The particular post was in response to 33 points that the BBC [Producer of Victoria Derbyshire program Eleanor Plowden] wanted to address – starting from a completely biased viewpoint – the High Court judgement that dismissed satanic cult allegations made by two children against their father and his 70 odd associates.
The children detail the satanic abuse of 20 children by some 70 adults in 8 schools and a church in the Hampstead and Highgate area in London:
- two children in ‘care’ of Barnet Council since 11 September 2014, separated from their Russian mother with whom they lived all their lives
- mother, her partner and myself in exile since 11 February – for threat of imprisonment by Barnet Police
- a judgement dismissing claims of satanic cult
- a US and a UK campaigner arrested on 04.04.15 and kept in Police cell over a weekend
- the cover-up of cover-ups by mainstream media now includes the BBC – with the Victoria Derbyshire program and tomorrow April 23, Radio 4, at 8pm with The Report
- 18 children at risk of abuse and an unknown number of babies at risk of being killed
- all alleged abusers with detailed distinguishing marks never investigated.
Here’s Tim Veater’s comment: “It is prudent to remain sceptical about any claim by a child, particularly if it borders on the unbelievable or extreme. By the same token, it should never be dismissed out of hand. Indeed the rule is to believe unless or until it is proved otherwise. Almost as extraordinary as the children’s reports is the claim by Pauffrey that it all resulted from coaching by two ‘evil’ individuals (mother and step-father) in a period of about three months, yet she asks us to believe her, presumably as being more credible! The assertion this was achieved by ‘torture’ without evidence is not only flawed jurisprudence it is ‘over egging the mix’.
The absence of any firm evidence for the theory of ‘coaching through torture’, the judge has failed to provide an alternative remotely plausible explanation of the children’s accounts. The step father’s admitted and deplorable actions, we may regard as excessive and inappropriate physical parenting, but by any definition falls far short of ‘torture’ nor is it related to imparting a particular story. There is no evidence from either of the adults, the children or third parties that this was happening. Perhaps most tellingly, neither did the natural father ever make such a claim, perhaps the first who would have been motivated to do so, if there had been any trace of it in his presence. Were they being ‘brain washed’, and were the natural father the loving, caring person the judge wants us to believe, might not it been expected they would have intimated to him what was going on?
Pauffley’s conclusion holds no credibility simply because the children’s testimony is cogent and patently honest. For her to have seized on two ambivalent, hardly convincing ‘retraction’ conversations, after six days enforced separation from parents (and each other?) as reliable, whilst apparently not even considering the earlier allegations, repeated in police interview, as worthy of consideration, and then basing her whole judgement on this fundamental error, can only be regarded as an intentional error that must constitute a misfeasance in public office at the very least.
She appears to reject the children’s clearly stated claims on the basis that they are too preposterous to be believed. This may have been understandable in the 70’s and 80’s when the public was far more naive but it surely cannot be acceptable for a judge to adopt that position now. After all that has been revealed and all that is known about internet child abuse, up to and including murder, and of all the high-level child abuse emerging from previous decades, most recently by (allegedly) a past Home Secretary and one of the most prominent Jewish leaders in the House of Lords, surely rules out ‘unlikelihood’ as a justification for dismissing the children’s accounts. Perhaps Judge Pauffley is unaware of what has and does happen in the world of porn and sexual exploitation, which even the British government now admits operates on a multi-billion pound level. Only a Carmelite nun could claim the accounts were too outrageous to be taken seriously.
No reasonable person could come to any conclusion, other than that the children’s accounts are believable. Yet a trained and experienced High Court judge takes the opposite view, based on an illogical and unsupported belief that the children were tortured into learning and regurgitating a bizarre script. This simply defies logic and common sense. To have any chance of viability two children apart from one another would have to have been word perfect to corroborate one another, yet from independent positions and remain consistent throughout on different days, with different interviewers. Even when being interviewed by police this was maintained and significantly without any indication of nervousness or shame. This was an exercise in honesty and relief, in the belief that if they at last told the truth as far as they were able – to “face their fear” as they bravely put it – they would be protected from those they feared. Sadly they were let down, indeed betrayed by the very people charged with the duty to do otherwise.
Finally, no reasonable person could dismiss the multiplicity of sexual and other detailed informations, far beyond the possible knowledge of the average eight and nine year old; nor the medical evidence that the judge unconscionably attempted to discredit; or the specific references to buildings, places and people; nor the anatomical distinguishing features that could only have been obtained by intimate interaction. Where is the evidence that each and every claim was meticulously checked out and disproved? Nowhere because as a police detective of many years standing was prepared to state, there was no thorough investigation carried out. An experienced High Court judge apparently found this acceptable!
There were of course many more indicators the children were telling the truth as far as they were able. How else to explain the descriptions of “sticky skin”, of blood tasting of “metal”, of adult anatomy of specified persons, the subjective experience of being anally abused, information on dildos and their manufacture, accurate representation of the act of severing heads, so on and so, all pointing to the fact this was NOT inculcated by torture or anything else but real time experience. The suggestion that it all resulted from watching the “Mask of Zorro”, apparently accepted by the judge, deserves only utter astonishment and contempt.
We now have been subjected to a media exercise that can only be described as propaganda, just replicating the judges deplorable reasoning, culminating in a nauseous BBC interview of the natural father, against whom the principle allegations were laid. If anything it underscores the children’s and mother’s worst fears. If somebody in government doesn’t quickly get a handle on this lamentable situation, the reputation of Britain in the eyes of the world, will plummet even further, to the disgrace of us all.”