illegal, repeated broadcasting of their names, faces and private interviews can only serve to deter other children from coming forward in the future and has also provided perverts with extreme fantasy footage.

      Re. your last question, SRA cases are in fact frequently dismissed thanks to previous exposure. We’ve learnt lessons from McMartin, the Orkneys, Holliehoax and many other “satanic panic” hoaxes; and whereas 30 years ago the police and Social Services were jumping on these bandwagons at the drop of a hat, they now approach them with extreme caution.

      So what, may I ask, is your objection to the residents of Hampstead speaking out against this sustained and vicious attack on their community, their reputations, their careers and their families?

      Like

    • Ah! The dance of the strawman! – The direct effects of this case are irrelevant in terms of what hasn’t (yet?) happened and of grave concern when we consider what has! – You have read “The boy who cried ‘wolf'” haven’t you?

      I think it’s perfectly clear that this IS just one case among many, and were you to drill into what has been written here and elsewhere you would find that it forms part of a pattern involving many ‘common threads’ including some of the people behind it. i.e. This isn’t a random wheeze plucked out of a clear blue sky by a couple of randoms, but the latest episode in something that’s been going on for decades.

      It’s also quite clear that this ‘movement’ which feeds the myth that whistles are only ever blown by mad people is very useful to the useless, the dishonest and the downright criminal. – Rogue council officials and dodgy MPs for instance just LOVE to hide behind that notion in labelling people who would hold their feet to the fire (on any issue) as ‘vexatious’. By this means the inconvenient is swept under the carpet and can be ignored. Though I’m not at liberty to name names, I’m certainly well aware of perfectly legitimate and cogernt people who were so treated, only for them to be vindicated years later as some other witness or victim came forward and convictions were achieved.

      As far as child-abuse cases go, grass-roots disclosure and campaigning is most certainly discredited by the antics of these ‘sorts’. – There are examples where legitimate groups have been infiltrated and (effectively) brought down (and people far better qualified than me to explain them). Elsewhere the public will now tend to view any ‘freelance’ disclosure with suspicion – that is an engineered situation, and one that certainly works to the advantage of those who abuse children and do other horrendous things.

      Specific to this case I’m certainly well-aware of at least two families who were driven from their homes. I have sat face-to-face with a father (a devout Christian and quite conservative) and heard him explain how he has had to broach subjects with his very young children that, as a parent, he had wished to to address only when they were much older; he has described how his children have nightmares. And was so troubled that he and his wife felt they had to transfer out of London. It is an affront to common decency and family life that good people should be placed in such a position.

      Meanwhile the story so far is that officialdom has failed and/or refused to act on information received. Indulged in ‘designed to fail’ actions, and when it finally did bring one of them to book the outcome was – is so weak and ineffectual that the perpetrator might just as well have been scolded and sent to bed early! All officialdom has achieved is to embolden the hoaxers; we saw in the past 24 hours one of them, currently awaiting trial, re-emerge on social media bold as brass and twice as yellow.

      – If you don’t understand how all this helps facilitate paedophiles by drawing the heat away from them then I can only offer you my pity!

      Like

      • I dont need your pity , I think you are talking nonsense , its all supposition Ion your part .

        You are welcome to you opinion of course.

        Like

        • Nope…. Not supposition at all. – I’ve cited real cases that can be cross-checked and made what I believe to be cogent arguments. In fact there is little that I have written which cannot be easily corroborated. A virtual stamp of the foot doesn’t counter any of that. Therefore it doesn’t concern me at all what you “think”.

          I am merely one person – part of a group, some members of which have been examining these cases for years. It consists, among others, of Police Officers, legitimate Journalists, Paralegals and others like myself with professional media experience. For the record, not everyone in that group ‘approves’ of my taking part in this discussion or of the blog – some have strong objections in fact. But it’s quite interesting that none of those people – even those who strongly disapprove of it – are calling for the blog to be shut down.

          Like

      • And you have what good reason to believe a word this oft-proven liar and fantasist says? As I say, I sense a trap and of the very firm opinion his is an active case.

        Like

    • Joe, I’m confused. When people were suggesting that we shouldn’t mention a certain person who had been sectioned, you became pretty angry about censorship and pushed and pushed until EC/SS unedited/restored your comments, complete with the person in question’s name. You now seem to be advocating the complete opposite. I’m not trying to be awkward here, as I have a great deal of respect and admiration for you and your insights – I’m just a little confused as to where you stand and what we can and can’t say.

      Like

      • – Actually I was annoyed at Rupert’s name being censored – there is no need to go that far. But it’s fairly simple – there are laws which prevent comment on active cases. Basically, you can’t!

