Satanic ritual abuse believers: The next tier of SRA victims?

Here at Hoaxtead Research we’ve spent the better part of three years doing battle against various promoters of a particularly vicious and demonstrably false hoax involving allegations of Satanic ritual abuse against an entire school/church community. We’ve worked hard to research, analyse, and ultimately refute the claims of people like Abraham Christie and Ella Draper, Belinda McKenzie, Sabine McNeill, Deborah Mahmoudieh, Charlotte Alton Ward, Kristie Sue Costa, Angela Power-Disney, and many others.

These people, and many others like them, have used the trope of SRA as a weapon in a war which most people didn’t even realise had been declared, until suddenly children, families, teachers, social workers, clergy, police officers, and others had been swept up in it. Lives were damaged—sometimes irreparably—and the attacks just kept coming, seemingly out of the blue.

One of the tasks the volunteers who run this blog took on was identifying where the attacks were coming from, and why.

After all, it’s one thing to be accused of something you’ve actually done; quite another to be going about your daily routine and suddenly find out that millions of people on the internet now firmly believe that your children were victims of horrendous sexual abuse…and that you were the perpetrators.

Overlooked victims?

One group of people we’ve tended to overlook, however, is the large number of well-meaning, well-intentioned people who have been duped and taken in by those who push the SRA myth.

We’re not talking about trolls or hoax promoters here.

Rather, we’re talking about people who might have attended training sessions about SRA in the 1990s, and have never had occasion to reconsider what they learned there.

Or perhaps they’re trained mental health professionals who were taught that SRA was not only real, but under-reported.

Maybe they were around when the idea of “false memories” began to be mooted about, and believed that this was just a blatant attempt on the part of abusers to cover their own tracks.

Maybe they’re volunteers at sexual assault support centres, who learned from their peers that SRA was real and should be considered in any adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse.

Maybe they’re police officers who attended training seminars which taught them how to identify the tell-tale signs of SRA.

Or perhaps they’re members of the general public who watched Oprah, and trusted that those she interviewed on her popular TV show were telling the truth:

In 1989, almost 10 years after the publication of Michelle Remembers, Oprah Winfrey featured Smith as a guest on her show alongside Laurel Rose Willson, author of the equally fictitious Satanic ritual abuse survival memoir Satan’s Underground, which was published under the pseudonym Lauren Stratford. Both women’s experiences were presented by Winfrey as incontrovertible fact, and not once did she question the authenticity of any claim in either book.

The worst one can say about people like this is that they were gullible, or that they’ve failed to re-examine beliefs which seemed perfectly plausible back in the bad old days of the satanic panic. They aren’t trying to hurt anyone, they’re not out to monetise the idea of SRA by using it to manipulate others. They’re not unintelligent; they just haven’t been exposed to information which might help them understand that SRA is a fiction.

In fact, we could see them as more sinned against than sinning: in their own way, they have been victimised by those who promote the SRA myth for their own ends, whatever those might be.

Rather than blame such people for failing to understand that they’ve been led down the garden path, we prefer to take an educational role, and bring them up to speed on the reality of SRA.

‘A need to believe’

We’ve written about the myth of SRA here on many occasions, and recently one of our readers suggested that it might be a good thing to collate that material into the current SRA Fraud page on this blog. That’s a project we’re planning to tackle in the near future; but meanwhile, here’s some information about SRA from Kenneth Lanning, a Supervisory Special Agent with the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit in Quantico, Virginia, who debunked claims of systemic ritualistic occult abuse in America:

“My role in the FBI Behavioral Science Unit was as a case consultant,” Lanning says. “Eventually I consulted on hundreds of cases, including some from outside the United States—far more cases than I could ever have personally investigated,” he says. “In my FBI position, I also became a kind of informal clearinghouse for most of the cases from their beginnings in the early 1980s until the growing skepticism took hold in the early 1990s. Before most professionals had seen their first case, I had consulted on and analyzed dozens of them.”

Lanning’s report critically examined the often-fluid definitions of Satanism that were used interchangeably by many law enforcement agencies, as well as debunking supposed indicators of Satanic crime highlighted during police training seminars such as symbolism in heavy metal music and fantasy role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons. Lanning also offered several alternative explanations for similarities among the disparate eyewitness accounts, including pathological distortions commonly observed in cases of Munchausen syndrome. It was the first time anyone had objectively challenged the commonalities in cases of ritual abuse that police forces across the country were taking as irrefutable evidence of Satanic cult activity.

