Rupert gets a visitor

A few weeks back, Belinda McKenzie made some vague threats about going to Wandsworth Prison to visit her protegé Rupert Quaintance, currently serving a nine-month sentence for Harassment 4. So we were a bit taken aback yesterday to discover that Rupert’s first visitor was not to be Belinda after all. Instead, Rupert’s friend Charlie Veitch has volunteered to do the honours.

The irony here, of course, is that Belinda and Charlie aren’t exactly the best of friends, having had a bit of a shouting match during a 2011 demonstration:

Readers might remember that Rupert visited Charlie in Manchester in the summer of 2016, before he travelled to London. He and Charlie seem to have hit it off, though from the sound of the following video, Charlie might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick as regards what Rupert was really up to while he was at large. Let’s look at some of his misconceptions:

Charlie should know a few things about Rupert’s case:

  1. Rupert might have come to the UK “on a whim”, but his expressed purpose in coming here wasn’t just to hang out, look around, and take a few pictures. As revealed during his trial, he made statements on various videos which were calculated to instill fear into the parents who had been falsely accused of belonging to a “Satanic death cult” in Hampstead. He said he would be coming to “kick down doors and take blood samples”; he said he “didn’t want to kill them, just beat them up real bad”; and he took a photograph of himself outside the school involved, posting it on the first morning of school in September 2016, along with suggestions that indicated he was armed with a knife. And he kept Excel spreadsheets on his computer, containing the names of those he harassed. These pieces of evidence formed the nub of the prosecution’s case, but we have identified numerous other points during which he made substantive threats against the parents. Incidentally, it was later confirmed by someone who’d been in personal communication with Rupert that he habitually carried a knife.
  2. Charlie is right when he says that the Hampstead case was “bullshit, it was not real”. However, it was shown in court that while Rupert might have got in an argument with “a bunch of trolls”, he was unable to demonstrate that any substantive threats had been made against him. The prosecution was able to prove that Rupert’s threats were not aimed at those whom he considered trolls, but were directed toward the parents named in the case. We can assure Charlie that this blog, which opposed Rupert’s travelling to the UK from the outset, made absolutely no “death threats” toward him. We did warn him repeatedly that he should not come here, as we could foresee that his plans could only end in tears. He chose to ignore us, to his detriment.
  3. Charlie is absolutely correct that we were able to identify Rupert’s location in Erith by carefully examining his surroundings in one of his videos. He should keep in mind, though, that this was after Rupert had posted the picture of himself outside the school. The parents, understandably, were very shaken by this and had asked the police to arrest him; we got wind of it and decided to help by locating him.
  4. Yes, the United States has constitutionally protected laws regarding free speech. However, as in the UK, the laws in America make a distinction between “freedom of expression” and speech that instills fear or terror in individuals. American Nazis, for example, have the right to march past synagogues, distasteful as that is. However, stalking or threatening individuals is just as much against the law there as it is here. Bottom line: Americans can say what they like about groups of people, but they cannot make specific threats. Several types of speech are “unprotected” by the First Amendment: obscenity; fighting words; defamation (including libel or slander); child pornography; perjury; blackmail; incitement to imminent lawless action; true threats; and solicitations to commit crimes. What Rupert did here would be just as illegal if he’d done it to people in the United States.
  5. While Rupert may very well be telling his friends that what he did was really nothing (and we know he’s said this, as our reporter at the trial overheard him saying to Belinda McKenzie that he “had no idea how it got this far”), people who allege that they are critical thinkers ought perhaps to look past his superficial claims, dig a little deeper, and realise that Rupert might have his own reasons for minimising his behaviour. As he said prior to his first morning in court, “I will say anything to get out of this. I would call my mother a whore on television”.

Let’s be clear: we have no issue with anyone choosing to visit Rupert in prison; like any other prisoner, he has the right to receive visitors while he’s paying off his debt to society. While it’s very admirable to remain loyal to a friend, particularly when they are in trouble, we think Charlie should be aware of the full picture. Rupert terrorised a group of innocent people, who feared for their own safety and that of their children because of his actions.

He was warned, more often than we can count, that he was following a foolhardy path. He chose to keep doing it anyway. We find it hard to summon up much sympathy for him in his current situation.


46 thoughts on “Rupert gets a visitor

  1. Charlie Veitch recently started uploading videos again after a two year hiatus. When he mentioned that he was visiting Rupert I was surprised but he did mention that he believes the Hampstead sexual abuse case is complete nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, he did mention that, and great that he realises it. There’s nothing wrong with him visiting Rupert, but I think it’s important he’s aware that what he hears may not be the whole truth.


    • I’m glad he’s visiting Rupert. I’d rather Rupert was supported by Charlie than by the Hoaxteders.

