And no, I haven't written much
recently… Both cases are pretty-much a waste of time now; overrun with nutcases
whose 'best shot' in life has been overcoming the quaint demon quirks of
English grammar to develop a stunning command of stilted prose which illuminates
their lack of real intellect in Megalux proportions; more often not even that.
I've been contacted recently by
several people, and one gentleman in particular, who has encouraged me to view
a discussion currently taking place on the David Icke forum with respect to the
Hampstead abuse case. – I shan't be publishing the link as
requested; Mr Icke certainly needs no encouragement or input from me in his side-show
endeavours. And I've no intention of trawling much through much of the thread
in question either. The reason being
that his forum and indeed his fanbase seems to harbour a significant element
that is all of ignorant and deluded and focused on things that are far from the
truth. There is little or nothing cogent or of any value to be found there...
It is unfortunate if reality
results in explanations that are "too neat" (to quote one particular idiot)
for those with dogma snapping at their heels or who fear their sideshow ending.
Real life often is quite prosaic, the
truth dull and unentertaining. Events are often consequences of some previous action.
And cogent explanations are by their nature very-often rational logical and
'neat'.
Dismissing
the truth on the basis that it is too dull to provide adequate entertainment does
not in any way challenge it.
Likewise if
they – Icke's Conspiretards - are unsatisfied with the 'content' I
provide…
In this
respect some do seem to have confused me with one of their own kind; a
'stairhead fishwife' like
Icke or Belinda McKenzie whose
stock-in-trade is titbits of juicy gossip; making capital at the expense of
others suffering. For clarity – I am not
here to thwart justice or provide dirty laundry for you to sniff. I merely
comment on the truth, and stick to what is legally reportable and, in my
professional opinion, in the public interest…
In other
words I am disinterested in supplying what amounts to a form of pornography –
get your cheap titillation elsewhere!
And for
clarity I am completely unmoved by the implied 'rejection' by those who seek
their vicarious thrills and, in some cases, validate their own twisted
perspective through wallowing in conspiritainment. – I require no validation from
the likes of them I can assure you… And I have no ambitions or need to gain
position within their childish 'clique' or make motion in the world of flim flam.
For my only interest really is in the plain simple truth… Dull as it is.
Therefore (for instance) the reason why I
debunked Robert Green and Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy's blatant pack of lies about
Alex Salmond is not political but that it is, quite simply, and provably documented
as a complete and utter pack of bloody lies…
Lies with a clearly sectarian-political motive.
I couldn't care less about
Salmond and would just as readily have debunked lies about Margaret Thatcher,
David Cameron or Ian Duncan-Smith; all of whom I regard as thoroughly evil
people. For the simple fact is that lies
are lies, the truth is the truth – it's that simple, even if the latter is
inconvenient…
'Taking down' an enemy with a lie
is not an act of integrity; and risks providing an escape route for the
guilty. For if one aspect of a
conviction is proven to be unfounded then the whole of it becomes unsafe. And
the fact that Green did indulge in this palpable lie destroys any notion of him
being a man of integrity. – If it's the
truth of the Hollie Greig case he sought then he should have stuck to just
that, and not indulged in making up stories to sate his own sectarian-politico
aims and agenda.
Whilst I am on the subject of
lies and liars it is also palpably untrue – as recently inferred by Malcolm
Konrad Ogilvy - that I never communicated with Robert Green. For I was at one point in quite regular email
contact with him in an effort to encourage him to 'reign back' the embroidered
idiocy of the Hollie Greig case and focus on the prosaic truth. For sure, I wouldn't waste the
time and petrol going down to see him. But I gave Robert Green sound advice –
which would have kept him out of jail and recovered that part of the story that
holds water; allowing the real can of worms at the heart of the case to have
been opened.
But
Robert Green – as is now
clear – only had his own place on the conspiritainment gravy-train in
mind, and
zero interest in the truth.Robert Green is not and never was interested
in getting to the truth of the Hollie Greig case - for it is rather
dull.
As a determined martyr, spurred
on by McKenzie he continued in his quest for limelight and eschewed the truth. The man is a damned bloody liar! Habitually so
it seems! A liar who has been central to
(paraphrasing Mark Daly) ensuring that the one grain of truth in the Hollie
Greig case being washed away in a tidal wave of nonsense… And in that respect he stands today just as
suspect as the disgraceful Greg Lance-Watkins. Two sides of a single coin.
