Angela’s latest interview: Setting the record straight

In yesterday’s post about Angela Power-Disney’s “interview” with Joe van Tonder, we attempted to illustrate the ways in which Angela failed to uphold even the most basic tenets of journalistic technique, not to mention integrity—a strange thing indeed for someone who has claimed that she was once voted “Young Journalist of the Year”.

This is not exactly new behaviour for Angie: long-time readers will no doubt recall various past interviews in which she has promised the interviewee that she wouldn’t publish…and then went ahead and published anyway. She also has a nasty habit of putting words in people’s mouths, making it appear that they agree with her, and then cutting them off summarily when they don’t play along.

She doesn’t just embellish the truth, she makes up bizarre stories to suit her own purposes; she claims to have received “intel” about Ella Draper’s involvement in strictest confidence, and then turns around and reveals the identities of her “informants”, without a care for their well-being.

Not to mention that time she created havoc in a family court case by sharing in camera court material in a series of Facebook videos. We don’t know whether Angela’s grandiose need for attention contributed to the tragic outcome in that case, but we’re quite certain her behaviour did not help.

Whether one agrees with her victims interviewees or not, Angela’s video shenanigans bear out what several of our commenters have stated: she is a chronic and pathological liar who uses people for her own ends, then tosses them aside when they’re no longer of use to her.

So when we reviewed the videos Angela had made of her interview with Mr van Tonder, we were not at all surprised to see Angela up to her old tricks: rather than letting him speak for himself, she told the story in her own inimitable way, complete with “child porn”, snuff films, Russian mafia deals gone wrong, and all the usual palaver she has somehow managed to insert into the Hampstead SRA hoax.

When we wrote yesterday’s post, our intention was not to smear Mr van Tonder. We know little about him, other than the fact that he seems to be involved in assisting litigants in person, and that he has an interest in the area of parental alienation.

By the end of the four videos we knew little more. In her usual style, Angela managed to grab all the airtime; when Mr van Tonder disagreed with her, she talked over him or simply contradicted him and inserted her own version of the story. In our coverage yesterday, we tried to make this clear, but it seems we missed the mark.

Setting the record straight

In the interest of setting the record straight, we would like to emphasise that nowhere in the four videos does Mr van Tonder state that he believes in the Hampstead SRA hoax. In fact, when the story broke three years ago, he posted the following on his Facebook page:

He was clearly looking at the hoax through the lens of parental alienation, and what he saw was a “pathogenic” mother doing her best to alienate her children from her ex-partner. In the interview with Angela, nothing he says contradicts this first impression.

During the interview, in fact, he makes the point that Angela’s fairy-tale about the tunnels between the school and the church in Hampstead cannot be true, as it would require the use of 200-year-old techniques and materials, an impossibility today. He also implies that the children were coached by Abraham and Ella, though again, Angela takes issue and attempts to drown him out.

While Angela goes on at some length about alleged child sexual abuse videos featuring RD’s children having been released on the dark web, Mr van Tonder says nothing about having seen such a thing. It later comes out that much of what he states about the case, he has gleaned from documentation he’s received.

He does state that Ella’s first legal team sacked her (and not vice versa) because they could “see through her”—that is, they could see that she was making false allegations against her ex-partner. However, as with everything he says which Angela dislikes, she quickly changes the subject and moves along.

We’re not really sure what to make of the assertion that the children’s fingernail lengths indicate that their abuse at the hands of Abe and Ella went on longer than originally believed, but again, Mr van Tonder is not stating that anyone in Hampstead abused the children; he lays the blame squarely where it belongs, with Abraham and Ella.

Why the pile-on?

When we published yesterday’s post, our intent was not to smear Mr van Tonder. Frankly, we see him as one of Angela’s many victims.

While it’s obvious to anyone who’s followed the Hampstead hoax for any length of time that Angela is, as Rupert stated in court, a “dangerous” and “not nice” person, many of our readers have also noted her ability to use honeyed words and false sympathy to lure the unsuspecting into her bizarre web of fantasy and delusion. It’s something of a speciality with her.

