Part 2 of the Hampstead video: Some questions answered

Yesterday we discussed the first half of the video put together by three women—”Echo Truths“, Lulu from “itsgonnab alright“, and Kitty McCaffery—which is the first we’ve seen from “the other side” to expose the Hampstead SRA hoax for what it is. They released Part 2 of the video yesterday:

We should say, first, that we very much appreciate all the work that went into this. The hoax has a seemingly endless array of moving parts, and trying to summarise it all in a total of three hours of discussion is a herculean task. That said, we noted a few areas in this second part where information was either incomplete or incorrect, and in the spirit of collaboration we’d like to help clear up some of these points.

Question 5

In the video, the three women do their best to answer a series of questions which they’ve been asked by others concerned about the case. Question 5, paraphrased, was basically “Why would Abe and Ella have the children go into that much detail when it could so easily be debunked?”

We think the answer to this can be found in Ella’s words in the opening statement, provided on the first half of this video: “The case was never intended to reach the Crown Prosecution Service, much less the glaring light of public scrutiny.”

Consider this for a moment: in what known universe could Ella have thought that a case of unbelievably severe child sexual abuse like this would not reach the Crown Prosecution Service? (For our U.S. readers, the CPS is roughly similar to the district attorney’s office, in the sense that both are responsible for prosecuting cases on behalf of the state.)

This means she and Abe never thought the police would investigate the case. Why did she think this? It’s impossible to be 100% certain, but we have a few ideas.

The first is that the videos they made of the children on the way home from Morocco were intended to be used as bait to entice various UK alternative media types to support and publicise their story. In favour of this theory, Abraham had a public hissy fit at one point because two of the big names in the UK, Brian Gerrish and Bill Maloney, ignored his invitation to provide publicity for the case.

We say they “ignored” it, but it does now seem likely that Gerrish sent a man named Finnbarr Hagan to interview Abe, Ella, and the two children in early September 2014. While the video footage Finnbarr recorded seems to indicate that he was taken in by the story, for some reason Gerrish decided to give it a pass…until Sabine McNeill released the videos in February 2015. At that point, he got behind the hoax, along with almost every other truther in the UK, but that was more a matter of not being left behind.

Another possibility, which doesn’t exclude the first, is that Abe and Ella planned to use the videos, and the children, to accuse RD of being a paedophile cult leader, but in family court, not criminal court.

This seems like an odd choice, but keep in mind that Ella had already attempted to accuse RD of every other crime in the book in her attempts to block him from seeing the children. For five years, she and RD battled it out in family court, with judge after judge awarding RD visitation rights, and Ella ignoring court order after court order. It’s quite possible that the plan was to introduce the children’s videos in family court, as the “final solution” which would allow Ella to cut RD out of the children’s lives entirely.

In favour of this theory is the fact that about a month before Ella and Abe began living together, RD had applied yet again for access to the children, and it looked as though the court might decide in his favour. Ella has stated numerous times that she didn’t want this to happen, and Abe mentioned it as well, in the Jean-Clement video. Against this theory, of course, is the fact that it is batshit crazy: how could they have thought that claiming RD led a  gang of child-raping, baby-murdering cult members would not end up before the police? We don’t know the answer to that, but we do know that Abe and Ella are not the current reigning king and queen of rational decision-making. Plus: cannabis. Lots and lots of cannabis.

And finally, as Lulu points out in the video, Abe mentions to Jean-Clement that he and Ella were planning to take the children back to Morocco the following day. As we know, that didn’t happen, but only because Jean-Clement reported them to the police. However, their plans to return to Morocco both bear out Ella’s statement that the case was never meant to go before the CPS, and our hypothesis that Abe and Ella were planning to launch the hoax using the kids’ videos…from a venue where they’d be safe from the UK police.

A small but important misconception we’d like to correct is that Jean-Clement was a police officer. In fact, he was a “Special Constable” with the London Metropolitan police force (the “MET”). “Specials” are civilian volunteers who carry out duties such as responding to 999 calls, going on foot and vehicle patrols, doing talks in schools about safety and crime, doing house-to-house enquiries, and so forth.

Many people have made much of the fact that Abe took the children to see a police officer, but as Abe had a long history of being in conflict with the law, he would have been very aware of the fact that his brother-in-law was a “special”. It seems most likely that Abe took the kids to see Jean-Clement as a sort of “dress rehearsal”, to test their ability to repeat the allegations they’d been taught in front of an audience.

Question 6

In answer to this question, “Were the children put in separate foster care placements, and if so, why and how did they both retract their stories on the same day?”, we think it’s important to realise how the retractions began.

We don’t know whether the children were in separate placements at the time of the retraction, but even if they weren’t, the retractions began in the police car, when DC Martin and his colleague were picking the children up to bring them to the station for an interview.

In the IPCC report that was done on the investigation, DC Martin states, “The purpose of this meeting on this date was to continue detailing the children’s allegations of abuse. I was unaware that they was going to detail that they had fabricated these allegations after influence from Abraham Christie until they informed me on the journey to the interview suite and began to disclose that they had fabricated their account. Upon their initial disclosure of the fabrication of the offences I discouraged them from discussing it further until we reached the interview suite”.

What this means is that in the car on the way to the interview, if one of the children started to disclose, the other would have known that their sibling was about to tell all. While DC Martin doesn’t specify in his IPCC statement who initiated the discussion, given her eagerness to tell him that Abe tortured her and her brother, we would suspect that Child P was the first to talk about it. The fact that Child Q was a bit more reticent could mean that he hadn’t been aware of his sister’s intention to disclose until they were in the car together, and he hadn’t had time to emotionally prepare himself and face what he thought might happen if he admitted he’d been lying.

