Angela fails to grasp the bleedin’ obvious…again

Well, Angie’s done it again: she seems utterly determined to ignore those pesky laws about confidentiality in family courts, and has posted yet another live-streamed Facebook video on the topic of “Baby H” and his parents.

She claims to have stepped down as the parents’ McKenzie friend: “Indeed I actually offered to leave the court when it was explained to me that if I took on the McKenzie friend’s within in camera, that I couldn’t report, I volunteered to leave the court and resume my role as journalist and the, erm…there was objections to that”.

No bloody doubt there were objections to that—what part of “you are not allowed to report on this case at all so please get out and stop clogging up the court system, thankyouverymuch I’m welcome I’m sure”, does Angela fail to grasp?

Nothing daunted, though, Angela says:

I’ve sat on it, just put a few updates since Thursday, and I feel like I’m going to burst. So I think my understanding is, in camera proceedings can only be reported as long as the parties concerned remain anonymous, and as long as an overview of orders and proceedings is given, not the nitty-gritty arguments of how orders were arrived at. So I’m pretty sure other than the few little human slip-ups I’ve made [such as naming the parents multiple times and publishing their names repeatedly on Facebook, but who’s counting?—Ed.], I’m pretty sure I’m walking the right side of that line. I’m pretty sure I would have been arrested by now if not.

And we’re pretty sure she’s very much not on the right side.

Funny about her belief that if she were on the “wrong side” of the line she’d have been arrested. We distinctly remember another Hoaxteader saying something very similar about a year ago, right before the proverbial knock on the door. But we digress.

As commenter Sir Henry Rawlinson put it, “Oh FFS! In the name of Christ Angie, just read a fucking law book you stupid, ignorant, feckless old fraud! No you fucking cannot report details of in camera proceedings you mad cow! – Basic knowledge! Really, secondary-school media studies basic knowledge!”

We know Angie is too bone-lazy to bother Googling anything as mundane as family court confidentiality, so we thought that as a public service we would do it for her. It took us approximately five seconds, well beyond Angie’s gnat-like attention span, but herewith: The Rules, per Ireland’s Courts Service:

Hearing of cases – the ‘in camera‘ rule

Family law cases are heard in private (in camera) to protect the privacy of the family. Only officers of the court, the parties to the case and their legal representatives, witnesses and such other people as the judge allows will be in the courtroom while the case is being heard.

Section 40 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act, 2004 allows solicitors, barristers, and certain other categories of people approved by the Minister for Justice and Equality to attend family law cases and publish reports. Part 2 (sections 3 to 12) of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2013 allows bona fide representatives of the Press attend family law cases (subject to the right of the judge to exclude any such representatives) and to publish reports. The publication of reports of family law cases is allowed under these Acts on the strict condition that no names, addresses or any other details which might identify the parties can be used.

There’s the rub, you see. While “bona fide representatives of the Press” (aka professionals who work for a news outlet, and know what the hell they’re doing and how things work) may attend at the discretion of the judge, and may publish reports which name no names, and offer no identifying details, Angela is neither a bona fide journalist nor approved by the judge, and so she must find some alternative way to deal with her “bursting” problem. [Toilet’s straight down the hall on your left—Ed.]

And as we know, Angela has already plastered pictures, personal details, and the full names of all involved in the case on her Facebook page. That’s in addition to her tiny little accidental naming of the parents in each of the several live-stream videos she’s made.

So no, Angela, you are not on the “right side” of the line. And the fact that you have not been arrested yet may simply be a matter of time.

Image: used with thanks to Ethel Aardvark

Advertisements

120 thoughts on “Angela fails to grasp the bleedin’ obvious…again

  1. Angela & mates conveniently leave out a lot of information about Inter Agency Adoption Fees, thus misleading many.

    Inter-agency fee grant claims
    Email
    Inter-Agency.FEE@education.gov.uk

    Grant amount
    You’ll get the following amount of funding when you submit a valid claim:

    £27,000 for placing 1 child
    £43,000 for placing 2 siblings in 1 adoptive family
    £60,000 for placing 3 siblings in 1 adoptive family
    £68,000 for placing 4 siblings in 1 adoptive family
    £80,000 for placing 5 or more siblings in 1 adoptive family
    These amounts match the national inter-agency fee.