“Generally, the response [to the report] was positive,” Lanning says. “Several law enforcement supervisors thanked me for bringing objectivity to the issue. Of course, nothing I wrote would reach or convince everyone of my point of view. I received several letters from some questioning aspects of what I had written or said. One officer wanted me investigated by Congress. Perhaps most upset were those law enforcement officers who were making money and getting status as experts in this area.”

In addition to questioning the criminal significance of occult symbolism, Lanning’s report also warned of the danger of reducing the complex issue of child abuse into a pat, simplistic narrative—a tendency that marred many cases of Satanic ritual abuse and raised the important question of why so many people accepted wild allegations about Satanic cults in the absence of any hard evidence.

“Although I did not realize it at first, I came to learn that the last of my key questions was actually the most significant. If something wasn’t happening, why do so many intelligent, well-educated professionals believe it is?” Lanning says. “Regardless of intelligence and education, and often despite common sense and evidence to the contrary, adults tend to believe what they want or need to believe; the greater the need, the greater the tendency. There was a need to believe. In my opinion, this concept, more than any ‘moral panic,’ was the foundation of Satanic ritual abuse allegations—the need to believe the children even without corroboration. If you do not believe everything a victim alleges, what do you believe?”

This need for belief complicated matters considerably for investigators handling already sensitive cases. As the burden of proof became irrelevant in cases of Satanic ritual child abuse allegations, Lanning noticed a gradual shift in the dynamics of victimology. Although impossible to prove, it is plausible that at least some of what children were claiming had been done to them was true. The difficulty, according to Lanning, was separating the truth from the fantasy.

“The focus on the Satanic or bizarre elements did not prevent investigators from doing their job; it just made it difficult to prove what actually happened,” Lanning says. “Most people would agree that just because a victim tells you one detail that turns out to be true, this does not mean that every detail is true. But many people–and the criminal justice system–seem to believe that if you can disprove one part of a victim’s story, then the entire story is false. I believe people should be considered innocent unless proven guilty, but I also believe that a certain number of these cases involved a seed of truth that got buried.”

We think it might also be useful for those who have been led to believe in SRA to consider what alleged SRA victims have had to say about the experience once they reached adulthood.

Commenter Justin Sanity—arguably our most experienced poster on the topic—points out:

We can only pray, that these self-professed SRA investigators are better at hearing what people say to them than Scotland’s #1 child protection academic – Sarah Nelson.
In 2006, the BBC ran this follow-up story about the Orkney abuse panic children – now fully grown & autonomous adults:

“Children at the centre of the Orkney abuse allegations in the early 1990s have spoken of their experiences for the first time…”
And they very clearly stated the alleged abuse never happened.
But that didn’t stop Nelson from publishing, two years AFTER that, her review of the case: “The Orkney Satanic Abuse Case: Who cared for the children?” in which she continued to insist that many things about the case were suspicious, and that the allegations of abuse were not properly investigated – asking: “what if some of those children DID need our help?”

The children, now grown, could have been standing right in front of her as she composed this essay, shouting:
“Our families cared about us, our community cared about us, and your storm-trooper social worker SRA investigators DID NOT! They were abusive to us”.
“There was NO sra abuse. We DIDN’T need your help!”

And Nelson would still be: “la-la-la! Those poor children…”
If you don’t live in the real world, how can you profess to help those who do?

If you’re a reader who’s come here to berate us for our lack of belief in SRA, stay tuned. We hope we’ll have enough information to help you change your mind.

125 thoughts on “Satanic ritual abuse believers: The next tier of SRA victims?

  1. There have been further statements about the Orkney case and other historic Scots cases, by Sarah Nelson and some other former Child Protection “investigator” social workers. They are incredibly disingenuous and self-serving, they will make your blood boil. I feel compelled to deconstruct them and the voiced & unvoiced narratives they carry. I’ll try to be brief.

    A Strange and Weird Incompetence:

    In 2016 Sarah Nelson revisited the Orkney case yet again, in an article for The National Scot:

    In this article, Nelson once again refuses to acknowledge that the Orkney children have stated, as adults, that they were not abused, that they were safe & happy in their homes and not in need of intervention. In fact, Nelson does not mention the children, as adults, at all – as though they existed only as children in need of saving and no longer exist at all, which feels…weird. What she does say, is that there remain (in her opinion) , good reasons to believe the children WERE abused. She maintains this, despite their statements to the contrary, which seems very strange? Aren’t you, isn’t she, supposed to “believe the children” as an absolute imperative? Well, these are the same children – just grown to adults. You can only draw one conclusion – Sarah Nelson does NOT believe them. But why not?