Question 9

This question, “Why were the children allowed to know so many details of the occult and how it operated?”, is actually dealt with in a post we did a few days ago. Here’s a quote from that post:

Jean-Clement Yaohirou’s audio recording of his discussions with Abe, Ella and the children, at his home in 2014, documents very clearly that Abe and Ella were the source of any ‘age inappropriate’ knowledge or understanding the children might appear to possess about anal sexual practices, orgiastic group sex, adult sexual abuse of children, child prostitution, CSA image and ‘snuff’ video distribution, paedophile rings, body art, satanism/ “satanic ritual abuse” /cults and cult practices, child murder/ sacrifice, or cannibalism.

Abe and Ella are both recorded therein, blatantly discussing such subjects in the frankest manner WITH the children, and also between each other and/or Jean-Clement, IN FRONT OF the children during the same conversations!

And these discussions are not confined to merely soliciting statements from the children about their alleged experiences relating to these subjects, or discussion of the children’s responses – they also include both Abe and Ella expounding on their own personal knowledge about these subjects, going far beyond simply clarifying or “fleshing out” a child’s statement and demonstrating that both of them, (Abe especially), believe they possessed a generic expertise in all of these subjects long before the children’s alleged ‘disclosures’. It is very obvious that the children’s disclosures didn’t teach Abe & Ella everything they know about these subjects that isn’t specific to their allegations about Christ Church, and that both of them had been discussing their own understanding about such things, with each other in front of the children AND directly with the children, for some time.

Perhaps just as important, everything these kids might appear to know about all of these topics is WRONG. They don’t appear to possess any knowledge, (or experience), of child prostitution, CSA image and ‘snuff’ video distribution, paedophile rings, body art, satanism/ “satanic ritual abuse” /cults and cult practices, child murder/ sacrifice, or cannibalism that would be corroborated by the valid & documented reality of these things, in Western Nation societies. Everything the kids “know” is clearly derived from the urban legends and conspiracy theorist mythologies about these subjects, accumulated over the last 40 years. In fact, their understanding of these things perfectly reflects obsessive conspiranoid Abe’s own understanding of them.

And of course, many of the persons who are exposed to the Hampstead Hoax videos or propaganda will have been exposed to the same urban legends and conspiracy theorist mythologies about these subjects, because the internet is saturated with re-tellings of them in a variety of guises. So they recognize something RD’s kids are alleged to have said, corresponding to their own ‘mature’ & ‘informed’ knowledge about it and are amazed – how these little kids possibly KNOW about these things, without having experiences them? They don’t understand that the real sources of what the children appear to know are Abe & Ella, and that Abe has been obsessed with all the same conspiranoid info that their own misinformed understanding of these subjects came from.

Also during Question 9, one of the women in the video notes that the police investigation was shut down rather quickly. We would argue that it was only shut down after

  1. the police discovered that the children’s testimony was not accurate (i.e., no skulls in the church; the one house they claimed was RD’s was empty and did not match their description in any way), and
  2. the children had retracted their original allegations.

For a full description of the police investigation, you can check out our links on the FAQ, above. In particular, the IPCC report goes into much more detail about exactly what was done and why.

We’re closing in on 2,000 words here, but we would urge anyone who has any questions at all to please let us know. We’ll do our best to either answer, or point you in the direction of resources that can help.

Advertisements

148 thoughts on “Part 2 of the Hampstead video: Some questions answered

        • Thanks, Echo. I realise there’s a huge amount to absorb. And now it looks as though you and Kitty are starting to get a bit of the flak that comes with doubting the Hampstead hoax.

          It amazes me how incredibly attached people have become to the Ella and Abe version of the story—as I’ve said, it seems more like a religious belief than anything else. A YouTuber called Plymouth Fury was almost in tears as he contemplated the idea that Ella had lied about her ex-husband and son being in the cult…as though it’s a terrible thing that another child hadn’t been abused!

          Liked by 1 person

  1. Echo, you discussed in your video the logistics of some of the claims made by the accusers, i.e. the fact that much of what was alleged would be practically impossible to pull off. Should you elect to continue this worthy line of inquiry, here’s an interesting post from the early days of the blog about the infeasibility of an entire school shutting down once a week for an orgy with the kids without anyone ever getting caught or reported:

    https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/professional-perspectives/home-truths

    Liked by 1 person

  2. In one of the ET videos one of the women talks about RD being an absent dad. From what I’ve read he went to California for a while to try and further his career, but other than that spell away he was apparently in London and was going back and forth to Court to get access to his children, which Ella tried to stop. If I’m right about that then it might be a bit harsh to see him as the kind of father who goes AWOL on his kids at the drop of a hat.

    I should note that I don’t know RD and have no allegiance to him. I just like to get the facts straight.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. A pride of lions, flock of sheep, murder of crows, parliament of owls…What’s the collective noun for U-turns? An avalanche? Here are some more for the collection (all from the part deux vid):

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Nice work, Your Howlness.

    Here’s hoping that Echo can also find it in her heart to do a U-turn on Manchester, London Bridge and Sandy Hook. She needs to listen to her own words on the Hampstead hoax:

    “It was like being hit by a brick that says ‘DUH!’ on it.”

    “These people’s lives have been ruined by this.”

