Angela finally realises she is in trouble

Apparently no one ever bothered to explain to Angela Power-Disney the old adage, “Discretion is the better part of valour”. It certainly appears that way, as yesterday she produced yet another live-streamed Facebook video in which she not only slagged RD, but repeated her veiled threats toward the Gardaí.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpowerdisney%2Fvideos%2F10161019745050554%2F&show_text=0&width=267

Oddly, she wore the same outfit she’d worn to her police interview on Friday, and sat under the same painting. In contrast to previous videos, where she looks as though she just rolled out of bed and can’t find her cigarettes, yesterday she looked as though she’d actually combed her hair and put on a bit of lipstick.

The reasons for this might become clearer as we learn what she said this time. (Hint: we suspect she was trying to look a bit more professional than usual.)

Interviewed under caution

On Friday, Angie was at pains to assure her audience that she’d attended a “voluntary interview” following seizure of her PC, her laptop, and her phone. However, yesterday she let slip that the interview was just a tad more formal than your average chat over coffee. She was, it turns out, interviewed under caution, a rather different proposition.

Here’s a straightforward explanation: 

An interview under caution is where you are being investigated from the commission of an offence and anything you say will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you. It is a preliminary stage in an investigation and very often leads directly to charges being brought. If you are suspected of committing an offence, I would advise you to attend with a solicitor. Be aware that if you do not voluntarily attend, you will probably be arrested and taken to the station for questioning. So I would advise you to attend with a solicitor. You are under no obligation to answer any questions. You can merely state “No Comment” or “I exercise my right of silence” and refuse to answer any questions. No adverse inference can be drawn from you failing to answer any questions. In law, you have the constitutional protection of the right to silence.

So far as we know, Angela did not have a solicitor present during her interview. As for exercising her right to silence…come on, we’re talking about Angela here.

So much for discretion

In her second video on Friday, Angela seemed subdued, and was deliberately avoiding mentioning RD by name—it seemed to us that perhaps she’d been told by police that further mentions would harm her position.

Yesterday, however, was a full-on RD-fest:

I said I would consider going low-key on discussing [RD], the alleged cult leader connected to the Hampstead case, unless the trolls escalated.

And the trolls escalated to the point of making malicious allegations against my 24-year-old, blatantly defamatory, libellous, slanderous untruths, and they’ve got an MO for doing that, where they will say something outrageous, they will then draw what you call paedo hunters to the comment, and make sure it’s logged, and then they’ll delete the comment, and say ‘we don’t encourage such carry-on’. 

Let’s get this straight: she believes that someone on (or associated with) this blog has made “blatantly defamatory, libellous, slanderous untruths” about her kids. We have no idea what comments she’s referring to, but we’ll let that slide.

So then, she says, once that comment has been made and observed by “paedo hunters” (???), someone from the blog (either Scarlet Scoop or El Coyote) deletes the comment.

Erm…sure.

Granted, Angela’s blog doesn’t get the 75–125 daily comments that this one does, but does she have any idea how much time and effort goes into moderating comments on a relatively busy blog? It does sometimes take us half an hour or so to catch up, because neither of us spends all day here, so yes, sometimes less-than-ideal comments can languish unmoderated for a short time. But to claim that this is some sort of evil plot against her is just plain bizarre. Plus, as we say, we aren’t aware of having said anything unkind about her children.

More harassment

So they have escalated, so I make no apology. So [redacted], the alleged cult leader in the Hampstead case, can fly to Dublin after he outed himself on eBay, and the children, wilfully put them in their new supposed assumed identities, wilfully put himself and children on camera internationally, for eBay. But then can fly over to Dublin and say I have caused him to fear for his life and his children’s life, and I’ve made him unemployableand blah blah blah.

And if you want to roll it back, this man, [redacted], and his co-accused, to do with the Hampstead Satanic ritual abuse cult allegations, have gone after most of the main campaigners, and have succeeded in the UK and beyond, and getting them either imprisoned, sectioned, or gagged.

Or to put it another way, RD and the other victims of the Hampstead SRA hoax did the logical thing which one does when one is being harassed, and reported their harassers to the police. In some cases, the police issued warnings or formal cautions; in other cases the suspects went to trial. Some were given restraining orders to prevent them from continuing to harass their victims.

Gosh, doesn’t that sound like a fit-up to you?

The penny drops

In contrast to Friday, yesterday Angela did seem to be waking up to the severity of her situation. She went on a long screed about how and why she’d come to Ireland to settle in 1996; how she’d been a good and productive citizen since then (despite having been forced to live in a council estate because of unspecified malfeasance on the part of her family); and how she’d never been in trouble with the law before.

Angela now realises that having a team of four or five relatively high-ranking Gards to raid her home, seize her tech and phone, and subject her to an interview under caution is not a trivial thing.

And if the assault on her sense of amour-propre were not enough, the seizure of her tech means that (gasp!) her “sources” are now at risk.

‘Sources’?

Why yes. You see, despite all evidence to the contrary, Angela claims to be a “journalist”.

And she claims it’s just wrong that “any journalist, freelance or otherwise…can’t secure their sources because randomly, with no criminal record, you can expect the Gardaí to raid your house and take your tech”.

This might possibly be the case, except for a couple of tiny details:

1. Angela is not a journalist;
2. Journalists must know, and obey, the law.

More harassment

As if to underscore the fact that she is not now, nor has she ever been a journalist, Angela launched into yet another harassing diatribe against RD:

So for the Gards to be able to…so, for somebody to fly from England…yeah, that’s the point I was going to make. So [redacted], to say all these campaigners are harassing him, destroying his life.