    She doesn’t say. Neither does she say exactly what the reasons for maintaining that the children were suffering ritual abuse at the hands of a family/community based satanic cult, might be. But she clearly believes the Orkney case was a genuine SRA case – and from that were can infer some reasons why she might think these people are lying about having been abused;
    – she believes they were successfully programmed by their abusers and are “under mind control”. The words coming out of their mouths would therefore be those of the cult leaders, and not their own.
    – she believes they are now fully dedicated and devoted members of the cult, and will predictably say whatever it is in the best interests of their cult group and all satanic abuse cults, for people to believe.

    The community of UK professionals composed of RAINS members and associates, as well as social workers, mental health professionals, police officers and academics in various fields – whom they have advised, trained, consulted for or otherwise influenced, DON’T “believe the children”, unless the children in question tell them what they want to hear. This is what one of the Orkney children told the BBC:
    “She said: “Eventually you would break down, after an hour or so of saying: ‘no, this never happened. I don’t remember it. I don’t even know what you are talking about’.
    “I can’t imagine how I got out of the room if I didn’t say ‘yes’, but I don’t remember saying ‘yes’ to anything”.
    So, the Orkney children obviously denied being abused all along, but Nelson (and other SRA believing professionals) didn’t believe them then, and don’t believe them now. How can they justify this arrogance?

    They believe they are justified, because they believe that they know “the real truth”. I’ve said this many times, the basis of SRA allegation cases is – adult persons deducing that something bad is happening to a child, and then deducing the nature of that bad thing and deducing who is responsible for the bad thing, without the child ever having made a complaint to anyone, about being abused by anyone. And having decided that they know “what happened” to the child, nothing the child or anyone else subsequently tells this adult, and no facts or evidence presented to them, will ever persuade them that their intuitive deduction was not correct. But why would these UK professionals be so convinced that their deductions cannot be wrong?

    – because their real motto has always been: “believe the SRA survivors”. That statement appears repeatedly throughout Nelson’s published works on child abuse and child protection. They believe what Joan Coleman’s psychiatric patient SRA claimants told them, all those years ago, about how satanic cults operate and how sra abused children will behave if confronted/ apprehended/ questioned.
    – because, as revealed in Sandra Buck’s history of RAINS, they have always believed that children “tell” them their secrets through how the child behaves, plays, and draws. They don’t believe what children say to them, they believe what they have intuitive “diagnosed” about that child from their non-verbal activity – which they believe is always a form of coded communication. Except when they just can’t find a way to interpret it as: “help me, I’m being forced to murder babies and eat poop”.

    How do I know these SRA professionals aren’t correct, though? How can I be sure that Sarah Nelson doesn’t know something about the Orkney case that would even convince me – if only she was permitted to reveal it?
    Because of this constantly repeated, strange & weird bigotry, expressed by her and other SRA people, about this case: “…suggestive evidence that children were indeed in danger…”, “…suggestive, alarming evidence of organized sexual abuse…”, “…they said the most bizarre things…”, “a remarkable volume of correspondence had been sent by several suspected adults to the children…these contained peculiar, inappropriate messages and strange objects like hammers…”.

    How dare you! How dare you make such self-important, self-righteous and arrogant JUDGEMENTS!
    Bizarre? Peculiar? Inappropriate? Strange? What objective and evidence-based scale did you derive these judgements from? None. They are nothing but expressions of your own religious, or cultural, or ethnic, or privileged class prejudices. And it is on the basis of these outrageous judgemental perceptions, that you conclude there was “suggestive” “alarming” – and in your opinion conclusive – evidence the children were victimized by an SRA cult in their community. You have no right to do this to people, to families and their children, as multiple inquiries have affirmed. You are not GODS, you do not possess psychic powers of perception, nor infallible powers of intuition, and Sherlock Holmes was just a fiction.

