"We dance with the skulls in the church" MODERATED. UPDATED WITH CURRENT PAEDOPHILE ISSUES//LINKS P268.

OK AC ending 122 ... pls don't be offended I deleted our conversation only as some other forums are named and that aren't allowed here ....by all means bring info but all you need say is you found it on "another" forum and we can leave it undeleted Xx

Yes. Uncanny...

In regards to the goddess with skulls image, are you referencing the baby skulls or what am I missing? Thank you

What is the meaning of Xx? Just curious.

Wow! You are so right on that bit I put on bold. Thanks so much for that statement, as it had not occurred to me and it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Yes just struck me that the "Gods" were fond of wearing skulls in some cases ... I have seen it depicted before elsewhere, it just seemed synchronistic to our thread atm. Xx

:D I end most of my posts with Xx (as in a kiss when signing off) I try to be pleasant to all :)

Xx

Thread: 16year old boy in UK Satanic cult was forced to murder his own baby - video

The destroyer

Another guise of satan in one the false religions
India khlai i think

Jesus saves
Be free from satan

probably because they control the media, and thats why they get away with it IMO

they all go back to Satanisim from the time of the Babylonian Brotherhood of the snake IMO

Judging from the size of the skulls on that depiction ....they were babies skulls in the necklace. Xx

Thread: UK Father backs up Hampstead kids claims of cafcas and social workers sexually abuse cover up

You sure about that? The police force, the lawyers, the McDonald's manager, etc... They don't sound like too much of a minority to me.

Even if they are a minority, they are protected by a vast majority. Your next-door neighbor would probably rather have it kept under wraps then revealed because he has a good life and doesn't want to deal with it. Everyone working for the government or contracting with the government wants it under wraps so it doesn't threaten their careers.

It is in all worldly people's interests to let the Satanists play. Sad truth.

But some of us are no longer of this world, we are crucified and dead in Christ.

Who leases the sky and the hours of its light?

Who reverses the earth from its motion in time?

Yes, THEY are in a minority.
The rest, the unwitting protectors, are waking up though!

We've got wolves, sheep, and guard-dogs here.
What are you?

I must be tired MsMc

I just saw the baby skulls
and she is dancing.

Aww man.

great find, hopefully someone will come forward and expose this whole mess wide open.

shows us he was carered to and protected by people in power IMO

Hampstead Retraction Interview Analysis

This work will claim that a Police cover up is completely exposed by examination of the way the interviewing officer repeatedly intimidated the witness during the September 17th “retraction” interview and that the conduct of the interview indicates that the police investigative goal was to protect the abusers from criminal prosecution and destroy the future credibility of the witness/victim G rather than to discover the truth.

Context.
The interview of September the 17th was the third interview of witness G. Witness G and his sister A had been taken into the care of the state following the previous interview of September 11th, 2014. The children are in the care of the state and the child is unaccompanied in the interview, a fact that seems extraordinary given the adversarial nature of the interview.
The taped portion of the September 17th interview lasts for 24 minutes. The first five minutes do not involve any actual questioning as the police officer seeks to explain the “ground rules” of the interview to the witness. It is absolutely clear throughout that the interviewing officer is working his way through a checklist and his sole intent is to achieve retractions from the witness with absolutely no intent to discern the truth. Zero.

The Retractions and How They Were Produced.

Right at the start of the questioning, the interviewing officer makes it completely clear, albeit in a dishonest and disingenuous fashion, that he has been discussing witness G’s statement with witness G in the car on the way to the interview.
This is couched by the interviewing officer in a transparent manner that is typical of the entire interview as “There was something you desperately wanted to tell me on the car on the way over, do you remember?”
This is after wasting five minutes on waffle apparently to ensure that witness G is bored and impatient by the time the actual interview begins and will be more pliant, that he will be easier to “direct” as he will just say whatever is required in order to end the ordeal and be able to leave.
The counter-story is actually two mutually exclusive and incoherent sub-stories, they try to claim that the original claims were fictions coaxed by the mother’s partner whilst also claiming that the children’s claims were fantasies based on their having viewed the movie Zorro.itself a completely ludicrous claim that does not explain the claims the children made nor their physical injuries.

