Has Rupert launched an appeal?

/ 09/10/2017

It’s always difficult to know just how seriously to take any information handed out by Angela Power-Disney. She has only a passing acquaintance with the truth, such that we’re not convinced she would recognise it if she saw it; and she’s prone to making grandiose statements based on dodgy information which (she claims) always comes from “impeccable sources”. (See, for example, her bizarre allegations regarding Ella Draper making and selling child sexual abuse videos.)

So it is with some trepidation that we note that Angela is now claiming that Rupert Quaintance has launched an appeal.

 

But an appeal against what? His conviction? His sentence? Our Magic 8 Ball says, “Reply hazy; try again”.

But just in case Angela is a) correctly informed and b) telling the truth, here’s a quick rundown of the appeals process, which is a longish one.

The person must make an application for appeal, within 28 days of their conviction. This application comes before a tribunal of three judges, who decide whether the application has any merit. If they believe it does, an appeal hearing is granted.

The appeal hearing takes place, and a decision is made: the person’s appeal is either accepted or rejected at this point.

Much depends upon whether the person is appealing their sentence or their actual verdict.

If the hearing agrees that the sentence is disproportionate to the crime in question, then person’s sentence will be adjusted. If the hearing is about the actual conviction, and it goes in the person’s favour, then a retrial will be granted. In Rupert’s case, the retrial would involve only the two guilty verdicts he received on 30 August.

All of this can take some time; we understand that the tribunal of three judges, for example, may take up to six weeks to convene.

So…if Angela is correctly informed, and if she is telling the truth, a decision about Rupert’s appeal may be made by about mid-November at the latest. This leads one to wonder: why bother, when he could be out of prison by mid-January if he keeps his nose clean?

There’s little point in speculating on his motive right now, as it all seems very hypothetical, hinging as it does on Angela’s truthfulness and reliability. However, for some reason when we close our eyes and think, “Now why would he be bothering to do this?”, certain magical signs appear, which we are certain must be some sort of portent. They look like this: £££$$$£££$$$. We have no idea what they mean.

Angela’s diversion tactics

Since Rupert’s trial, when her name was mentioned frequently, Angela has appeared deeply concerned that her role in harassing the parents at Christ Church Primary School may eventually catch up with her.

She’s been putting up a great many videos lately, in an apparent attempt to portray herself and Rupert in the most favourable light possible.

Yesterday, for example, she re-posted this interview with Rupert, originally published on 28 February 2016:

Angela pointed out, “Around 12 minutes referring to RD alleged abuser, Rupert clearly says “I DON´T WANNA HURT HIM” …I wonder if his barrister had spotted this?”

Well now, to be fair, Rupert did say that…but it was in this context:

(09:55) R: I dunno…I assume maybe one of those commenters is the dad?

Angela: He has about…forensic IT specialists have confirmed that he’s got between 20 and 40 sock accounts that he uses….

Rupert: Wow…

A: And he makes conversations back and forth to himself…

R: I noticed that on some of ‘em, I started looking around at some of ‘em, and I noticed that if you followed some of the names and stuff around what you would find is that they all link back to the same channel. Trying to make it look like there’s all this support, but if you’re going to troll with multiple accounts, you need to change your voice—like if you typed in all-caps on one of them, don’t type in all-caps in the other one. Find a different voice to use for that other account.

A: And occasionally he would slip. If he got busted and somebody went to the wall with him on trolling comments, then he would say something outrageous like “My children’s faces are on YouTube” and he’d just blow it, blow his cover.

R: Do we have screenshots of any of that?

A: No, there’s so much evidence that has been gathered by people that are professionals, that have done it for nothing. There’s, you know, so much evidence. IP server tracking to porn distribution worldwide including snuff movies…

R: Right. The one thing that I was thinking what I’m gonna do is that I’m one person removed from hacker members of Anonymous, um, they don’t like paedophiles at all. So I was thinking about…so I’ve gone to them with stuff before, and it’s usually stuff that they don’t want to touch, which I don’t blame them. I don’t blame them for drawing a line in the sand. The whole paedophile thing? They’re good at gettin’ in there and they gave all the names of the people with the Ashley Madison accounts, which is funny because it was like 85% men, and mostly fake female accounts on there, and like you know, there was nobody on it. Really, there were people paying to cheat, so there’s no reason they can’t find this guy. If he’s posting, if he—they can figure out his IP address and zero in on him. I don’t want anything to…I don’t wanna hurt him. I would love to interview him though. I could make him squirm.

