Guidance 2222 rethinks Hoaxtead

It’s been some time since we last heard from Guidance 2222. In the heyday of the Hampstead SRA hoax he was one of the most prolific YouTube posters, and most of us will remember his infamous walk through Hampstead, in which he paused to bully a woman and her child in the garden of Christ Church cottage.

This new release, though, is a horse of a different colour: while Guidance covers the usual Hoaxtead tropes (children weren’t lying, baby-eating cult really does exist, etc.), starting at about 33:37 this video takes a wholly unexpected turn.

Speaking directly to the viewer, Guidance starts: “Yeah, so I just want to talk about the Hampstead case, the Hampstead cover-up, my involvement in it”.

When I’d seen the videos—the shocking videos—at first all I could do was just re-upload the videos and spread the word….I went down to the school, I put them videos online also, just trying to spread the word.

Later on UK Column comes on claiming they went down there….they couldn’t have someone such as myself, not affiliated with anyone, dealing with the case. It was their little thing to be dealing with.

He describes how he was contacted by Abe and Ella, first by email and then by phone: “They’d seen the videos, they appreciated my work. We became a little team, trying t0 spread the word”.

However, Guidance now admits, “This case is weird, very weird, right from the start”:

There were people like Paul Joseph Watson calling it a hoax before the evidence even hit the mainstream. It was too early. Obviously some people had prior knowledge; people in the alternative media had prior knowledge.

Maybe it’s just a hoax after all?

And then Guidance says something truly startling: “When these people call it a hoax, maybe they’ve got a point”.

Say what? Could you repeat that please?

He explains that people like Belinda, Sabine, Brian Gerrish, “the shill Maloney were all working in the background”. Apparently this gave him pause, as did some of the tactics used by Charlotte Alton Ward:

See, this is the thing—Hampstead Research was there. They thought they was going to be in control dealing with this, but they just went overboard, there were too many names coming out, too many people allegedly involved, mistakes being made, people’s names being mentioned without them even being involved.

And then it comes out that they’re dealing with the McKenzie friends—Jacqui Farmer staying in Belinda McKenzie’s house….There were too many bad links, too many agents.

At the end of the day, it was looking more like some kind of psyop—a way to put doubt in people’s minds. Hampstead Research was putting up people’s Facebook accounts that weren’t even mentioned by the children.

He says that at first he responded to Jacqui Farmer, but it quickly became obvious that “something was not right with (Hampstead Research’s) setup”: for example, he cites the blog’s covert links to Belinda’s Association of McKenzie Friends, and the McKenzie Friends’ links to paedophiles.

(Can we get a big “we told you so”, please?)

So what’s it all about?

Guidance says he’s come to believe that Hoaxtead’s purpose was to create confusion around the issue of child sexual abuse, and to “put doubt in people’s minds” about high-profile and VIP sex abuse cases.

He says he still believes that RD’s children were victims of a cult. However, he thinks they were “used by the cult for a bigger operation—a psyop”.

Ultimately, he says, he’s left with confusion:

I don’t know what the answer is. I tried my best. But what can you do? When it’s the mum and the boyfriend’s case…it’s up to them now, they wanna deal with it. They’re calling it mind control now, that’s their big thing—they got their t-shirts, their mugs, their nutritional seminars. I told them I don’t agree with it, and I still don’t agree with it. There’s nothing more I can do.

He doesn’t forget about Hoaxtead Research: “You had trolls, spamming everyone with negative comments—anyone who got involved, they had their pictures put up, they were badmouthed”.

But he notes that on the other side, “there were too many agents, too many donation buttons”.

This alternative media, a lot were calling it a hoax well before the information had even hit the public domain—they were made aware of evidence long before, so they were able to decide where they stood….

You got people like Shurter and Opperman saying that they believe Abe is in the cult, but the mum is legit. You got Angie saying similar stuff…and they all seem to have these donation buttons.

They don’t take you all the way, they don’t tell you the whole truth….these people, they’re no good, they’re in it for the money, in it for the confusion.

Hold onto your hats, because we’re about to say something we never thought we’d say: we’re in agreement with Guidance 2222 on many of the points he raises.

Yes, we were as shocked as you are.

But give him his due: he’s quite right that this was planned from the start.

He is right that the links between the hoax promoters are strange, and that a surprising number of “alt media” people knew about this case long before it hit the mainstream. He’s right about the ubiquitous “donate” buttons, as would-be journalists try to cash in on the hoax.

Obviously we disagree on some fundamental points: we know the children were coerced into saying what they did, and that no “cult” exists in Hampstead, Satanic or otherwise. We don’t think the hoax was created as a psyop, but rather that it was part of a callous and cynical plan, developed and perpetrated by Belinda, Sabine, Charlotte, Abe, and Ella.

