Whither Hoaxtead? Re-examining the hoaxers’ end game

The Hoaxtead mobsters have been running around like distraught chickens since the verdict was delivered in Rupert Quaintance trial for harassment two weeks ago. Seriously, we haven’t seen this much excitement since Sabine and Neelu received their respective restraining orders last year.

It’s been fascinating to watch.

Some, such as Belinda and Angela, have tried to defend themselves from the inevitable allegations that they were at least partially to blame for Rupert’s travelling to London to harass the falsely accused families; others, like Kristie Sue Costa and Kane Slater, have resorted to cunning yet futile attempts to create enmity between this blog and certain troofers who happen to have realised that the Hampstead SRA hoax was…well, a hoax. Some, like Neelu and Christine Ann Sands, have attempted to have this blog taken down via spurious DMCA reports. Some, like Deborah Mahmoudieh, have ramped up their production of shrilly demented videos; and still others have tried to back-pedal away from the hoax, claiming they were never really involved and, um, they have something else to do elsewhere, bye!

According to the Hoaxtead mob’s own logic, these frantic attempts to defend themselves, dissemble, attack, and undermine Hoaxtead Research all point to one inevitable conclusion: we’ve touched a nerve (or several), we’ve “driven the cockroaches into the light”, and they’re panicking as they realise that Rupert’s case is a new bellwether, a marker of things to come.

While it’s interesting to watch all this, it brings us back to a question we’ve considered in the past: what is it that these people ultimately seek?

Commenter TN put it well yesterday:

They are completely creepy about children and that to me is deeply suspicious: using them as pawns in their propaganda, monetising and wallowing in endless promotion of disgusting, sick fantasies, focusing direct attention on children – whose privacy by law should be protected but hasn’t been – putting them at risk of greater harm than they’ve already had to endure and on and on it goes. Perhaps obfuscating other child abuse crimes, we don’t really know but it is starting to feel like it.

So why do they continue to pursue this so vigorously? What is the end game? What is the political outcome those at the centre of the planning – so clearly laid out in EC’s article and prior ones – seek? Because, we know, it’s sure as hell not about helping children.

What’s the end game?

The answer to that question varies, according to the Hoaxtead mobster, and the time period, under consideration.

For example, Belinda, who put so much time and energy into bringing together the hoax’s major players, coaching them on strategies that would play effectively to an audience of troofers, and overseeing the broad-based internet marketing campaign, is now playing a defensive game, attempting to avoid the legal consequences which loom ever closer. She was overheard at Rupert’s trial, allowing as how it would be important to see what sorts of evidence might be produced, and how it would be presented to the jury, as she expects that she will be in a similar position to Rupert in a matter of months.

Abe and Ella are a bit of a blank slate at the moment, as they have lost both their blogs and are now more or less incommunicado. With all their sources of funding cut off, and only a few troofers still willing to speak to them, their prospects look bleak indeed. At one point, it seemed that their goal had been to drive RD out of the picture, ruining him in the process; to reclaim Ella’s children and continue using them as small spokespeople for Abe’s sick version of “state-sponsored mind control” and the healing properties of hemp; and to humiliate and damage as many of the families, teachers, and clergy at Christ Church and the school as they possibly could. Though it’s difficult to interpret silence, we would anticipate that currently their goals are a bit more modest: “not starving” probably comes close to the top of their list. “Evading extradition and arrest” is probably up there as well.

Neelu and Christine, meanwhile, seem less concerned with long-term goals, and more concerned with destroying this blog in any way they can. Those of us with long memories might recollect that Neelu tried this exact manoeuvre in August 2016, when she (again) urged her friends to lodge DMCA complaints against us. As you can no doubt tell, that worked like a bloody charm. We see Christine and Neelu less as long-term strategists, more as the “throw their toys out of the pram” types. Their goals: destruction and incoherent rage, complete with stamping of feet and pounding of fists.

Deborah seems to be angling for a second investigation of the hoax, plus all the ganja she can smoke. We feel duty-bound to tell her that no matter how often she reports her perceived injoostices to the NSPCC, the IPPC, the MET, the EU, the UN, or the AA, the police are not going to re-open the Hampstead case. It is over, closed, done with, complete, finito, gone, ended. Debs can shriek until she is blue in the face (and we wish she would, as this would be most interesting to watch so long as we’re warned ahead of time and can wear the appropriate ear protection), but it will all be for naught.