- As for Icke himself, and his forum and his fans and their like?
As you might gather I'm really not
a 'fan' of 'conspiritainers' generally and especially David Icke. It's true he does speak the truth much of the
time and a lot of it is deeply disturbing and something we ought to know about.
But then he goes and spoils it all by saying something stupid, often really very
stupid indeed. - Quite deliberately in my view. By
this means Icke - and his kind - cause the baby of truth to be thrown
outr with the bathwater of nonsense. - This is how they work to provide a
smokescreen for the very system they shill for.
And for me Icke is foremost among those hiding the truth in plain sight – Clown Prince of the British disinformation industry. – And, making as he does a very good living out of it, he is very much part of the problem, not the solution.
And for me Icke is foremost among those hiding the truth in plain sight – Clown Prince of the British disinformation industry. – And, making as he does a very good living out of it, he is very much part of the problem, not the solution.
However, some relevant points
have been made by those of his readership who wrote to me and it is reasonable
to address them…
********
The Hampstead 'Papa Eats Babies' hoax - and it is a cruel and evil hoax - is to the fore just now. And yes! - I do remain troubled as to why the British authorities have (apparently)
not acted – and it seems foreign hosting companies are complicit in this
inaction – to 'stamp out' the repeated identification of the children involved
in the Hampstead abuse case. Even if
they were to wave a magic wand and elimintate all such material today it would
be too little too late. The damage is done.
I am also – for those who aren't
in the business of building straw-men – quite vociferous in criticising the
authorities in their actions to gag – rather
than debunk critics such as (for instance) Robert Green.
And I do agree; such cases do
smack of a culture of institutional cover-up.
There is a problem here. Our overlords are corrupt to the marrow. Something
simply has to be very wrong with a system which refuses to use existing laws
but instead reaches for a clumsy bludgeon to silence its critics.
I work on the near sure assumption that the
authorities are not as stupid as they make themselves seem. They must
understand that they generate questions in their wake – questions that could
otherwise be easily dispelled. Therefore
there is purpose in such duplicity – and that purpose is not to serve justice
or meet society's needs; but to exploit its weaknesses and set smoke-screens…
Cherry-picking elements of such
cover-ups and twisting them to fit some 'pet' theory is quite simply dishonest
– but for the sake of entertainment (and profit) it's what Conspiretards do,
and the authorities and con-artists (like Icke) regularly exploit this. Therefore my position is that those who admix the truth with outrageous
lunacy are working to hide that truth – to ensure that any rational person WILL
surely dismiss it as the ranting of idiots.
For instance when the much-criticised
BBC, in a recent radio programme, recounted the Hampstead children's testimony
they did so using actors. This wasn't done for any dramatic effect or to draw
attention from anything. And I can be fairly-sure that 'dramatically speaking'
the producers might well have preferred to use the original recordings. - It's
simply what the law demands and, as previously explained elsewhere in my
writing, the law makes such demands to protect the victims of sex crimes and
give them opportunity to rebuild their lives.
Legally and morally no
responsible reporter would risk exposing a sex-abuse victim to pillory by
identifying them…
But this was quickly picked-up by
the Conspiretards and twisted to try and link the Hampstead Hoax to Savile, and
from there promote the notion that the BBC is riddled with institutional
paedophilia.
Meanwhile Conspiretards continued
to blatantly exploit footage of the Hampstead children, placing their wellbeing
in further danger, something that continues to this very day. And for clarity, it is not legally sufficient
of the various amateur 'Lego journalists' for them to have partially (i.e.
inadequately) blurred out the kids' faces in certain posted versions of
recordings. And it is particularly unsatisfactory that some have merely
'inverted' (i.e. turned negative) the picture… An easily reversible step… Which one could argue is deliberately contrived to make the kids' faces available to sexual
deviants whilst trying to circumvent various bans on posting the material.