So…Rupert didn’t “wanna hurt him”. He just wanted to set Anonymous on him, so that they could “figure out his IP address and zero in on him”. Why, that’s hardly a threat at all!

Funnily enough they continued this conversation about three weeks later, on a video titled “Hampstead…Rupert & Angie…LAYING FOUNDATIONS“.

Angela: Ricky Dearman, the one that you want to track, has the children, and is planning to take them to America imminently.

Rupert: Well somebody…like…I don’t know…we can probably get somebody to spot him out.

A: Yeah, well we’ve got some pretty cool IP people who are tracking his location and it’s been between San Francisco and London, San Francisco and London.

R: Well you know what’s stupid about him is that he’s got the bug, you know, you know what I’m saying? He’s got the bug, he’s got the acting bug. So he’s not going to be able to shut his fucking mouth and stay under the radar. He’s gonna come over here and he’s gonna make it eeeeaaasy pickin’s for Rupert. I’ve actually got some of his videos, the two—you know how hard it was—how does he have an IMDB for some piece of shit film that you can’t even fucking watch anywhere, that I had to go and find up on YouTube?

A: He’s a pimp for the elite, he’s like Jimmy Savile, he provides children for raping and sodomising and cannibalising.

Fortunately for Rupert, the Crown prosecutor wasn’t able to use these videos in evidence against him, since he had not posted them and could well argue that he hadn’t consented for Angela to make them public.

However, should Angela ever come to trial in this matter, and we sincerely hope she will, the Crown will have no such compunction. #justsayin

Related posts

67 thoughts on “Has Rupert launched an appeal?”

  1. Any convicted person sentenced to prison time, who has the personal wherewithal to file an appeal or the funds to hire a lawyer to file an appeal for them, would be stupid not to do that. If such processes are available, to every convicted person, why wouldn’t you avail yourself of them?

    I’d be more surprised, if Angela was posting: “Rupert won’t be filing any appeals, he knows he was in the wrong, is genuinely repentant and humbly accepts his punishment”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • In her latest fb post I can see she mentions something about Tuesday and down South.

      I’m not sure if she is talking about Rupert in Sarf London or down south in Ireland.

      As “journalist” you’d think she’d make things clear.

      Liked by 1 person

    • It’ll serve him right if the Sentence gets increased, it’s a risk on appealing.

      More evidence has come to light but it’s not exactly evidence in his favour, far from it.

      I still think Rupert will be released before Christmas as my husband’s mate that was imprisoned for Perverting the course of justice, was due to be released in the New Year a few years back but was released mid-December, though he was tagged after.

      He did however live in England.

      I suppose Rupert could spend another Christmas in England, either in Erith (if they’ll have him) or at Belinda’s.

      I wonder what the rest of the Hoaxer group think about Belinda “helping” Rupert, what with them having turned on him?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I just wanted to quickly point out, that the scenario of parents falsely accused of SRA abuse by one or more of their adult children, agreeing to an informal “plea” with some entity empowered to offer it (in this case, a Mormon church investigations “committee”), involving the parents “confessing” to everything their accuser has alleged and making cash “reparations” to them in exchange for a guarantee of no criminal prosecution, has already been acted out in the US at least once:

    https://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/survivor-stories/hell-minus-one-signed-verified-confessions-of-satanic-ritual-abuse/

    I’ve been told, that the membership of Stop Mind Control and Ritual Abuse Today (SMART) have been known to retire to a private members-only meeting during their conferences, where they all sit around naked – masturbating furiously to a recording of Anne Johnson-Davis recounting her parent’s confession – and exclaiming: “Yes! Yes! It’s all true! It’s real! OMG!”
    Could just be a spurious rumor, though. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    • I’m trying to imagine the parents’ dilemma in this situation: do you know what eventually induced them to sign such a document?