    I hope this makes reading these articles more understandable, here is the other one:

    Liked by 2 people

    • A couple more brief observations about these articles and the Scots cases. From the BBC article about the children as adults:
      [“Social workers such as Janette Chisholm, who was involved in the questioning of the W family, maintain a child’s denial is not proof.
      “If it is a secret they’ll deny. As long as it’s a secret, denial will come for the same reason the secrecy is there – keeping something safe,” she said.]
      How about “an adult’s denial is not proof”, “if it’s a [satanic cult] secret, they’ll deny,” – ? Or, “I knew they were in a cult, as children, [without any proof] so I knew they would lie to protect it’s secrets – and I know they are still in the cult because they are still denying it, to protect the secret”, eh?

      From BBC: “They [Orkney children] now claim questioning presupposed that there was abuse taking place”.

      And a lot more than “abuse”! Regardless of what they might say, those social workers presupposed abuse, satanic cult abuse, torture, rape, human sacrifice, pornography – maybe snuff too, the whole SRA fantasy catalog. And they presupposed that any contact the parents might make with them would contain secret coded mind-control instructions – perhaps for the kids to murder their foster cares in the night or take their own lives. They would have decided on all of this, before seizing them, before any questioning or medical examinations. They had no intention of ever letting them see their families again, regardless of how much or little “evidence” was revealed. They intended to “Carol Felstead” these children – brainwash them into believing their family & community were evil satanic cultists, probably assign them fosters on the other side of the country and have their names legally changed.

      These articles blatantly exploit recent developments in historic CSA investigation & prosecution in UK, not in service of protecting abused children, but rather to insinuate their critics were not only wrong but covering up abuse:
      “The cases remain important, and I believe the evidence now needs to be reassessed, for at least three reasons. First, a stream of shocking failures to protect children from sexual abuse…”
      – irrelevant, the Orkney kids were not abused, they said so.

      “…has made society less inclined to dismiss forms of abuse they previously found unbelievable”
      – and so, everyone should now accept SRA claims unconditionally. Except that the Orkney kids were not abused.

      “I and others have over 25 years tried to publicise suggestive evidence that children were indeed in danger. Particularly over the Orkney case, we have tried to correct untruths – in print, on the BBC, in documentaries and online – and point up the flaws in the endlessly recycled and invented theories by supporters of accused adults, who allege it was just “satanic panic”
      – the only untruths were your insistence that there was abuse which was not investigated, there was no abuse the supposed victims said so.

      “Thirdly – and I believe most important – the verdicts and the myth-making after these cases have for decades negatively influenced public attitudes, professional child protection behaviour, and child protection law….They have fuelled suspicion of social workers and paediatricians, increased stress in child protection work, ruled out investigation of possible ritual organised abuse, strengthened beliefs that children fantasise about abuse, openly tightened legislation and practice to make it harder to protect children at serious risk, and eaten into professional courage. That encourages timidity, a professional watch-my-back mentality, and nervousness about investigating sexual abuse”
      – yes, of course. Believing that your SRA obsessed investigators were out of control, because there was no satanic cult, no ritual abuse, no abuse at all – because that was all true as validated by the children themselves – totally wrecked child protection and CSA investigations in the UK. That’s why there have been record numbers of investigations and prosecutions for both current CSA cases and historic CSA cases, in recent years. But not for your fantasy SRA cases, so the whole system must be hopelessly corrupted and incapable of providing justice for any CSA victims. Ok.

      Liked by 3 people

      • A very couple of well thought out and thought provoking posts Justin, very thought provoking indeed.

        To my mind it begins to call into question claims even being made today against some famous people, with no evidence other than the victims sayso. We are all too aware of some ‘professional victims’ whose stories have grown and expanded over the years like Fiona Bartlett (whose abusers would fill a Sydney phone book, and include people who died before she was born!) and others who have simply viewed famous people as ‘cash cows’, both of these types do a major disservice to real victims of abuse.

        The more the underbelly is exposed of the whole SRA debacle, the more I wonder about the aims and motivations of many of these ‘counselors’ and ‘mental health carers’- were they ALL simply caught up in some form of ‘group hysteria’ feeding off each others delusions and trying to ‘oneup’ the competition, or were some/many simply in it for the money/fame or were some/many as simply delusional as their ‘victims’?

        Speaking of, how many of these ‘victims’ were not the subject of abuse UNTIL the ‘carers’ got their claws into them (as mentioned above the Orkney children now say as adults that nothing was happening UNTIL they were taken away- when the real child abuse began!)