    Great quotes. Now let’s see if she can apply them to the ridiculous “false flag” nonsense and show some respect for the victims’ families.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Rushing to action based on emotional impulse unchecked by even a modicum of detached objectivity rarely ends well and usually results in a veritable mish mash of nonsense and worse.

      Such ill considered reactive judgements are fueled at least in part by the instant connectivity in recent times available to uncle Tom Cobly and his ever faithful dog both of whom feel strangely compelled to impress their newfound “friends and associates” many of whom either have actually met and if they did would probably wish they had`nt and visa versa.

      So whats to be done?Well apart from crawling back into the caves or scurrying back up the trees not a lot really.Although each and every one of us pausing a nano second more than usual to consider the results of the consequences of our activity upon on others would probably be a start.

      Maybe the powers that be could fix the internet so that when posting any comment there is a week long delay before receiving an annoying phone call from internet quality control “Are you really sure you wish to proceed “? If yes press 1 etc etc. That might sort things out.

      Spleen vented 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

  5. This thing is really gathering steam.
    This guy talks utter bollocks about RD but he does call bullshit on the Hampstead hoax:

    Liked by 2 people

    • What he says about his own response to being sexually assaulted as a child—his unwillingness to speak about the experience, feeling withdrawn and depressed, etc.—is far more typical than the excited, chatty responses RD’s children give. Whatever his feelings about RD, I have to give him credit for speaking up.

      I notice Kristie Sue has started to make the rounds, digging her claws in, LOL.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. If people are happy to provide me with proof of Sandy Hook being 100% real then I would be grateful for that and if i do a Hampstead 180 on that, i will also put that out.. But I do think the government pulls string with these attacks in the background. I know someone who has always been as sceptical as you on this stuff, he is one of the most intelligent blokes I know. Even he is suspicious of this recent spate. I need to state for the record i said several times in that video that whoever is responsible I am NOT someone who believes people don’t die in these things. I would also be HUGELY grateful for all and any info you guys have on Kevin Annett. And hope you saw in Part 2 i will always give you the props.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You may have heard of Kevin Annett finding mass graves of children on Canadian Indian residential school grounds. In reality he found some animal bones and hawked them around the world until the Mohawks put a stop to it. This video is their statement about Annett. He also made up the ninth circle cult and managed to get on Alex Jones show but Alex asked for copies of the documents Annett claimed to have provimg the existence of the cult, when Annett failed to provide proof Jones dropped him. The best source for Annett is a Canadian journalist called Heather Martin, she has a blog “Kevin Annett must be stopped”.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO0cCikyqjM

      Liked by 1 person

    • Putting aside the startling amount of photographic evidence and first-hand witness testimonies, Echo, you’re the one making the allegations about the Sandy Hook attack. Ergo, the burden of proof is on you. You’re familiar with the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, one assumes.

      Secondly, would you care to explain what you think the motive would be to fake/stage something like that? I mean, there just aren’t enough people getting shot in America already, are there? 13 thousand gun murders a year just aren’t enough – “they” need to risk everything to fake a shooting instead. Right? Er…oh wait.

      At least keep this stuff to yourself until you’re sure. Does every thought that pops into your head need to be immediately announced online without a care for the consequences? Are you really that much of an attention seeker? Or is it about attracting people to your Patreon and PayPal appeals, which you link to every video you post?

      You admit you were wrong about Hampstead, so find the courage to at least entertain the possibility that you may be wrong about Sandy Hook too (and Manchester, London Bridge, SRA and the McCanns). Show some consideration for people who are hurting, and hurting even more thanks to online hate campaigns like yours. And I’m sorry, ET, but whether you admit it or not, that is what they are. Every time you post that shit, it’s a nasty kick in the teeth for grieving families who’ve lost their children, which I’m sure you’ll agree is one of the worst, if not THE worst, thing that can ever happen to someone.

      Look, you seem like a decent person but with all due respect, you’re also someone who has a tendency to run her mouth without thinking or checking her facts. I respectfully suggest you reflect on the damage you admit that this did in the case of Hampstead and learn from your mistakes.

      Like

      • I do have reasons for motive a lot of which are to with Governmental Agenda and war mongering and i also said i DIDNT KNOW if it were real or staged but that I do believe people get hurt in these things.. I suppose you think the official 911 story is true too?

        Like

        • Is “the official” 911 story true? Yes, absolutely.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziad_Jarrah

          This guy – Ziad Samir Jarrah – ran a chat forum on Delphi Forums, from some time in 2000 until just before the day of the attacks. I belonged to several forum communities on Delphi at that time, all having to do with religion. “Samir’s Place”, that was the title of his forum, was for discussion of Islam. I’d been there on several occaisions, when we were tracking down a lunatic Muslim woman who was harassing other users with rabid homophobia hate speech & death threats. We knew him as “Samir” and had no idea that he was a terrorist of course. Much of the conversation in there was conducted in Arabic, so who knows what they were saying.
          They knew I was gay, and Samir still tolerated me there. No one else ever “talked” to me, except one day when just for fun I’d posted the lyrics to the old socialist anthem:

          “Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
          Arise, ye prisoners of want.
          For reason in revolt now thunders,
          and at last ends the age of cant!
          Away with all your superstitions,
          Servile masses, arise, arise!
          We’ll change henceforth the old tradition,
          And spurn the dust to win the prize!
          So comrades, come rally,
          And the last fight let us face.
          The Internationale
          Unites the human race.
          So comrades, come rally,
          And the last fight let us face.
          The Internationale
          Unites the human race”.