      Like

  3. “Computer Forensics Salary. The median salary for computer forensic examiners was around $75,660 in 2012, according to the BLS. Those in the lowest 10 percent earned as little as $43,190, while those in the highest 10 percent earned as much as $119,940 annually.

    I didn’t realise Angie had that kind of money lying around to pay for her, “pretty cool IP people”, [sic] .

    Liked by 3 people

  4. EC – its a little simpler than you said. After a trial the defendants Counsel will advise the convicted person upon the merits of an appeal. The only two grounds at that stage are for appeal of a manifestly excessive sentence or a procedural error by the Judge / Court. After the 28 days has elapsed (without an application for appeal) the appeal process is about NEW evidence being found that proves the defendants innocence or a lesser culpability in the crime committed. Such appeals take many months to go before Court – Its very unlikely that would happen before Rupert is released.

    The risk with an appeal is that the Court has the power to INCREASE a sentence if it feels the sentence was not sufficent or that the appellant has wasted the Courts time by bringing the appeal before it.

    An appeal is not about a person wanting a retrial because they did not like the decision of the Court in finding them guilty – it has to be on sound legal grounds.

    APD’s claims about the forensic IT are utter rubbish – its like a pathologist giving a post mortem without examining the body…..

    Liked by 3 people

    • “APD’s claims about the forensic IT are utter rubbish…”

      Yes, I laughed out loud when reading that 🙂 Let’s see it again:
      “Angela: He has about…forensic IT specialists have confirmed that he’s got between 20 and 40 sock accounts that he uses….”

      Oh yes, I believe this utter non-entity knows “forensic IT specialists” (NOT!) and even has them at her beck & call (absolutely NOT!) – what a laugh!

      Good clarifications about UK appeal process, thank you.

      Liked by 5 people

      • I still don’t get all this rubbish Angela spouts about knowing someone’s address ip or otherwise.

        What’s she going to do with it?

        Knock on someone’s door and confront them?

        Send some nuttah’s round to do her dirty work?

        Seems like she is threatening here with violence…

        Like

    • Thanks, JW. My concern at the moment is whether Angela is actually being truthful about the appeal, but your information is really useful in the event that she is.

      You wrote: “After a trial the defendants Counsel will advise the convicted person upon the merits of an appeal. The only two grounds at that stage are for appeal of a manifestly excessive sentence or a procedural error by the Judge / Court. After the 28 days has elapsed (without an application for appeal) the appeal process is about NEW evidence being found that proves the defendants innocence or a lesser culpability in the crime committed. Such appeals take many months to go before Court – Its very unlikely that would happen before Rupert is released”.

      Given what we currently know about the trial, I can imagine Rupert’s Counsel claiming procedural irregularities during the trial. According to our reporter, there were several times when certain points were argued (for what seemed like hours), between Rupert’s barrister and the judge. (We could not report on this at the time, since when reporting trials one must only report what is said while the jury is present.) The most critical disputed point, in our reporter’s opinion, was whether individuals within a harassed group could claim that they had been targetted by the harassment, even though they had not been personally named. The judge ruled that they could, and so instructed the jury.

      If Angela is not lying about the appeal, then I could imagine this point being the basis for an appeal of Rupert’s conviction. His barrister apparently pursued the point quite doggedly, and might believe that the judge’s ruling would be overturned on appeal.

      Am I correct in believing that if the point is not overturned, it becomes enshrined in case law?

      Liked by 1 person

      • ‘Am I correct in believing etc….’

        That’s my understanding.

        And yes I’d bet the appeal has to do with some technical point re the law. Seems more likely than anything else. Darn!