As for Kristie Sue and Kane…well, what they hope to achieve is a bit unclear. They claim to want to end cannibalism and paedophilic Satanic abuse, particularly in Hampstead. Well, we have some excellent news for them. It’s never existed, so…achievement unlocked! Congratulations, you won, it’s over. You can feel free to shut the fuck up now.

Advertisements

172 thoughts on “Whither Hoaxtead? Re-examining the hoaxers’ end game

  1. “The Hoaxtead mobsters have been running around like distraught chickens…”

    Ooh, Debs – you’re on…

    The Hampstead crap starts at 12:50. She’s gone crying to the Women’s Institute now, who will become the latest in a long line of bodies to either ignore her or effectively tell her to piss off (see yesterday’s email from the NSPCC for example).

    Liked by 2 people

    • Also, this crap about the onus of proof being on the accused and how, “according to EU directives”, it has to be assumed that children are telling the truth in all instances – it’s all utter bollocks. When Debs first started spouting that two years ago, she was repeatedly challenged (by Hennie Gurdy and myself) to cite which specific directives she was referring to. Naturally, she ducked and dived, hurled abuse and slander at us and eventually blocked us. (In fact, that was the origin of her custom of disabling comments on her videos, as she has done ever since). And naturally, no specific directives were forthcoming. Well, Hennie and I both scoured the EU “directives” on child protection for what Mad Moo said was in them, to no avail. Surprise surprise.

      Liked by 2 people

      • And while I’m on, I also challenged her at the time over her rants about her “recent CRB certificate”. Now, I’ve no reason to accuse her of child abuse (other than her posting of the children’s faces and videos) but she kept making a point of mentioning it, so I felt compelled to point out that CRBs hadn’t existed since 2012 and had been replaced by DBS certificates. It crossed my mind at the time that someone who’d only recently gone through the checking procedure and received a certificate would have known that.

        And the reason it comes to mind now is that even now, two years since I “schooled” her on this, she’s still making the same mistake. In a video this week (sorry, don’t ask me to scour them for the precise video and time stamp, as listening to her for more than 8 seconds makes me vomit blood) she said once again that she has “A FOOKIN’ CRB CERTIFICATE – AN ENHANCED CRB AT THAT”. Maybe she’s just an idiot with an inability to check simple details and I’m just nitpicking. Or maybe she’s talking bollocks because she has something to hide. Who knows?

        Liked by 4 people

      • And her assertion, in this video, that Abe has an ‘honorary degree’ for his work on hemp nutrition. I expect he does have a piece of paper that says that, but we all know he didn’t get it from a university.

        Liked by 3 people

    • This creature is beginning to really annoy me now.

      She outrageously spends her entire lifetime slandering all manner of innocent people, accusing them of horrendous crimes and thinks she can cover all her false accusations by idiotic words like “lawful suspect” and “lawfully evidenced facts” while simultaneously being judge & jury showing not a scintilla of interest in the concept of anyone being entitled to the presumption of innocence.

      All cases where abuse or crime may have happened are routinely used by this tawdry dame to justify her false accusations about others.
      And she is so frigging ignorant she obviously hasn’t bother looking into cases like Rotherham and how they happened and the complicated time-line of events
      as she presents just gutter tabloid headlines which are about the depth of her “investigations”.

      There is not a single comparative fact between Rotherham and other abuse scandals. It involved the gradual seduction of vulnerable teenagers (some under the legal age of consent) and should really highlight how deprivation and poverty can lead people into bad situations and how underfunded local authorities can so often stuff-up within their jobs. Yet it has become the bench-mark for all ignorant obsessive harassing nitwits like Deborah Mahmoudieh,

      And of course completely ignoring the fact the matter has been resolved in two High Court decisions. She is an abusive online stalker. She is the very definition of a stalker and has plastered the UK with highly defamatory letters. Why she hasn’t been hauled in and charged is a complete mystery to me.

      I have great sympathy for her victims: the innocent families & their children of North London. I have less sympathy for the many police who will inevitably find themselves harassed & defamed by this woman and their children who will become targets of this on-line bully and abuser. She has repeatedly broken the laws on harassment and is being allowed to get away with it. And the taxpayer is forced to fund her in this.