If we entertain the police counter-story regarding the mother’s partner coaching the children, the only plausible counter-story given that the whole Zorro thread is pure nonsense not even worthy of consideration. Why on earth would the mother’s partner coach them to say so many detailed things that go so far beyond the father? The school, the intimate details of the head-teacher’s anatomy. Ponder that, we are actually supposed to believe that someone got these children to concoct a story so detailed and at the same time irrelevant to a custody battle that it includes details of the birthmarks on the head teacher? That is pure madness. It is absolutely obvious which version of events is correct.

The Retractions.
1.Dead babies.
Interview transcript.
Interviewing Officer: (topics and content of conversation clearly predetermined prior to interview)
“So when we was (sic) in the car there was something you desperately wanted to tell me but I asked you to wait until the interview, what is it you really wanted to tell me?”
Initially witness G is on message and states that the mother’s partner told him to say that Dad hurt him really bad but he didn’t.
IO “We talked in two other interviews didn’t we?”
Witness G “Yeah”
IO “Was what you told me the truth?”
Witness G “Yeah” Affirmation 1.
IO “So all that stuff about the babies….”
Witness G “Yeah.” Affirmation 2.
IO “and the Church and all that?”
Witness G “No the babies, well the babies, there is some of the babies killed yeah.” Affirmation 3.
He is looking the interviewer directly in the eye as he states that “Yes” I was telling the truth. Witness G has affirmed it is true three times now, but the Interviewing officer is undeterred.
IO “OK, are you sure?”
Witness G Starts to bend. “Yes, but not much, not every single day, not every single day killed no. Not like that.” Affirmation 4.

What is happening at this point is very easy to read and very telling. The child is trying to tell the truth and please the adult, he can tell that the Interviewing Officer is not happy at what he is hearing, so he tries to do both. He sticks to his honest story but he tries to minimise it over and over stating things such as, “not every day” and “not all the time” and” not that much.” before the penny drops and he realises that a retraction is required, truth be damned.

Witness G has repeated his earlier allegations of murder from the previous interviews and affirmed them now four times in this interview, Anyone who truly believed the child was daydreaming would simply ask the child for the details of the story and if it came from the imagination that would be immediately clear.
The Zorro meme is nonsense, pure nonsense. Was the school head teacher appearing naked with her birth marks in the movie Zorro? Were young children raped onscreen in the movie Zorro? It is genuinely pitiful.

At this point the Interviewing officer abandons all pretense of conducting a witness interview and straight out verbals the witness with the Zorro nonsense.
IO “Cos I heard you watched a film Zorro, is that right?”
Witness G “Yeah.”
“and there was someone kill…. killed there someone was killed there.weren’t there?”
Witness G appears confused at this point and seems to react very strangely at the time the IO says “kill, killed”..
IO “Because it sounded to me like, what it sounded to me was similar to the story you told about the babies. And that’s why I was a bit (sic) wondering wondering. are babies actually killed?”
Witness G “Yeah”. Fifth affirmation. Ignored.
IO “or is that something you’ve been made to say?”
Witness G ”Yeah it is something I was made to say.” Verballed 100%.
IO “Are babies being killed?”
Witness G.”No, not much but there is yeah.” Sixth affirmation.
IO “By who?”
Witness G “By my dad. Not much” Seventh affirmation.
The interviewing officer inexplicably completely refuses to pursue the obvious line of questioning here.He has been told that the father specifically killed babies, neither pertain to the movie Zorro, so any reasonable interviewer would solicit further details, When did it happen? Where did it happen? Who else was there? What time of the day did it happen? What day of the week? How many times? etc and if the story was not true it would obviously collapse under scrutiny once all those details were provided.
IO “Are you sure? It’s ok If it hasn’t happened it’s ok as long as we talk about it now.”
This is a disgrace and should be grounds for immediate dismissal alone. Seven affirmations, details provided and he is now implicitly threatening the witness.”It will be ok as long as we talk about it now.” Clearly implies that if we don’t “talk about it now” that is if you do not retract things will not be ok, it could not be clearer.