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Perhaps I should explain a little more about the statement my previous post about “increasing” the sentence :

    During the process of applying for permission to appeal, the Application and Grounds of Appeal will be considered by the single judge. If permission is refused and the application is renewed, the same documents will be considered by the full Court of Appeal. Both the single judge and, on a renewal, the full court can make a ‘loss of time’ direction if they consider the appeal has no merit (i.e. is unarguable). This means they can direct that any or all the time spent in custody since the date of the Application for Permission to Appeal shall no longer count towards the sentence. The effect of this is to increase the length of the custodial sentence that will have to be served.

    The purpose of a loss of time direction is to prevent appeals being launched that have no real prospect of succeeding.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Do they accept new documents relating to the case?
      Those relating to say the knife he claimed not to have and was photographed, and the refound documents with him mouthing off about wanting to teach them etc would be of interest surely plus having and perjured himself in court,

      He would have to be a bloody idiot to appeal, he got off lightly, his sentence could have been much longer (and should have been)

      Liked by 4 people

    • These appeals of sentence or conviction are they heard in a Public Court or does a Judge look at the case in Private.

      I don’t know why Rupert didn’t say he had mental illness/es in his defence as I would say he has, not sure which though but it’s surely not “normal” behaviour to turn up in a foreign country because some ole gal that has the hots for him pays his air fare.

      In that reposted video that Angela put up you can see Rupert is clearly flattered by the attention she gave him.

      You’ve got to feel a bit sorry for him not being able to attract anyone of a similar age to him.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. “A: Yeah, well we’ve got some pretty cool IP people who are tracking his location and it’s been between San Francisco and London, San Francisco and London.”

    lmao “IP people”
    news flash, angela: an ip address will show you the location of the internet provider, not the person’s current location. you cant “track” someone’s movements by their ip location, especially given that there are ways to change your ip.
    lol, maybe she means gps?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Correct, DotB!

      And speaking as one of many people who’s been “forensically proven to be RD” by tracking my IP across different sock accounts, that always makes me chuckle because I have a dynamic IP address (standard with my ISP), so it changes every time I log on 😀

      Liked by 3 people

    • I think she’s using the IT Expert who sailed with Noah on The Ark.

      Even my internet provider seems to have roaming IP addresses all over Australia as each time I check I seem to be in a different location (and of course it’s not me- just their servers) but even then I use a proxy service so I can watch shows on the BBC Iplayer plus numerous US on-line shows.

      It’s so easy to bust these amateurs who pretend they know what they are doing.

      Liked by 5 people

    • I’m sure you’ll like this, DoB: when Angela’s “cool IP people” revealed their info about the supposed locations of RD’s IP addresses, it turned out that the “San Francisco IP” belonged to Automattic, the company which owns WordPress. The “London IP” was found to be located in a café near Westminster, and is the default IP used by geolocation services when they can’t pinpoint an address more closely than “UK”.

      In other words, anyone who commented via their WordPress account must be in San Francisco; anyone whose VPN or proxy was in the UK must be sitting in a café near Westminster.

      The IP addresses were both provided by Sabine, who found them attached to dissenting commenters on her various blogs. Since according to the Hoaxtead mob, all people who disagree with the hoax are necessarily RD, she inferred from this that he must be in San Francisco and London, and passed this along to Angela, who swallowed it whole. Brilliant, no?

      Liked by 4 people

  7. “A: No, there’s so much evidence that has been gathered by people that are professionals, that have done it for nothing. There’s, you know, so much evidence. IP server tracking to porn distribution worldwide including snuff movies…”

    first of all, if you have “so much evidence”, how about you go to the police with it or just go public with it? prove your claims. surely you have some hard evidence, some logs or screenshots, or one of your “ip people” can go in and prove it.
    second “people that are professionals” that gather such evidence and track down those distributing child porn/true snuff” etc are normally police and fbi… in which case, they would already have the authority arrest whoever is committing the crime. “have done it for nothing” my ass.