          I have no idea what they made of that, but it sure got there attention! Suddenly I’m getting messages: “I don’t care if you are a (some phrase in Arabic for homos), if you are for revolution then you are a brother”, type of shit. I really didn’t know what to make of THAT, myself.

          On the morning of 911, I was on Delphi forums as usual, and my American housewife friends there were suddenly all distraught and freaking out – “turn on your news!”. So I did, and I watched it all go down LIVE on tv news. Several of us went to Samir’s place, (he being the only online Muslim we knew, to ask about this talk of an “al Qaeda” muslim terror group), and it was locked, the front page just said: CLOSED. And it remained closed, forever more. No one heard from “Samir” again.

          Of course, it took me years to actually make the connections, but I have no doubts that it was him.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Wow. That’s an amazing story, Justin.

            I remember exactly where I was when it happened too. In my basement, online with a couple of friends from my writing group. One of them said “turn on your TV!” and I sat and watched the whole thing. There really was an aura of “this cannot be happening” about it, and so I do have some understanding of why people have claimed since then that it just wasn’t real…but there’s no doubt in my mind that it was.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I don’t necessarily question who was flying the planes or the existence of terrorist groups. Most of my issues come from the laws of physics, the way the buildings fell, building 7. The time it would have taken to set up 3 demolition freefalls. A lot of the time I just cant help but think there are people on our side of the fence as it were, pulling their own strings. There are a bunch of other things but I am far too hungover to go too deeply right now.

            Like

          • “There are a bunch of other things but I am far too hungover to go too deeply right now.”

            Plato eat your heart out.

            Like

          • Well, I wouldn’t make extremely serious allegations about grieving families in public if I thought my judgement was impaired by the after-effects of alcohol.

            And no one’s judging you – they’re just disagreeing with you. Please try not to take these things personally.

            Like

          • Well i was getting grief for not having answered. I wanted to answer but wanted to just make people aware that I am not giving the most thought out answer I could at this moment in time.

            Like

          • “Well i was getting grief for not having answered.”

            Really? When did this happen? I can’t see the comment(s) you’re alluding to. Do you have a link?

            Like

        • And yes – like almost everyone else in the World, I believe that 9/11 was real and that it was carried out by real terrorists rather than by a president who’d been in office for just 8 months and, as he later proved, needed absolutely no excuse whatsoever to go marching into other countries without a UN mandate.

          On the other hand, there’s a whole bunch of videos and blogs by anonymous internet loons who’ve told you otherwise, so you must be right.

          Like

          • Proof of what? I always say with false flags i dont know if people have died or if it is all it seems and that’s as far as i am willing to go. SRA it still bugs me you think this never happens! Even if it isn’t recognised any more, even if it isn’t widely talked about any more, even IF the only satanic abuse/killings are a whacked out meth head who did it because satan told him to – to us that is just a murder, to them that is a satanic sacrifice. I don’t care about the satanic side of things, i care about the potential of kids being abused for whatever nasty reason is going on in the abusers mind.

            As for The Mccann’s I am saying nothing. I can’t believe there are people who still think they are innocent. Do i think they sold her to John Podesta, no, of course not! But they did cover up her death which was most likely accidental and THAT is one of the biggest cover up’s ever. You are very very unlikely to ever change my mind on that. But i am open to being proved wrong on the other things.

            Like

          • Echo, I know it’s hard to accept the non-existence of SRA as a giant organised thing, but Justin Sanity who comments here was involved in the investigation of the first alleged case in 1980, which involved a Canadian psychiatrist and his patient. Have a look at what he says, and consider that he’s been seriously investigating this stuff for decades now.

            I know the Colin Batley case is held up by many as proof of the existence of SRA, but it seems to have been a one-off group, which used candles and other paraphernalia to scare victims into compliance. (I’m sure Justin will correct me if I’m off-base on this.)

            Liked by 1 person

          • So he can 100% state that nowhere in the world is there a “cult” abusing children for reasons they believe to be occult? He can be ABSOLUTELY sure of that? Also a lot of people would argue anyone that abuses kids is satanic. Not me as i’m not religious, but some of this is subjective.

            Like

      • What?? no i said a guy I have known for years who was always skeptical of this stuff, even he is starting to think there is something to it. He used to call me crazy. So you completely misinterpreted that.

        Like

        • So if you weren’t presenting his views as evidence or citing him as a source, why did you mention him?

          Like

          • In other words, you were using it to sway opinion, in place of an actual argument. That’s called a logical fallacy (specifically ‘false attribution’).

            Like

          • Echo – some bloke I bumped into in the pub last Tuesday said that the Manchester attack was real, so it was.

            Like

          • Disagreeing with you makes you feel like you’re on trial? My apologies. I’ll try not to hurt your feelings from now on.

            Like

    • This is the new mantra about these “false flag” claims and the ‘believers’ have suddenly switched from “crisis actors” to now claiming real people get killed but it’s still a government plot.

      Quite apart from the hideous affect this has on the 100s of family, members of the people murdered in these atrocities, to demand or even ask proof that it DIDN’T happen as an abomination.

      You make the claim, you provide the proof and evidence.

      This is no different to the witch hunts of the past where a hapless woman was subject to the dunking stool or tied up and thrown in the river to see if she was a witch- if she floated she was a worshiper of Satan -if she sank and drowned, she was innocent. None ever survived.

