Broxtowe and Hoaxtead: Witch-hunters in action

This week we have been taking a deep dive into the Broxtowe false Satanic ritual abuse allegations, which took place in Nottingham around a case in which very real child abuse—sexual, physical, and emotional—was confirmed. The SRA overlay, while believed by some of the social workers, was roundly discredited in a suppressed 1990 report by the Joint Enquiry Team (JET) which consisted of two police officers and two social workers.

Although the JET report was initially suppressed by Nottinghamshire County Council, in 1990 the “true believer” social workers, including two founding members of the Ritual Abuse Information Network and Support (RAINS), wrote an indignant response to what they clearly considered a threat to their professional reputations—the Team 4 response, which was only released to an individual who made an FOI request in 2015–2016.

Broxtowe versus Hoaxtead

Aside from the historic importance of the Broxtowe case, which saw ideas of Satanic ritual abuse imported from the USA and Canada for the first time, we feel there is a direct relevance to the Hampstead SRA hoax.

One of the issues which has been continually raised by those who support the Hampstead hoax is that “no proper police investigation was carried out”; this, they believe, means that there was a state cover-up of the case, and that all the children’s allegations must have been true. We would argue that the police investigation unravelled quickly because not only was there no evidence to support the allegations, but the children retracted them as soon as they were out of the clutches of their mother and her boyfriend.

In the Broxtowe case, the opposite occurred: following allegations of SRA, the JET team re-investigated the case from top to bottom, starting from the assumption that the allegations were true—and they found nothing to substantiate them.

If the “evil state” had been intent upon suppressing the spread of the SRA myth, one would have thought that the JET report would have been shared far and wide at that point, where it might have helped to inoculate against this new and invasive phenomenon. Instead, the JET report was successfully suppressed for the better part of a decade by the social workers/witch-hunters who had helped to create the allegations in the first place.

The foster carers’ diaries

During the Broxtowe investigation, the children involved were never interviewed by police, meaning that a coherent, linear narrative of alleged events was never established. Instead, all of the allegations of SRA were obtained by the children’s foster carers, who were influenced by a meeting held in February 1988:

On the 9.2.88 (Ray Wyre) having been contracted to Social Services as an expert gave a presentation to the foster parents using the Satanic Indicators of an alleged American Expert. These were passed around the foster parents. One foster parent claims great stress was laid upon them and they were told what to look for. These indicators emphasize transportation to other places, animal sacrifices, drinking of blood, eating flesh, defiling children with urine and faeces, monsters and ghosts, a mysterious church, killing of children etc.

The “American expert” turns out to have been Wayne I. Munkel, who signed himself as “MSW Medical Social Consultant”. Despite Mr Munkel’s having given a series of talks on the subject of SRA in New Orleans in 1986, he was described by the British Embassy in Washington as “just a social worker with no medical background”, whose opinions were not take very seriously.

It seems that Ray Wyre received Mr Munkel’s “Satanic Indicators” from Tim Tate, who at that time was working as a researcher for Central Television’s Cook Report. When Mr Tate was interviewed by the JET investigators, he stated that “after three years research he had found no tangible evidence of Satanic abuse and doubted its existence”. (He appears to have changed his tune in the interim.)

However, the diaries did indeed take a sinister turn following Mr Wyre’s presentation to the foster parents.

Prior to this the children had not talked about anything but their own family and ‘abuse’ at their homes. From this time the foster parents appear to take the children’s perceptions as reality and do not question them. The style of the diaries changes with the foster parents taking an interrogative approach in a desire to elicit more information and using many leading questions e.g

Have you been to this big house?
Do you know Tony?
Is Mr. Brown there?
Have you ever been to a farm?

The foster parents are quite clearly trying to find out whether any strangers have been involved and whether there are any other locations used. The foster parents, according to one foster parent, were asked to take the children around to identify places and photos were used to identify other people. This foster mother states that she eventually refused to take the children to try and locate places. It is not surprising to us that after the 9th February the killing of children, (and by the 7th July 1988 the eating of them), the slaughter of animals, the identification of doctors and nurses and vicars as witches (as well as a whole congregation) and the identification of Churches and hospitals takes place. The children knew the foster parents wanted them to identify places and people and would have wanted to please them.