    Liked by 3 people

    • She did claim – falsely – to have reported us all to Wiltshire police and that they were working closely with her to bring us all down. “Us all” being Ricky Dearman, of course 😀

      Oh and she was also working with her “legal team” to sue us all in a “class action” (even though it was just her). Two years later I’m still waiting for my summons. Anyone else had theirs yet? LOL

      Liked by 5 people

  8. Justin has been having bouts of insomnia all weekend, (probably the prelude to a bout of flu), and is trying to use the time productively 🙂

    Dr Michael Salter, an Australian radical feminist criminologist and full-time apologist for SRA claimants, was once a “regular contributor” to a discussion forum – sort of like this blog’s comments board. Well, not at all like THIS blog’s comments, in fact almost precisely the opposite of this blog. Salter was a regular contributor to the once notorious Rigorous Intuition blogsite’s forums, a hotbed of paranoid conspiracy theorist discussions populated by several well-known SRA-MC victim claimants (such as Lynn Shirmer). But not under his own name, of course…pseudononymously – like moi. If this link works out, you’ll see Lynn Shirmer documenting this fact, on that site:
    http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31821&p=479552&hilit=michael+salter#p479552

    You should see: “RA survivor advocate Michael Salter, now Dr. Michael Salter…who was once a regular contributor to this board…”
    Isn’t there some kind of conlicting interest, implicit in a Criminologist having been a regular contributor to the construction & dissemination of paranoid conspiracy theories, for many years, under a pseudonym?

    And here we have Hal Pepinsky, a retired version of Michael Salter, promoting a theory that mass murderer Stephen Braddock must have been a government run “manchurian candidate” mind-controlled “false flag” mass assassin:
    http://pepinsky.blogspot.ca/

    Absolutely disgraceful.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’ve noticed Mr Salter’s writings. I think he’s vying to be the Valerie Sinason of the antipodes. Maybe has Fiona Barnett advising him.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @GOS – Salter is a very dangerous person, in my opinion. He’s been on a crusade to re-write the social history of child protection, journalism and criminal justice responses to child sexual abuse issues, in English speaking countries, in the modern era – motivated not by objective & original “research findings” as he professes – but by a fanatical adherence to, and determination to evangelize, a radical feminist dogma about all of these things.
        Trust me, Salter doesn’t need to be tutored by Fiona – he learned his trade as a wiley & persuasive promoter of fantasies and fantasists at the feet of “the best of the worst” – as an obsessive participant in the Rigorous Intuition site forums.
        The man LIES, GOS. I could be more tactful, and say that he uses selective citation of other people’s academic work to misrepresent past and present reality.

        Here’s one of his favorite themes: “Throughout the 1990s, media commentary alleged that “radical feminists” were inciting false allegations of “satanic ritual abuse”…due to their deep-seated “fear of male sexuality”.
        It is true that there have been, and continue to be, unfair criticisms of “feminists” (and especially of lesbian feminist activists), that often reflects the deep-seated misogyny of those who utter them.
        On the other hand, time has revealed that there really was TRUTH underlying that seemingly paranoid interpretation: “that “radical feminists” were inciting false allegations of “satanic ritual abuse”.
        We might never have uncovered that truth, if it weren’t for a genuine “whistleblower” (she wouldn’t call herself that) who LIVED that truth as a committed and trusted insider of the radical feminist lesbian community in America.
        http://www.meredithmaran.com/MyLie.htm

        Meredith Maran was;
        a lesbian woman deeply embedded in the lesbian feminist community
        in a relationship with one of the most influential, early, feminist researcher and author on incest and CSA issues
        also a researcher and a journalist investigating the realities of sexual violence against women, incest, and CSA
        a long-serving lecturer, lay-educator, and reporter on all these subjects

        And some of what Maran reveals about the community she was an integral member of, includes the social pressure SHE felt, to BE an incest ‘survivor’ by developing her own (false, apparently) memories of being abused by her father, and that having such memories was NECESSARY to be fully accepted by the other members of that community. But furthermore, there came a time when having incest memories was not enough, when everyone was developing ‘memories’ of SRA victimization too – including her lover, who demanded that Maran must also “recall” SRA victimization. And when Maran, shocked, said: “no way. not me”, her lover left her and cut her out of that person’s life.

