Lambremont-Webre, de Boer contend for Most Boring Video of 2019

One of the earliest video interviews featuring Sabine McNeill pushing the Hampstead SRA hoax was also one of the hardest to watch: Alfred Lambremont-Webre has the charisma of a damp rag, and Sabine is no barrel of laughs either, as she veered between maudlin self pity and histrionic self=justification.

Even if they hadn’t been spouting hateful lies designed to destroy people’s lives, they’d have been unbearable.

We were reminded of that fiasco yesterday, when Labrador-Webfoot interviewed one of Sabine’s most faithful admirers, Eduard de Boer. The Dutch composer, who shares a surname and nationality with Charlotte Ward’s husband but has denied any relationship, was perhaps a shade less boring pedantic than his pasty-faced host, but even played at 1.5 speed, they droned on for hours and hours. [It was an hour and 22 minutes, but who’s counting?—Editor]

They also mentioned the name of a protected witness, so we will not be linking to the video here.

To save readers the agony of looking it up and watching it, here’s a synopsis: Sabine was stitched up, it was a show trial, the “pedocracy” ensured that she was put away for nine years, which is a violation of her human rights and the law and probably a bunch of other things which we didn’t bother writing down. [Don’t lie, I heard you snoring in there—Editor]

(Despite all the “pedocracy” talk, Labrador-Webfoot forgot to mention his own family connection to the whole Pizzagate hairball: his brother Septime and the owner of Comet Ping Pong are on quite friendly terms. Funny how Alfred never talks about this.)

De Boer went into some detail about how Abraham Christie had beaten and tortured the two children at the centre of the case, but said that it was all okay in the end because they confirmed his own sick fantasies about children being raped by Satanists. He then trotted out the usual conspiranoid rationales to explain why he desperately wants their story to have been true. Bet you didn’t see that coming.

De Boer also claims to have spoken to Sabine’s legal team, who assured him that they would be launching an appeal. He seems not to have grasped that the deadline for appeals is long past—Sabine had 28 days from the date of sentencing, which was on 9 January, to appeal her sentence. Perhaps he thinks that they can use Labrador-Webfoot’s time travel theory, but they didn’t get into that, sad to say.

Then there was a whole lot of waffle about all the other conspiracy theories they believe in (surprise!) and how each one proves the other, yadda yadda yadda.

Spoiler alert: The video ends with one of de Boer’s composition, dedicated to Sabine. Bring your own hankie.

But it wasn’t a complete waste…

For us, the highlight of this video came in the first 15 seconds. It opened with an advert for Tourism Toronto, all very glossy and beautiful and full of glamourous-looking people doing touristy things in Canada’s largest city. (Why YouTube chose to attach this advert to this video is anybody’s guess—perhaps it has to do with Labrador-Webfoot’s location on Canada’s West Coast, a mere 4,384.7 km away from Toronto?)

In any case, we decided to let Tourism Toronto know how their YouTube advertising dollars were being spent:

Here are a few how-tos if you’re new to alerting businesses to YouTube’s playing fast and loose with their money. Overall, remember that the businesses are probably not aware that this is how their advertising money is being spent. YouTube uses its Magical Algorithms to determine which ads to attach to which videos, so you are bringing this to the business’s attention, not attempting to shame them.

On the above tweet, you’ll notice that we started with a full-stop. This is a Twitter thing, which enables your tweet to be seen by people who aren’t you or the account to which you’re tweeting. Don’t question us, just do it.

Second, we used the hashtag #NotAGoodLook, as tweets with hashtags tend to get more views.

And third, we explained the problem in a way which (we hope) Tourism Toronto could understand. Having their ads show up at the beginning of a video like this does make it appear as if Tourism Toronto endorses Labrador-Webfoot’s activities, and this gives them opportunity to correct that perception. Let’s hope they get the message.