      I pondered on these terrible events when reading my own family history again which goes back to the 1500s and I wondered how these past great, great, great etc grandparents thought at the time before thinking
      ) they had no means of communication so probably only heard news of events possibly years after they happened and..
      2) given the hysteria – similar to truther insanity – they probably wisely chose to STFU knowing how fanatical believers were and that they could easily become victims of them.

      Given that today we have the same sort of village goons who would dearly love to see those they accuse of ‘witch-craft’

      And although EC has done a credible job and been very kind to Echo Truths in these two posts, I still find her to be a despicable character and her arrogance to create material from surfing the internet – a web of lies – in an attempt to make videos that may give her some sort of credibility on Youtube is beneath contempt.

      You want proof about Manchester- you go up to Manchester and announce you are “investigating” the terrible events (take a bodyguard). Get off your backside and prove your claims. Fly over to Sandy Hook and do likewise.

      You don’t ask “when did you stop beating your wife” style questions and expect to be taken seriously.

      You will have your fans on Youtube and among the so many who are mentally ill or evil or sociopath minded but Karma will rear it’s head at some stage.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Well, speaking of witch-hunts it seems that Kitty has already been viciously targetted for daring to stick her head above the parapet on the Hampstead case. More to come on this.

        Like

        • “You want proof about Manchester- you go up to Manchester and announce you are “investigating” the terrible events (take a bodyguard). Get off your backside and prove your claims. Fly over to Sandy Hook and do likewise.”

          A few months after the Hampstead thing kicked off I went to London, visited Hampstead for a few days, and talked to a lot of the locals. I was discrete and polite and told people I was interested in the events. I just chatted to people, in cafes, shops, pubs and the church. I learned a lot about how the accusations and internet circus had affected people. In general the local residents (the ones I met hadn’t been directly affected) were disgusted with events and completely sympathetic with those falsely accused. Nobody I talked to had seen 100’s of people visiting the church or school on Wednesday or any other day. One lady told me that if that had happened there would have been a fuss about parking!

          Likewise, after reading about Chris Spivey, I did some investigating into the Lee Rigby thing; easy for me because I have relatives on the estate where he lived in Manchester. I talked to people who actually knew Lee and his family so the notion that he didn’t exist and all those involved were actors is, of course, bollocks. I reported this on various sites and got called a shill and MI5 etc. (hahaha!) Truth is, I’m retired with time on my hands and always wanted to be Columbo. I also bloody well hate it when people pick on innocent folk and make their lives miserable.

          I accept that travelling about might not be possible for everyone, but in some situations it’s the only way to really get a feel for things and some real evidence. You can’t rely on the internet with all it’s twists and turns and misinformation. There’s nothing quite like having a face-to-face conversation with people who are involved or who live in the neighbourhood where events are alleged to have taken place.

          i have no problem with people speculating on whether something is a ‘false flag’* or not.
          I might read someone’s theories about Manchester or London and it might sound ridiculous to me, but they have a right to their opinion, as I have to disagree with them. It’s a shame there’s not more scope for debate and that disagreements about these issues nearly always ends up in a slanging match.
          What I draw the line at are the kind of videos currently on You Tube which call all terrorist events hoaxes and then disrespect the dead, their relatives and the witnesses to events. That’s too horrible for words and I can fully understand some of the invective that comes their way.

          *Wiki says “The contemporary term false flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that activities appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them.”

          Liked by 4 people

          • I agree with most of your very insightful comment, Mrs. O. The one proviso I would proffer, if I may be so bold, is that there is a thin line between opinion and defamation. When the conspirasheep start putting up names and photos of crying mums and dead kids and calling them “crisis actors”, that isn’t free speech, it’s slander. However, you’re bang on with everything else you said there. In particular, the point about parking was inspired!

            Liked by 2 people

          • +Spiny “When the conspirasheep start putting up names and photos of crying mums and dead kids and calling them “crisis actors”, that isn’t free speech, it’s slander.”

            Totally agree. That’s why I said “What I draw the line at are the kind of videos currently on You Tube which call all terrorist events hoaxes and then disrespect the dead, their relatives and the witnesses to events.”

            I tend to stay off You Tube comments but even I’ve been there to tell people off recently. Of course I don’t swear or curse but I do pride myself on being handy enough to go for the virtual jugular when necessary. 🙂

            Liked by 4 people

          • I will visit Hampstead soon as even though I live half an hour away I have never been there apart from driving past in short cuts to escape rush hour traffic and it looks an interesting place.

            Liked by 1 person

          • It is an interesting place. I was there last summer, and stopped in at the pub where Belinda’s true believers went for a pint after harassing the parishioners and clergy at Christ Church. Because there’s nothing like a nice pint with your mates after a couple of hours spent screaming, “Stop fucking your babies!” at mothers and children trying to attend worship.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Just recovered enough to type again after the classic “One lady told me that if that had happened there would have been a fuss about parking!”

            Whilst hilarious it is also a very real point.Traffic wardens would have had a field day albeit they would no doubt be characterized as “insider lookouts” in Abe and Ellas never quite completed storyboard.

            Abe would have been gunning for traffic wardens if he had ever been given a ticket for being on double yellows.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Speculate is ALL i did! And believe me if i had means to travel more I would. Life and location does not permit. I never stated anything unequivocally, mocked anyone and certaoinly didn’t laugh at any victims. If I am a despicable human being for THAT then I really don’t know what else I can say. i am getting a little sick of having to remind people i never claimed it was a hoax!