And while not everyone might agree with everything Mr van Tonder says or does—it is, after all, every person’s right to hold an opinion—we think it’s a bit unfair to blame him for Angela’s sins. Granted, he could have looked into her background a bit more carefully before agreeing to be interviewed. It’s fairly clear by the end of the fourth video that he realises she’s put him into an untenable position:

Angie: Something didn’t add up. So you asked for clarification and it was not satisfactory. So then you recommended and passed it on to three other experts.

Joe: Yeah.

Angie: Are you at liberty to give me their names?

Joe: Uuuuuuhm, I’m…uh, preferably not….

Angie: Will you do it for me off the record? Because I’d like to meet them…

Joe: Uhhh, off, um…

Angie: Will you try to facilitate for me to talk to them?

Joe: Preferably not, I’ll tell you why. Because these people are permanently in court, they work with…

Angie: So they’re ongoing international experts…

Joe: Yes.

Angie: But you said to me…

Joe: One of their names has just been published [unintelligible] which there will be a big conference in London where she will be speaking.

Angie: Right, so my question to you…[interrupts]…we’ll finish now, because I’m so grateful. My request to you is that off the record, you facilitate connecting me with those people.

Joe: No.

Angie: Okay, thank you so much.

He stonewalls, and she ends the interview in a bit of a huff.

To us, it’s clear that Mr van Tonder has sussed out the sort of person he’s dealing with, and has decided not to play along…and frankly, more power to him.

So in yesterday’s Comments section, we were somewhat taken aback at the approach many of our readers took toward him. In our opinion, Mr van Tonder is more sinned against than sinning: throughout the interview, he attempted to put forth his view that Ella and Abraham abused the children, that the children were coached, and that Ella was attempting to alienate them from their father.

Yesterday’s comments became quite heated, and while we think it perfectly appropriate for our readers to ask Mr van Tonder for explanations of certain things, we don’t see any reason to have engaged in the group pile-on which occurred.

Yes, it was probably a mistake for him to allow himself to be interviewed by Angela. As most people who engage with her find, she rarely has a positive impact on others’ lives.

But perhaps he had his own reasons for doing the interview; it’s even possible that he believed he could bring her round to his viewpoint on the Hampstead hoax. It’s quite likely, as Maureen Martin pointed out, that he was not aware he was being recorded. Even if he was aware and objected to her publishing it, we’ve all seen Angela flout her interviewees’ wishes in that respect.

Mr van Tonder’s mistake, it seems, was in assuming that Angela was sincerely asking for his expertise, rather than attempting to use him as yet another pawn in her nasty game of self-aggrandisement.

In any case, it’s a pity that the conversation turned sour yesterday, as it might have been interesting to hear Mr van Tonder’s side of things. We regret that this opportunity now seems to have been lost.

Advertisements

67 thoughts on “Angela’s latest interview: Setting the record straight

  1. I’m sorry to say that I’m going to have to disagree with you here EC.
    “Mr van Tonder’s mistake, it seems, was in assuming that Angela was sincerely asking for his expertise, rather than attempting to use him as yet another pawn in her nasty game of self-aggrandisement.” I think you are being far too kind.

    Mr. Tonder agreed to be interviewed by APD. Even the most cursory glance at her online presence would indicate her beliefs and her character. That he agreed to be interviewed by her indicates very poor and unprofessional judgement. He also makes claim to expertise and success in the field of parental alienation but offers zero proof of any court success, or training which would qualify him for the role he has taken on. We’re not talking about trivial matters here, court cases relating to child custody are massively important to all parties and people need the best legal advice they can get – from properly qualified people, psychologists, solicitors etc.
    His claims about Hampstead are, frankly, rubbish. Example: that “experts had taken samples of the concrete in the area where the tunnels between the church and the school were alleged to have been located.” Or that Abe Christie was ever a “server” in the church.
    Even if he doesn’t agree with APD, he’s on the bandwagon, and as far as I can see, telling whoppers.
    If he isn’t he’s welcome to post his evidence online. Until then he’s just another member of the nutjob gang.