      There is one law that would effectively deal with stalkers and criminal harassers like Mahmoudieh : a law of criminal libel which was once deemed to be old-fashioned but has never been more needed in these times where every evil-minded fool like Deborah Mahmoudieh or Sabine McNeill feels free to falsely accuse anyone they want to of crimes.

      Liked by 3 people

      • “And of course completely ignoring the fact the matter has been resolved in two High Court decisions.”

        …Including a custody hearing that the aforementioned “loving vegan professional yoga-teaching mother” couldn’t even be arsed to attend, despite having been offered the opportunity to partake via Skype from her foreign hidey-hole.

        Explain that one please, Mad Moo / Crusty Poo…

        Liked by 3 people

      • I’m not a lawyer, but after doing a bit of on line reading I would think that Deborah and the Hoaxers could be liable under the deformation laws for claiming people are murdering babies:

        The following are actionable without proof of special damage/actual damage:

        Words imputing a crime punishable with imprisonment
        Words imputing certain diseases
        Words disparaging a person in his office, calling or profession, see section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952. Also at common law.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Slander_actionable_per_se

        Liked by 2 people

        • Defamation is a civil action – libel and slander, not a criminal offence. A victim would have to personally sue the offender in the civil courts (and pay the fee). The court can order damages or an injunction. If you want to enforce it you make another application. It’s an option, but you have to have deep pockets or the time, patience and knowledge to do it yourself, and either way you need immense patience and resilience.

          There are plenty of offences which fit the bill: see the CPS guidelines here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/cybercrime/index.html (this is a really good site for loads of things to do with criminal prosecutions).

          But the internet is a festering mountain of hate now and we simply don’t have enough police officers or enough court time to deal with everything which could be a crime, and every failed prosecution means the CPS and the police are pilloried and comfort given to other offenders.

          A useful article here: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/online-harassment

          Liked by 2 people

          • I think about the “not enough police officers/courts” issue in this regard as well, SJ, and it’s worrisome.

            I don’t know how the CPS decides which cases are big and important enough to pursue, but it seems to me that a case which has gone on for nearly three years, in which scores of people have made to fear for their safety and that of their families, must rank up there somewhere. At least, I hope this is the case.

            Liked by 1 person

      • “And of course completely ignoring the fact the matter has been resolved in two High Court decisions. She is an abusive online stalker. She is the very definition of a stalker and has plastered the UK with highly defamatory letters. Why she hasn’t been hauled in and charged is a complete mystery to me”.

        I completely agree, GOS. She’s been doing this since the hoax went public, with absolutely no consequences. It’s no wonder she feels free to defame, harass, and stalk at will—for all her squawking, the law has basically given her carte blanche.

        I think she could easily be charged with stalking under the Freedom from Harassment Act 1997, but the question is whether the police will actually do anything about it.

        Like

    • What I struggle to understand is why the Hoaxtenders can’t even get the basic facts of the case right.

      Deborah about Ella: (16:24)

      ‘And then she came back home to Britain and immediately contacted a retired Police Sergeant and another lady that had retired from…she worked with police in a child protection unit, that was her previous profession, so she consulted with these and she also consulted with a family friend who was a community police officer and then after consulting with these people she took her children to the local police station to report the crimes…..’

      Is Ella telling her this or is she making it up as she goes along?

      Liked by 1 person

        • Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity…

          By the way, I know I’ve asked this a hundred times before but “believed Ella Draper” when she said what? She wasn’t the one making the claims, Debs – I thought it was supposed to be all about the children. Oops!

          Liked by 1 person

          • I wonder whether he believed her when she claimed that her first husband, their son, and her first husband’s wife were “members of the cult”…in fact, that FH was the “cult financier”, and that the eldest boy had participated in abusing the younger children? Because if he did, he’s in for a bit of a surprise….

            Like

          • Yes, that’s an interesting point, EC. He says he “believed her 110%” yet she herself has since admitted that she lied about various aspects of her story! That rather ballses up his claim, doesn’t it!

            Like

  2. I can picture them all joining Christie and Gareeva to live on a Spanish mountain top awaiting the onset of ‘Helter Skelter’, them against the Satanists and the Jews. While doing so, they’ll mould bars of soap from olive oil and hemp to keep their idle hands busy, they’ll have cathartic mugs of ‘green’ (Soylent perhaps?) smoothies morning, noon and night.