But we do agree that this case has caused some very real damage to the issue of child sexual abuse, as it has helped to create an atmosphere of doubt and scepticism that could serve to poison future cases; and it has drained away support that ought to be going toward helping real survivors of sexual abuse.

Overall, we confess we’re surprised to hear Guidance come up with such a nuanced, thoughtful, and thought-provoking analysis of Hoaxtead. We hope this is the beginning of an upward trend.

time-to-rethink-hoaxtead

54 thoughts on “Guidance 2222 rethinks Hoaxtead

  1. So many of them want to believe there is some conspiracy behind everything in their lives because they lack control in their lives. The concept of someone doing this to hurt their ex is the clearest explanation there could be.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Guidance has for some time been claiming that Belinda, Sabine, Angela, Shitter and Charlotte are MI5 agents (and Igor Proskurov, hilariously, was KGB). He started believing that when Abraham told him to, having changed his own mind about them, and seemingly continues to believe that the whole thing is a “psyop”.

    He also still seems to be of the belief that the children were in a cult, though just before he stopped making Hampstead videos, he memorably described the case as “a headfuck”.

    Good news, though, that he’s clearly having doubts about Abe & Ella. Welcome to the club.

    [Comment to Ella, 16th September]

    I’m also pleased that he shares our cynicism about all those hideous “Donate” buttons put up by his former comrades-in-arms.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, I think what struck me about this particular video is that while he’s been critical of people like Belinda, Sabine, APD, Charlotte et al for some time now, this is the first time I’ve heard him say that they were all working together to create a hoax of some sort. Granted, he doesn’t see the hoax the same way we do, but I don’t expect him to—from various things he’s said, I think he’s an over-the-top evangelical Christian, and the idea of a cult in a wealthy suburb of London is just too attractive for him to relinquish.

      I also find it interesting to hear this case described from the point of view of a “foot soldier”—as he says, he’s not affiliated with any of the usual suspects, he’s just reporting the conclusions he’s drawn from watching this thing. I disagree heartily with some of those conclusions, but I think he’s hit the nail on the head with some others.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I remember thinking, when I heard Code’s voice, talking to Belinda outside court, that he seemed like someone with a good heart, even too good, and that was driving him, but he was sadly misguided, affected by already held beliefs that had influenced his thinking about this case. Which is never a good thing when trying to identify the truth.

    Code: If the children really were telling the truth, they would have had funnel shaped rectums, hanging entrails, that kind of thing. Dr Deborah Hodes needs to be reprimanded for the damage she caused by endorsing the lies of the mother, Ella. Has she ever apologised, tried to revert the damage she caused? She could have brought light to this case, but unfortunately sealed the deal for many people like you with her findings, causing the destruction of many people’s sanity. Has there EVER been any enquiry into her mistakes, her interpretations, despite challenges by her colleagues, which should have come as a wake up call, her lack of ethics in allowing herself to be influenced by ‘interested parties’? She is still, apparently employed by the same UCLH/NHS: https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/OurServices/Consultants/Pages/DrDeborahHodes.aspx‘: ‘….Designated Doctor in Child Protection in Camden. She teaches both locally and nationally and at UCLH she leads the student teaching of community paediatrics….’ God forbid. A go between should give the alleged history to the forensic examiner, that would at least put a firewall of emotional contagion in such cases. Have such safeguards been put into place by the NHS? Dr Deborah Hodes needs to make good her mistakes. She should use this case to illustrate the dangers of being sucked in to stories being told by those who may have hidden agendas when approaching a forensic examination: There should be NO CONTACT, even, NO HISTORY given, this would ensure a fairer and unbiased finding. The father should really sue the NHS or Hodes herself for damages. He is probably too exhausted, after all of this, to contemplate this. For someone who is supposedly a child abuse ‘expert’, it is unbelievable that the assertion that hundreds of people and plastic penis’s or dildo’s had been buggering these children over years would not have immediately been obvious, not ‘inconclusive’, and thus needed to be ruled out. Any idiot could see that, and is something code 2222 should explain to us, and should further make him realise the actual truth of this whole thing: That it was planned, executed, delivered, by a narcissist with a grudge. Ella, who may very well been in control of Abe, actually, since she had the money…. Abe was at this stage still in honeymoon mode, ready to be Ella’s hero, do her dirty work, her ‘gangsta’. I think the whole campaign staged by Ella, her appeals, etc, were not really pursued (she did not attend) because, in reality, she had found child-rearing hard, had, for example, had to brace herself to collect the children from school every day. No, she realised that she was now free, in a sense, from that duty. The rub for her was that she had lost to her adversary, RD, and that is what drove her, not the love and real belief in what she was alleging. Her SPITE extended to every person who had ever slighted her precious ego, the headmistress and so on. We must not forget each and every person who has been affected by the evilness of Ella Gareeva Draper, who had been told of a UK way to punish the person who had dumped her: RD.