    Like

  2. A nut job that served and now not willing to help any one. He is attacked from all corners, YouTube, twitter, Facebook, private pages and blogs as a supporter of Angela P. D. He is deleting pages, Web sites, educational pages, anything with his name on. Congratulations. This page f..d up by attacking him.

    Like

    • Maureen, I’ve looked at a few pages of Andries (Joe) and his YouTube channel, a few videos he appears on and I see no attacks.
      I see hardly any engagement.
      Have you listened to Angies videos ?
      This blog gets 1000 hits per day.
      It would be wiser for Andries to clearly explain why he did the interview, what his thoughts are re the hoax, Angelas’ misrepresentations and lies, but I get the feeling that maybe this was the straw that broke ….etc, maybe…… because at the moment because of the reaction, drama, threats and blame levelled at this blog and commenters, it really looks as if it’s constructed drama and if Andries had no intention or complicity with that I for one would really like to know.
      I said it in a previous comment, but I’m really baffled that if Andries was involved in the Baby H case, then he must surely have known that Angela Power Disney cannot be trusted, yes ?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Likewise Sheva, I cant seem to find much posting by anyone at all
        The wayback machine linked to before is also interesting as is the ‘timebomb’ link
        (it seems that his site has been ‘hacked’ before sometime between 2012 and 2015, seems he isnt the best at IT work, maybe should have gotten a professional in to do it)

        Liked by 1 person

    • I think you really are exaggerating Ms Martin. Highly doubtful he would be being attacked from all corners. But he did step into the Viper’s Den of his own free will.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m with you on this one EC. I don’t think Mr VT was interviewed as much as victimised. Yes, there were things said that concerned me but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he was led up the garden path.

    As for Angela. She loves a fuss and yesterday this blog gave her one. She’s now rubbing her virtual hands together. I wouldn’t be surprised if she planned it all.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Fnord, I wouldn’t be surprised if she planned it all, either and I would add; perhaps with team tracey morris ? What I don’t understand though is that if Joe was involved in the Baby H case…………. then he surely must have been aware of Angies behaviour that put the case at risk and wouldn’t have been good for the parents’ mental or emotional health at the time………. I watched a couple of videos that Joe spoke on at a conference and a meeting, two from last year, Tracey was at one of them, I couldn’t tell if it was Angie sitting next to her from the back……

      Like

  4. Maureen, I do not agree with your continuous posts of blaming this blog for Mr. Von Tonder’s actions.

    “Maureen Martin February 7, 2018 at 1:02 am

    A nut job that served and now not willing to help any one. He is attacked from all corners, YouTube, twitter, Facebook, private pages and blogs as a supporter of Angela P. D. He is deleting pages, Web sites, educational pages, anything with his name on. Congratulations. This page f..d up by attacking him.”

    Who are these people, do you have links to them, it really would be best to post links to these allegations than just to write about them.

    Mr. van Tonder stated something similar in yesterday’s post:

    “Andries (Joe) van Tonder February 7, 2018 at 1:17 am
    Matter closed. See as if Mckenzie brothers, Fartass and others are having a ball on Youtube, Gatebash, Google, facebook and more discrediting me as sidekick of angela d p.”

    This blog cannot be blamed for what other people post on different platforms.

    That’s like saying, if someone writes an article in The Irish Times, The Irish Sun (disgusting rag) is responsible for it.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I keep wishing APD would eventually show some redeeming qualities – it never happens, she gets worse with every ever so random monthly vlog that goes by…..At this point, I’d pay her to ‘dún do bhéal’!

    Re: Mr. van Tonder…..I don’t get it? I can’t understand how someone so allegedly capable and willing to give freely of his time wishes to fly under the radar so to speak and not make his position more official by having his work recognised with a proper wage???