            Like

          • So speculating about named people on a public forum is ok now?
            And you’d stick to that belief if it were you being speculated about, I take it?

            Like

          • Maybe not buy HR have repeatedly falsely accused me of calling it a hoax or laughing at victims. Neither of which are true.

            Like

          • Why have you just linked my video? Have you actually listened to the words? I said i am NOT one of these people who thinks people don’t die in these things and as for the false flag side of things that side of things wasn’t my forte and i did not once laugh at anyone who may have been harmed by it. THAT was a false accusation and simply re posting the video seems pointless.

            Like

        • Angie likes to be cringingly hip and down with the kids.I have it on good authority from a 12 year old who knows these things that “conduit” is text speak for conning idiot.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Oh, ‘conduit’ is definitely a word. That was just my cryptic way of calling her a cunt, as I don’t like to swear and would never actually use the word ‘cunt’ in public. Oh fuck.

            Liked by 3 people

    • LOL…no, silly woman. It means that while most people who hear about the hoax think it’s a crock of shit, the last bastion of resistance to the truth has begun to crumble.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oh the irony,quality spot Rusty.

        Her face when somewhere between now and independance day she is courteously advised:

        a) You`re `avin a larf;

        b) No you cannot have the £500 quid back(with or without interest);

        c) The Hungarian nation of militant witches of Oooog alliance are short of a candidate so we dutifully suggest you consider your options and do something vaguely useful like buggering off and chancing your luck there.

        PS How the hell 172 managed to cast their votes erroneously will remain a mystery unless they thought they might be in line for a free food mixer or something.

        Liked by 2 people

    • What exactly is your problem Sonic? That woman was harrassing me and kitty and is the one slandering her. I am rude, i never denied that, i am a bitch, never denied that either, but i DONT issue threats or jump to calling people child abuser. Yes I know now that wasn’t someone directly from here but if someone is slating my friend on my channel yeah she will be told to fuck off.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I voted for you anyway! 🙂
        But I don’t live in the UK, though. In my heart, I ‘voted’ for all UK friends, that you’d get the result you wanted. Even if everyone had different choices 🙂

        Liked by 3 people

    • Poor Yolande actually took a piece of spam seriously – the type you get in your inbox daily or endless requests on Facebook to follow, re: lesbian prostitute.
      She probably complains to police when she gets a Nigerian general saying he has a million bucks for her.
      And she wants an important job helping run the country. Poor thing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, I feel sad for her family. Apparently she’s given them quite a hard time. It’s never easy dealing with mental illness, and when it’s your own mum…that’s rough.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. Poor Yolande has been getting heavy breather calls since 1980. I wonder if I give her my number she could pass it on to her nuisance caller. I haven’t had a heavy breather for about 30 years and I miss him/her.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. ..one woke me up at 9.18am today.”

    The lazy cow.I am halfway through my shift by then.The only remotely useful political service she could feasibly perform would be as a cross-party filibusterer if they can get her arse out of the sack that is.She could talk absolute drivel for days on end and afford everyone else the opportunity to go back to their constituancies and play with ducks in the moat or whatever it is they do.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. That despicable drunkard At a Skag needs a Spiny dose of reality on ET’s Kitty video….what was her name again? She supports ABE because they both have anal fixations….and drinks from dicks? #hypocrite

    Liked by 1 person

    • I have to say, something similar had occurred to me. That, if some conspiraloon actually did manage to file a legal complaint against me they would surely name the wrong person in it, rendering it invalid from the start 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

        • http://www.dysgenics.com/2014/06/10/the-disasterous-public-parade-of-fraudulent-survivors/

          “Then there were these little children on the program, [20/20 tv show] apparently stating they had been forced into participation in human sacrifice rituals with infant victims. (There were passing references to sexual abuse victimization as well, but the children were not shown making such allegations themselves). It was obvious that these kids were relating fantasies, but it was also clear that the children had not made up these stories themselves, that they were not the real ‘authors’ of these fantasies. This was demonstrated when a five-point “satanic crime indicators” list was repeatedly referred to later in the program. Adults in the program including the host, police detective Sandy Gallant and the children’s relatives/caregivers repeatedly blamed the children for the falsehoods enumerated in this indicators list, claiming “this is what the children have been telling us”. Some people however, such as Neo-pagan anti-defamation activists who had been monitoring the Fundamentalist-Evangelical “anti-occult” war on popular culture, would recognise this satanic crime indicators list as a compilation of urban legends that had been created and circulated by adult members of Fundamentalist-Evangelical organizations long before any child was alleged to have “disclosed” it.

          “Much of this satanic crime indicators list is easily falsifiable – it simply isn’t true, that there are or were satanic cults operating in North America and Europe kidnapping scores of children and subjecting them to all of these horrors. Therefore, the children in this 20/20 program were not reporting their actual experiences, and since we knew that adults were involved in formulating and circulating these very same falsehoods, it was clear that the children had been manipulated into reciting the adult community’s satanic cult fantasies. Adults were encouraging children to make easily falsifiable claims of victimization, very publicly, to an audience of millions”.

          Sound familiar?

          Liked by 3 people

          • That’s what’s truly remarkable about this Hampstead case. Because of all the recordings by/of Abe & Ella, with the children, we can actually see this process being acted out ‘in real time’. Amazing, how precisely this particular case follows the patterns of adult behaviour that we had deduced way back in the 1980’s.

            Liked by 3 people

        • Surely if David is a regular visitor here and assimilates the extensive material available he would have worked out by now that he is a complete and utter twat and done at least something about it.By now he should be starting to manifest at least the primary stages of coherance yet there remains no discernable evidence of such development whatsover.