    Code, I think at heart you are a good person, but very gullible, you were swept up in empathy, influenced by the hurts of your own past, and therefore I for one forgive you, but you need to go a bit further in your analysis. But well done for saying where you are at right now, for that honesty, and that is: not knowing. At least then you do not cause misery by pointing the finger at innocent people who deserve your support, not hatred.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s also ridiculous to think that two small children would have been so grossly abused and that their mother and other caregivers didn’t notice bruises or other damage at bathtime.

      From what I recall the medical report also stated that the little girl was a virgin – given the extent of the alleged abuse by what was reported to be large paedophile ring that’s very odd isn’t it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, especially as she alleged that she was abused “in the front privates” as well.

        Another interesting fact: the psychiatrist who examined the kids said they had only minimal understanding of ‘the facts of life’ and sex was “inappropriate stuff like touching each other in the privates.”

        In other words, they did not really understand what they were talking about when they made their allegations, but were simply parrotting what they’d been told to say.

        Like

  4. Off topic but I think this touches on what we really have going on with McKenzie, Power-Disney and crew. I always say these scam artists are just in it for the ‘donations’ they can winkle out of unsuspecting innocents who believe their rhetoric about saving children.
    The Walter Mitty Hunter’s FB page chases scam artists who prey on those who wish to support Veterans and just like these phony “child abuse charities”, the scammers are legion cheap and nasty.
    https://www.facebook.com/The-Walter-Mitty-Hunters-Club-HQ-315222931946839/

    Liked by 3 people

    • I think the time is here for a dedicated team ( I know Hoaxread does a superb job) to really concentrate on the proliferation of ‘child abuse’ alleged charities.
      They are popping up everywhere and because it’s such an emotional subject for the general public the scammers who operate them rely on being able to browbeat anyone who dares question them as either a ‘pedo’ or ‘abuse enabler’.

      Belinda McKenzie and Angela Power-Disney in particular have demonstrated they are sociopaths without conscience but able to mimic genuine concern. Donald Trump has shown this sociopath trait to the extreme: an amazing ability to blatantly lie and tell a different lie the following week and deny the original lie even when it’s there on video tape. Normal people always have a niggling feeling in their soul when they tell a little white fib, sociopaths have absolutely no idea what you are talking about if you try to point out their numerous lies. It’s water of a duck’s back.

      It’s why Power-Disney can sit there day after day spouting her rubbish no matter what flack she gets. The attacks on her only affect her if she thinks it may bring her undone. McKenzie operates in a different way- she is obviously far cleverer, cunning with an innate ability to slide away when the going gets hot. Both are at the bottom of the Grifter Food Chain these days but are still menacing characters.

      Liked by 3 people

      • This does actually go on Sam. There are several groups in different parts of the country working to infiltrate and undermine various scams and scammers – including SRA/child abuse hoaxers. These groups often include professional people with strong skill sets and decades of experience.

        But you will find that such groups are not parading online. Yes, it is necessary for the occasional head to be raised above the parapet, but many have experienced what a dangerous thing that is to do. The most criminal scammers, which includes your SRA types, have been known to physically attack people’s homes and families. The people you are dealing with are very often drug addicts, drug dealers, sex offenders and otherwise common criminals. Sometimes organised crime is involved.

        But rest assured, there is serious work going on to bring them down. And people have gone to jail.

        The WMHC, for instance was first drawn to the attention of this forum some months ago by a member of one – it having been stumbled across by a well known researcher. While they do have a focus on charity scammers now, initially their main concern was simply those who masquerade as ex-military – “Walts” as they are known in American parlance. You may find this of interest; the direct result of certain “blue touchpapers” being quietly lit by our northern friends.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b081zyhs

        Hopefully this will bring at least a few of these military charity scams down.

        Charity scamming generally is however a growing field.

        Another “classic” is waste collection and recycling scams. Fake charities are primarily set up to employ a proprietor and their family or cronies. Much of the regulation that surrounds such activities are circumvented by dint of them being “charities”. Many a “Steptoe” type is now a “charity” Executive!

        Sometimes these morph into or are also employment scams where fake “work experience” is “provided” and grants are acquired for providing it. In other cases “employment projects” have been set up where funding was acquired and the money simply pocketed.

        Another classic is to set up a fake charity for some purpose that requires warehouse space. If you own commercial space but can’t fill it you will still have to pay rates on it. These can easily be in the region £2 per square foot. So if you have and empty building of 50,000 SqFt (a moderately sized warehouse or factory) that’s £100K/Year.

        Charities pay no rates though, so if you give tenancy to one you are off the hook for the cost of keeping your white elephant. Scams exist where certain “charities” will take on your problem properties, but expect a “donation” – a kickback basically – to do so. £30K (a typical sum) is less than £100K.