    I understand the concept of being a volunteer, I understand that some of us might be in a position to help less fortunate people in times of distress and are happy to help but I find it hard to believe that the only expected return for his troubles for these many years and those amount of hours in all of the many days he has spent dispensing advise is a heartfelt thanks when he is a family man with bills to pay…..who on earth spends that amount of hours doing something for nothing…..possibly a man with a hero complex?

    Or maybe he is a total scam artist?

    Like

    • Don’t mean to be cheeky but isn’t it his own business? He is pensionable age.

      If Angie had let him talk more we’d have perhaps found out that he’s not a Hoaxter. As it is it was clever of her to make it sound like they’re in accord. She has some talent to manage that. Narc genius at work? Or perhaps she just flails around and hopes for the best!

      Liked by 2 people

      • She certainly bullied her way through the interview and caught the man completely on the hop and as you say, he wasn’t able to make clear that his view apparently is that it’s a hoax (mind you that concrete measuring stuff & police sounds decidedly far-fetched).
        Not really a good advertisement for a man who says he doesn’t “advise” rather “suggests”. Perhaps we should be kind and put all down to him being at retirement age.

        Like

    • She is completely shameless.
      Chalk Mr Van Tonder’s treatment up to him becoming yet another one of her victims. He’s lucky, the last one went to jail and she still has the hide, despite what he said about her in court, to act like she’s still his pal.
      Shameless.

      Like

  6. I’m afraid I disagree with you this time as well E.C.
    His first post here
    “Andries (Joe) van Tonder
    February 6, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    I have taken notice of this page. (thank you to the person involved, for the pm alerting me).
    It seems as if information about me, that I did not even know about, has been highlighted by supporters of this page. It seems that fallacies unproven, invented by Doyle and partners, are published as facts.
    If the users and supporters of this page have any moral guts, please phone me at 0879774515 and confirm your facts before you post it.
    Anything posted about me after this notice, will be a subject of Court Proceedings if the facts are not confirmed by me. Truth is no problem.
    At 18h22 Worldpress was served with notice to record the IP4 address, device name, MAC address etc of a poster on this page. In the past I prosecuted and won, In future I will also win
    The truth will not be denied. Fallacies and resulting opinion is not acceptable.”

    He ‘could’ have given his side of the story and explained what and where he was ‘misrepresented’ by APD, and I have no doubt credit would have been given where due
    Instead he starts in with insults, threats of legal action etc
    This AGAINST the side he now claims to be supporting ie abused children
    Many questions were asked, and none were answered

    Maybe he could start by writing back to EC putting forth his side what exactly happened and his impressions of it, if indeed he has been misrepresented so badly by APD, then I will be the first to apologize, but currently he and his supporter seem to have little to say except threats, abuse and unsupported allegations

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s a fairly human trait to perhaps not always respond the best way when one suddenly finds they are under attack on social media ( and I speak from personal experience).
      But I’m still puzzled as to why someone would even contemplate giving APD the time of day.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Same here EC. Mr. von Tonder did have a chance to explain but choose not to, instead making vague references to threats from outside forces. He can still contact the blog, as anyone can, to give his opinion & also to point us to the threats etc.

    Eliza, perhaps you don’t realize how hard it is to get funding for groups in Ireland, once you go beyond the Pale you are beyond funding, so yes, people do volunteer for years for free, I did myself for many years. I was promised full time paid work when funding came through, alas each year, despite applications to various agencies, funding was never made available to us, even though we provided a much needed service in a lot of counties. Therefore I do understand the concept of volunteering & giving advice freely, plus I loved every day of it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Skellig, I’m aware that long-established organisations like the well woman center and rape crisis center have experienced difficulties getting funding from the Irish government……sexism?

