Angela shares ‘abusive and threatening’ comments

For…months? years? we’ve actually lost track at this point, so let’s just say “a long time”, Angela Power-Disney has been claiming that people from this blog have been sending her death threats and abusive comments online. We’ve challenged her many times to demonstrate the truth of her allegations, but to no avail.

At one point she claimed to have put up a Facebook post on the matter, but we were never able to find it, and attributed it to her fertile imagination, which as we all know has a tendency to wander off on its own and just make up random shit.

However, yesterday an alert reader noted that in the course of trying to tell the Gardaí Cyber-Crime unit what to look for on her seized computers (yeah, right!), Angela mentioned the location of a cache of alleged death threats: 

Ah, an album! A photo album, we presumed. That made a bit more sense. Off we scurried, in hope of finding the elusive treasure trove of death threats.

This one looked promising: 

‘Psychological warfare is the new terrorism’

Sure enough, this was a Facebook photo album full of screenshots, all of which seemed to have come from YouTube. Note that all of these are attributed to “RD and his henchmen”, despite the fact that RD has never, to our knowledge, participated in any online scuffles with any of the Hampstead hoaxers. No matter how often we’ve repeated this, it falls on deaf ears.

Note, too, the customary begging bowl. Just saying.

What we found

Keep in mind that the following screenshots will be completely out of context, as most of them were comments on YouTube videos. And remember, too, that YouTube is notorious for its opinionated and often foul-mouthed debate. Ready? Here we go.

1. Not even in the ballpark

The first category of posts don’t even come close to threats of any sort. For example:

(click thumbnails to enlarge)

In fact, the post from “Jane Doe 138” isn’t even addressed to Angela. We’re not sure why she included these in her list, to be honest.

2. Pointed questions

In this category, we include comments which ask pointed or uncomfortable questions, which are still well within the bounds of normal YouTube discourse:

Angela might not like these questions, but they are hardly abusive, and certainly not threatening.

3. Use of swears

In the third category, we find that some commenters have used impolite words. However, this is considered fairly standard on YouTube, so although we might call them rude, it’s hard to believe that anyone who’s ever posted in that space would think these were “threatening” or “abusive”:

It’s difficult to state that calling Angela a “child abuser’ is over the top, given her repeated assertions that she believed in beating her children (even if “only occasionally”) with wooden implements.

While the use of four-letter words might seem a bit harsh to those with delicate sensibilities, we remind ourselves that during Rupert’s trial the judge assessed Roger Flutterby’s tweet, which involved references to Rupert being a “knuckle-dragging twat”, as “fairly mild”. We also recall the judge admonishing Rupert, to the effect that “if he couldn’t stand the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen”. Ahem.

4. Using family as weapons

This is the one category which left a very bad taste in our mouths. We don’t know the author(s) of these posts, but we found them very disappointing.

It’s unacceptable, in our view, to use a picture of Angela’s dead sister as an avatar, and calling one’s self “ANGELA’S SISTER WAS A WHORE WHICH IS WHY ANGELA HAD HER BUMPED OFF” is not only grossly disrespectful of Angela’s dead sister, but deliberately cruel to Angela:

Similarly, allegations that Angela’s children have foetal alcohol syndrome are simply not okay:

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that this allegation is true; and even if it were true that one or more of her children had been born with FAS, it would be terribly cruel to use it as a weapon.

Yes, the material in this category would qualify as “abusive”. No doubt about it. And yes, one could argue that she has been equally cruel to others, but that doesn’t mean anyone should lower themselves to that level when responding to her.

5. Actual threats?

We found three comments which could be construed as threats of one sort or another:

In one, a person called “I have a Porsche AND a big penis” calls Angela out for claiming that men who own Porsches are over-compensating for being under-endowed, and suggests that they meet at “Gibney’s” so he can demonstrate that this isn’t true. It’s in questionable taste, but hardly a death threat. [Edited to add: A kind reader has pointed out that Gibney’s pub in Oldcastle closed many years before the Hampstead hoax began. This suggests that the post might have been made by a local person who disliked Angela.]

And in the second, “Tiny Magical Cretin” invites Angela to come to the UK and face criminal charges, so that TMC and “me and my mates can come chuck rotten fruit at you outside the courtroom”. Not exactly life-threatening, and hardly creditable—this read to us more like somebody blowing off steam.

However, the third, from an unknown sender, says, “It’s a shame your husband didn’t hit you…” Of the three, this comes the closest to being abusive toward Angela. We find it completely unacceptable, as spousal abuse is never okay, and wishing it upon someone, even someone we don’t like, is just not right.

Even so, it’s not a threat, just a very ugly statement.

Our assessment?

While the vast majority of posts which Angela singled out as “abusive or threatening” are neither in our opinion, we have to say that it was disappointing to discover that a few commenters resorted to very nasty and deliberately cruel allegations.

We don’t know the identities of those involved, and all of this happened more than two years ago now, so it’s unlikely we’ll find out.

However, we would hope that no one who reads this blog would lower themselves to that level.

A word to the wise

And should anyone be tempted to do so, may we remind you that there is a very good practical reason to refrain? Those readers who were around during Rupert’s trial will recall that one of his defences was that in harassing the families of Hampstead, he was merely giving back as good as he got.

While that argument did not prevail in the end, it was clear that at least some members of the jury were persuaded that he had received death threats, and was therefore entitled to defend himself.

Despite all the pain that Angela has inflicted upon innocent folk, anyone who wants to see her face justice should bear this in mind: if she can persuade the court that she was only responding in kind, she will walk free.

As readers here will know, we have a strict policy against threats of any sort, and while we can’t enforce what people do when they aren’t on this site, we can urge people to use common sense and moderation in any responses they make.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com