Let’s just try something. Let’s just say for a moment, imagine perhaps he might have been innocent. So then he needs to take responsibility—now I don’t believe he  was, but I’m entitled to my opinion—but let’s just play this out. He needs to take responsibility for having two children with a woman who would allegedly have her children disclose what the Hampstead children disclosed, which went viral, a hundred million views.

I urge you, you might have to look a bit hard, but I urge you to research and find the Hampstead children’s disclosures. There’s about 34 videos online. They’ve tried to remove them but it was too late. The cat was out of the bag. They’re the most traumatic corroborating detailed disclosures I have ever heard, and I’m a survivor, and I’ve worked with many survivors.

Yes. She actually said that.

In Angela’s twisted mind, RD ought to have been able to predict, years before it happened, that Ella would steal the children off to Morocco with her psycho boyfriend and drill disgusting, horrific false allegations of abuse into them.

He should have been able to see it coming.

Seriously, Angela? Just like she was able to anticipate the terrible actions of her ex-partner against their daughter? Is that how it works now?

Yep, it seems as if that’s exactly what she thinks:

But if you listen to those disclosures, then [redacted], supposing he might be innocent, needs to take responsibility. Like, ‘why did I have two children with this Russian lady who would allegedly coach these two children to make up these fantastical traumatising detailed photographically memorised frozen memory disclosures. Why would I do that?‘ And he needs to say, ‘Okay, right, so my life’s in a bit of a pickle, you know I made a poor choice of who to father children with’. That’s if you go along with the theory.

So there you have it. If you have an ex who has gone to enormous lengths to destroy your life, and has to any degree succeeded, it’s your own fault for choosing them in the first place. That’s how it works now, in Angie’s twisted mind.

The other thing he would need to take responsibility for,  instead of running around filing harassment claims for good citizens who are doing their best to make up for the fact that the British police, the British judiciary, the British social services, the British media failed those children.

So instead of that, he could say to himself, “Right, okay, so I got a new identity and got the children new identity and moved, and got unlimited access to the children, and permission to take them out of the country and everything like that”, so having established and accomplished that, [redacted], why did you go to America and put yourself and your children out there on the internet, featured runners up in an eBay entrepreneurs of the year 2017 awards ceremony? Why would you do that, [redacted]? 

Why would you do that, if you truly, as you said to the Gard that interviewed me, “Oh, I’m unemployable, and it’s destroyed my life, and I’m afraid for my life and my children’s life”, then why did you go and put your children back out in the public eye? You know, that’s a really good question to ask.

Sure, so let’s answer that question in legal terms.

We don’t know what was going through RD’s head when he made that choice, though it seems likely that he, and they, believed that it would be safe. That turns out to have been the wrong call, but it was not illegal.

What is illegal—as any real journalist would know—is identifying by name or image any minor child who has been involved in allegations of sexual abuse, whether found true or otherwise.

This is why, even in the judgment following the fact-finding hearing in the Hampstead case, the children were not named, but were assigned the initials P and Q.

However, this law does not mean that those same children can’t be named in other contexts—such as having their business named a runner-up in an eBay contest. When the children appeared in that video, they were not being identified as having been involved in allegations of sexual abuse. They were in the video for perfectly innocent reasons.

The identification part came later, when people like Angela and her friends began outing them online.

That was, definitely and beyond a doubt, illegal. And if Angela were a journalist, she would understand that distinction.

As for RD’s complaints against Angela—well, anyone who’s followed this blog for any length of time will know that her abuse predated the release of the eBay video by three years. So her argument is spurious; it simply does not stand.

Angie: Taking disingenuity to new depths

Can you imagine the ramifications of that? Can you imagine the ramifications of that for freedom of speech? That you know, an alleged paedophile, an alleged cult leader, an alleged satanic ritual abuser, an alleged porn and snuff movie distributor, an alleged international drug distributor, ineffectively investigated in a different country, as backed up by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, can you imagine if people like that can fly to a country, file a complaint, Bob’s your uncle, your journalist, or your activist, or your campaigner, or your survivor, or your victim is raided.

It takes a lot to render us speechless, but this masterful piece of disingenuous argument just did it. Where to even start?

Let’s just say, as we’ve said all along: Angela is no journalist. Nor is she an activist, nor a campaigner, nor a whistle-blower, nor anything resembling any of those things.

She is a nasty, narcissistic old lady with a gigantic chip on her shoulder who is, once again, breaking the law.

Aw, diddums!

While we’re on the subject of narcissism, Angela took umbrage at the way the police treated her (though on Friday she seemed to think it was just fine and dandy): how very dare they barge into her house and seize her tech, without so much as an engraved invitation?

If they’d come to me, even come to the door nicely and said, “Angie, [redacted]’s complained you’re harassing him, d’you mind showing us everything you’ve published on the Hampstead case?” I’d have said, “Absolutely no problem! I’d be delighted to”. I’ve asked them to come out. I’ve complained about the poison pen letter campaign, which I suspect was orchestrated by [redacted2]…

Yes, because that is totally how the police operate when they suspect a crime has taken place. They go to the suspect’s home and ask them to show their version of events, but they don’t do any of those nasty things like searching the premises or gathering evidence. That is for lesser people than the great and wonderful Angela. Apparently.

Oh, and by the way…

DS Mark Looby, I would like my tech returned please, and an apology, for a very rude, heavy-handed, unnecessary, and probably unlawful action that you took on behalf of a UK citizen who is the master of his own undoing.

Let’s hope Angela isn’t holding her breath while she waits.