    If you make an inter-agency placement through a scheme or agency that charges more than the national rate, you’ll have to cover the extra costs.

    How to spend the grant
    The grant provides agencies with an opportunity to search nationally for available adopters for hard-to-place children who’ve been waiting the longest.

    It also offers an opportunity to use the funding for adoption support. Agencies may want to use the grant in conjunction with the Adoption Support Fund to make placements and offer support packages at the point of placement.

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inter-agency-adoption-fee-grant-for-local-authorities

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, what Angie and her friends forget to mention is that this is quite literally a transfer of money between agencies. It’s not a “prize” or bonus that social workers get if they manage to place children wholesale in adoptive homes.

      “Local authorities can decide to place a child with an adoptive family that was assessed and approved by a different adoption agency (this can be another local authority or a voluntary adoption agency (VAA)). In these cases, the agency will charge a fee to cover the costs of recruiting, assessing and approving the adopters. This is called the inter-agency fee.

      “VAAs are organisations that recruit, approve and support people interested in adopting a child. Unlike local authorities, they don’t have children in their care.

      “The inter-agency adoption fee grant is a government grant that reimburses the money local authorities spend on inter-agency fees for ‘hard-to-place’ children”.

      Like

  2. So after two days of bitching and moaning that we haven’t talked enough about Nazis, he’s now bitching and moaning that we ARE talking about them and that we should be ignoring them. Couldn’t make him up, could you? 😀

    Liked by 1 person

    • So David “Shithead” Shurter still hasn’t grasped the fact that this website is specifically aimed at the outrageous, cruel and illegal harassment of an innocent father and community in a London suburb and how they have been defamed and accused of specific crimes.

      There are a whole lot of things happening outside int his big wide world that cause distress and alarm and given the many commenters on here who specifically criticise so many anti-Semetic comments by Shurter and his ilk I think it can be taken for granted we are naturally anti-Fascist and anti-Nazi. Some things don’t need to be said.

      Yes it’s shocking an innocent demonstrator against the Charlottesville Nazis died but hey Dave Shurter you lowlife slimeball- playing by your rules : where is your outrage and comments on these matters ?:

      Sierra Leone floods kill hundreds as mudslides bury houses
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40926187

      Girl killed as car rams pizzeria in village near Paris
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40930898

      Man charged with car-bomb plot on Oklahoma City bank
      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40929509

      You are a demented lowlife Shurter and the only rocks targeting you are the ones inside your head.

      Like

  3. Thank you for the update, Your Howlness. Angie really is a one-woman soap opera, isn’t she. And yeah, it beggars belief that someone who (spuriously) claims to have studied journalism at university can’t even grasp basic Media Studies 101.

    Liked by 2 people

    • She actually said she studied drama at University which doesn’t surprise me at all. Does she claim to have studied journalism? What I remember her saying is she’d had some articles published here and there, which a lot of us have but hey ho. I don’t claim to have been Young Journalist of the Year. (Unfortunately, reporting on the local netball championship doesn’t count.)

      Like

      • Hi Fnord. We’ve covered this before and I wish I’d saved the relevant screenshots and video clips. She’s changed what combinations of subjects she supposedly studied more than once. From my recollection it’s so far included various combinations from English, American Literature, Drama, Journalism and a few others.

        She’s also on several occasions referred to Warwick University as being in Warwick, despite the fact that its name is a misnomer – it’s actually in Coventry.

        Regarding her ‘published articles’, there were threads about that on here too some time back and it transpired that there had never been a single thing of hers published anywhere, including in specific publications/editions that she’d mentioned.