Looking at the diary entries for just one of the children, it becomes clear how the content of the stories changed over time, and how certain aspects of the stories, such as “Selina” and “the master” were interpreted by the Team 4 social workers:

[Craig] was only 3 years of age when he left home in December 1986 and was only 4 years of age when he was trying to recall events that could only have happened between July and December 1986, i.e. between 2 ½ and 3 years of age. [Craig] is particularly significant because he had been in care for a year before the other children and some major themes start with him; witches (27.11.87), killing sheep (21.1.88), babies being killed (21.1.88), Selina (3.3.88), blood in the bath (27.2.88), Mr. Brown, the first stranger identified (10.3.88), Mr Pooh Pants (22.1.89). [Craig]’s diaries for November, December 1987 and January 1988 are clearly talking about his family at home, “my granddad’s a monster, both daddies are clowns”, etc. He mentions daddy dressing up as a witch (21.11.87) but according to his foster parent he went to his school panto on the 9th December where an older girl was dressed as a witch and since getting home (and subsequently) had never stopped talking about the family being witches who hurt him.

It is clear that anybody who has hurt or frightened [Craig] is a witch, monster or clown. His description of witches, who are all members of his family is the traditional one of a young child; they fly on broomsticks, have black teeth, long sharp fingernails, long black hair, dance around singing “witchy, witchy, witchy” except that they also sexually abuse him, bite his bum and pooh on the carpet. In with this he mixes Dracula, Soldiers, Swords and Dragons and shooting with guns. [Craig] is the first to introduce the idea of babies and children being killed but as you would expect of a child of this age he has no real concept of killing or death and quite happily and unchallenged talks about killing a baby and “then it was alright, killing a relative (who is of course still alive), killing all the children at the parties and himself killing the witches, [James] being killed and [Rebecca] being killed and made better. [Craig] also complains that his social worker has murdered him because she shouted at him.

Likewise, [Craig] introduces the concept of sheep being killed with bare hands, sticks and knives but also being taken to hospital to be made better. He clearly refers to his father being big mister but this is later translated into the master who organises the Satanic rites. After he had witnessed his foster mother giving a blood sample at hospital and on the same day watches ‘Jaws’ (which contains sufficient blood and water for anybody) he accuses the foster mother of having a bath full of blood, a theme that he pursues for some months. It is clear that [Craig] has a fascination and strong identification with Superman and in March talks about Superman’s girlfriend being Lina (actually Lois Lane or Miss Lane). His speech is never clear and on questioning he answers ‘S’Lina’ which become ‘Selina’ because of the significance in the literature of a Selina as a Satanic figure. Likewise he mentions a little puppet but corrects himself, this was translated by social workers into poppet as these are the dolls that witches are supposed to stick pins in (although they are actually “moppets”).

In March [Craig] is talking about the black staff at his nursery (an Indian lady) and in May he begins to talk about Mrs. Brown. In May he is the first child to identify locations away from the family home – a Church where the murderers hang you and the house with the swimming pool.

We now know that, unbelievable as it seems, the Team 4 social workers gave credence to “SRA resources” such as the Malleus Maleficarum, a medieval theological treatise and handbook on the “Satanic indicators” which one might use to identify and eradicate witches…500 years ago.

From this source, the social workers/witch hunters  gleaned what they believed to be accurate information about such things as the killing of babies in rituals, the uses and significance of blood, and seemingly mystical rituals such as sticking dolls with pins.

The JET report also describes the interrogation of one of the older children, “Mary”, aged 17, by the Team 4 social workers. We think it’s important, as it shows the sorts of leading and limited-choice questions which the social workers used to extract information.

Keep in mind that the Area Director told the JET investigators that “the work was well planned and based on sound theory” and that “my workers were most unhappy at the way in which [Mary] was interviewed (by the Police)”.

The following gives a flavour of the type of questions asked and some of [Mary]’s answers (which are in brackets). “Your father’s killed a baby more than once.” “We know that your father delivered a foetus and aborted it – he drank the baby’s blood” (M. I didn’t know anything about that) “You tell us about things that happen when you were there” (M. I ate the stomach my dad ate the head) “What part of the head?” “What’s special about the stomach?” “Did anybody say why you should eat the baby?” “Dad brought the baby and the wheelie bin, what then?”