      I have a close friend who as a minor was sent to an industrial school for the crime of robbing the contents of a handbag….a couple of quid – his mother told the judge she couldn’t deal with her 10-year-old son’s wayward ways so off he went to be abused by the Christian Brothers…..the religious order responsible have compensated him by deciding how the large number of monies they owe him and other victims should be spent…..instead of giving him financial recompense they have opted to pay for him to have ‘therapy’ and of course in doing so employing their own therapists…he’s been afforded dental treatment ….a brand new state of the art pair of false gnashers having been homeless for years and unable to avail of treatment due to having no fixed abode and being a substance abuser of heroin …..he also enjoys deep tissue massage thanks to the enormous generosity of the villans who stole his innocence from him.

      I know well how corrupt Irish society is and all about their lack of willingness to take responsibility for its sins and I’m very aware of those who do their best as volunteers to make up for that shortfall.

      It’s not ok when at a pivotal moment the Fianna Fail government under Michael O’Martin thrashed out a deal with the religious orders in Ireland whereby the government ended up paying compensation to the victims and allowed the horrible Catholic craphead swines hold onto their wealth.

      I can’t bear to think about it….the horrendous condescension and dreadful lack of respect et al.

      Liked by 2 people

      • “It’s not ok when at a pivotal moment the Fianna Fail government under Michael O’Martin thrashed out a deal with the religious orders in Ireland whereby the government ended up paying compensation to the victims and allowed the horrible Catholic craphead swines hold onto their wealth.”

        The deal you refer to was negotiated by government led by Bertie Ahern. Michael Martin is the current FF leader. He has never been Taoiseach. And it simply isn’t true to state that the, in your words, “horrible Catholic craphead swines” held onto their wealth, the religious orders had to make a contribution (whether it was enough or not, I will leave to others to judge, but actually compensation settlements for survivors have been a LOT higher in the ROI compared to the UK.)

        I am neither a Fianna Fail voter, nor am I a believer in the doctrines of that church, for the record.

        Like

        • Thank you for keeping me honest tdf. I was guilty of blurting out my thoughts and should have checked my facts first.

          https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/religious-orders-have-paid-just-13-of-bill-for-child-abuse-inquiry-watchdog-35516219.html

          Excerpt:

          “Religious orders which ran institutions where children were abused have paid just 13% of the bill for a long-running inquiry, redress and compensation, the state’s financial watchdog has found.

          The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, known as the Ryan inquiry, and the Redress Board cost a total of 1.5 billion euro (£1.3 billion) by the end of 2015, according to the Comptroller & Auditor General (C&AG).

          In the dying days of the government in 2002 then education minister Michael Woods arranged a controversial indemnity deal with 18 religious orders that they would hand over property, cash and assets worth 128 million euro (£111 million) to cover some of the costs.

          The C&AG said 21 million euro (£18 million) of this was left to be transferred to the State at the end of 2015.

          But the audit also revealed that a second deal was agreed after the Ryan report was published in 2009 – cataloguing decades of abuse and cover-ups in institutions for children – which agreed to an additional 353 million euro (£306 million) of cash and property being handed over. That was subsequently reduced to 226 million euro (£196 million) in 2015.

          The C&AG’s office found only 85 million euro (£73.7 million) from the new deal has been handed over.”

          Like

          • @Eliza

            Must admit I was racking my brains to think what Michael is she thinking of (I knew you weren’t far wrong in your original post, there was a Michael involved). Michael Woods was apparently Opus Dei linked IIRC.

            Like

          • I don’t know if you’re based in Ireland….there’s a comedian/impressionist – Mario Rosenstock – he once did an impression of Michael Martin dressed in an altar boy’s garb…it’s easy to get your devout Catholic Fianna Fail TDs mixed up! Clearly, Woods was protecting the interests of the various Catholic institutions when he allowed that indenmity clause in the original deal….and Martin claimed the deal was the best they could hope for and they rushed it through without proper consultation or a vote because Martin wanted the victims in their 60s and 70s to receive compensation as soon as possible.