49 thoughts on “Lambremont-Webre, de Boer contend for Most Boring Video of 2019

  1. I get a different ad every time I bring the video up! Get complaining people!

    Good spot re Alfred’s brother. I had a look at Facebook and both of Alfred’s brothers have the owner of Comet Ping Pong as a friend. They look like a nice, and also talented, group of people to me. Alfred is also on the same friend lists which obviously doesn’t bother him. I suppose it’s easier to persecute people thousands of miles away because if you do it too close to home there will be consequences.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. At 1.5 speed, it actually sounded like normal speed.

    Apart from De Boers’ devotion to Sabine, the people that he recommends as victims to listen to are very sick, one being a self confessed/boasting child rapist…… For me, their and Andy Devine & co prove that they are invested in keeping this false flag flying, not because they care at all about children, but because it was meant to remain a topic that could be used as clickbait to bring in revenue, by allowing them to lull new people into trusting them so they can fleece them by promoting/introducing other scams to gullible believers.

    Disgusting that Alfred dismisses and justifies Abe Christies torture of the children, something Andy parotted. It’s as if some of them conspire on how to proceed with their diabolical online fakery.

    It’s really worth alerting the advertisers who will be totally unaware that they are being smeared by default, not their fault and YouTube needs to wake up and sort algorithms to pick up on these vile criminals.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I believe you are correct and as for Tourism Toronto and Facebook they seem oblivious to the fact they too could be sued for defamation.

      When a newspaper or a publication is sued by a plaintiff for alleged defamation few people seem to realise every single person or firm down the line is liable: from the publisher, journalist, editor, advertisers, printer, delivery truck driver, newsagent and even the person that leaves the defaming article on the train for another passenger.

      In reality of course that doesn’t happen as publishers ( but not always) indemnify all the others and “takes on” responsibility for whatever legal liabilities there are.

      I haven’t read Facebook’s advertising terms but as they seem to consider they are based in cyberspace (or is it Ireland) I wonder if they do take on responsibility?.

      This is all theory of course and in practical terms it would be very difficult pursuing – although never forget Hulk Hogan was actually paid $31.5M in damages eventually (he asked for $200M) fro a breach of privacy- but GoS’s Law (Murphy died years ago) says what can happen WILL happen eventually.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Cool 🙂 Thanks for that reminder. There are, I believe going to be more pressure brought to bear, very soon. It won’t be some kind of cover up, as they’ll all scream as they go down, but it will free up and de toxify the web, so that real truth can flo better for the good of people and safety of children, especially.


  3. Yeah, it was a bizarre experience listening to that interview. Eduard the Bore tells Alfred Labrador Webfoot twice that they can’t name a protected witness but Webfoot is still happy to post the video with the name intact. As for the Bore defending Abe despite admitting that he’s an abuser, who does that…?

    Liked by 2 people

    • My mate was born in a British Military hospital in Germany & his parents were issued with a UK birth certificate.

      Not saying Angie is telling pork pies or anything mind!

      Military Hospital Birth Certificate

      How to order records of a new or replacement birth certificate for someone born in a British Military Hospital overseas 

      Soldiers would have had to register the birth of their child with their respective admin department and a UK birth certificate would have been issued from the unit Registrar of Birth Deaths and Marriages. 

      In the event that you require a replacement or need to discuss records please visit look for the section “Obtaining birth details from the Ministry of Defence” which explains how to arrange for a copy of a military hospital birth

      Liked by 1 person

  4. From Angie’s page (she really knows how to pick her mates, doesn’t she):


    • Hasn’t the Magna Carta been superseded now (any legal experts here?). Anyway, it was only some very powerful barons wrestled power from King John, surely? The poor serfs and villeins weren’t much better off – probably not any better off at all – than before Magna Carta. There CAN be times when an ancient law raises its head to bite people in the bum – like when the Church of England invoked a centuries old chancel repair law a few years ago. I THINK there were plans in force to change the ancient law to stop it biting folk in the bum (may have gone through now, not sure). I do recall people were undertaking chancel repair searches when purchasing a house (and chancel repair insurances if their proposed new abode did fall within the demesne of a dreaded chancel repair possible liability).