“When you ate the stomach, were you told it was good for you?” “Did you say any words, prayers, chants?” “That’s one occasion when you had to eat part of a baby – I’d like you to tell us about parties where that happened.” “Other parties where babies are killed.” “You had to eat babies more than once” (M. I can’t remember) “We think you did.” “Whose baby?” “Who brought it?” “A name?” “Difficult to remember who asked you to kill the baby” (M. I didn’t kill it) “Who told you to?” “Did she give you a knife?” (M. No) “I think she did.” “I think you had to do it you were scared something might happen to you.” “Did the social worker stay?” “You were asked to kill the baby.” “You had to do it.” “How was it killed?” “Last time we met you talked about an 11 year old boy being killed” (M. I heard it on the news, he was murdered and thrown in the Trent, I don’t know who by).

“Let’s have older children you’ve seen murdered” (M. at a house someone murdered a kid that’s all I remember) “How old?” “Who was there?” “Who ate it?” “Did they have to drink the blood?” “We think you were made to.” “Did many people get buried in mum’s back garden?” “That’s not right. You said babies were buried somewhere else.” “Who was buried in the front garden?” “Mum put the knife in and made you do it.” “You did it that’s why you’re frightened.” “You quite liked drinking blood and that made you guilty.” “She made you eat him.” “Does mum wear special clothes?” “Tell us about the adults that have been killed” “and the Church.” “Did you sexually abuse the little boy before you were made to kill it?”

“Did someone give birth to that baby at the big house?” “When you got there was the lady aborting the baby?” “What did it taste like?” “What parts did you eat?” “What other reasons id people in your family kill babies for?” “At the Church drinking blood” “Who told dad to kill?” (M. don’t know) “I think you did.” “Does he murder on any special days or times?” “[Craig] talked to me about granddad drinking blood what would [Craig] say he drinks blood for?” “[Craig] says [Mary] was there” (M. to please the Devil) “That’s what [Craig] was told is that what [Mary] was told?” “You were told the Devil would be please.” “[Craig] was told it would do special things for him. Things your family did for the Devil.” “Things happened to [James], [Rebecca], special things I don’t know if special things happened to you, you haven’t told us yet.”

“Your family did this because they believe in the Devil” “Who else had the same belief outside the family?” “Names?” “Outside the family (M. Robin the whole Church) “Some people in this are important people.” “You killed at least one baby, more than one, 3?, 30? how many?” “If you didn’t feel (guilty) you might go on killing.”

Reading this, we found it easy to imagine the social workers as medieval witch-hunters, determined to prove not only that “Mary” had been involved in obscene and unholy rituals, but that she must be made to give them the names of others involved.

Professors John and Elizabeth Newson of the Child Development Research Unit at Nottingham University were consulted by the JET investigators. Regarding the social workers’ interviews with “Mary”, they stated,

One may cite numerous occasions where the social workers did assert as bald fact their belief that [Mary] had witnessed and participated in child murder and in the eating of human flesh…. There are many inconsistencies in the stories told by [Mary] at different points in these transcripts. The social work interviewers also imply to [Mary] that the ‘facts’ were not in dispute but that it was her memory of them that was faulty. This is a procedure which in other contexts might well be described as ‘brainwashing’; in fact [Mary] frequently describes herself as confused.

“Between them the interview records suggest to me that [Mary] has been led into confabulating a story which she herself now half believes on the basis of statements made to her by social workers during disclosure interviews. If this assessment is correct the ‘disclosure’ procedure she has been put through may well have persuaded this disturbed and confused young woman that she herself is a child murderer, has drunk human blood and has eaten human flesh in collusion with her mother, and she has been left with the conviction that these misdeeds were partly at the instigation of a personified Devil – who she may believe might well try to induce her to perform similar bestial acts in the future…

In other words, rather than fulfilling their mandate as social workers to assist and support the mental and social well-being of their young clients, the Team 4 zealots used their interrogations of the children and teens of Broxtowe to confirm their own belief in SRA. In doing so, they caused potentially irreparable damage to those they were meant to be assisting.

“Jane”, an adult at the time, made the following statement to police in August 1988, suggesting that the social workers had been using similar techniques at a much earlier date:

When the case was in full swing my social worker started interviewing me and asking me questions about parties involving witches. The first time I told her that the only parties of any kind I had been to were at the (family home)… I told her I didn’t know anything about any other houses… she started asking me over and over again whether I’d been to any other big houses where witch parties had taken place. I kept saying I hadn’t but in the end I just got fed up with being asked so I just said yes.