            Like

    • Thanks, Scarlet. I think we need to remember who we’re fighting and why we’re fighting them, and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked by a person who has done us no harm and in fact has stated that he agrees with our views on Hoaxtead.

      Liked by 4 people

      • So I take it that this statement made by him “At 18h22 Worldpress was served with notice to record the IP4 address, device name, MAC address etc of a poster on this page. In the past I prosecuted and won, In future I will also win” isnt threatening harm to one of our posters???
        From his very first post….

        Liked by 1 person

        • Knee jerk reaction?

          I’d be well pissed off if I logged on to find myself being discussed in the manner he was especially if I’d done loads of voluntary work to actually help people. (The latter may well be the case.)

          In actual fact, as EC has pointed out, we are on the same page as Mr VT, more or less, when it comes to conclusions about the Hampstead case. I was curious about some of his assertions (the tunnels etc) and would have liked to have communicated with him and asked him where this information came from. I don’t think what he said is true and he’s probably been fed some nonsense from somewhere.

          Looking back, when I started reading about this case I was incredibly naïve and took everyone at face value. I like to think well of people. It took me about a year to really understand the degree to which the Hoax promoters were mad, scammers, peddlers of fake news and so lacking in logic, and sometimes compassion, that it’s shocking. I don’t know Mr VT but he may well be coming from the same place I was at the beginning. If the likes of Angie and Tracey say they ‘care about children’ and if one of them says ‘I’m a journalist’ why wouldn’t he believe it? Why would he know their backgrounds or be bothered looking? He comes from a generation that doesn’t necessarily google everyone they meet.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Sounds a bit like jumbled nonsense and bravado.
          How can he ‘prosecute’, he’s a civilian? . He can sue for libel but would get no-where. If he’s being threatened to the point it’s claimed he needs 24/7 Garda protection (I find this fanciable & where did this claim emerge from?) he has an harassment case but I think there’s much exaggeration going on here and he’s hasn’t helped himself by being incredibly vague.

          Like

  8. IMHO, he came in hard, expecting us to roll over, his first post and posts made by his supporter set the tone of the ensuing confrontation
    He still has the ability to post her, or contact EC and clear up any misunderstandings
    Even further upthread, his supporter is still confrontational and belligerent towards this blog and its posters

    Liked by 2 people

    • This revelation about “Nick”- allegations at this stage- somewhat concurs with our perceptions that those who are the most strident promoters of this hoax and seem obsessed with anything to do with pedophilia may well be reflecting something unpleasant deep within their own psyche.

      Not APD though- she’s only in it for the money.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oh yea!

        “The alleged fantasist who sparked the Westminster paedophile investigation has been charged with child sex offences.

        The man, who can only be identified as Nick, was arrested last year and has already appeared in court, charged with multiple offences relating to allegations of making and possessing hundreds of indecent images of children. He has also been charged with voyeurism.

        He has pleaded not guilty to all charges, which allegedly took place between 2015 and 2016, and is expected to stand trial later this year.

        The extraordinary development comes as prosecutors are considering whether he should be charged for allegedly lying about being abused as a child and then fraudulently claiming compensation for the ordeal.

        In 2014, Nick told Scotland Yard that a VIP paedophile ring, operating in Dolphin Square in Westminster, had raped, abused and even murdered young boys” – Telegraph, tweeted by Mathew Scott

        Like

    • You’ll find that point – that hoaxes of this type are created and sustained to drive all grass roots concerns and campaigning against child abuse into the deep dark woods of perceived lunacy – has been being made by what I’ll coyly call ‘certain person or persons unknown’ for many years.
      They have also made the point that where genuine cases of well-connected paedophiles emerge, the most obvious and loudest on the hoaxing scene are often very anxious to deflect attention away from them!
      The money’s a factor too I think. The extreme/illegal pornography and drugs trades do seem (also as stated) to feature prominently. A lucrative business!
      No wonder those who go about their way quietly getting results are such an problem, to those with something to hide that is.