Any genuine seeker of truth would take the time to educate themselves
in the laws of the land and understand their purpose. Any genuine
seeker of truth would immediately recognise the need and the value of these
laws. Any genuine seeker of truth
would understand that victims need to come first; and make no move that might
cause further harm. But for conspiretards the BBCs compliance with the law, and
their seeking not to further endanger children or expose them to further abuse
is a game-spoiler. And how long and how hard they bleat, exposing the kids to
yet more abuse as they do so…
Partially of course this is due
to stupidity and ignorance – such as that displayed by the parade of clearly
mentally-ill people such as the unfortunate Neelu Berry. But, sickeningly there are the more culpable
seeking celebrity, such as the sickeningly ill-educated self-proclaimed 'journalist'
Angela Power Disney. - Or self-styled legal advisors such as Robert Green or
Sabine McNeill.
The latter two are particularly
pertinent examples – neither was ignorant of the law and I can tell you
first-hand that Robert Green was provided with the material to educate
himself. Neither was incapable of
assimilating the information or guidance which is readily available… They simply chose to ignore the law, instead
promoting what they knew to be nonsense – in a
quest for potentially lucrative martyrdom…
********
Great harm has been done to
various children through the Hampstead Hoax.
Primarily of course I am referring
to 'P & Q' as the limit of reporting restrictions allow me to refer to
them. Their faces, voices and names are strewn all over the internet and not
just in 'historically posted' materials but in current, freshly updated material.
But it must be remembered that these
two unfortunate innocents are not alone! For in the course of uttering baseless
and defamatory statements about various adults in relation to the Hampstead
case, other children fall foul to what journalists and other professionals
refer to as 'jigsaw identification'. And
the law is – on several levels – very clear as to the illegality of this.
Without a shred of care for the
psychological wellbeing of children who are complete strangers and innocents –
abuse and insane allegations have been thrown at parents as they go about their
daily business, maniacs – themselves child
abusers to the marrow – have show blatant disregard for their victims as they
have unloaded the putrid filth from their own imaginations onto innocent
families. – In their attempts to
mind-fuck complete strangers the children have been transparent to these lunatics, for all their
vulnerability.And therefore it is the children who have been made to suffer most.
As surely as anyone who
physically indulges in the sexual abuse of children, those who have promoted
and gloated and made-merry around the Hampstead Hoax have damaged the minds and
blighted the minds of innocents; and are themselves just nonces of a different
shade…
Primum non nocere, non-malfeasance
– the primary guiding principal of anyone working on the side of right. And
that which sits at the heart of our laws and conventions on child
protection. - Meaningless to the
dishevelled madmen and women who in their efforts to vilify the parents painted
vile and twisted pictures on the blank canvas of children's minds.
Hundreds of people have now had their
lives damaged by the 'Papa eats babies ' scam. …And for what really? Not the sake of any
truth or reality – but to sate the perverse appetite for conspiritainment, in
order to make cold hard cash and promote the interests of certain Grifters and
con-merchants.
The 'puzzle' (as if it really
were that) is that both hosting companies and 'law enforcement agencies' – to
use a wide-ranging term – are it seems 'tolerating' and tacitly-allowing this…
********
Before going further with this I
am fully aware that certain postings have been taken down either by court
order, the intervention of the police, or the simple involvement of
lawyers. But in the great scheme of
things is has been – as is so often the case – far too little far too late…
Google and YouTube – among the
main offenders in terms of giving platform to these maniacs - are infamous for
their insultingly-inadequate sham 'protection policies' will answer to nothing
short of state intervention in the shape of law-enforcement agencies. In recent weeks it has taken determined
lobbying from victims, their solicitors and a diverse range of media
professionals to cause law enforcement agencies to become involved and force
these hosting companies to act in respect of the Hampstead case. – And even at that, images and video of the
children are still easily found today…
Whilst I would not discourage
readers from 'reporting' incidences of these and other victims being
identified, to hosting companies directly, you are in my opinion farting
against thunder! - They just don't
care! But then what else might you
expect from the savage predators of a new frontier? Non-malfeasance comes way down the line from
profit where these companies are concerned.
Should you ever find yourself the
victim of the online defamation game – even where (as is the case with
Hampstead) there is a criminal (malicious communication) element to that
defamation, you will for instance probably find your local police force to be
'not fit for purpose' in terms of their interest in action. Modern policing
seemingly-has more to do with keeping the crime stats down than actually
tackling crime. And if you're persistent in trying to assert your rights or
take a stand against crime, there is every chance the Police will turn on you –
by some means – to try and shut you
up… And stop you from despoiling their nice, neat, tidy, crime figures…
But in itself this is no great
global conspiracy per se. The mega-corporations of the internet do not have the
slightest interest in your personal safety or the safety of your children. – Conspiritainment drives traffic, and
traffic means profit. And though they
may feign 'responsibility' and concern, the plain truth is that their systems
are designed to deflect complaints long before they will deal with them. – They are quite happy to make money from
other people's suffering.