“She asked me to describe the houses. I told her I couldn’t so she said she’d take me round to see them in the car… She pointed to the house and asked me if that was the house. I said yes. She asked me what had happened while I was there. I told her there were video cameras there and children being abused. I made it all up. I had never been to that house before in my life. I made up a description of the inside of the house. She took me to another house near Wollaton Park… she asked me whether this was another house I’d been to. I just said yes. I agreed with whatever she said, I have been interviewed about 20 times by (my social worker) about these houses but all I do is just keep saying yes…

“I have seen [Mandy] many times over the past few months and she’s told me she’s been telling the Social Services about witch parties. I know she’s telling lies… [Mandy]’s told me that if I tell the Social Services about witch parties at big houses I might have a chance of getting my daughter back (child in care) (my social worker’s) told me if I tell the truth I could get my daughter back… everything I have told (the social worker) is lies. I’ve told her the truth more than once but she wouldn’t believe me so I just said anything…. the only things I know about witchcraft and magic are the things I’ve seen on the telly.

“I was in Court when my statements were read out in the care proceedings. Some of this was the things I had told (the social worker). I was frightened to say that it wasn’t true.”

Reading “Jane’s” statement, it’s difficult not to think of RD’s children speaking earnestly to the interviewing police officer 24 years later, explaining to him how their interrogators would not take “no” for an answer, and kept hounding them until they came up with the desired stories.

It’s painful to realise that, had the JET report been circulated amongst social service and mental health practitioners when it was first written, the toxic SRA narrative might have been nipped in the bud, and uncounted victims spared. vintage-interrogation-lightbulb

90 thoughts on “Broxtowe and Hoaxtead: Witch-hunters in action

  1. Interesting stuff, EC

    This part jumped out at me:

    “If the ‘evil state’ had been intent upon suppressing the spread of the SRA myth, one would have thought that the JET report would have been shared far and wide at that point, where it might have helped to inoculate against this new and invasive phenomenon. Instead, the JET report was successfully suppressed for the better part of a decade by the social workers/witch-hunters who had helped to create the allegations in the first place.”

    So if anything, it was the SRA promoters who were guilty of a coverup, not the authorities!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, that’s right. I believe the County Council was embarrassed by what the JET investigators turned up, as it showed them in a bad light, but the Team 4 zealots were a driving force behind the report’s suppression.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “…a case in which very real child abuse—sexual, physical, and emotional—was confirmed…”

    That’s very worrying, isn’t it. And it confirms what a lot of people have said here about how hoaxes such as Hamsptead can cloud genuine abuse cases. In the case of Broxtowe we see this in action and I can see a parallel with the way in which the Hampstead hoax blurred the real abuse that took place at the hands of the mother and her boyfriend.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Excellent point. And some assaults on children will be carried out in this country by nutters who think they are witches. There are plenty of those. The body of a child was found in the Thames years ago, and that death was thought possibly to be connected to witchcraft. We all know about the slaughter of albino children for body parts by “witches” in some parts of Africa. It’s important to keep an open mind in any criminal investigation, but things go badly wrong when social workers with no legal training start pursuing an agenda, and ask children strings of leading questions.


  3. It’s not surprising that the foster parents asked leading questions and ended up putting words in the children’s mouths (probably with the best will in the World). They weren’t trained in appropriate questioning techniques and it should never have been incumbent upon them to carry out this extremely sensitive task. In fact it beggars belief that they were asked (pressured even) to do so. Nowadays it would be standard procedure for this to be carried out by trained professionals

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s worse than that. Foster carers are trained to never, ever ask questions around this. It would never, ever be appropriate for them to question, let alone be trained in techniques (or to use them if they have been trained in another role they may have or once had). Once a child/YP discloses, note the disclosure and inform supervising social worker. Nothing else. Otherwise any potential prosecution will be prejudiced and the investigation will be utterly tainted forever.

      1990 ?? Well, I was a foster carer for a few years in the early 80’s and then from 1994. Certainly in 1994 I knew what to do, since the YP we fostered then disclosed a few months in. After a couple of weeks of dancing around “If I tell you something, will you promise not to tell anyone else ??” “No, depending what you tell us, we may have to pass it on”. Eventually she trusted us enough to disclose.