      Some of the comments I’ve seen on MKD Alliance (and other similar) videos re: Mr D make me worry is there something wrong with the school system.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You are seeing the intersection of Freeman of the Land and Satanic hoaxers. Neelu is the archetypal AB but it’s debatable whether the individual totals are increasing or we’re just seeing more of them crossing over to become members of both.

        I’m not a lawyer but as a Catholic I can tell you that Pope Innocent III annulled the Magna Carta in 1215 😁

        Liked by 1 person

      • IANAL, but….

        There are only 3 clauses from the charter of 1297 still in force in English law; note that it never applied in Scotland, which, in the 13th century, remained a separate kingdom, albeit subject to periodic invasion by the English. There were many versions in the intervening years after the 1215 original (a peace treaty between King John and a number of his barons) was annulled within months by Papal decree and subsequently repudiated by the original signatories, who were threatened by excommunication if they tried to enforce its clauses.

        From the Wikipedia page:

        These clauses (still in force) concern 1) the freedom of the English Church, 2) the “ancient liberties” of the City of London (clause XIII in the 1215 charter, clause IX in the 1297 statute), and 3) a right to due legal process (clauses XXXIX and XL in the 1215 charter, clause XXIX in the 1297 statute).

        I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

        IX. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.

        XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

        Subject to this exceptions (which form part of statute law), claims that the 1215 charter is in force in full and applies to what would have been the peasantry in the 13th century, allowing them to lawfully rebel in the 21st, are just that; claims.


        • Thanks for the information. Are the “five ports” referenced the “cinq ports’ – at least one of which is some miles inland I understand.


        • There are numerous versions of the Charter, but only 3 different ones, after 1225 the rest are all restatements of the 1225 one.

          The first one, originally called the Runymede Charter, but renamed by Sir Edward Coke (for political reasons) the Great Charter, was, as GoS says, annulled, and would not have been binding in any event as it was a charter obtained by coercion (ironically, given its use by Freemen on the Land, there was “no contract, no consent”). It was mostly based on the Charter of Liberties of Henry I with contemporary additions such as the security clase (Freemen on the Land’s beloved Art 61), the expulsion of unpopular supporters of King John, Welsh Hostages, the position of the King of Scotland, excessive afforestation, remarriage of widows etc.

          A new charter, originally called the Great Charter (keep up) was made by John’s son Henry on his accession, and remade in 1225 when he became an adult, for fear the original one wasn’t binding due to his youth. Henry’s charters split up the Runymede Charter, taking out the stuff about the forests, which became the Little Charter of the forests, stripping out much of the contemporary issues in John’s charter – Art 61, unpopular supporters etc, so and what was left was called the Big Charter, or Magna Carta in Latin.

          Throughout the rest of the 13th century successive kings reaffirmed the Charter in response to baronial dissatisfaction with their rule, until Edward 1, who reaffirmed the 1225 Charter in the form of a statute, Parliament being in existence by then. (There were later statutes reaffirming during the 14th Century as well, but they just confirmed the 1297 Act.)

          Tiny fragments of the 1225 Charter, in its 1297 version, have endured to the present day. Most of it was well obsolete by the 19th century, at which time most of it was repealed. It’s also decidedly doubtful how much effect it had before then – Oliver Cromwell dismissed it as “Magna Farta”, and Article 1, freedom of the (Catholic) Church in England, didn’t count for much with Henry VIII.


  5. @EC – I must admit I didn’t realise Charlotte and Jacco were married. Poor Jacco 😮


  6. 😆😂🤣

    Facebook bans Tommy Robinson’s page

    Facebook has taken down anti-Islamic activist Tommy Robinson’s official page and Instagram profile for violating its policies on hate speech…

    …The ban means that Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, will not be allowed to set up an official Facebook page or Instagram profile in future…”

    Liked by 3 people

    • That’s a good question, COW, and one upon which I myself have also been pondering. Will keep you posted of any developments/clues on that one.