- As for the Police and their
inaction? It's simply that Politicos – the Robber-Barons of Westminster - have
over the past quarter-century or so de-resourced and dumbed-down the police
service. Officers are no longer selected
or progressed on their integrity and skill but on their compliance in terms of
being happy to trot out party-lines and meet vacuous 'targets' without
question.
And this pattern is by no means
limited to the Police Force but cuts right across public service… Your local police simply lack the time, knowledge,
resources and have had the will knocked-out of them to deal with what they will
view as 'trivial' matters of 'online squabbling'…
Local police apathy is perhaps
explainable – if not justifiable or acceptable. But there are those 'out there'
whose actual job it is to act on such things. And the question is why are they
not doing it? Consider for instance those
who should be policing the scam artists milking this type of case… It is not news that Belinda
McKenzie's latest scam – The Knight Foundation – is now under investigation by
The Charity Commission. Calls for it to be investigated have been made by a
number of different people almost since its inception.
And it's not as if McKenzie
doesn't have 'form'…
Aside of course from the infamous
Iran Aid scandal, McKenzie was also linked to a scam 'charity' calling itself
"Against Child Abuse" and latterly "Truth and Hope" – The
latter was particularly deceptive as there is in existence a genuine, properly
registered and fully legitimate Christian charity called "Faith, Truth and Hope"…
"Against Child Abuse"
was most notable for utilising the 'charity number' XT26748. – Charity numbers simply
do not take this form. And let's not
forget the 'Starchild' project or the fact that McKenzie was rattling the
'charity' tin supposedly for Hollie Greig.
In keeping with this pattern… Named
with confusing similarity to The (American) "John S. and James L. Knight
Foundation" – and the now-defunct English charity the "Thomas Knight Foundation" – Belinda
McKenzie's latest scam has, without any
form of charity registration, been soliciting donations which it was passing
on to Sabine McNeill – a woman who until a few days ago was living as a
fugitive from the law due to her criminally-incompetent actions whilst
masquerading as a lay-legal advisor in relation to the 'Papa eats babies'
Hampstead SRA hoax…
But it has taken a degree of
'heaven and earth' movement from a number of credibly-interested people to get
the Charity Commission 'interested' in reviewing the latest shenanigans of this
serial-scammer…
Why is that? And how the hell was she ever allowed near
any kind of charity activity after Iran Aid?
Again; given that the authorities are not stupid it can only have been
by tacit consent that McKenzie has for these many years been able to get away
with her scamming, grifting ways…
Like Greg-Lance Watkins she is
now becoming more 'idiot' than useful. And
it would appear that she has now exhausted the limits of her apparent
state-sponsored immunity. The
spectacularly incompetent illegality of what her Association of McKenzie
Friends scam was doing has been the unravelling of her – in the eyes of all but
the most unhinged and/or dishonest of conspiretards and con-artists at least.
We see the arrest in recent days
of Sprechstallmeister McKenzie's most recent 'buffer' - Sabine MacNeill . And her latest hokkani boro? Very possibly nipped in
the bud! We hope!
And many do sincerely hope it is
not long before this evil old grifter herself is prosecuted and hopefully
jailed… Whilst there is no mitigation
for them – they are after all grown adults who should know better – Belinda
McKenzie has – quite clearly – set up both Robert Green and Sabine McNeill to
'take the drop' for her scams.
Time the old witch had a taste of
her own porridge? Possibly not as she
quite calmly announces she's quitting the country… And, it seems the authorities are quite
content to allow her to do so. Perhaps she's simply playing the last of her
'get out of jail free' cards?
And what is the net outcome of
her and the likes of Icke's actions?
Lying con-men such as the
transparently-dishonest Ben Fellowes/Lee Hazeldean/Jonathan Pitt (three of his
aliases) and well-known crooks like Andrea 'Tara' Davidson are closely
associated with the conspiritainment circuit.