      Ray Wyre rings a bell. I think my then-wife may have attended a seminar he did.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you, Mike. I don’t think we can blame the Broxtowe foster carers for doing as the social workers instructed them to. However, what you’re saying does help explain why Judith Dawson, Chris Johnston et al. on Team 4 were so determined to deny that they or Wyre, their proxy, had given the carers the list of indicators and told them to ask the children about them.


        • Oh no, certainly wouldn’t blame the FCs. It’s the supervision that fails. Social Workers seem to be far too often unaware of the law. Not just over BAE (Best Available Evidence) interview techniques, but also the law they’re meant to implement over looked after children’s needs. I know a number of foster carers who spend far too much of their time and energy “educating” social workers in such matters.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. The way things like ‘Superman’, ‘Jaws’ and the ‘school pantomime’ fed into Child C’s perception of reality and his subsequent stories brings to mind the way ‘The Mask of Zorro’ informed the Hampstead children’s testimonies (particularly the younger and more quixotic Child G?).

    Liked by 1 person

  5. “Reading ‘Jane’s’ statement, it’s difficult not to think of RD’s children…explaining…how their interrogators would not take ‘no’ for an answer, and kept hounding them until they came up with the desired stories.”

    Absolutely. And similarly, the way Mary was questioned sends shivers down my spine. It’s so reminiscent of the way Abe, Ella and Finnberk ‘interrogated’ A & G, and manipulated them into saying what they wanted them to. Very disturbing, imo.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. More advice for the widely respected childcare expert Angela ‘Twice-Yearly T-squares’ Power-Disney:


  7. After seeing the style of questions that team 4 were asking, it’s no wonder they were so concerned about having the reports suppressed, subjecting a child to that style of interrogation (and it was almost abuse in itself IMHO) it clearly way over the line!

    What gets me is the way these ‘people’ (and I use that term in the loosest sense) had set themselves up as an almost circular self referential system, person a is an expert because person b said so, person b is an expert because person c said so, person c is an expert because person a said so- at no time did their actual credentials seem to have been looked at and evaluated.

    More worrying is that some of them are to this day still practicing and supporting the SRA hoax- in a so called professional way and still ‘instructing’ police etc in searching for signs of SRA. Recently here there were calls for police to be trained in detection of signs of CSA after the Royal Commission was in the media so much, and worryingly people like Fiona Bartlett were being put forward as people that should be part of setting up the training procedures

    Liked by 3 people

    • Wow…. don’t give up your day job…
      Thats 4.56 a month, or $1.14 a week

      Assuming a 40 hr week, her hourly rate is 2c an hour

      I doubt she even covered the cost of the electricity to run her computer lol

      Liked by 1 person

      • $1.14 a week?. That’s more than Mr. George Soros (future Ruler of all Europe) pays me as CEO of All Broom Closets at the Illuminati Centre for A One World Order (known as GCHQ).


        • You get a broosh??

          When I was a lad, we had to do with making our oown broosh, from hair and nail clippins!
          And we had to PAY to be allowed to work we did!

          We got up at midnight, two hours before we went to bed, walked uphill to work, barefoot in the snow, worked a full 28 hours in a day, then walked uphill back home again!!

          Tell the kids o’ today that, and they wont believe you….

          Liked by 2 people

  8. You’ve probably seen me complaining from time to time, that ritual abuse claimants never describe actual ceremonial rituals. So that you’ll understand what I’m talking about when I say that…
    Ladies & Gentlemen,brace yourselves! You are about to witness a genuine “occult ritual” – performed exactly the way McGregor Mather’s Golden Dawn would have performed it in the1800’s and later Aleister Crowley himself! It is not “censored for public viewing”, only the masks are not traditional…a concession to an era of lunatic vigilantes.
    The core of this ritual is essentially a prayer, invoking various aspects of God (Jehovah, not the devil) – God’s love, God’s power, God’s healing – by ancient mystical names for those aspects.


    • Deborah Mahmoudieh. Lucifer is the friend of humanity, one name of an archetype of a thousand names who stole fire from the gods to give to humanity. It was Lucifer who set you free from bondage in the so-called garden of Eden, gave you freewill, knowledge and the ability to become your own god to destroy worlds and shape the forces of life. Lucifer represents the best qualities of humanity, but what do you do, become a backward barbarian throwing away the gifts of empathy, creativity and intelligence Lucifer gave to you.