        Like

  4. The Cherry-picking Of Historic Investigations, On The Internet

    Here is the New York Times article from 1982, that so many pizza-gators are obsessed with at the moment:
    ww.nytimes.com/1982/07/27/nyregion/boy-sex-rings-said-to-peddle-client-data-to-foreign-agents.html

    “BOY SEX RINGS SAID TO PEDDLE CLIENT DATA TO FOREIGN AGENTS” – July 27,1982
    “Prostitution rings are providing young boys to male customers in Washington and are reportedly selling information about their clients’ sexual preferences to foreign intelligence services, a private investigator testified yesterday.
    The investigator, Dale Smith, who works for the New York State Senate’s Select Committee on Crime, said he had learned that British, Israeli and Soviet agents had bought information from several call services in Washington.
    Mr. Smith appeared before the committee at the opening in New York City of a two-day hearing on prostitution among young males and on pornography.
    Mr. Smith said that an accountant for five call services had told him about the sale of information to foreign agents. He refused to elaborate on the allegations when questioned by reporters, but the committee counsel, Jeremiah McKenna, said that the information concerned ”government officials.” He declined to be more specific. “They’re making more money selling information than on the prostitution itself,” Mr. McKenna said”.

    You can see why they are so turned on by it. But what’s this? Only one day later, in The Washington Post:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/07/28/sale-of-male-sex-client-lists-unconfirmed-ex-investigator-says/991e1c74-640e-4108-bfb9-b0d093c0fcbe/?utm_term=.ec99a78c1b4d

    “Sale of Male Sex Client Lists Unconfirmed, Ex-Investigator Says” – July 28, 1982
    “A former investigator for a New York state crime committee has testified that Washington area outcall male prostitution representatives have told him that lists of clients have been sold to Soviet and other foreign intelligence agents.
    However, Smith, who has assisted Washington and Arlington police in investigating male prostitution in the last three years, said in an interview with The Washington Post today that he was unable to confirm this allegation.
    Smith and a District of Columbia police source said today that metropolitan area police officials do not have the resources or the jurisdiction to determine whether the allegations are true.
    Smith said he decided to reveal the allegations to the committee because the sale of such sex lists could pose a potentially serious national security problem.
    “I feel that it is a matter that ought to be addressed,” Smith said in an interview today.
    Smith said in the interview that while he posed as someone interested in starting a male prostitution service in the Washington area, an accountant for several male prostitution operations told him that client lists were routinely sold to foreign agents, and that substantial money could be made from that.
    In an interview yesterday with The Washington Post, the accountant denied having any knowledge of such sales”.

    So…on July 27 it was reported to be a fact, exposed by Dale Smith – a private investigator working for the New York State Senate’s Select Committee on Crime – that prostitution rings prostitute “young boys” to “men in Washington” [DC], (so, potentially congressmen, senators, other government employees, officials, or agents), and then sell the information about their pederastic inclinations to foreign intelligence agencies.
    But on July 28, Dale Smith – who is now “a former investigator” – can’t actually confirm that this has ever happened, because neither he nor the DC police actually have the resources or the jurisdiction to determine if this RUMOR is actually true! And Smith’s alleged source denies ever telling him these things in the first place.
    And wait a minute…yesterday we learned that retired New York detective Jim Rothstein described Smith as ” a high level informant” who was “in the child prostitute business”…but here we learn that Smith only “posed as someone interested in starting a male prostitution service”. So, is Dale Smith a private investigator, an investigator for NY state, a former investigator, a child sex criminal who pimps for little boy hookers, or simply a lying sack of sh*t?

    Like

    • Fascinating.
      A bit like Angela Power Disney who claims to be a McKenzie Friend and journalist at the same time and cannot see that there is a conflict of interest in being both in one case.
      If any of it were true of course.

      Like

  5. I’m not really sure why people play into the hands of David Shurter.

    He makes these videos, where the comments are disabled and so if you’re in the know, people comment here, which is only stoking his ego.

    Isn’t it best just to ignore him?

    He’s obviously another Narcissistic, waste of space.

    Sorry I don’t find him interesting in the slightest.

    I think he is unwell, another Arthur K.