        Liked by 2 people

        • The standard response to statements such as I have made above, has several predictable components. Predictable, because people like Sarah Nelson and Michael Salter actually train students in certain fields what to believe about me & you, how to “explain” us, and how to counter what we might say.

          – we think there is a “moral panic” going on in our societies, about CSA, because the large numbers of allegations just can’t be true.
          FALSE! Just taking a random year as an example…according to government stats, there were over 21,000 sexual offenses against children, in England & Wales, recorded by police for the 2011/2012 year. I’m not on record anywhere, expressing ANY skepticism about this tragic reality. I absolutely DO believe that these stats represent the truth of the matter.

          – we think that women and children can’t be trusted to tell the truth, with respect to their allegations of sexual victimization. We think they are inherently unreliable witnesses.
          FALSE! I think that children are generally very reliable witnesses, and do tell the truth about sexual abuse, when the allegations they express are genuinely their own thoughts & words. But I’m not in denial of the reality that there is an inherent power imbalance between adults and children, that adults are capable of manipulating and compelling children to say what the adult wants them to say. Adult abusers are frequently capable of compelling children to say nothing about their victimization, or to deny or excuse it. Similarly, adults are capable of compelling children to act as a ‘ventriloquist dummy’, repeating an ADULT person’s false allegations that the child was abused by a particular person or in a particular way. It is the SRA advocates who believe that children systematically lie abuse about CSA, that the truth about their victimization must be deduced from their behaviour, play, or drawings – because their verbal statements can’t be trusted.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Many thanks for both these posts, Justin. They demonstrate very clearly that nothing anyone can say—even the alleged victims themselves—will convince a true die-hard SRA believer that it just did not happen.

        If there is no physical evidence (for example, where are all the remains of humans allegedly sacrificed? Forensic analysts will concur that blood and other bodily fluids are incredibly difficult to erase from a crime scene), no witnesses, and even the so-called victims say it didn’t happen, then what’s left? A few people whose egos and belief systems are so bound up in the need to believe that they cannot let go of the fantasy.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Thankyou for tackling this. I used to think SRA did go on, but didn’t really understand what had happened over the last few decades.
    Focused on real abuse, talking with people who had been abused, listening to them, it wasn’t a topic discussed, much.
    Looking back, learning more and realising that indeed it had effected me, other cases and our campaigns in a detrimental way, has been quite shocking.
    Even though in the 90s, when my statements regarding the scale of child sexual abuse were challenged because ‘so many therapists were implanting false memories’, I was just aghast at the time, because that just wasn’t what I or others I spoke with experienced. We struggled to find counsellors, solicitors, therapists or groups at all. We struggled anyway to speak, to be heard, believed, so once we were speaking out, it was as if there was a new smokescreen surrounding us, that we didn’t foresee or cause.
    I did meet one woman, who did struggle and speak of being abused in a setting that could be classed as ritualistic, she didn’t believe it though, herself, she struggled to make sense of her fragmented memories, had undergone treatment including electro shock therapy and hallucinagenics. She also visited numerous psychics, Mother Mera, healing circles, churches of all kinds, readers, therapists and to be honest, more recently, I have wondered if as she shared her puzzling memories whether without intending to, maybe she had pollenated the world of SRA myths. I also have always thought that it could be true, so with that in mind, when the issue of SRA came up, I just gave it a pass, shared information on groups like SMART without realising the danger they posed.
    There was another world apart from and seperate to the experiences that I encountered, which until I listened to Lucien Greaves and read Justin Sanitys’ writings, I was unaware of, except vaguely.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks so much for sharing that, Sheva! I rarely get to hear or read about, what other non-sra claimant, CSA survivors thought about “the panic” when it was first going down…how they experienced it. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your perspective.

      Other than their supernatural elements, or when the narrator was clearly lying about having been the leader of a witchcraft or satanist organization, I often thought SRA narratives “could have happened”. But when a claimant wouldn’t accept people expressing ambivalence, doubts, or skepticism, saying things like: “you must be one of THEM! I’ll bet you are, that’s why you don’t want people to believe” – that would convince me…convince me that they were not telling the truth.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Justin, I have certainly been accused of being mind controlled, programmed to forget, even that part of my programming is to oppose the SRA narrative, which is pretty galling to be on the recieving end of.
        I find it harmful that those who insist on the SRA myth being true, thereby define my experience for me, it is as bad to be on the recieving end of that as it is to be just not believed at all.
        Also to be swept aside as if to have been abused without SRA added in, diminshes my experience and others to a lower level amongst groups and conferences that were including speakers who claimed to be SRA victims.
        I appeared on TV a few times following our first Public rally………. a few times there were parents and others’ glaring at me, obviously furious and very upset because of false accusations, but that was never what I was involved in, yet I was up against False Memory Syndrome as if that was causing my actions re CSA.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yes, thanks Sheva. The issue of being denied service because of mistrust of “therapists implanting memories” is just galling. This is exactly what I mean when I say that belief in SRA inhibits access to services for “plain old vanilla” CSA survivors.