      You are legion with all other Satan Hunters spreading your ignorance, stupidity, have, greed and hubris across this world. You have raped the innocence of the children of Hampstead. You have been the theif of innocence using the innocent children to create frauds to make money from, because you are too lazy, stupid and barbarian to make money honestly using the gifts Lucifer gave to you. You are the murderer in potentiality, and it is only those such as Hoaxtead that stop you stringing innocent people up from lamp posts as a mindless barbarian mob. I spit on you, I am proud to be a Satanist, and live under the light of Lucifer. Barbarian.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. I’ve yet to figure out if the 15 year old girl from The Cook Report / 60 Minutes called Theresa/Natalie is connected to this case, is she?


    • @stan – I don’t know the answer to that, but I suspect she is Sara Scott’s foster daughter. If that is the case, then she was brought into the RAINS-Tate-Cook circle by Diane Core, who brought her to Joan Coleman and she subsequently became a patient of hers. I believe she is also the girl from the famously failed early SRA allegations case, wherein disclosure of her SRA fantasies during therapy caused the prosecution to drop the charges.


      • Thanks for your thoughts.

        Protecting (rightly) the identity of alleged victims of abuse can often frustrate attempts to “prove” something didn’t actually happen to the SRA idiots.


  10. This post makes very sad reading. I feel sorry for the children who were involved, being railroaded into giving the answers they felt were wanted by the Satanic-panickers.

    It’s made me despise Abraham and Ella even more too.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Evidence please Power-Disney of anyone who posts on Hoaxtead who has accused you oh having “4 to 6 abortions etc etc”.
      Or are these just more of your defamatory accusations?.

      I would never accuse anyone of having an abortion nor do I think anyone else here would despite what a spiteful nasty bitch you are.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Angela Power Disney, you have no reputation to ruin, nobody has to make up shit about you, there is enough vomit coming out of your mouth to tarnish you for a thousand years. You are the walking incarnation of evil on this planet, you make me look like Jesus when contrasted against you. How dare you go hunting Satanists when you are the image of the wickedness Christians talk about. You are damned, your soul is damned. Your time of judgement is coming to you.

      Liked by 2 people

    • This is part of what I mentioned before upthread, there is a concerted push to ‘mainstream’ barnett. The problem for me is that she has sprouted so much shitte before, that I cant see how anything she says about being abused can be taken seriously anymore- is she telling the truth ‘this time’ or another made up fantasy (like being sexually abused by a person who was dead before she was born etc…) and to put someone in jail based only on her ‘evidence’ would be a travesty- there is no way to be sure if she was lying this time or not…
      Fair enough, if they have other clear cut evidence, then there may be a reason to investigate/charge Peter H, but I believe they should not ‘break up’ the claims, and should look into her claims as a total ‘body of work’ in order to ensure that any people involved in the investigation and possible trial would be aware of just how many absurd claims she has made

      Liked by 1 person

      • It also shows the issue of allowing these hoaxes and their promoters to be allowed to continue with their campaigns, because they can contaminate any possible future investigations, possibly allowing guilty people to go free (a reasoning put forward before by quite a few as to why certain parties keep doing it, considering the company they keep…)

        Liked by 2 people

  11. Angela Power Disney is now promoting the revolting Fiona Barnett who has seized upon the claim I reported on Hoaxtead about the late Aussie writer Bob Ellis. Barnett is implying she somehow has got something to do with the exposure of the claim Ellis slept with a 15 year old girl.

    Whilst I have no idea of the truth of the claim about Ellis- if he did sleep with a 15 year old it was a crime- it does not really mean Ellis is a pedophile. There are no other claims about Ellis apart from a few alleged feminist writers now claiming they always thought Ellis was a misogynist even if they neglected to make this claim while he was alive.

    Barnett is crowing that the recent Royal Commission into child abuse has accepted just one of her claims: that she was abused by her Grandfather. That’s apparently supported by evidence that she made this claim decades ago so there is no real reason to doubt her on that.
    Unfortunately for Barnett she seems quite pissed off that she may only get $10,000 in compensation (seeing the recommendation is that those abused by the Catholic & Anglican Churches may get at least $100,000).