      I flippin’ well hope Charlie actually reads something though, so he’s acquainted with the facts rather than the one-sided nonsense Rupert will give him.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Well there we have Veitch’s integrity shattered if he hadn’t already done it himself by his previous fraudulent claims and his earth-shattering attempt to present his twisted previous claims by giving shoppers GBH of the ear hole by assaulting them with a megaphone as they tried to slip into the local supermarket.
    People can believe whatever they want and will.

    They are not entitled to instill fear in ordinary innocent people who suddenly find themselves caught up in a campaign of harassment as Hampstead residents did or the relatives of those who died in 9/11 who are constantly told their government murdered their loved ones or the sad parents of Sandy Hook massacre who are told to dig up their child and prove they existed.

    I’m sick to death of these conspiracy creeps who lash out at innocent powerless people and think they are so brave by doing so and who not just cause immense unnecessary stress for people bur actually help water down real events in the world that damage us.

    I saw a wonderful description of one such fruitcake somewhere and I think it’s appropriate for so many and while I won’t name particular names (Angela Power-Disney): Poundshop Lord Haw Haw

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Yeah, Veitch clearly doesn’t have a clue about how free speech works.

    We also see once again the blatant subjectivity and bias of what spews out of the hoaxers’ and troofers’ mouths. They cherry-pick the details that suit their agenda and completely ignore those that don’t (I think this is known as Costa syndrome). Or to put it another way, I wonder whether Charlie would be so defensive of “free speech” if (God forbid) one of us had threatened to kick down his door and “take blood samples” or turned up at the school of one of his family members with a knife. I suspect not.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I let out a very loud gasp when I saw this new post and the photo of Rupert and Charlie.

      Farmer Giles I agree with you, Belinda has moved on but she’ll still keep tabs of what Rupert is up to.

      She has too. After all she will be worried about what he can expose about her, having sat in on at her cosy little get together’s where her motley crew watch “weird” videos.

      I’ve got to laugh or not at how the truth is bent again.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Is Belinda really that bothered, considering she pushed Robert under the bus last time, like she has done everyone else.

        Liked by 1 person

          • She’s mentioned it several times since the arrest, so clearly it’s been on her mind. Speaking of the arrest, it seems to me that her next appointment with the police should be coming up soon. Will be keeping our eyes open for that…as well as for Sabine’s. 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Thank you for continuing to confront & debunk pro-Rupert propagandist’s efforts to re-write the history of his involvement in this case. I think its important to do that.
    And I’m very much appreciating coyote’s twitter feed recently, and all the high quality info links it has brought to my attention. 🙂

    A somber and sobering day for me.
    A trail of historic information candies that I’ve been seeding in various places for some time now, has borne fruit for me. Some anti-pedo info-warriors were incited to liberate important historic press coverage, about allegations that Dean Corll had links to prostitution & pornography rings, out from the pay-walls those articles were imprisoned behind and into the light of day. (Can’t say such folk never serve any useful purpose).
    Now I don’t have to hunt down that idiot H. Paul Jeffers book – hooray! – because I’ve got the source for HIS source,right in front of me.
    As I suspected, the allegation that 11 of Dean Corll’s victims were identified in “chicken” porn seized from Roy Ame’s warehouse in 1975, was based on the crudest possible methodology (but to be fair, about the only method available to investigators at that time). Juvenile crime officers appear to have attempted to identify Corll victims by leafing through magazines and watching films. Literally, “hey, what about this kid? do we know this kid? anyone seen him around the neighborhoods? Isn’t he so-and-so’s son?”. BAD!

    And offensive as well, because these Juvenile officers attempting visual recognition identification of Corll victims in photos and films are the same ones who told victim’s parents that their son was surely a runaway – he would contact them or return when he was ready, and there’s nothing more we can do at this time – and then did NOTHING to investigate their disappearance. But they knew these youths so well, they can pick them out from blurring sex films and close-ups of their genitals in magazine photos?
    Some of the victim’s parents nearly lost their minds, as you can understand, getting NO help from police about their missing child – and being hyper-aware that more & more area children continue to vanish. Bringing that up with these Juvie officers when they drop by ask about their son, and getting nothing but “well, YOUR boy will surely contact you when he’s ready” in return.

    Anyway…my next step is to contact some high-powered former Quantico forensics experts, currently enjoying retirement as academics, and ask them to help me access ALL of the records about these crude “identifications”, particularly if and when they may have been rejected by the Corll crimes investigators themselves, which will surely prove to be the case.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Making progress already! Goodies in my inbox this morning!
      Those Juvenile officers claimed to have identified almost 40 area teens & young men, in the child sexual abuse images materials seized from Ames’ Houston warehouse. On that basis, five men were charged with “sexual abuse of a child”, but when push came to shove, ALL of the persons they claimed to have identified declined to testify that they were indeed the boys depicted in those materials – and charges were dismissed against all suspects by the end of 1979. Well, well. Perhaps because they really were not the people depicted in them? Because the Juvenile officers couldn’t really identify the boys in those materials and were “casting blind”, naming area youths they thought most likely to be involved in such activity for some other reason?