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133630

        Equally well, it’s reasonable to suppose he will offer a defence to the charges he faces. Personally, I feel I may have some insight into what that defence might be, but cannot speculate on it publicly because it might influence the outcome. What I can say is it would be unfortunate if others were ‘encouraged’, ticked or goaded into doing so. And it’s for that reason I’m sounding the alarm. Please remember – I do actually work in PR, so do understand something of the rules. And I repeat that I sense a trap here.

        Like

        • LOL Charlotte, my wife just read that – we may have to call an Ambulance so they can give her something to shake her out the fit of hysterical laughing she’s fallen into!🙂🙂🙂

          Like

      • I think you’re ‘not wrong’ FA. And for that reason I STRONGLY suggest that these videos are taken down and Quaintance is offered nothing that might impact on the case either way, whatever the technicalities.

        Like

      • @ 57:17

        ‘The weird thing is they’ve done all this to me and I haven’t been charged with anything. There’s no charges. They’re deciding whether or not they want charges. I’ve given them every reason to not wanna charge me.’

        Like

    • Mel needs to grasp the nettle and instruct Big Bozo to $et up remote nude Yoga cla$$eS on CCN to grasp a slice of this burgeoning market.

      Lets face it efforts to cash in on new age bollox has been an unmitigated flop and really “beggers” belief such a tired dead horse is still being thrashed around.An urge to massage viewing figures and edit feedback is a bit of a clue there guys.

      CNN business strategy drastically needs to move away from the failed “sensationalist conspiraloon bullshit” format into the live streaming naked old porker market.Punters can be offered Gold Star premium option enabling them to switch to some 1970`s muzak if Mel starts to prattle on tediously.

      For his efforts Big Bozo should be granted own daily lunchtime slot called ” Bozos naked under-duvet wrist exercises ” or something.

      Like

  9. Its good to see the hoaxers starting to disappear in their own smoke. Well done all. Sock puppets such as Anon today reinforces the fact that the hoax is destroyed and now its only little embers left burning.

    Its a great shame that super scam artist Angie does not do the same as the rest of the hoaxers….

    Like

    • I just wish they’d make up their minds. In just three sentences, the Queen’s gone from African to lizard to clone. I haven’t felt so dizzy so quickly since Hugh Janus let me try his home brew.

      Like

  10. I empathize with the frustration that Joe, and many others, have expressed about “events” of various kinds not playing out the way we (personally, or collectively) believe they “obviously” ought to – and the seemingly suspicious lack of explanation about this from…well, from anyone at all sometimes!

    I don’t profess to have explanations for many, if any, specific cases of this “phenomenon”. But I’ve been holding some information – for a very long time – relevant to how various “authorities” respond, or fail to respond, to outbreaks of ritual abuse allegations, and I think it provide some insight about other situations as well. (This seems a good time & place to drop this particular info burden, finally, and be done with it)

    If you watched the Frontline documentary linked in the previous posting’s comments, about historic quack SRA therapists, you will have seen Dr Coreydon Hammond. He was one of “the bad guys”. Back in the day, some 20+ years, Doc Hammond was a prominent hypnotherapist involved in allegedly “treating” patients “diagnosed” to be SRA victims. Simultaneously, Hammond was “interrogating” these patients, under hypnosis, for his own purpose – which was playing Detective “Sherlock” Hammond, the world’s greatest investigative psycho-therapist, collecting and piecing together (he claimed) the “hidden truth” and real story of the Grand Satanic Conspiracy behind all SRA.
    Obviously, Hammond was a ridiculously self-important man and convinced of his own brilliance & professional abilities to the point of delusion. These qualities were exemplified and documented for all time through a speech Hammond gave at the Fourth Annual Eastern Regional Conference on Abuse and Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) June 25th, 1992, wherein he professed to have largely ‘solved’ the SRA conspiracy mystery. In reality, this speech known as “The Greenbaum lecture” only demonstrated 1) his total ignorance of the subject matter and 2) his extreme gullibility. “The Greenbaum lecture” is really a load of misconstrued misinformation and mythological crapola, but I won’t go into detail here.