        Liked by 2 people

    • I wish we could go back to the 50s and The Three Faces of Eve. “Dissociative identities” were so much simpler then. A simple housewife. A fun loving drinker and the third..can’t remember but certainly no Satanism involved.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ah, this is really useful, as always. I’d seen Salter’s name in passing (actually I think it was an op-ed in The Guardian) and made a mental note to follow up. You’ve done some of my homework for me. 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

  11. All of the above are spot on.
    APD is just a Class One Bullshit Artist.

    I’ve been involved in enough court cases as a witness to see how it all works and just recently accompanied a good pal (McKenzie Friend?) appealing a 4 month jail sentence. He was only appealing the sentence itself & not the conviction for some very good reasons: the disruption to his life (with family) and the risk of losing his apartment, homeless wife & kids, losing job etc etc. The judge saw good reason and reduced it to a 3 year good behaviour bond.

    I can’t actually think what grounds Rupert would have to appeal on. Quite apart from the fact he will most likely be out of jail and on the way home before it even reached a court, there is always the chance the prosecution will double down and armed with new evidence: Rupert’s lack of any evidence claiming he was threatened, this seems very risky. Barrister and solicitor’s fees alone to try and find grounds for an appeal would be prohibitive ( my pal forked out nearly $5000 in legal fees). Doubtful he would get legal aid. Unless his parents stump up the funds to try and clear his name.

    In fact from my observations appealing any case in the UK is notoriously difficult compared to what I have seen in Australia and the USA where it seems almost automatic to get the right to appeal.

    This reeks of Power-Disney on a face-saving exercise. She is an unmitigated liar and does not have “IT professionals” tracking RD (her child porn attack on Ella despite my feelings about her was despicable) and Rupert is another gormless dill who thinks every amateur, tippy typing away in their basement is “Anonymous”.

    Dear editor: thank you for restoring my privileges and I promise to not again call people like Angie a “fucking cunt”.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Agree GoS,this is Angela attempting to make out Rupert as a victim of injustice and implications against her role in the affair as wrongful too.

      As pointed out above there are multiple reasons why this is extremely unlikely and indeed could backfire big time.

      Now if Angela would like to turn herself in and admit to funding and manipulating the retard from Culpeper she may earn Roopie a couple of brownie points along with a long overdue stretch of her own,fairs fair after all.

      I have to agree with the editors sanction against you for refering to Angela as simply a “fucking cunt” when it is abundantly clear she is an “absolute and total utter fucking cunt”.

      Liked by 3 people

  12. “A: He’s a pimp for the elite, he’s like Jimmy Savile, he provides children for raping and sodomising and cannibalising.”

    What an absolutely ridiculous & vindictive statement to come out with. I wish RD would sue her, but I am sure he has enough on his plate without bothering about a nonentity like Angela who, a few years ago, was bragging about riding horses 125 mile across England for JS’s sponsored charity.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Well if he fancies a holiday home in Oldcastle, he should go for it.

      Make her pay some money out of her benefits too towards his substantial damages.

      He could always rent it out to her and she could then claim housing benefit to live in it.

      That would be karma…

      Liked by 3 people

  13. Appeals in the Court of Appeal are NEVER a retrial. There are very very few occasions where new evidence comes up, but only where it is very powerful AND the defence couldn’t have called it before. So the classic example is the Birmingham 6 where they were convicted on their confessions which were later proved to have been false. Apart from those very rare events an appeal is a review of the job the judge did – did s/he make a mistake, e.g. in the advice to the jury on the law, permitting a line of questioning, or admitting evidence. They never look at whether the jury made a mistake on evidence properly put before them. So there are no appeals on the facts.

    They certainly never ask themselves the question “if the defence had run the case completely differently, would things have gone differently?” – if it were there would never be an end to it. The only time they would consider that would be if they were persuaded that the legal advice given to the defendant was woefully inept and the course taken quite exceptionally unwise, and it wasn’t the defendant’s fault. We have seen a few appeals brought on that basis recently – they have not gone well.

    An appeal will work in Rupert’s case if a competent lawyer can convince the CA that the judge made a mistake and not otherwise. Reading the reports here I think the defence made a decent fist of it.