    • Grifter imho, he is awful but probably managed to hoodwink gullible people in other scams or rookey sales, schemes and uses all the tactics, but he just can’t stop himself, as he get’s more desperate, he goes into overdrive, overegging and forgetting all the previous lies, plus the clowns he has surrounded himself with give the game away……. cept it’s not funny, cos they are doing real harm by also including the hampstead lies in their narrative…. it is what they have done with previous CSA hoaxes.

      Liked by 1 person

    • In his heart, Device knows that Wanoa is a useless petrol-huffing skinsack, but he is a potentially useful skinsack. Ah well, if these plonkers want to waste good quatloos on airfares for Wanoa to bring his act to the UK, no-one in NZ is going to complain.

      Here BTW is Wanoa from a few years ago, mooching away at a charity $mas lunch for the destitute and friendless, turning it into a backdrop for one of his Youtubers and violating the privacy of everyone else attending it. Just to illustrate the point that he really is garbage.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. It’s really good to know that if a creepy, sexist pervert – Matt Taylor, for argument’s sake – were to sexually harass a vulnerable disabled woman via a blog post containing pornographic images, that his female friends would be outraged and would categorically condemn such vile, rapey behaviour.

    Oh wait…


    • I don’t think Cat has a clue who she’s supporting after the 8th bottle of Koppaberg.


        • Yeah, you’d think that after the 7th one they’d have all given up and buggered off home, or shaken hands and sorted it all out over a game of footie or something.


      • Oh she knows, in fact it’s obvious that there has been a conspiracy to discredit, demean, cause me fear, harm and triggering. Also to put others off from speaking out, especially against their scamduggery and shilldom, their stalking, menacing, lying, threatening, etc. What kind of people behave that way ?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Cat’s still claiming that she “outed” EC, then, despite the fact that EC had gone out of her way to “out” herself on Flo’s hangout about a week earlier? LOL

      Liked by 1 person

    • Angela – another woman happy to support rapey sexist perverts, it seems…


    • @Cat Scot (because I know you’re reading this): you are a disgrace to womankind and a terrible role model for your children.


    • Wow, that’s alot of evidence right there. Thanks boy and gals 🙂 I havn’t actually had to report Matt Taylor to the police before, (other woman that he has harrassed have though)…….. When he gave his smarmy apology to the Female Police Commissioner outside the RCJ, via the BBC South reporter, he even said he wanted one in return ???? pukey, abuser type, creepy, pervert, type behaviour and true to form Angela and Cat, like Babs has already, steps up just like the kinda women who help control vulnerable, victims in the darkest types of abuse………… The information of my history at 16, on the streets, because I left home to protect my mum from knowing, was written up in company magazine; ’93…….. Something lied about in Sharon Zaki’s PDF, which both Heather and Cat have quoted from to mock me and discredit…….. Yes alot of victims of child abuse do run away and end up on the streets, fending for themselves and I have told that story many times, …… Abusers instill shame into their victims, anyway, so it wasn’t until therapy that I realised that even in my thirties, by then working, running a business, owning property (well, not outright), so that I was able to firstly get in touch with that shame, which was horrendous (and why their behaviour is not only vile, but obvious to anyone who knows about working with CSA survivors/victims), but to release it so fully and if that was all that came out of therapy for me, then I am blessed…………. It’s why I’ve dug into to disrupt them where I can, destroy their ability to carry on if possible. The depth of that shame is still very real for too many unable to get the kind of help I could only access when able to afford it.

      I will take as much appropriate actions and alert as many as possible to these ghouls.

      This is why this blog deserves an award, for the attention, given that spread from learning about the Hampstead Hoax and all the pushers.

      Just as Karen Irving outed herself on Flo Destroyer, I outed myself too, cept I’d done it in the early 90s, which helped to inspire many. The vile lot pushing their narratives are determined to shut us up, waste the time of those working on this issue and abusing, using survivors, making money as they go, if possible.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.