          In conclusion, David is either:

          A) Lying.

          B) Beyond all reasonable hope.

          C) Both.

          Liked by 2 people

        • “…because it is the best way to see what new bullshit they are coming out with day to day”.

          I think the words he’s searching for are, “because it’s the best damn read on the internet”.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Ah yes, the (discredited & dubious) ‘same fact evidence’ whereby something happened somewhere else so it means 10 years down the track when a similar claim is made it must be true.

          Love how Shurter completely misunderstands the internet’s role in amplifying dubious claims and theories and his apparent ignorance as to how books took the role of the net in the past in spreading wacky theories.

          Otherwise he would know that every fraudulent claim David Icke makes is a rip-off (plagiarism) of weird theories published in books since the late 1800s. What amuses me about Icke’s cult believers is that they are incapable of seeing how Icke has wrapped up every moronic theory into a saleable asset and sells them in a campaign worthy of Madisdon Avenue with his BBC training. But then they probably believe claims about washing powders as well.

          The simple fact is: Shurter, Echo Chamber Fibber, APD and the entire bunch are just lazy fuckers who can’t even get outside their door to investigate anything. They surf the net scooping up conspiracy claptrap and present it as though they are somehow unique (do they actually look at the other fruit loops on YouTube who are spouting the same nonsense- the 1000s of them?).

          And like Echo “Truths” some magnanimously but arrogantly seem to believe that shifting slightly and giving up some ground brings credibility (but they still sit behind their frigging computers the lazy sods).

          David Shurter makes outrageous claims and presents not a scintilla of proof apart from filming through a neighbours window and then by some strange leap of logic – a misplaced vase? – demands higher powers kill that neighbour’s child.

          Or he roams his garden pontificating about the rocks and microwaves or some such garbage but this is not proof or evidence of anything.

          It’s the sheer arrogance of troofers and the utter laziness of them that annoys me. And it annoys me because someone like Echo “Truths” hideously causes grief for the victims and families of dreadful events.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Given Ellas record of long track record of moving goalposts to suit with every change of wind her testimony is an absolute gift for anyone looking to protect their true indentity ̶R̶i̶c̶k̶y̶ er sorry Spiny.

      Liked by 3 people

    • This is just another arrogant and malicious piece of claptrap spread by these morons : that no-one else could possibly criticize them seeing they have worked so hard surfing the net and absorbing every brain dead claim, so whoever does must only be ONE person- RD in this case.

      This is despite the fact the entire British court system and the police before them has investigated this particular hoax and found it to be a crock of lies perpetuated by a common criminal (and convicted child abuser) and a mother who seems incapable of displaying any human emotion.

      But a few 100 or even 1000 hits on their YooToob nonsense ( that is usually accompanied by how they are aiding the Sheeple to Wake Up) and they ignore the fact that 99.9% of the 7 billion on this planet could give a toss about them or their crackpot claims.

      They are literally the ultimate Keyboard Warriors and Armchair Detectives and the majority seem to have had both an empathy and humility bypass.
      Lunatic Asylums used to be full of them. Now they are out in the community and mainly on benefits.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Making these videos is probably cheaper than real therapy which this idiot badly needs. Not sure why the world has to be inflicted with her rubbish though although by the majority of ‘dislikes’ she gets others think likewise.

      Like

    • “Tivon is an ex U.S. Navy military technician, Naima and her parents are Free Energy Cutting Edge scientists, and this interview explores some of the fall out of working in this exciting, cutting-edge and DANGEROUS field!”

      More nonsense from the ex Catering Corp assistant and his scam artist moll who are now “scientists” (who needs a degree these days?)
      The only DANGER they are in is by being nabbed by the fraud squad.

      Liked by 1 person

    • it was meant to be dont believe people dont die in these thing!! Try listening to the ACTUAL words SPOKEN rather than a comment written hastily because people were seeming to completely gloss over that part!

      Like

  10. I thought I clarified quite well in this that i am NOT someone who believes that NO ONE DIES during these events and that this is not my forte and I am not prepared to say nobody died. However, some people have either not listened or completely missed my point and are on the attack. If people genuinely died during this event and it really was an attack by ISIS then of course that is horrendous and fucking devastating! These things just always seem to have convenient timing and it saddens me that the girls’ story will be swept under the rug again.

    There are already conflicting reports. Witnesses have said the blast occur after Ariana left the stage but the footage implies she was still singing. Apparently there was another controlled event happening at the time. But that DOESN’T MEAN I THINK NOBODY DIED AND I NEVER SAID THAT! If you LISTEN i actually said quite the opposite and didn’t make a judgement on the situation either way. I even confirmed the numbers with the police ffs!

    THIS was the comment pinned to the top of the page! Wow and you guys accuse us of picking out the bits that add to our confirmation bias! You’re just as bad!

    Like

    • @ ET For what it’s worth I understand what you’re saying!

      I can understand why people might suspect some nefarious activity by dark forces. I don’t trust the US or British Governments at all right now. I think it’s more likely though that the Manchester bombing was connected to a lad/lads who got radicalised and were really angry about things, especially the bombing of Syria and Iraq and the civilian casualties that include children. I feel incredibly sad when I think about the deaths of civilians both here and abroad. Of course, there may be another explanation. Those are just my thoughts on the subject!