    Liked by 2 people

    • A fair question well put, Harry. I can assure you that we did ignore Mr. Shurter for some time. But then he started making extremely serious unsubstantiated allegations (on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and his own pathetic blog) about specific people here being baby-raping cannibals and serial child-killers – just to feed his own sick, twisted fantasies – and some of us weren’t prepared to allow our names to be dragged through the mud unchecked. You’re free to ignore him if he accuses you but I for one do appreciate the opportunity to defend myself and/or to preserve my sanity by taking the piss as a defence mechanism. If, however, EC tells us to stop, we will.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Good question, Harry. I think most of of the hoaxers, troofers and conspiraloons exposed here are mentally unwell to varying degrees. And to what extent someone with psychological issues should be held accountable for their actions is an age-old debate. But either way, if such people make public, potentially devastating allegations about individuals (and in some cases their families), those individuals should have the right to vigorously defend themselves, regardless of whether or not their accusers are wearing straitjackets.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Shurter (the so-called Christian) is now making public calls for criminals of his acquaintance to hack the private Facebook/email accounts of visitors to this blog whom he finds “undesirable”, in order to illegally obtain private, personal information on them and their families and render them vulnerable to both online and physical attack. Whilst I do sympathise with the mentally ill and hope that David eventually stops living in denial and gets the help he needs (or has it forced upon him by the authorities), such actions are hard to ignore and need to be nipped in the bud.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Interesting question, HR. One thing that springs to mind is that Shurter is (intentionally or otherwise) feeding major lies about us to loathsome people such as Nathan Stolpman and Angela Power-Disney, who we know to have no scruples when it comes to destroying people’s reputations. So to defend ourselves against Shurter is to defend ourselves against them too.

      Like

      • All true.
        AND he was elected President for Life, by the Association of Persons With Unusually Small Penises. How can you not mock such a farcical fellow? 🙂

        Like

    • well, when you have done nothing to hurt shurter and/or have helped him and been a friend to him or even just a bystander, and he misunderstands something you do or decides he doesn’t like something you say, and he openly and publicly runs your name into the ground, resulting in other people, who are supposed to be on the “right side” treating you with contempt and attacking you, you too will begin to feel a little put off. You will then either A, want to defend and prove yourself, or B, if you grow tired of proving/defending yourself to no avail, you will want to give people a reality check that they need to keep an open mind, think for themselves, and not swallow every word they’re fed. Because it gets people hurt. Normally it will be some combination of the 2. Some people add an additional C, lashing back out/revenge, though i advise against it; just because someone treats you like a bad person and makes you angry, doesn’t mean you have to fall to their level and become one. Just know who you are and keep your self respect. And then, regardless of what combination you react with, you will reevaluate how you perceive things, and use your critical thinking a bit more.

      TL;DR: people on here comment about him because they chose to respect and will defend themselves, not because they find him particularly interesting

      Liked by 1 person

      • @daughter – so…I failed to adequately for-warn you, that this is a life-long chronic behaviour pattern for Shurter? – in this article:
        http://www.dysgenics.com/2013/12/22/david-shurters-epic-fail/

        You never saw it? You didn’t believe it? You didn’t understand it? You thought it was propaganda?
        I’m sincerely interested in knowing what you thought about it, BEFORE your tragic betrayal by this dickhead.