      Liked by 1 person

    • The motivation for these Juvenile officers of the Houston P.D., to falsely claim they had identified Corll victims in Roy Ames boy-porn materials, is painfully clear to me now. They were attempting to cover-up the fact that their own homicidal incompetence and criminal negligence of duty had enabled Corll and his henchmen to go on raping, torturing and murdering boys. If they had ever admitted to this, their careers and those of their superiors in Houston P.D. would have been snuffed out like a candle – not to mention the high probability of massive lawsuits by victim’s families. So they engaged in victim-blaming, spreading the false ideas that the victims were runaways and street kids engaged in a high-risk lifestyle of underground homosexual prostitution & pornography rings, and that lifestyle was what got them all killed – NOT the total failure and indeed outright refusal of those Juvenile officers to investigate the disappearance of the early victims.
      So when the opportunity arose, when they stumbled on Roy Ames warehouse full of boy porn and his associates carrying on with processing orders and shipping out product while Ames was in prison, the solution fell into their hands. They could claim to identify victims in this mass of materials, and claim to have proof of their false claims about the boys “lifestyle”.

      Liked by 2 people

      • That’s amazing, Justin. I suppose it’s not surprising that the police would try to cover their own shoddy work, as you say, but how horrifying that the families of the murdered boys were put through that hell for so many years. I’m really glad you’re out there keeping an eye on these historical cases and following through so diligently; I have to confess that I needed to look up Corll to remind myself of who he was. Stomach-turning stuff.

        Liked by 1 person

        • @coyote – Thanks! 🙂
          I need to see my thoughts, outside my own head, even more lately than in the past (as you know).
          That’s why preview functions were created – you thought you typed “I love the smell of napalm in the morning”, but you didn’t notice how distracted you were, and actually typed “I love to smell nipples and palms in the morgiling”. Could be important to catch that 🙂
          And once again I’m very grateful that people here tolerate my occaisional exploitation of these comment threads for this purpose.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Veitch is deluded. He seems to crave and feed upon people giving him attention. hopefully his comments inviting people to contact him “with messages of support” so that he can jot them down and pass a note to Rupert will attract the attention it deserves.

    Visitors are not allowed to give notes to a prisoner on a visit. That is to stop uncensored information being given to a prisoner on paper that might facilitate further crime. Its also to stop drugs (that might be impregnated into the paper) being passed to the prisoner.

    Hopefully Charles will be greeted and searched with due regard….. (Donations of Marigold rubber gloves will no doubt be happily received by prison officers as gifts in anticipation of Veitches visit)

    Liked by 2 people

    • How long before his ex Angela Power Disney gets wind of this?

      Will she be writing to Rupert now that Charlie Veitch has revealed Rupert’s Prison number?

      Oh dear, that might be one of Rupert’s nightmares, hearing from Angela again.

      Are photos allowed to be enclosed with letters? If they are, please don’t send Rupert one Angela.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Yes but she has no idea that Mr. Veitch is hoping to visit Rupert tomorrow Monday 16th.

      She will as soon as she grabs her fags, coffee and sits down to read the first thing she reads in the morning. This blog!

      Liked by 3 people

    • “Ooops it is late here and I thought you were commenting on the forced adoption issue lol !”

      ^ JournoAngie in action there, folks. Worth every penny, I reckon. Thank God for GoFundMe.

      Liked by 1 person

      • He’s not pretty, not famous and not pretty famous.

        Not a journalist either or residing in America at the moment unless Wandsworth is in USA.

        Liked by 3 people

  6. I thought at first that it was Bill Baloney next to Belinda, grey hair, black t-shirt then I realised it is Small Paul Barbara.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. One for the ‘What the fuck did he just say?’ file, I think. Oh my God, there happens to be someone else in the World with the same name as Harvey Weinstein. OMG, how is this even possible? I’m so scared! Tell us, Brennan – what does it all mean…?

    Liked by 1 person

      • Do the prisoners letters get read by prison officers or similar before they are posted out of the prison?

        Because if they are, wouldn’t this video request have been picked up by a member of staff?


    • Well if Charlie didn’t know much about the case before, he will be quite involved when the police come to talk to him about this breach.


  8. Pingback: Charlie Veitch,Mel Ve,Alex Jones,David Icke,Rupert Quaintance -The Conspiraloon Merry Go Round – Edgewalker

  9. Vietcong is most likely wanting to get a bit of attention after being shunned for many years by the activist community. Don’t be fooled by thinking that he cares, it’s all about him. Rupert is being used by him.


  10. Yes. Looks like possible breach of conditions for Mr. Bizkit. Painting himself as a victim is Classic…. Veitch? HAHAHAHA! I like the Belender Rant tho! The Coryll case is notorious. Thanks for the clarification Justin.


Comments are closed.