I spent an hour or so yesterday, reading Thursday’s judgment in the High Court hearing that is most aptly described as the Hampstead Witch Hunt. I had decided to blog about the case myself, when Karen Woodall beat me to it, clicking on “publish” during the past hour or so. So I’m reblogging Karen’s excellent post, after this short introduction.
The child abuser in this case (the alienating mother, helped by her newest boyfriend) was extremely imaginative, in her crafting of the false accusations against dad, which she “tortured” her eight and nine year-old son and daughter children into making (as Mrs Justice Pauffley put it.) The abusers immediate motive would have been the same as every other alienator: manufacturing an excuse for disrupting the children’s relationship with the other parent, so that the alienator could have the children all to himself or herself. But, oh boy, this alienator really went to town on the task! And the false accusations have gone absolutely viral.
It is quite fascinating to observe how supportive of the perpetrator, Ella Draper, was Dr Hodes, the first of the expert witnesses to see the child victims. She could have been Marietta Higgs using a new name to escape her past, judging by the bespoke medical evidence she prepared, which could hardly have been better tailored to lend a temporary credibility to the false accusations the children were tortured into making.
It is sobering to realise that these children were at risk of never being allowed to see their innocent father again, even though they quickly admitted that their accusations had been lies, once they had been reassured that they weren’t going to be sent home to mum in the immediate future. The only thing that saved them from this fate, unlike a million and more other children who do not have such lucky escapes, was the sheer incredibility of the simply massive criminal witchcraft industry that that the children were tortured into alleging that their father led, in Hampstead.
Even after this judgment of Mrs Justice Pauffley, there is still a sizeable community on the internet who are dissatisfied with the findings of the official witch hunt (that there had been neither witches nor witchcraft, in the children’s lives). They are continuing to conduct their own unofficial witch hunt, whilst demanding a reconvening of the official witch hunt over which judge Pauffley had presided, this time minded to try harder to catch the witches.
Not only are P and Q now seeing their father again, twice a week I last heard, and Skyping him daily from temporary foster care, they will be seeing rather less of their mother, for a while. Until the Interpol arrest warrant out on Ms Ella Draper, alienatrice extraordinaire, is executed, and she is extradited from wherever she is hiding back to the UK, they won’t be seeing mum at all. I hope they do eventually get to see her again, though. Let every child have both parents, wherever possible, even when their parents are rascals like this.
If the coached false accusations against dad had been less far-fetched, the children would have lost their dad, like Gagged Dad‘s son has lost his, to all practical intents and purposes. Just like almost every child with an alienating dad loses his mum, or vice versa.
I have decided to stand for Parliament in May, over this one issue – the right of every child, where possible, to both parents. The professionals backed Ella, at first. Professionals alas often back the alienating parent, when there is parental alienation afoot. If Ella had not over-egged the pudding, and thus sabotaged her own plot, the professionals would likely have ousted dad Ricky from his children’s lives completely and permanently, without a second thought.
I cannot be the only one to feel immense relief on watching the news of Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement in the High Court this week, on the father who was supposedly a cult leader involved in importing babies to the UK in order to kill and eat them and dance around their skulls. At least someone in the legal system is able to give a clear and unequivocal message, not only about the existence of satanic cults in Hampstead but on the way in which coaching a child to make false allegations of this nature is ‘torturing them.’ These children are now safe from the abuse that their mother and step father inflicted upon them, I cannot help but wonder about the mental and emotional health of their father who was at the centre of these allegations.
False allegations are a feature of family separation, especially when that separation is…
View original post 1,801 more words
I have reinstated this post, which I had removed for the duration of the election period so as not to dilute the core message of my campaign, because a question about this topic arose at the Stoke Climsland hustings last night.
Questions to ask (of both Belgium and the UK), are:
1. How many refuge places are there that are allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, or a priority-of-need basis, without discrimination against either sex? If we can have unisex toilets in this day and age, why on earth do we need ladies and gents shelters for refugees from domestic violence?
2. In the light of the Public Sector Equality Duty, how can it possibly be lawful (in the UK, or Belgium), for a public authority to direct public funding towards organisations that openly practise sex discrimination (by earmarking refuge places as being for one sex only)?
Women’s refuges, as a matter of policy, foster poor relations between men and women. This is an inevitable affect of isolating victims of domestic violence from the opposite sex. It is the deliberate segregation of the sexes at a time of crisis for each refugee, when he or she is in greatest danger of extrapolating his or her personal disappointment with the particular member of the opposite sex who used to batter him or her, into a general misogyny or misandry, as the case may be.
Trigger warning: This post is of a technical nature, albeit about an emotive subject. The post is about particular British legislation. It links to the sections of the relevant statute law that the article is about. It is not the rant of a “rape apologist”. Some have obviously completely misunderstood the argument that is carefully developed in this piece. They have reacted emotionally at an early stage of reading, to the naturally distressing subject matter, instead of taking the trouble to read and to understand the entire article, before expressing anger at what they mistakenly think that the article is saying, without having read it and understood it. Please read no further, if you cannot think about rape without becoming so angry that you lose your ability to reason, or to understand a quite subtle argument, of the sort that might be raised at the Committee Stage of the passage of a Bill through Parliament. If that is you, then this article is not for you.
It might seem strange that I am publishing, over the Christmas period, video footage of the abuse of family rights. It is my hope that this video, though some might find it distressing to watch, might bring fresh hope to alienated parents the world over. The video might persuade some other parent stripped of his or her family by public sector officials who consider themselves answerable to nobody, not to commit suicide during this lonely Christmas period.