    There will be no catharsis, no magical transformation…they’ll blather back and forth foam forming at their mouths. Papa and Mama Hemp, like two indulgent parents, will wipe the dribble from their chins and pat them on their heads with the back of specially commissioned silver spoon nicknamed ‘the lick giver’.

    The only people from the outside they’ll meet will be Christie’s suppliers, a gang of Albanian drug lords who will take great pleasure in having a laugh at their expense by pretending they are aliens from outer space.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. “You can feel free to shut the fuck up now.”

    Nicely distilled conclusion, EC. Mind if I use that one the next time I’m attacked by a hoaxer loon?

    Liked by 3 people

  4. “We feel duty-bound to tell her that no matter how often she reports her perceived injoostices to the NSPCC, the IPPC, the MET, the EU, the UN, or the AA, the police are not going to re-open the Hampstead case.”

    Any news on the AA’s response yet, EC? I suspect that in Deb’s case, that’s one breakdown even they can’t help with.

    Liked by 2 people

    • According to wikipedia the Wat Tyler / red dagger thing is a myth:

      The sword is often erroneously supposed to commemorate the killing of Peasants’ Revolt leader Wat Tyler by Lord Mayor of London William Walworth. However the arms were in use some months before Tyler’s death, and the tradition that Walworth’s dagger is depicted may date from the late 17th century.

      Liked by 2 people

    • She’s doing better than I am!

      My total stands at the grand sum of £0.00.

      People must be mad or gullible to donate to Angela’s cigarette fund.

      And she has no morals to take anyone’s money!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yeah but I’m gonna take a punt that you have your own source of income, Babs. I wonder what Angie’s actually living on! Last seen touting for punters in the Hastings area 😀

        Liked by 2 people

        • Lol,

          Yolande I must say has to be thanked for telling us all about Angela’s game and where exactly she is operating from.

          Angela does have a thing about beaches, I wonder if she can see the Sea from her Hastings Apartment?

          Like

    • I hereby declare that as a free citizen of planet Earth that I have bugger all interest in claiming any share of some half baked,magic cash tree Ponzi scheme and will happily chance my arm continuing to earn a crust through the sweat of my brow.So there,now with all due respect fuck off and get a life.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I had a brief look at the Swissindo scam, which you can find here if you can bear it: http://swissindo.news/official-swissindo-world-trust-international-orbit-documents/. It’s a scam run by an Indonesian. Neelu is either working for him or (more likely) a victim who’s paid him for her certificates and is now going round banks trying to cash them in. I assumed she’d woven her favourite themes in with it in the posting above, but actually what she’s saying here is pretty close to the original. So it wouldn’t be surprising if she was taken in as it speaks her language and victims of scams like this put up enormous barriers against doubt.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Weirdly, two other of Sabine’s pals were victims of scams, lost money. Maggie Tuttle (Children Screaming To Be Heard) and Elizabeth Watson (got involved in Victoria Haigh’s case)

        Like

  5. Btw Rupert told me that one of JC’s donations Angela gave directly to him.

    Off hand I can’t remember when but around February/March 2017 time.

    That is really nasty of her.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry Babs, I don’t quite follow. JC donated some money to Angela and Angela passed it on to Rupert?

      Jake’s last donation to Angie was 30 euros in April, by the way.

      Like

      • Yes JC gave money to Angela, who promptly gave it to Rupert.

        I can’t be exactly sure on the date this happened, it would be either the payment you mention above 5 months ago unless there is another payment from JC to Angela 6 or 7 months ago.

        It’s up to Angela what she does with money given to her for no good reason, but she can’t be in dire poverty if she’s given it away immediately to Rupert.

        I would say with 99.99% accuracy that she is back receiving disability benefits, unless she is doing the Housing Benefit scam in some way.

        After all not that long ago she was looking for a 2/3 bedroom place to rent.

        Liked by 1 person

      • HaHa, I knew that she would try this shit, before it started….. She hinted at this, before, around the time she was talking with that black pope guy & telling people I was Kristie then cam Heather Brown and her threats, slurs and malicious contacts…….
        I’ve often remarked that it took me years to adopt the name, innocently made up by scrambling my original one……… Anyway, Shivas destructiveness represents, death for rebirth, the death necessary for life to be possible, fertile and I have no problem with that…… Indeed, as El Coyote knows, I committed to putting as much as I could into helping DESTROY the HOAXERS…….. I had seen their tactics, damage and ignored it, overlong…….I also unwittingly allowed Belinda & co to overwhelm our 2010 rally, had felt their interference in my life and campaigns …..some very insiduous stuff.
        I will continue and am now I think, armed and more dangerous……brand spanking new lappy, excellent recent local support partly triggered/helped by their interference in my personal life, attempts to scare me etc…..
        I love my name but was unnerved years ago, when I googled it for the first time and Resident Evil came up, I had to get over it….:)
        Meanwhile, what else has Angela called me……the one she might most regret is SUE !.