The latter I know was, thirty-odd or so years ago running various low-level
scams in and around the London area. I
know this for at the time I was a local-news cameraman. She had a scam running
whereby she would claim (for a not inconsiderable fee) to be able to get her
victim a council house. – A fake official, complete with forged credentials and
documents completed the illusion… Arrangements made and bribe (circa £1K –
quite a bit of cash in 1982) handed over, Davidson and her accomplice would
move on to another district and another victim.
By 2012 she had progressed to
being convicted by a jury – in her absence of fraud, theft, falsification of
census records, operating a fake document factory and operating multiple bank
accounts in the UK and various off shore locations under multiple false names.
…Some 26 charges in all. She is also linked to the infamous George Abru Gang
and, it's thought, various high-level politicos.
Davidson has also tried to
cash-in on the Jimmy Savile scandal by claiming to have been at Duncroft
Approved School for Girls in Staines… On 'the list' of Savile's alleged haunts.
Naturally, she claims to have been abused. In reality it seems she was
somewhere very different.
The conspiritainment industry
seems infested by known crooks like this – it is literally the modern day
wild-west sideshow… How DO they get away with it?
********
It would be inappropriate to
close this piece without drawing attention to the fact that Conspiretard Street is not a one-way
avenue. The conspiracy circuit thrives on staged-battles. And staged-battles of
course require carefully selected warring factions whose job it is to keep the
audiences eyes off the scenery-shifter working away at the back.
It was so in the Hollie Grieg
case where the polar-opposites of Robert Green were no more interested in the
truth of the matter than those making merry over it. Notably, whilst the extended
allegations surrounding the Hollie case are palpable nonsense there has
actually been no action or hearing which exonerates anyone of involvement in
Hollie's abuse…
Ironic because the inquiry Green called for would have achieved just exactly that!
As Mark Daly noted, the one part of the Hollie Grieg story that does stand up to scrutiny has been washed away in a tide of nonsense; with both sides contributing to that tide… What was it in that sickeningly-routine grain of truth that caused all hands to go to the pumps in order to try and stop the can of worms from being opened?
Ironic because the inquiry Green called for would have achieved just exactly that!
As Mark Daly noted, the one part of the Hollie Grieg story that does stand up to scrutiny has been washed away in a tide of nonsense; with both sides contributing to that tide… What was it in that sickeningly-routine grain of truth that caused all hands to go to the pumps in order to try and stop the can of worms from being opened?
We see something similar in the
childishly abusive Scarlet Scoop and 'her' Hoaxtead Research site. – A site that seems closely-aligned with the
'Holly Hoax' brigade and equally frightened of the truth… It is, quite frankly
equally-and-oppositely as unhinged as the mentally ill 'Jacqui Farmer'
Hampstead Research site… With 'Scarlet
Scoop' in particular having proven 'herself' every bit as dishonest – and
perverted – as her opposite number...
For instance, on the 9th
of June 2015 we passed the following comment, obtained via Google+ and
apparently authored by one of the Hoaxtead team, to the Police…
"Who the fuck's XXXX? As for your pathetic death threat, that's
even more laughable than your jealousy over a blog that shits all over
yours, is better spelt and more professionally written and has a much
higher view count. Oh and you loved it until I banned you, haha. Want
me to screenshot some of your fawning sycophantic comments and display
them to embarrass you? Or maybe I'll just edit them to make it look like you
threatened to rape me then pass them on to the Police. Either way..."
"Pathetic death threat"? - Let me reproduce the tail end of what 'she'
was responding to…
"As was - and remains true of the Hollie Greig case,
the professionals don't stop investigating nor do they buy into one party line
or another. - But fret not XXXX... I won't be exposing any 'innocent' swingers
or 'amateur porn stars from the 1980s unless I discover them to be on the
'extreme' edges of the greyscale - and even then my first port of call will be
the police... Now - Go away XXXX and wait for the knock…"
"The Knock" of course being common parlance for a
visit from the Police…
And yet here, this clearly twisted and dishonest individual
is quite prepared to cry 'death threat' and offers to fabricate a very serious
false accusation which 'she' is fully prepared to take to the Police...
How is this any different in principle to Ella Draper
fabricating a wild story in order to damage her ex-husband? Or Anne Greig's 'imagineering' a wild tale of
high-level paedophiles, murder and cover-up at the highest levels?