    During the question and answer session that immediately followed his speech, Hammond relates something from a patient’s case history which is hysterically funny from the right perspective. There’s nothing funny about sexual violence or child abuse, obviously, it is the dynamics between patient (anonymous) and hypno-therapist (Hammond) and Hammond’s delusional determination NOT to perceive what’s really happening, which is so funny. The Multiple Personality Disorder “game” that Hammond and his fellow quacks were playing with their patients went like this; through talk therapy the therapist “diagnoses” that the patient has personality fragments or “alters”, (they call these simply, “parts”, until they concoct names for each one). During hypnotherapy, these “parts” are “called up” – i.e., the patient is solicited to fantasize an alternate personality – then asked for their name and “function” in the patient’s personality “system”. This process goes on for weeks or months, with the patient and therapist co-creating and fleshing out mini-biographies for each part until they all become “reality” for both of them. Then they set about extinguishing the “parts” that they have invented, one by one, through a process called “integration”. Integration can take many years, if the patient has sufficient medical insurance…
    So – Hammond talks about a patient who appeared to be, and claimed to be, fully integrated – no more “parts” remaining within them. But after awhile, the patient has a remission of “symptoms”. How could this be? Hammond hypnotizes her and “dives deep”, seeking explanation. Lo and behold, an alter pops out! Where did YOU come from, Hammond demands to know. The alter says that it was hiding, because it possessed important information for Hammond about the Grand Satanic Conspiracy, so it couldn’t allow him to integrate it. It relates a complex fantasy about mind-control programming. Hammond wants to integrate it now and complete the patient’s recovery. Oh, but this alter can’t be integrated in the usual way – it states. To “unlock” me, you’ll have to shoot the patient up with demerol and have a session with specific music playing and candles burning, (or some such nonsense), says the alter.
    Naturally, this goes on & on & on, with more alters revealing themselves, and each with new demands about hoops for Hammond to jump through, all with reasonable sounding – in context – rationalizations for refusing to “go away”.

    It should be obvious to any observer who did not share Hammond’s delusional beliefs about his proficiency as a therapist and “investigator”, that the patient was deliberately PLAYING him. Despite being diagnosed as suffering serious mental health maladies, despite any genuine victimization traumas they might have lived through, despite being drugged and supposedly hypnotized, and despite the professed caring treatment this patient was experiencing, they were STILL quite capable of intentional, devious and malicious manipulation of their therapeutic caregivers – a reality that their therapists refused to perceive, and would jump through ANY convoluted theorizing necessary to prevent themselves from perceiving.
    No one wants to believe that someone in their life, a person they know well, have caring feelings for, and respect for their admirable traits, could be a child abuser or a predatory sexual criminal – so it understandable that some of those closest to a person convicted of sex crimes with convincing evidence of their guilt, will yet refuse to believe it is true. The reverse is also true. No one wants to believe that someone in their life, a person they know well, have caring feelings for, and respect for their admirable traits, could falsely and with malicious intentions concoct a fraudulent account of suffering sexual abuse and convincingly “act out” the role of a severely traumatized sex crime victim – so it understandable that some of those closest to a person whose victim claimant narrative turns out to have holes that you could drive a fleet of transport trucks through, will yet refuse to believe the claimant was lying.

    What if you were an academic, and a scholarly “expert” on some aspect of sexual victimization, or some other field with direct bearing on the subject of ritual abuse. Suppose you were, and suppose that someone in your life that you may have known for a long time, or only recently met – but had developed caring feelings about and respect for nonetheless – suddenly broke down in front of you and began disclosing that they were an SRA victim, in great detail and with apparently genuine anguish and dismay. No doubt, you would respond empathetically as most people would. You would want to hear them out, attempt to comfort them and assure them that you genuinely care deeply about them, and will do whatever you can to be supportive of them. And if such a scene subsequently recurs over and over, and your “friend” beseeches you that: “I know this sounds crazy, but I swear its all true! You must believe me, please, I can’t go on living if no one believes me…”…well, you might pledge to this person – wanting to do the right thing – that, yes, I believe you and I will ALWAYS believe and support you. You would not want to believe that someone in your life, a person you have caring feelings for, and respect for their admirable traits, could falsely and with malicious intentions concoct a fraudulent account of suffering sexual abuse and convincingly “act out” the role of a severely traumatized sex crime victim – and so you might be willing to accept or even CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF, any theoretical rationalizations which could help you explain away apparent falsehoods you might subsequently uncover in your friend’s SRA narrative, or those of their fellow SRA claimants.

    I am capable of documenting, that several of the academics and professionals who have been most influential in “authorities” developing and maintaining a belief that SRA/ ritual abuse/ abuse cult mind-control victimization is real and pervasive in our society, have or have had personal relationships with SRA claimants, and that there are good reasons to believe those claimants could be capable of intentional, devious and malicious manipulation of their learned friends. I’m not the only person who is aware of this, of course, but NO ONE wants to publicly discuss this fact even if they do acknowledge it, so the behind-the-scenes impact these non-academic non-experts have exerted on genuine academics and professionals remains invisible.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: In the presence of genius? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

We welcome comments!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s