        Liked by 3 people

    • I listened to some of that nonsense she posted.

      I can categorically say that up to the part I got to, it’s a resounding NO I DON’T have anything to do with such crap in my spare time.

      I always love it when people think they know you when they haven’t got a frigging clue about you!

      Liked by 3 people

  6. What I don’t understand about people who are obsessed with SRA, is that surely if you added up all the allegations ever made of abuse, SRA would add up to the smallest of a point of a percentage. So why are these people trying to overshadow well over 99.9% of abuse cases?
    Do these people actually care about abuse, or are they just obsessed with satanic baby munching fantasies?

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s all about the bandwagons, mate. SRA is “trending” at the moment. Just like the 276 schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram was trending in April 2014, with every troofer and celebrity in town jumping on board the bandwagon. And then when it stopped trending about a month later, they all jumped off again. 94 girls are still in captivitiy but sadly, that particular twatwagon’s rolled out of town now, so the troofers don’t give a shit about it any more.

      Liked by 3 people

    • @confuseddotcom –

      I’m not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but over 30 years of fighting ‘satanic panic’ I’ve developed an SRA promoter typology that I think covers the range of motivations I’ve observed;

      – religious zealots: typically Charismatic and/ or Fundamentalist evangelicals, but they can come out of any faith community or spirituality movement including New-agers. The satanic panic of the 1980’s was originally driven by the popularity of end-of-days celebrity preachers like Hal Lindsey and his disciples;
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late,_Great_Planet_Earth
      It was the “mainstreaming” of traditional Fundamentalist beliefs that modern society and all of our social institutions are hopelessly morally corrupted (by Satan) – as demonstrated by widespread public interest in fantasy/occult-themed entertainments, tolerance/acceptance of LGBT lifestyles, feminism, easy access to pornography, sex-education in schools, and especially by social tolerance of tiny communities of pagans, neo-pagans, and practitioners of “occult arts” such as self-professed “witches” & “satanists”.
      At its most extreme, the belief that our social institutions must be destroyed by the righteous and “liberated” by a religious dictatorship to achieve our collective salvation.
      Popular belief in SRA is spiritual crack cocaine to this type, and they will never stop evangelizing it, but their
      professed concern for the children is just a rationalization. They don’t really care if SRA stories are true or not, and will happily deliberately invent and promote their own SRA fantasies.

      -political opportunists: promote belief in SRA as political-social sex crime & corruption slander, frequently a cross-over with religious zealots but may also be atheistic or otherwise non-religious. Generally also seek the “overthrow” of our current institutions to be replaced with a more extreme individualistic libertarianism (for themselves, maybe not for everyone else). At the extreme end, these are the Christian Patriots, Constitutionalist, militias, white supremacists, Ted Gunderson, John DeCamp type. Again, belief in SRA is a means to an end for them and they don’t genuinely care if the child victims they express outrage about are real or imaginary.

      -scammers & con-artists: may be cross-overs with either of the above. They perceive an opportunity for personal gain of some sort, often money, and by definition are not sincere.

      -empathic crusaders: genuinely believe that an “elite pedophile conspiracy” controls our society, and that alleged child SRA victims cannot be “saved” by social institutions, (but non-SRA abuse victims can be), so feel compelled to appoint themselves to be the public voice of these helpless waifs. This type sometimes falsely claim, (knowingly), to have been an SRA victim themselves or even a reformed ex-SRA perpetrator.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I should add, that empathic crusaders have often had mental health issues that caused them to be delusional or psychotic. Diana Napolis being an archetype for this:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Napolis

        I suspect that “Nick” might be one too – although I also suspect that Nick either joined up with or was seduced by a campaign to frame Leon Brittan and Harvey Proctor for the disappearance of a UK boy in 1979, which a circle of people had been plotting for at least a decade.