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39598979

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-coalition-air-strikes-isis-russia-kill-more-civilians-march-middle-east-iraq-syria-network-for-a7663881.html

      Incidentally, from what I’ve read the blast happened after Ariana left the stage and they continued to play recordings as the stadium emptied.

      I have no doubt there was a bomb. I know that two mums never went home to Royton (small town near Oldham) and those ladies were known personally by good friends of mine.
      Hard to prove this on the internet though cos I could be anybody!

      Controlled explosion. Haven’t looked into this but I remember reading that after the arena bomb went off there was a controlled explosion in Cathedral gardens which is across the road from Victoria Station. Having been in Manchester for two IRA bomb blasts (prior to the big bomb years ago) I know that when a bomb goes off the police/army immediately start destroying suspicious objects, to reduce the risk of further bombs going off.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. @Ms Echo –
    Yup, we’re pretty self-righteous at times – which is natural and normal human behaviour.

    In fact, believing yourself to be “morally righteous” – even when everyone around you seems to disagree with that assessment – is an inherent trait of how human minds work. It’s natural & normal, even, to construct complex rationalizations and justifications in your mind, which will enable you to go on believing that you are morally righteous even if your ACTIONS are hurtful to others. Yea verily, that is a fact.

    “I’m an evil person, doing evil things, in service to an evil ideology (or deity)” is NOT a normal or natural human thought process. It does occur sometimes, in psychotic states associated with serious mental illness, but very RARELY. People believing, for example, that “satan” commands them to rape, torture or murder children is very rare.
    Far more common, is the delusional belief that GOD is commanding you to torture or murder your own or other people’s children – and therefore, that you are still acting in a “morally righteous” manner. So, when parents torture and murder their own little children, to “drive the devil out of them”, they DON’T think they are doing that “for satan”. That’s not hard to understand, right?

    http://www.ibtimes.com/zakieya-latrice-avery-maryland-mother-stabbed-her-children-death-performing-exorcism-1544039

    I doubt that Abe perceives himself to be “evil”, but some of us would probably say that he is. I doubt very much that Abe is a secret “satanist”, pretending to be something else. What do you think? And the truth is, most child molestors and rapists also believe themselves to be morally righteous. They construct excuses for themselves, in the form of complex rationalizations, and frequently believe that they are NOT harming the children. (But, they are of course). They aren’t do it, to “be evil”.

    But, its a very common “urban legend” belief, that all child abusers must somehow be “satanic”…cause how else could they hurt little kids? Yes? So people go around seeking “signs” of various kinds, secret codes, etc., that would indicate someone is a child abuser and therefore a satanist, or a satanist and therefore a child abuser.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. One reason I really do hate the `truthers’ is that they often end up encouraging unstable types to go and commit further actions against innocent people, Hampstead was lucky in that respect that it got no further than some loonies on the street calling names and being generally obnoxious (altho it did scare some people that much they had to move away from the area to escape their attention)
    Similarly the pizzagate garbage only narrowly missed causing another major tragedy when Edgar Welch (who sentencing court appearance is coming up in a couple of weeks) started shooting a AR15 rifle in the restaurant- a near miss that could have ended up with innocent people dead because of some nutcases fantasies about children being sexually abused were spread amongst the `truthers’ and they eagerly gobbled it up….

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Yes I am aware of that! In fact oddly said exactly that to one of HR earlier (not on here before you start looking for it)! Weird huh? That whilst that isn’t me that there are people who believe all acts of evil to be satanic. That people whether you believe it or it’s recognised as a crime or whatever or not, are out there in their minds abusing kids in the name of satan. Committing acts of murder and saying the devil made me do it! Maybe these people DONT really summon demons when doing this shit, I really dont care too much about that aspect, but they BELIEVE they are! So whether SRA is a “thing” in your world or within the law, SOME people do commit heinous crimes in ritual fashion and worship Satan at the same time. THAT is what i believe and that’s the last I am saying on the matter as isn’t it funny nobody addressed the fact that you or someone, whoever here is still consistently talking all sorts of shit about me for things I didn’t say or didn’t bloody type properly in one comment!

    Thank you sincerely for all help on the Hampstead but I’m sure however many of you there actually are will be happy to know It’s unlikely I will be coming back here.

    Adios.

    Like

    • You can defend yourself right? And people can accept your explanation about your comment or not.

      The thing I hope you do take away, and spread far and wide, is that identifying people who have been to police to report a sexual offence is a sexual offence in itself and just plain wrong.

      All the people gleefully posting the children’s videos and so on, if they are in the UK are real bond fide sex offenders.

      Like

  14. A stone wall of unverifiable, subjective perceptions and personal belief.
    Never seen that before, over the last 30 years…
    Disappointing, however.

    I tried, Coyote. My post intentionally contained no personal attacks or accusations, but was still interpreted that way

    Liked by 1 person

  15. As far as SRA goes, its been pretty much discredited as far as I know? Certainly child sexual abuse is far too prevalent (as the various enquiries in Australia into the churches and some schools showed) but I cant think of even one SRA style case thats shown to have been true ie cults doing this thing. Theres been a few dodgy characters certainly that used it as a cover but actual cults, with groups of people???
    More common has been `institutionalised coverups’ where people have been aware of abuse, but covered it up in order to prevent shaming of the institution involved (the various churches and religious orders that were involved in this in Australia was shocking, and their behavior in simply transferring the people involved and paying up `hush money’ to the victims, allowing the abuse to continue on in some cases for decades is something I found amazing in how they were able to justify it against their so called beliefs

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.