        Like

        • warning: this is a long reply. sorry.
          to be honest, im still struggling to figure out how much, if any, of his story is true. i’m Really struggling with it.
          some background.. during the US election season, i got pretty deep into research. i don’t mean that i just i just listened to what others said and posted shit. like, i joined and helped to to lead a research group. some of our work was publicized, we let our main leader take the credit as most of us wanted to stay anonymous. i spent hours pouring over FEC files, among other things, and i saw enough corruption with my own eyes and research to realize that my country is pretty fucked up, how corrupt and hidden things can be and how fucking blind i’d been to everything before. thinking about it, it should have been obvious to me.. i’ve come to know a lot of sides of human nature, both in me and in others. later i started researching pizzagate. some of it is true, some just speculation and overthinking, but i don’t want to talk about that. but i met david through that. i have been abused myself.. still working on getting out of the last of it, but i was drawn to david. partly because i tend to care about people and partly because he is very different personally than he is in his youtube videos or on his facebook.. never met him in real life but in his messages he was very kind. it was a comfort. i needed a mentor and father figure and he quickly became that for me, though he soon got a bit uncomfortable with my..i’ll call it clingyness. i do not blame him for that, though it upset me. in any case, during that time, which was a month before shit apparently started going down, i had one of my intuitions and it was regarding him and i thought something was going to happen to him. warned him, but he said not to worry about it. later, he was complaining on his facebook about trolls, so i doxxed him. i told him the types of information i was able to find on him, and warned him how easy it would be for people to hurt him with it or connect his friends to him and hurt them, and i offered to help him get it down and teach him how to protect himself online. he chose to take it as a threat, blocked me, and would not accept my attempts at reconciliation. month later shit starts going down. it is true that there are patented weapons and some are microwave ones. and he recorded videos showing the emf recordings on his phone; i know him, he is not technologically savvy enough to fake something like that, at least not on his own. it is true that abuse exists. it is true that pedophilia exists, and that children disappear. there is sadism. i understand it well, having had to be on both sides of it. i understand the desire for..stealing innocence, though i would never do it. i understand murder, having had wanted to murder, even at times indiscriminately. (apparently i have a lot more anger in me than i realized). these things combined.. my intuition, which i rarely reject as it rarely leads me wrong, his kindness towards me, which i needed, my looking up to him,my knowledge of certain corruptions in our government and the possibilities of others, my understanding of human nature and that this is indeed a world in which people could easily and eagerly rape and hurt and kill, and how far they would go to hide it, my own personal abuse..all these things made it easy to believe david and hang on his words, and made me view you guys as how he called you.. liars, trolls, satanic, dangerous, etc. i saw the epic fail one. i saw it as a lie. having lived with liars and gaslighters it is not difficult to believe that people would say things to cover up truths. it did not help that you were all often insulting, focusing on things such as his teeth, etc, to make fun or goad him.. it only made you look more like liars. a better approach would have been to simply lay out facts or invite people to come see for themselves.

          but yeah. that is how i saw it, and why. i am working on figuring out for myself how much is true and how much is false. being betrayed made me realize it can’t all be true

          Like

          • Sorry but I still don’t believe one single word of Pizzagate and nothing I’ve seen or heard has convinced me otherwise. No offence – I hope we can agree to disagree.

            Liked by 1 person

          • So let me get this straight, DotB – you doxxed him and threatened him because he wasn’t giving you enough attention? Or have I misunderstood?

            Also, I seem to recall that those EMF readings on his phone were debunked at the time. I may be misremembering, though. Anyone?

            Like

          • Doxxing can involve hacking, but mine did not.. i simply viewed information that was publicly available for those who know where to look. i did not post his information publicly, only told him the Types of infos i found, and listed like 2 names of people connected to him, just to prove i wasn’t talking out of my ass, but he didnt take well to it

            Like

          • it was my attempt to help him protect himself from “the bad guys” since i was worried about him. it was an attempted kindness. i Was a little upset with him for not talking as much, and i do not know if it showed through in my tone, but it had nothing to do with my intentions. i would have done it for anyone else i cared about, or maybe even someone i didnt much care about. sorry, but i do need sleep. night guys

            Like

          • @daughter – okay, that told me what I needed to know – thank you!
            We some that some people dislike the satirical/ sarcastic “tone” in many of our comments, but I’m convinced that is a red herring and there is no need to change the way we discuss people and issues here.

            You believed you had a ‘relationship’ with DS, that he was a father-figure/ mentor for you. That would have made you immune to the truth about him no matter how it was presented. Only being betrayed by him, which he eventually does to everyone who gives him their trust, could have gotten you out of that.

            You say that your intuition is still your primary guide in life, and so long as that is the case, you were be impervious to documentation of facts, or logical arguments, if they don’t agree with your intuitive perception of “the truth”. If your intuition tells you that only members of the conspiracy community know about or believe in “organized” pedophilia, you won’t even hear me tell you that I was exploited by child pornographers as a teen and have done “deep” research on the subject for almost 40 years now, even working with police at times. You will think I must be lying, to trick you, if your intuition tells you that.

            Nothing can overcome that kind of internal wall. You’ll have to break out of it on your own.

            Liked by 3 people

          • The only things true about “pizzagate” is that there is a pizza shop and they have paintings on their walls.