- Whilst such threats are water off the proverbial 'duck's back' they are telling of a mentality which is warped and a moral compass that is long-since degaussed!
- Whilst such threats are water off the proverbial 'duck's back' they are telling of a mentality which is warped and a moral compass that is long-since degaussed!
There is no basic difference between 'Scarlet Scoop'
publishing (or even just republishing) restricted documents on her website and Sabine McNeill or Belinda
McKenzie or Robert Green doing likewise… The hypocrisy is astonishing!
And no; reporting restrictions on the arrest of Sabine McNeill have not been "lifted" to any extent. The case remains legally 'active' and consequently the professional press have adhered to the restraint put upon them by law. - On the other hand, "Scarlet Scoop's" claims that there is 'nothing illegal' about what she has done - and that 'she' 'regularly checks this' - are childish, uneducated tripe...
And no; reporting restrictions on the arrest of Sabine McNeill have not been "lifted" to any extent. The case remains legally 'active' and consequently the professional press have adhered to the restraint put upon them by law. - On the other hand, "Scarlet Scoop's" claims that there is 'nothing illegal' about what she has done - and that 'she' 'regularly checks this' - are childish, uneducated tripe...
It is true that the Police and other authorities have
'played' Scarlet Scoop and carefully monitored 'her' blog; but as much for
information regarding any offences she might be committing as gleaning
information as anything else… The
Police, quite clearly do not endorse those who are themselves breaking the law;
and I fully expect (it's rather obvious from what they have written actually)
that those behind the 'Hoaxtead' blog actually don't understand how 'far out on
a limb' they have placed themselves… Morally and legally.
For instance… Despite her obvious culpability, making merry
at the plight of the obviously-seriously-mentally-ill Neelu Berry is hardly the
action of someone with right in mind or on their side. Neelu
is quite clearly a very sick woman, and who knows what she may be
capable of? "Scarlet Scoop's" pilory of her could very easily be the
catalyst that worsens her condition, causes her to become suicidal,
self-harming or even to 'go postal'. - If Neelu 'cracks' and goes on to hurt some innocent person - that will be in part due to the actions of 'Scarlet Scoop' and her band of merry-makers.
The Police - were she really interacting with them - would readily point this out and warn her against behaviour that is likely to precipitate a Breach of The Peace!
Similarly; publishing (or, I stress, even simply re-publishing) parts of Sabine McNeill's private medical record or for that matter her restricted legal documents, is none of legal or moral. – Sinking to the same depths as those who indulge in witch-hunting is simply in itself witch-hunting. And just because something has been placed (illegally) in the public arena does not place it in the public domain.
'Scarlet Scoop' is clearly cast from the same die as those in her sights... These are not the actions of a morally sound or justified person. Rather, Scarlet Scoop seeks celebrity and self gratification within a small pond of prize idiots who wallow in the traffic stats from their tawdry activities and imagine their small world is the world...
But such is the nature of the cheap, tawdry conspiritainment industry and those who treat its boards. – Blowing smoke to keep your attention away from the truth. MI5 you say? Nothing so glamorous I'm afraid. – More like something from MFI… One leg shorter than the other so as it doesn't stand up and full of carefully drilled holes; all in the wrong places!
The Police - were she really interacting with them - would readily point this out and warn her against behaviour that is likely to precipitate a Breach of The Peace!
Similarly; publishing (or, I stress, even simply re-publishing) parts of Sabine McNeill's private medical record or for that matter her restricted legal documents, is none of legal or moral. – Sinking to the same depths as those who indulge in witch-hunting is simply in itself witch-hunting. And just because something has been placed (illegally) in the public arena does not place it in the public domain.
'Scarlet Scoop' is clearly cast from the same die as those in her sights... These are not the actions of a morally sound or justified person. Rather, Scarlet Scoop seeks celebrity and self gratification within a small pond of prize idiots who wallow in the traffic stats from their tawdry activities and imagine their small world is the world...
But such is the nature of the cheap, tawdry conspiritainment industry and those who treat its boards. – Blowing smoke to keep your attention away from the truth. MI5 you say? Nothing so glamorous I'm afraid. – More like something from MFI… One leg shorter than the other so as it doesn't stand up and full of carefully drilled holes; all in the wrong places!