      – Just sayin’, as they do insist on bleating in conspiratorial circles.

      Like

      • @anon – I guess I’m on record as expressing skepticism about those ideas. However, if it were proven that “Nick” and the fake spy Heath accuser (alzheimer-esque mental block) were exchanging child sexual abuse images, that might cause me to rethink the whole scenario.

        I feel bad, for the family member of a boy who went missing in 1979, and who still insists that he “believes Nick”. He’s another victim of this man’s lies. Probably he will retreat further into his conspiracy delusions now.
        A bizarre sidenote – one of the early news stories about this missing boy was illustrated by a full-body picture of him in a speedo. That totally shocked me, because the idea of accompanying pictures of the missing victim, is to present ones wearing clothing as similar to what they were wearing at that time as possible. A speedo shot just has no value, for that. Very, very odd.

        Liked by 1 person

        • “I feel bad, for the family member of a boy who went missing in 1979, and who still insists that he “believes Nick”. He’s another victim of this man’s lies. Probably he will retreat further into his conspiracy delusions now”

          I know who you mean, and at the risk of sounding callous, I’ve tired of his b.s. People repeatedly tried to warn him that ‘Nick’s allegations didn’t stack up but he refused to listen.

          Like

          • The missing boy case Justin refers to is that of Martin Allen. Due to the rather brazen circumstances of his abduction (in broad daylight in a busy London tube station), it isn’t entirely unreasonable to suspect that some powerful figure(s) MIGHT have been involved. But, as JS indicates, ‘Nick’s attempts to apparently implicate various former Tory ministers and MP’s in the case don’t stack up.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Justin, the problem anon’s highlighting is more general and extends further than one particular alleged/suspected porn dealer, even if we do have the same one in mind. Nick got his porn from somewhere! And it’s obviously a market place where dealers deal and people know who is who. I can think of one case of a man who is definitely for real ex army (you can find and cross check his service number) definitely served with an “int cell” (you can find members of his regiment discussing this) who is now doing time for raping a young girl. He was also a producer of child abuse images (that came out in court) and his wife an MBE (checkable again) no less hid his material and covered up for it. She got off scott free! The whole thing stinks of corruption and crooked freinds in high-ish places. Fact is also that one purpose or effect the various hoaxes we’ve seen in the past eight or ten years have had, is to skew public perception of campaigners. All these “boys crying wolf” have created the perfect fog for real wolves to be hiding in and to be clear about this I don’t mean the fancy VIP pedophiles, but the ordinary dirty old men that child abusers usually turn out to be and the odd bent coppers, dodgy officias and general low down crooks than make that mechanism tick.

          Like

  9. Well I was pretty tough on Mr. Van Tonder, perhaps a little too strident but unfortunately because of the subject matter, the Hampstead Hoax, passions can get heated. So I’d apologise to him if I was too offensive and despite my harsh words he does strike me as not an unkind man even though I found his philosophies somewhat hard to follow.

    I suppose we should really thank him as in one swoop he has actually shown up Angela Power-Disney’s mendacious ability to cause havoc in people’s lives.
    Despite what I think about Ella Draper’s role in this hoax, APD’s appalling claims about Russian drug syndicates and snuff movies involving her children are absolutely disgraceful.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Just completed phone call with Joe. I asked him to comment. He said he is talking to a “boss of the page”. He fears that anything said will be twisted out of proportion. Example: someone asked about a rosary. He example several possible answers and possible backslashes.

    Like

      • EC I think something odd is going on here. Possibly you or SS need to communicate with Mr Van Torden sharpish before we find some troll speaking on behalf of Hoaxtead. Is it APD’s plan I wonder to cause a shit storm?