        Liked by 2 people

    • “A victim has a higher chance of becoming a psychopath”. What a dead shit fuckwit. You don’t “become” a psychopath, you either have always been or are not one.
      Let alone her outrageous accusation that victims become abusers lacking in empathy.
      She really is a creep and sadly, a dumb one at that.

      Liked by 5 people

    • I think what she means is that she’s become obsessed with this “Q Anon” rubbish, LOL. She and a bunch of other drooling fuckwits are sitting around, mouths agape, waiting for the next “crumbs” to be dropped so they can paw at each other and say, “See? See? Our time is coming!”

      But hey, if it keeps them occupied, who am I to complain?

      Liked by 3 people

      • Kristie Sue Costa and her friends are what they like to accuse others of being, Sheeple. They all lap up the latest conspiracy and blindly believe whatever they are told, no matter how outlandish the story may be.

        Liked by 3 people

  3. The type of Satan Hunter I came against from 2014 and thus via Hoaxtead blog is those such as Angela Power Disney and Rupert Wilson Quaintance IV, people driven by the motivation of personal gain such as donations from dishonest SRA fictions. These type of Satan Hunters were a new type to me. The old type are evangelists who are also therapists such as Valerie Sinason, who are motivated by ideology. Sinason preyed on the vulnerable through therapy, recruiting a huge army of believers in SRA, those such as the Dissociative Identity Disorder sufferers.

    The Media are unhelpful, for instance a sheep dies on the moors, scavengers eat the eyes, lips, and other soft tissue giving the appearance that these animals are victims of Satanic rituals.

    There are many ways to counter the Satan Hunters of both types and their supporters, of which one important measure is only possible by those of my religion. Satanism educating by showing the world an alternative narrative of what we are. Sadly, at the height of the Satanic Panic, the Church of Satan buried its head in the sand doing little to combat the fictions of SRA. It is only now with Satanic Temple and others that a potential has been built to combat SRA though showing alternative faces of Satanism.

    Liked by 1 person


    “D.I.D SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse)

    Working with D.I.D SRA is a specialized area of counseling in helping an individual that was raised or participated in organizations dealing with Satanic worship and/ or mind programming. I am experienced in working with this population. It is my privilege to help those who have been suffering from this type of harm, come to know healing and restoration. I work with these client’s selectively. If this is something you are seeking help for, please feel free to contact me and we can discuss if working together would be a possibility and a good fit.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I have an apology for Janine. As I said I was tired, and actually pretty angry. The retweet from CalamiTcat wasn’t Stormfront, but an equally Nazi website Daily Stormer.

    But, I did archive, as I said. The link is still live.

    And here’s Hope Not Hate describing the website.

    Not impressed with Janine’s deflection about this. Where’s the promise to look into it and take appropriate action. CalamiTcat is someone who her charity website links to. The charity twitter feed retweets CalamiTcat. The pinned tweet on the feed is to CalamiTcat.

    Another thing, does the charity believe in freedom of religion or not? Are non-believers, pagans, agnostics and Satanists, Quakers etc. and all faiths under the sun welcome as users of the charity’s services?

    I also have a problem with the assertion, without evidence, that the charity would be required to hand over files of current clients. However, how could an inquiry come to a conclusion on something without seeing evidence for it? There would be no need to put the name of a professional out there. There must be written frameworks, terms of reference, agreements suggested that could be provided. Things that could be requested under freedom of information laws that would breach no-one’s right to privacy.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I”ll leave this link to an image here. For Janine, who is happy to share a stage with cranks like David Icke, Kevin Annett, Robert Green, Wilfred Wong, Andrea Sadegh.