    Someone has said earlier that hopeless appeals are punished by making the sentence start on the date of the appeal. So all the time served between sentence and appeal doesn’t count. The CA is using this more and more (“the bar has to learn”, one judge has said) to discourage hopeless appeals. Since it takes several months to get a live appeal hearing, it’s quite a sanction, especially for a short sentence like Rupert’s.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It would suit the conspiritors that still want their lies to work, meanwhile, as with their other victims, they will act as though he is a matyr for their cause, if possible, otherwise they will demonise him……. I warned him. I am disturbed at the close proximity some of the nutters have had, to our inquiry……and determined put a stop to it.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Has anyone watched the Tim Tate film titled as either; “Cleveland: the Unspeakable Truths” or “The Death of Childhood”? That’s his film on the Cleveland case.
    I watched it years ago, but recently had occasion to view it again. As I recalled, it’s quite shocking – but not shocking because of any new “truths” supposedly revealed in it. Shocking – because it is an appallingly shameless and manipulative work of propaganda masquarading as an objective “documentary”.

    Begin at the beginning.
    Approximately 1:30 into the film, the voice of a young woman recounting her tale of growing up a horrifically sexually abused child, in Cleveland. Well there you go, the “standard” skeptical version of this case must be wrong – because here is a genuine CSA victim who wasn’t saved from her abusive parent, presumably because she was ordered back to her home despite being diagnosed as an abuse victim by Higgs – right?

    WRONG. This young woman wasn’t one of the 121 children taken into care in the original investigation.
    Have a look at Tate’s review of his own film, here:
    https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/cleveland-unspeakable-truths/

    He says: “My colleagues and I spent nearly three months researching and investigating. We met and informally interviewed everyone who would speak to us. Stuart Bell MP and Alastair Irvine refused point blank
    We also advertised for parents who had been caught up in the crisis. Only two came forward: a mother whose children had been sexually abused by their father (he was convicted of the abuse) and ho had tried – in vain – to get her story heard by reporters back in 1987, and a couple whose children had been among the first to be taken into care”.
    “We were also contacted by a young woman from the area who had been sexually abused by her father at the time but who was not part of the 121 taken into care”.

    Guess whose voice that is, the one you hear recounting such horrific abuse at 1:30 into the film? That’s right, the young woman…who was not part of the 121 taken into care! Tate admitted this to me, himself. He and his colleagues didn’t work with ANY of the persons who had been part of the 121, in the making of this film. So why is this woman’s abuse narrative placed where it was? Why didn’t Tate inform the viewers, who this woman actually was? Obviously, because it was his intention that the viewer would make this mistaken assumption – that the “standard” skeptical version of this case must be wrong – because here is a genuine CSA victim who wasn’t saved from her abusive parent, presumably because she was ordered back to her home despite being diagnosed as an abuse victim by Higgs.

    Frankly, that type of hoodwinking borders on psychopathic. Or evil. There’s much more – but do I really need to go on?

    Liked by 1 person

    • As you say, Justin—that sort of cherry-picking borders on the psychopathic. As an experienced filmmaker, Tate must have been aware of the impression he was creating, but he chose to do it anyway.

      It’s unfortunately a very typical strategy, which we’ve seen the Hoaxtead mobsters use on a regular basis. Include bits of the story that appear incriminating, and just, erm. forget to mention the overwhelming body of evidence that counters the cherry-picked bits of “incriminating evidence”.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Justin, is this the film that was narrated by Olivia O’Leary? If so, then yes I have watched it.

      Like

  17. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4959434/Ted-Heath-police-chief-calls-child-sex-ring-inquiry.html#ixzz4uypHDzrE

    Yawn. Great photo of Mike and his great pile of police hats with sad face its an excellent addition to this mundane nonsense. Looks like its going full circle again.

    So, im i right the Conifer report showed they had reason to have interviewed Heath under caution right? Not that he had actually done a thing. So now, Bam, Back to square one. But, nice piling up of hats.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Pingback: Rupert Quaintance appeal to be heard today | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.