            To imply that any part of the hyperventilated garbage is true is an insult to all right thinking persons especially as not one single ‘expert’ on the matter including the creep Julian Assange who repeatedly tweeted links to “pizzagate” claptrap, ever gave the matter a single thought until DNC emails were released especially when said emails do not contain a single skerrick of information in them that could possibly be misconstrued as to alluding to child abuse except in the minds of those who suspiciously are obsessed with pedophilia to the extent it may indicate that in the deepest corners of their mind they have a fear they may harbour such desires.

            Like

  6. Sabine McNeill complaining and listing out dozens of cases of alleged police abuse reminds me of the writings of Juvenal knowns as the “The Immunities of the Military.”

    http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_16.htm

    He says:

    “Let us first consider the benefits common to all soldiers, of which not the least is this, that no civilian will dare to thrash you; if thrashed himself, he must hold his tongue, and not venture to exhibit to the Praetor the teeth that have been knocked out, or the black and blue lumps upon his face, or the one eye left which the doctor holds out no hope of saving.”

    To make a complaint against a soldier is to venture into the military camp and face a judge who is himself a soldier.

    Witnesses against a soldier could be a problem:

    “Sooner will you find a false witness against a civilian than one who will tell the truth against the interest and the honour of a soldier.”

    If you are brave and stupid like Angela Power Disney, Neelu Berry and Sabine McNeill you go into the soldiers camp with bundles of papers, and argue the case. Then Juvenal says:

    “But then the whole cohort will be your enemies; all the maniples will agree as one man in applying a cure to the redress you have received by giving you a thrashing which shall be worse than the first…to provoke so many jack-boots, and all those thousands of hobnails.”

    The point I am making is that modern justice in the UK and Ireland is reasonable and balanced, there have been times and places when this is not so such as with regards to the Roman soldiers. These Satan Hunters might like to think upon this, that they count their good fortune of having a better justice system to hear their complaints, and respect rather than abuse our justice system.

    It may be coincidence, or it might be a conspiracy worthy of mention on Alex Jones show that the satire against the military by Juvenal was the last one he did, and it was half finished. Probably nothing to do with Michael Aquino, and something I think all the Satan Hunters should raise online petitions about, and set up gofund accounts, create blogs and videos. I think Juvenal is a definite whistle blower.

    Like

  7. It occurs to me that some, particularly younger, folk might not have understood the “we killed Kennedy” joke.
    New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison’s original theory about the JFK assassination was: “a bunch of queers did it”, more specifically…it was “a homosexual thrill-killing”. Really. Read about it here, it’s a hilariously lunatic conspiracy theory:
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon5.htm

    Like

  8. I’m fairly sure EC that if you drill a little further you’ll find a definition of “bona fide representatives of the Press” asfar as the courts are concerned. – In the UK you need to hold a Press Card issued by the UK Press Card Authority. To obtain one of those you need to be a member of something like the NUJ or the BAJ, who will vet your application, not only for membership of the union itself, but the UKPCA card. Additionally, you would actually need to be working for a bona fide publication – and you can lose a press card quite easily if you abuse it!

    Basically Angie, if you’re not the real deal you’re not getting in!

    Let me also explain to Angie that the word “camera” comes from the Latin (as a lot of legal terms do) and means a ‘sealed vault or chamber’. Therefore proceedings “in camera” (or in chambers) are ‘sealed’ for the reasons of personal privacy highlighted above, or (in a different kind of proceedings) for other reasons such as national security.

    Where proceedings (or part thereof) are in camera there is NO right to report; only provision for the judge to break or ease that seal, and even then they can only go so far in doing so. To gain access to ‘in camera’ proceedings the judge would also have to ensure the admitted individuals were working for a bona fide publication and that there was a public interest in reporting. – Put more simply, your reporting would need to be pre-approved and you would need to be established and trustworthy.

    If Angie were any kind of journalist, press photographer or news gatherer she would, as part of her basic training, have completed a course in media law. She’d also know that court reporting is quite a specialised thing. And in those circumstances she would not have any doubt whether she was “walking the right side of that line”…

    And yes Angie, you should, by rights, have been arrested by now; I suspect its only the complicity of the parents that’s keeping you out of jail, but they’ll be doing their own position no good by continuing in that. And if you were genuinely interested in helping them keep the baby you’d STFU as the only thing you’re evidencing is that they keep company and take counsel from irresponsible delusional morons – which rather strikes the legs from their fitness to parent.