    Barnett is implying that the acceptance of her Grandfather’s abuse means the Royal Commissioners accepted her claims she was abused by Richard Nixon etc etc (and Walt Disney who died two years before she was born) so she has conducted a campaign of angry letter writing from fruitloops to various NSW Police commanders who refused to take her MKUtra / Satanic Orgy / Child Hunting in the Forest claims seriously.

    Needless to say her Grandfather was no ordinary refugee / immigrant to Australia from Europe after WW2 but an ex-Nazi who worked with Dr Josef Mengele and not her real Grandfather and ..other such fantasies.

    # I worked on a US TV WW2 series in the 1970s that involved numerous visits for research to the London representative for the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. Apart from the film & photographic evidence they held which is far too horrific to describe and which has never been released (much of it filmed by the Nazis and captured by the Allies) the extraordinary records they kept of every suspected Nazi killer was immense. Not just the infamous ones but very low level suspected fellow travelers who they deemed could not be pursued as there was no concrete evidence. He also admitted that many were just “eliminated” by a special squad of young Israeli recruits when it was deemed appropriate & when it was just so much easier as long as they knew they were real offenders.
    Alas, there was no-one in their files who had the same name as Barnett’s Grandpa.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “Barnett is crowing that the recent Royal Commission into child abuse has accepted just one of her claims: that she was abused by her Grandfather. That’s apparently supported by evidence that she made this claim decades ago so there is no real reason to doubt her on that.”

      Thats where she has seriously shot herself in the foot, and why she is desperately trying to get all the allegations split up…
      Because taken with her other allegations ie volume of work, there would indeed be reason to doubt her claim, unless there was other strong substantial evidence to support it, it is just one more claim amongst so many others, often absurd and some literally impossible.

      Taken by itself it could be argued that there may be case for an investigation, but many of these cases rely totally on witness statements, circumstantial evidence and little else (as physical evidence is impossible to obtain obviously) and in this case, anything said by the witness now is irreparably tainted by her behaviour that any statements she makes to the Royal Commission should be treated with extreme caution as to their validity

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Dammit, I knew I should have gone to Specsavers. It’s just no matter how long I look at the far right former EDL leader, ignorant racist thug and convicted criminal Tommy Robinson, I still can’t see his halo.

    Angie can, though…


    • The brass threepenny bit first appeared in 1937, before the second world war, not in 1953. Not a good start fact wise.


  13. How to squeeze case out of a mentally ill unemployed man and not feel guilty about it…


  14. So how long before Neelu finds out that her buddy Angela is a rabid Robinson supporter and chucks her out of the clique? Place your bets now…

    (NB; Stephen Yaxley Lennon = Tommy Robinson)

    Liked by 1 person

      • The journamalist at EC’s link treats us to some world-class Stupid. “A judge [mis-]used the word ‘satanic’ to express the evil of a particular child-abuse case, therefore the perps were literally worshipping Satan”.

        Is she one of these people who aren’t allowed outside when it’s raining, for fear that she will stare up at the clouds with her mouth open until she drowns?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Being fairly new to all this “thruther” malarky, I was surprised at just how right wing they all appear to be.

      I’m not sure if right wing is a correct description though. It implies some sort of political ideology, some sort of collective belief system. The ‘thruther or Satan/witch hunter seem more along the lines of massive chip on the shoulder pure hatred.

      Still, whatever wing people are if you go far enough in either direction you end up with pretty much the same thing.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I think it depends on what sources you expose yourself to. There are as many truther nuts on the left as there are the right. Based on empirical evidence, I’ve been a long time believer in the horseshoe theory.

        “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah, sorry. I changed the time to include the bit about Melanie Shaw and the image follows just after that.


    • Funny to see them blatantly contradicting the claim made by Angela et al that Tommy Robinson has been moved to a prison with a predominantly Muslim population!


  15. “He [Tommy Robinson] is a bloke banged up illegally and soon it could be you or me”

    Ooh, you little tease, Angela. Stop getting our hopes up like that


    • Hopsitals are used to attack people with energy weapons? Medical procedures are satanic rituals? Mad scientists rule the World?

      For feck’s sake, ladies – have a bloody word with yourselves, will yer


    • Sucheta is the same person who’s been telling Neelu she can cure her sister’s cancer with nuts, baked beans and lemon juice (I swear I’m not making that up). She’s also the one who called the hospital pretending to be her cousin Sue.


Comments are closed.