        Liked by 1 person

          • @tracy – I believe investigation of Nick vis-a-vis perverting justice to be ongoing, so I must be super-discreet.
            I have been, anyway, for several years now – out of respect for surviving family. But if you search me on Needleblog before it disappears you might find some suggestive rants that slipped out when I couldn’t take biting my tongue any longer.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Oh, although I may have missed anything you think particularly suggestive, it hasn’t all passed me by.

            The one that is gone is the Racoon Arms and the landlady. I saw a few things there too, but possibly not from you.

            I did look again at Needleblog. You have tried to help I see, in a constructive way. 🙂

            I have been just a little angry when I have seen what some people have been doing. There isn’t just one family with a missing loved one who has been added to the speculation.

            I’m not an avid follower of what has been going on. It completely passed me by about John Hemming being interviewed and then no longer of any interest. Strangely, his Justice for Families Ltd includes a Jersey ex-Senator Stuart Syvret, and, well, you can find out what he was up to yourself in the past. He was responsible for the Jersey Child Protection Committee as chair at one point. He piqued my interest around 2010/2009. He’s a general conspiracist. Refused to give oral evidence to the recent Jersey enquiry too. What goes around, comes around it seems.

            I’ve edited this from a longer comment, for a few reasons!

            Liked by 2 people

  7. Rare lurker here (last time I posted, I was worried about going out to do the quiz cause Rupert was lurking around!) Just a quick question for the community on here….. What is our end game? One idea of putting this all to bed would be to make a separate Wiki entry for this hoax. Then, when people google this nonsense, the top link is to a (brilliantly written) wiki page summarising all of this and acting as a definitive statement.

    What do you all reckon?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Rebel Wilson awarded $4.56 million after defamation win
    http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/rebel-wilson-awarded-456-million-after-defamation-win-20170912-gyg9ao.html

    I’m no export on defamation but I have studied the subject, assisted in several cases and even sued a British Sunday tabloid myself over 30 years ago (successfully- they settled quickly).

    The laws in Australia & the UK are very similar except most Oz states have a capped award but there is the availability of punitive damages which has bumped up Rebel’s award considerably. The judge (who had never heard of her before the case) accepted that her career had been damaged by numerous lies and in particular a lot of that award was based on how the internet had spread the magazine fibs. Nor did Wilson have to prove she had lost work because of the libels.

    Compared to the relentless repeat of the defamation’s against so many people in the Hampstead matter, especially against the father who I doubt would have much trouble proving this has been devastating for him professionally and the children who have been (falsely) accused of participating in child murder and cannibalism, they along with various police officers etc would have little trouble proving their case. I doubt it would even proceed to court with defendants having to cave in quickly.

    They would be hit for costs even if they sensibly settled before a court case (and courts will not allow a defendant who does not have the funds to fight a case to use the courts to continue their harassment and libels).
    The obvious result would be many would go bankrupt- people like Angela Power Disney and Belinda McKenzie would lose their homes. Bankruptcy only works for the rich who can hide funds. For those not well off it can screw up their lives for a decade.

    I’d be ruthless with these people. Every one of them.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Is there any proof that this Elm Guest House list has any accuracy to it?

      Or was it totally made up by Chris Faye?

      It’s been puzzling me for quite some time.

      Was it really somewhere where children were sexually abused or is it pure fiction?

      Like

      • Made up by Chris Fay and then spread via various hoaxers including “Darren” along with Bill Maloney.
        It’s why the odious turkey looking Fay and big-mouth bully ‘Baloney’ Maloney have gone underground after being hauled in by The Met twice for long ‘discussions’.
        If the infamous “Nick” ( Ted Heath etc) or “Darren” ( Leon Brittan etc) get charged there is every chance Fay & Baloney and a few others could get done for Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.
        Someone is going to pay for the multi – £Ms squandered. Someone is going to jail.
        # Only one newspaper took notice of me when I urged them to ditch the ghastly Fay as a source: the Daily Mirror.
        ## Fay’s dabbling has also caused Plod to take a closer look at his past and it’s not pretty,

        Liked by 3 people

        • The Daily Mail ran with it at the time and really stirred the shit.

          And that fake list of guests was a disgrace and it really pissed me off that the hoaxers put Brian Epstein on there, a great man who deserved better and wasn’t around to defend himself. It played into that pathetic 60s myth that being gay automatically makes you a nonce.