    I’m at a loss as to why Angie is being allowed to stay in the court precinct let alone chambers, but it would appear she’s quite happy to lose this couple their child for the sake of her own attention-seeking.

    As an aside, and slightly off topic, it’s known that one or two hoaxers, let’s call them ‘Bill and Ben’ (because curiously enough those are actually their names), sported faked cards for several years, which they’re regularly shove in copper’s faces; until one day a nice policeman sought to scan one… UK press cards are now linked to a central database, and poor B’s card didn’t even have a barcode! He was prosecuted, but seem to have gone very quiet about that! Which is odd because he was a noisy basket before!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oh I wish we could hear more about Bill and Ben.
      There was the famous ‘Joe Ryan’ who spun numerous false tales to UK tabloids in the 70s when they were splashing their cash around. And most got printed. Retired to the Philippines to open a bar like all good con men do.

      Like

      • I’m not sure what Joe Ryan has to do with very much, or actually who he is… But (at one time at least) you could find one of these fake IDs online where the relevant idiot had posted it, and there is more than one clip of the other fool almost-literally pushing his into bewildered copper’s faces.

        And I think the world has already heard too much of Bill and Ben, I’m sure you’ve already heard most of it. Their gas supply seems to have been disconnected for now.

        Like

    • “We have ways and means of finding real names of all banking disinformation agents.”

      Aha, she should team up with Shurter! LOL 😀

      Liked by 1 person

      • That sounds eerily like “Ve haff vayz off making you talk, Schweinhund!”

        Hehe, you avin that one, Dave? 😀

        Like

      • I’m not even sure what my real name is.

        Is it the name I was registered with, one of my married name/s or what I call myself?

        I really don’t have a clue, so good luck with that Neelu and any of the others, wow!

        Liked by 1 person

    • Sooo, a woman who can’t even work out how to pay a parking fine is going to bring down the entire World’s banking system. This I’ve gotta see…

      Liked by 1 person

    • I’m pretty sure Ethel Aardvark is Ethel’s true name so it’s very mean of Neelu..err Ved to say Ethel won’t get her Prosperity Payment.
      Seems Ved is also confessing to being an agent of the criminal bankers from what I read.
      She’s gone to the Dark Side.

      Like

      • Yep. And as previously mentioned, Great Uncle Platypus would be very upset were he alive to witness the Aardvark clan’s name being dragged through the mud like this. Thank you for defending our honour, Mr. Ghost of the Sam clan.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Poor Dave thinks the British government saddled with the woes of the world and struggling to keep the economy and country together would actually pay someone to troll a Total Nonentity like him.

      Once again : Delusions of Grandeur.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Who the bloody hell is David Brock? I thought we were paid by the government. Are you calling Dave a liar, Vanessa?

    Like

    • David Brock is the man who wrote an expose of Anita Hill. She had made accusations that judge Clarence Thomas had sexually abused her.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Phew,for one minute I thought perhaps David Brock the former keyboard,and ossilator warbler out of space rock outfit Hawkwind had finally gone completely bananas in his dotage.Alls well that ends well 😉

        Like

        • I love Hawkwind. This Dave Brock one strikes me as more appropriate for the conspiraloons who seem to spend their time on the astral plane. They should spend more time earthed to the ground.

          Liked by 1 person

    • David Brock founder of Media Matters and Correct the record. Ex of James Alefantis. Its a tactic of the conspiraloons to mention anyone who disagrees with them must be a paid Hillary shill of david brock or George Soros, the pizzagators used it a lot and during the US election campaign any anti Trump poster would be labelled a paid shill or troll of David Brock, CTR Soros etc.

      If anyones uses those phrases it means theyre beyond help.

      Like

    • Aw…. they are so cute when they fight
      🙂

      “My conspiracy is right, you dont agree with me so you are wrong”
      “No… MY conspiracy is the right one”

      As usual, is there any contingency not covered by the Monty Python crew???