        We are aware of one such scam which has recently been highlighted in the papers for making its Directors into quite well-paid Executives for doing nothing of note.

        And another (in our opinion) crooked recycling “charity” which, as well as using young vulnerable people as publicly subsidised slave labour equips its pretentiously-named “CEO” and (previously crashed/burned bankrupt) “Executive Chairman” (who also happens to be the CEO’S Dad) with new cars, houses etc. as well as the operation itself having grown to the degree where it recently acquired £1M premises…

        Much of this is achieved simply because they don’t have the same overheads or regulations to adhere to as a proper commercial business working in the same field would.

        And ironically, one of the main effects of this “job creation” scheme, which operates in a post-industrial wasteland laid low by the demise of coal and steel industries, is to undermine genuine commercial firms that were creating real jobs! Reports are to hand of a couple of legitimate businesses going under because they could not compete with these fake charities; the real businesses had overheads you see!

        You will find various blends of all these things. To the point where the entire concept of “charity” in the UK is seriously undermined.

        The people this forum concerns itself with are real bottom-feeders compared with what really goes on in the wider world. Please DO keep the heat on them by all means! But don’t fail to understand what small fry you are actually dealing with. In the great scheme of things they are failures.

        MW

        Liked by 1 person

        • An interesting post MW. Personally i would include the goverments 2 year work programme as a big scam that a lot of useless companies made cash out of. I can’t recall where the statistic came from but it showed that you had more chance of finding a job if you didn’t go on the Work programme. One company had staff taken to court for lying about the number of jobs they had found for people. They’d receive a payment for finding a person a job then further payments if that person remained in employment.
          I personally refused to sign any of their forms as that way they could not try and claim payments for jobs i found for myself without their so called ‘help’.

          Liked by 1 person

    • I am a big fan of the Walter Mitty Hunters as my dad served in the British army for 25 years and to see these guys dressing up and pretending to have served is an insult to every serviceman/woman out there.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Only a conspiraloon would veer down the “PsyOp” route rather than see it for the hoax it is.

    Their paranoid brains are wired for it.

    I agree with Cody on a few things… but a PsyOp? C’mon man, not everything is a conspiracy!

    Like

  6. Sabine and Belinda released emotive videos to psychologically prey on the vulnerable, gullible and insane, in order to gain donations and give themselves a feeling of importance.
    Abraham and Ella manipulated the psychology of the children, tried to manipulate the police and continue to manipulate the vulnerable, gullible and insane.
    Likewise, Gerrish preys on the psychology of people disillusioned by the failings of the MSM and the authorities to successfully tackle the problem of real child abuse.

    Then there is the likes of Shurter and APD that use Sabine et al’s operation as a way to make money and live out their failed hopes of being famous, successful and important. Especially in Angie’s case. You can tell from her shite concerning acting, journalism, being ‘related’ to famous people, CCN…etc that as a young woman she dreamed of fame and fortune. Unfortunately for her, problem drinking, life, having children, stupidity and a complete lack of any real talent, crushed all her hopes. The pretty young woman with the world at her feet has become a bitter, withered hag. Though that hasn’t stopped her dreaming…while causing other people nightmares.

    So indeed there is a psy op, just not in the way Guidance believes. And not everyone has been fooled by the above. Sadly, it’s a psy op that has allowed real child abusers (eg Abraham and Brian Pead) to garner support, donations and an excuse to ignore the disgusting crimes they have committed while claiming to be victims themselves. Sadly, there are plenty of vulnerable, gullible and insane people to believe them.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I, and others, agree Dave. “Psy op” is an unfortunately toxic term and has been quite-deliberately rendered so. But there is it would seem an agenda to undermine all alternatives to the MSM by painting the picture that all such efforts are merely those of nutcases.

      Gerrish does seem to be a key player. Like McKenzie he is very much of the establishment. And he does seem to be unusually-well resourced. I think it’s a mark of the low intelligence and lack of critical thinking of those who are targeted as the audience for this nonsense that people like this are to the fore. Of course, many are in it just for the money, and that’s always a trail worth following.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Pingback: Guidance 2222 rethinks Hoaxtead | ShevaBurton. Cross of Change Blog

  8. A cryptic post appeared earlier on a couple of conspiranut sites entitled something like “who murdered Patrick Cullinane” – No details, just links to a months old video.

    It’s possible, he was a fat, lazy, drunken bastard and prime candidate for a heart attack. But there is no sensible confirmation as yet.

    Like

      • Exactly so. For all we know it may mean he was figuratively “murdered” (i.e. financially etc.) it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve heard that phrasing applied. But frankly if he is physically dead that is in my view just one less bacteria swimming around in the gene pool. He was (may still be) a nasty, Anti-Semitic git of hell.

        Like

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