        Liked by 2 people

  11. I don’t want to stir the pot, but I think it is fair for people who make claims or assertions to back them up. If you’re a professional, you cite your degrees and qualifications, or link to webpage which actually has some checkable information on it. Not a “I’ve been hacked” notice. If you say that you’ve won court cases, you give a link to the judgement. If you say that “experts” have said or done this or that, you link to those experts and that information. And most importantly, you don’t start making threats to people who ask for evidence or verification that you are who you say you are.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. I have to say that in the end what we have seen is the way bogus campaigners and dubious paralegals have damaged the reputations of genuine people. I’m afraid too many people have judged Mr Van Tonder guilty by association with Angela Power-Disney. To me it just goes to show what a manipulative old witch she is.

    Liked by 4 people

    • She is indeed a witch but having watched the chap in question on one Youtube video apparently at a conference on family law and keeping in mind his “parental alienation” involvement- his talk to the stage seems to be heavy on “secret family courts”, murder, an inference social workers are always at fault, suicides, stolen children, forced adoption etc etc accompanied by a heavy Afrikaner’s religious overtone I think I feel I know where he’s coming from.
      Katie Hopkins will be back from SA any day now. She might leap to his defence.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I agree GOS, she is a witch….. Is he not at all bothered by HER claims that he was consulted by Scotland Yard, that he viewed or knew about images on the dark web etc ? Did she record with or without permission?
        Having listened to two videos of his speeches and particularly the timebomb posted on his site, plus the threatening insinuating posts he made here, I have genuine misgivings about Joe.
        I also have heard his type of rhetoric before, from FNFs and other patriarchal men regarding allegations of CSA in Family Court, leaning towards that they are always to be very highly suspect, completely disregarding the fact that alot of those allegations are true and mothers’ and child victims are often put through the ringer by abusive fathers and those who support them.
        Something else that leaps out at me, particularly now that ‘Nicks’ false accusations are in the news; In amongst the videos, Angela mentioned that she believes that Lord Brammall was one of her assailants who chased her through the woods………

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jvt appears to be just a commentator on hoaxtead. While he might be on the same ‘side’ his associations with karen woodall and family law and at a ‘conference’ suggest he is a fringe dweller with some odd ideas. Btw the dissosociation people like colin ross have similar ‘conferences’ with ‘victims’ like fiona barnett giving presentations.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Janner’s son still vowing private prosecution of “Nick” over false allegations:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/07/lord-janner-son-urges-cps-to-prosecute-nick-over-allegations

    I have to say that the prospect of “Nick” remaining cloaked in anonymity, even if he is convicted of possessing child sexual abuse images, strikes me as a serious violation of principles of public safety! Even the police couldn’t name a convicted child sex abuser who was “on the prowl”, if they had previously claimed to be a sex crime victim? This anonymity principle needs serious re-think.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. I have apolgised by pm to Joe because I was a bit unkind and harsh especially when I had no idea of who he was, thanks to Angelas’ manipulative and cunning misrepresentation.
    I’ve also let him know that I would challenge him and debate on some of his beliefs, etc aside from this.
    My focus is very squarely on Angelas’ attempt to divert attention from ??? And/or create attention as less and less people are prepared to continue supporting her hoax, given she calls herself the public face of it…..she can take the damning backlash heading her way, that’s not a personal threat, unlike her I don’t do them, nor do I get others to do them for me……… I want justice to catch up with her, Abe and Ella asap.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I came across Suz and watched her videos about Mel Ve, which really showed how Mel operated and worked on her. But when I could see that she was very invested in conspiracies then I pulled away, I only had the TV remote to type with at the time, can’t remember if I said much to her about that.

      Like

  15. (My first time starting one of these)
    Is it crackers to spend your life studying Cheddar Man?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42939192
    “The analysis of Cheddar Man’s genome – the “blueprint” for a human, contained in the nuclei of our cells – will be published in a journal, and will also feature in the upcoming Channel 4 documentary The First Brit, Secrets Of The 10,000-year-old Man”

    I’m non-plussed about the dark skin & blue eyes. I’m just glad he didn’t have mauve eyes and green skin! Then we’d really be in a jam!

    Liked by 1 person

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