      Liked by 2 people

    • Man says he set a policeman on fire (did Dad wall his remains up in the living room cavity ?) when he was 10 years old and thinks others are deranged.

      Liked by 1 person

      • meh. i guess we will see. on the one hand, he could have actually done it. it’s not so unusual to block out traumatic memories for a while. on the other hand, he could simply be.. to put it nicely.. slightly mental and confused, compounded with paranoia which leads him to misjudge things. that would make him similar to patrick john coleman. or just a liar (which pjc certainly is). not sure. if he’s just mental and confused, i could forgive him, but if it’s all just some big con i’m going to be very, very pissed. i’d be interested to see those hospital records myself

        Like

    • LOL, the first person to spot the flaw with this statement wins a set of dowsing rods:

      “A series of short videos by Deborah Mahmoudieh discussing the IPCC response”

      I’ll give you a clue – there’s a word in there that’s somewhat misleading 😀

      Liked by 1 person

    • Like all true Pedo Obsessed Creeps Veater makes the following statement:
      “Of course lack of proof of misconduct, is not the same as proof of blameless conduct.”

      You are treading on thin ice on that one Mr Veater. Conversely the lack of proof of pedophilia misconduct by Tim Veater does not mean Tim Veater is blameless of pedophilia conduct.

      There is however, no lack of proof that Tim Veater is a liar, a fraud, a false accuser and an all round fuckwit.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. “Short” seems to be stretching things in the extreme although “discussing”seems to be significantly misleading too.I claim a useless twig.

    Like

    • Well played, Mik. ‘Discussing’ was the one I was thinking of, though I accept that ‘short’ is pushing it too, lol.

      Liked by 1 person

    • No one cares any more, everyone knows it was a hoax and the truth of the tale was closer to home. Paedogilvy very desperate for some reason to keep it going, probably to cover up what he did to his own daughter, and the fact he was used like toilet paper by Belender McKenzie and he couldn’t even see it. BAHAHAHAHA

      Liked by 3 people

    • @ 13:22 – “But you know, I’m not knocking the EDL,As far as I’m concerned, the English Defence League, British National Party, they sound ok…”

      Like

    • Mad Moo’s view of black people…

      @ 19:28 – “He said in a few years’ time there’ll hardly be any white taxi drivers. And d’you know, he’s right! Now, some people might say ‘Ooh, that’s a racist comment’, ok, but it isn’t, because it is disturbing when a social minority formed the majority of any particular profession. And the reason why this is very serious, especially when it comes to something like taxis, coz don’t forget that taxis can legitimately carry all transport. All kinds of illegal things they can transport – drugs, guns, children…”

      Like

        • Hey, it’s Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dee again! Those guys should get their own sitcom. The only snag is which one is gonna be the idiot sidekick when neither of them is exactly MENSA material.

          Like

        • “dude.. no offense but this guy is so full of shit.. there are 2 or 3 chuck e cheeses in dc .. just after the 19:00 min mark he says there are over 30”

          Good spot, Smokeout 🙂

          Like

        • I still can’t get over the fact that they see Louise Mensch as a reliable source. They even refer to her as a first-rate investigator! LOL

          Liked by 1 person

          • She does an Angie too, by claiming to have been diagnosed with ADHD, when adult diagnoses are almost non-existent and ADHD diagnoses didn’t exist at all when they were kids.

            Liked by 1 person

    • So Opperman, you were running anti-SRA internet campaigns “back when it was happening in the 80s”. In other words, several years before the web was invented. Impressive.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Opperman @ 1:28:26 (much to Stolpman’s amusement) – “I kinda trust David Shurter’s instincts, to be honest with you, you know, as far as that goes. I think he’s a sincere guy but you know, the guy’s, he’s, you know, and and, you know, he can be annoying as hell, man, sending me messages every 5 minutes.”

      Liked by 3 people

      • He can’t spell ‘Hoaxtead’ either. Par for the course with the hoaxer chimps, I know, but it’s usually just one letter out, whereas Paedogilvy doesn’t even get close.

        Like

Comments are closed.