          Liked by 2 people

      • @babs – there’s no proof Elm Guest House maintained a guest book at all! But its reasonable to assume they did.
        One of the first press stories about the 1982 raid, in a sleazier UK paper, claimed that “a guestbook was seized containing the names of politicians, judges and someone on Royal Household staff” (not exact quote). But Fay’s list is hand-written (by him), not copies of a guest book page, and has full names that Fay claimed Ms Kasir told him were regulars, alongside “code-names” that he claims she said they always signed in as. If they used code names, the allegedly seized book wouldn’t contain “the names of politicians, judges and someone on Royal Household staff”. If full names of VIPs were in a seized book, then Fay must be lying about Kasir telling him they all used code-names.

        The truth is that both stories are lies – the news story and Fay’s story – that’s why they don’t agree.

        All of the highly publicized claims about specific youngsters being abused there, are contradicted by other documented facts – like the discrepancies about Kerr’s age and location. However, being a guesthouse with overnight room bookings, its certainly possible that pederastic pervs might have brought under-aged boys working Piccadilly there for sexual encounters – just as any other hotel in the area probably was misused for.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks for explaining.

          What with Fay being jailed for fraud against old people, (if I’ve got that correct) I’m surprised people take the list as fact and give him so much credibility.

          It wouldn’t surprise me if his pal Baloney is in on it too.

          Isn’t that guy “Nick” that is being investigated at the mo something to do with Baloney too?

          There’s some videos with Baloney asking him/leading him with questions.

          “Nick” seems very vulnerable to me.

          Like

  9. People are sometimes skeptical, that anyone really exploits CSA for political purposes.
    So, I have selected an unmistakable example video.
    I want to be fair to this young man – he might be sincerely concerned about child abuse issues, I’m not saying he isn’t. I’m only using this video because the political motivate for promoting “pizzagate’ is so naked & blatant, with no mention of concern about trafficked kids to raise any doubt:

    Liked by 1 person

    • You are too kind.
      He’s just another brain-dead moron with too much time on his hands and is ‘researching’ the internet to have confirmed the evil that was always in his mind or his deepest suppressed perversions which bubble to the surface every now & then as exampled by many of these cretins, like the jailed criminal Rupert Quaintance who made a classic Fruedian Slip as to how he might like to “fuck a kid” to see what it’s like.” All in the interests of research of course.

      If I had my way evil minded c*nts like in this video would be horse whipped in the town square before being tarred & feathered and run out of town.
      I mean that in a caring & sharing way & with great compassion.

      Liked by 2 people

    • https://vid.me/pHTu

      This prick finds it highly suspicious that three Christ Church teachers left at the end of a school year? Christ, that’s a record low for any fricking school! And no, dickhead – they did not leave in September. Teachers don’t leave in September, they leave at the end of a school year and have to hand in their notice no later than the Summer half-term holiday, usually around the end of May / beginning of June. In other words, these three will have decided to leave long before the children made any allegations about school staff.

      Just how desperate are these lying hoaxer twunts that they need to alter facts to suit their narrative, even if it means wrecking people’s reputations?

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Earth to Sabine “Let the Jury Google” McNeil.

    Jury foreman is jailed for internet search about case.
    “A JURY foreman who ignored strict rules about not making internet searches was jailed for four months.
    Lionel Tweed not only researched aspects of the murder trial on the web, he also told his fellow jurors about his findings.
    The painter and decorator, 54, looked up the information during the trial of Piotr Olejarczyk, who stabbed a man to death. Olejarczyk was found guilty of murder and jailed for life in December at Manchester crown court”

    https://www.metro.news/jury-foreman-is-jailed-for-internet-search-about-case/744868/

    Liked by 2 people

    • Imagine someone in court as a defendant for a serious crime, anything found on the internet and not presented in court, the person couldn’t present any defence about it. The epitome of secret evidence, seeing as defendants don’t get to spy on the jury room.

      I’m imagining, just for the lols, Sabine on trial for murder, and a juror showing a picture of her knife in hand, covered in blood, obtained via Google. She done it, decide the jurors. Actually, it is Sabine in her Halloween costume on a completely different date. She’d be happy with this sort of “research”, I suppose.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: What happens after we win the war? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

We welcome comments! Please note: this is a Shurter-free zone. Offending posts will be deleted.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s