    Plus, this an event that the organisation she joined laid on.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I would wish well to any charity helping survivors and bringing the issue of child abuse to the fore. But let’s not be daft about it. If you share a stage or associate with people in the world of batshit crazy conspiracy you’ll get tarred with the same brush and will get criticism for it. Fact!

      Liked by 2 people

    • For Janine too, listen here to Fresh Start Foundations’ director; David Scott lying about Robert Greens’ innocence. Robert was rightly jailed for harrassing innocent people that were accused of being paedophiles…. something all promoting the hoaxe/rs in the Uk are guilty of………Lying, as well as harrassing innocent people just as they have all gone on to do to Hampstead residents, using and abusing children, survivors and anyone in their way, for years.
      As El Coyote describes, clearly some well meaning people get caught up and believe the SRA Myths, but the people running this organisation are cynically sabotaging progress on child abuse prevention IMHO.


  7. As mush as I wanted to retire from the fight against SRA, the recent attacks upon Satanic Temple brought me back into action against the Satan Hunters. However, I recognise that in order to defeat @drifloud Twitter account, as well as Fresh Start Foundation I need to travel down two paths: arguing what they are doing is religious hatred; presenting an alternative positive view of Satanism to anyone these parasites try to infect with their SRA fictions. It means I and those I associate with will magnify our Satanism a 100 or a 1000 fold. None of you guys are Satanists, and it is unhelpful for me to go and promote my religion strongly whist being part of Hoaxtead, as this will overshadow what you are doing. It is time for me to part company with Hoaxtead. My blog post is here:

    Liked by 1 person

      • Yes indeed Spiny, the owner of that channel does share our views and there are a lot of interesting videos on the channel that people here may be interested in.

        Liked by 3 people

      • There are quite a lot of interesting videos on that Youtube channel aren’t there Spiny? I remember when Judas Priest were taken to court in the USA after 2 teenagers tried to kill themselves and the band were blamed as there was supposed subliminal messages contained in their music telling people to kill themselves. It was all bollocks of course.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I did upload another bizarre video about the evils of rock music (a podcast, I think) to one of my channels ages ago. Buggered if I can find it now, though.


        • If it’s not rock music then it’s the evils of film and video games. People have always looked for some outside influence to blame for peoples actions where in reality it is the person themselves to blame and not a video-game they just happened to play or a film/band they liked.

          Liked by 1 person

    • 7:07 – “There’s two different communities that use this park. One is the Pagan or occultic community; and the other community is, of course, the homosexual community. Interestingly enough, they go hand in hand.”

      Yep. He actually said that.

      And sadly he’s not the first. That vile Roger Cook episode about SRA linked homosexuality to both Satanism and ritual abuse.

      Ignorance is painful.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, many of us tried to let him know what could happen if he allowed himself to be manipulated by Angela, Belinda, et al. He chose to interpret our sound advice as “threats”…more fool him.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Immigration did end up kicking him out in the end too I suppose.

        I would like hear what a privileged white American male has to say about prison and immigration detention.

        Hahaha, actually I really wouldn’t. I just wish him a quiet life.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Some folk can only learn things the hard way and Rupert certainly had to do that. He should have listened to the well intentioned advice he was given before coming here. Probably my favourite Mk Ultra 666 video now.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Do these people ever have a nice word to say about anything or anyone UKC? They all appear to be constantly angry and full of venom that they just want to unleash onto the world.

      Liked by 3 people

  8. Reported to Twitter for promoting the idea that the Holocaust never happened on Holocaust memorial day. The amount of tweets under #holohoax will have kept Twitter staff busy with all the reports they were receiving from outraged members of the public.

    Liked by 3 people

      • Thanks CP but unfortunately Twitter have not shut down these accounts, i just checked. Twitter obviously like to make us think they are doing something about peoples reports but do not appear to take any action against these accounts.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. How many times has this guy stopped and started this hunger strike?! It’s not even close to 67 days, which I wager would be physically impossible anyway.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Does Debs have neighbours?

    What do they think when they hear her at all hours of the day and night shouting her head off to nobody?

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Satanic ritual abuse has been proven to exist! Great public speakers like Danielle La Verite and Chris Spivey have proof. Also the ex girlfriend of satanic rocker Ian Watkins exposed it all on the Ritchie Allen radio show which has been heard by millions worldwide.


  12. Pingback: Satanic ritual abuse promotion: Hiding in plain sight | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  13. Pingback: Why did the police believe ‘Nick’ and his fantasies? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.