Why does Brian Gerrish support child abusers?

A question for our readers: How many convicted paedophiles are you friendly with?

We were lounging about HQ the other day when someone idly raised this question. There was a long silence, as we all mentally went through our lists of friends. Finally, we each shook our heads.

The answer was zero. None of us had even knowingly been pals, on Facebook or in real life, with a paedophile. We’d never even met one, that we knew of.

Compare and contrast this with many of the Hoaxtead mobsters we’ve run into over the past three years. Their lives seem to be brimming over with child abusers, sexual and otherwise.

Brian Gerrish and Carol Stadler

In July 2015, for instance, one of our readers pointed out that Brian Gerrish, self-appointed bingo caller in his very own newsroom cosplay adventure, had at least one child abuser on his Facebook friends list.

Carol Stadler, a co-defendant with Marie Black in “an ‘utterly depraved’ sex abuse ring which used children as sexual playthings” in Norwich, was found guilty of assault causing actual bodily harm, but was cleared of nine other charges, including serious sexual assaults.

Given Brian Gerrish’s continual claims that he is an advocate for children’s rights, this seems an odd choice.

Granted, Brian has more than 4,000 Facebook friends, and one assumes that he is not close personal friends with each and every one. So perhaps Ms Stadler slipped through without his noticing. Fair enough. Could happen to anyone, right?

The trial and death of Martin Smith

How, though, to explain Gerrish’s impassioned defence of Martin Smith, a TV hypnotist who was convicted of grooming and sexually abusing a young girl for nine years, starting when she was about seven years old?

In 2010, Mr Smith was tried in Manchester Crown Court, where it was learned that he would hit, bully, and attempt to hypnotise the girl to ensure she complied with his wishes. He forced the child to touch him intimately, and began raping her from the age of 13. Three years later, when she reported him to police, he denied the allegations strenuously, and fled the country with his partner and two children, whilst on bail.

Two years later, following his extradition back to the UK, Mr Smith’s partner, Lianne Smith, murdered her two youngest children rather than have them fall into the hands of social services. She was tried in Spain, found guilty, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The jury found Mr Smith guilty of 11 counts of rape, attempted rape, indecency with a child, and indecent assault. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison, but in 2012 was found hanged in his cell.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the court’s ruling of Mr Smith’s guilt, Brian Gerrish remained convinced that he had been stitched up:

Martin was convicted on the uncorroborated word of his step daughter, [name redacted], in a trial which was mismanaged by a vile Judge Irwin, quite happy it seemed, for at least one jury member to sleep through vital evidence. No corroborative witnesses, no forensic evidence and a defence barrister who kept the whole issue of why Martin and Lianne ran to Spain out of his defence. That crucial fact left the jury with no conclusion to draw, other than that Martin was running away from [the victim’s] allegations.

Pause on this for a moment.

We must wonder whether Brian would have claimed the same, had the Hampstead SRA hoax ever made it to criminal court? In the Hampstead case, Brian was quite happy to base his judgement of guilt on having met Abe and Ella, and having spoken on the phone to one of the children.  It would have been perfectly fine with him, it seems, if RD had been “convicted on the uncorroborated word of two children…with no corroborative witnesses, no forensic evidence….”

Somehow, though, when it comes to real paedophiles, Brian suddenly becomes much more forgiving.

In an article written following Mr Smith’s trial, Brian claims that he could tell from the outset that the court would be biased:

Suspicion as to bias in the conduct of this public hearing began on day one, when members of the public were confined to the rear left-hand public seating of the Court, where they were unable to see the full Court or Jury….

Yes, clearly the Court was discriminating against the defendant, because it deliberately arranged the position of the public gallery so as to obstruct Brian’s view.

Cue the social services bashing

And of course, social services bashing entered into the equation.

According to Brian:

In October 2007, Lianne obtained a promotion as Staffordshire Director of Children’s Services. Within a month, Martin was suddenly accused of sexual assault by an adult female close to the family. With no corroborating evidence of any kind, Martin was not charged, but was bailed unconditionally until January 2008, and Social Services were informed. They  quickly began to take an unhealthy interest in the couple’s young daughter Rebecca. Referring to Children’s Services, friendly colleagues warned Lianne that “these men are very clever”. Their predictions proved to be correct, as Children’s Services began to hunt Martin and Lianne Smith for custody of their daughter Rebecca. The family fled to Spain, where Martin was later arrested.

Because yes, it’s completely unreasonable that when a man is charged with a long history of child sexual abuse, other children in his care might become a concern for social services.

In fact, as far as Brian is concerned, Mr Smith’s trial and conviction weren’t really about his being a paedophile at all—it was all just part and parcel of the Evil State’s Evil Plan to snatch the couple’s children. Apparently.

It’s all becoming so much clearer to us now: a person can get away with any crime against children they wish, so long as they’re sure to shout the special code words: “Help! I’m a whistle-blower! They’re stitching me up so they can steal my children!”

Repeat as needed, and every jelly-brained troofer in the UK will charge to your defence. Guaranteed.

Photo by Kat Jayne on Pexels.com