In the face of barely veiled threats, having reaffirmed seven times even upon prolonged badgering, Witness G finally understands what he is supposed to say and now debunks the “dead babies” claim obeying the obvious instructions of the Interviewing Officer. The Retraction follows.
2.Secret rooms.
IO. “What about the secret rooms? Are there any secret rooms?”
Witness G. “Not much. Well there is but not much.” The pattern from retraction one is repeated, only this time the process begins at the stage where Witness G is minimising but affirming, it was only after four affirmations of the dead babies claim that he began to minimise.
IO “What do you mean? Have you ever been in a secret room in one of those places.?”
Witness G.”It”s not a kind of secret room.”
IO “Shall we start with the church, you told me there was sort of a secret room,”
Witness G. “Yeah there is there” at this point the child receives a non verbal signal that he is saying the wrong thing, becomes confused and starts shaking his head and immediately contradicts what he has just said. “No there isn’t there isn’t.” He was about to describe it before he realised that he was saying the wrong thing.. What follows is quite simply a bullied retraction.

3 The Abuse in the Disabled Changing Room at the Swimming Pool.
The interviewing officer asks Witness G about an allegation previously made regarding being abused in the disabled toilets of a local swimming pool.
Witness G.”That was true, that happened.”
IO. “But you were only four years old you weren’t in the school?”
Witness G. “My sister was in the school.”
When Witness G does not fold upon being challenged, the Interviewing Officer drops the entire subject and returns to safe ground asking Witness G to restate the retractions he has already made. It really sticks out that the officer does not even bother to coach a retraction of this allegation nor does the Interviewing Officer show any interest in investigating the claims. Once it becomes clear that a quick easy retraction will not be forthcoming the subject is simply dropped. It is quite simply impossible for an honest or sincere investigator to drop all interest in an allegation without reason and return to previous retractions as the Interviewing Officer does at this point.
This conversation points to the truth about this entire interview and makes the purpose of the interview crystal clear. The point of the retraction interviews was partially to achieve retractions but the core goal of the Interviewing Officer was clearly to destroy the witnesses. Once the witnesses are coerced into giving two completely varying accounts of the event all their accounts become virtually worthless legally . Even if this pathetic excuse for a police officer were to face the criminal and disciplinary charges that he deserves to face and is punished, the witnesses have been destroyed. It will be impossible to achieve a criminal conviction with the evidence of these witnesses at the core of the case.
That is why the policeman did not even bother to force a retraction on the abuse in the disabled toilet claims, it was no longer necessary, the required damage had already been done. The job of protecting the criminals against prosecution had been done. The claims about the abuse sessions in the disabled toilets were no longer in need of a retraction.
This is truly a putrid and despicable performance from the police officer involved. His faux attempts at showing empathy are one of the most nauseating things I have ever seen.

4. The Bruises

During the “retraction” section of the interview Witness G is asked about the bruises on his bottom and states he has no idea how they occurred, there is a gap in the coaching here and the child has no answer. If there were an innocent explanation for the injuries 100% the child would know, when a little child hurts themselves, they make a massive deal out of it and remember it, if he fell off a swing or off a skateboard he would 100% remember it and boast about it “I was going really fast downhill on my bike and I lost control it hurt really badly.” These type of incidents are the highlights of the young child’s life and boasting about their minor accidents and injuries is one of the favourite topics of conversation for a child, It is therefore telling that witness G cannot say how he got the bruising.

5. Plastic willies.
Interviewing Officer” How did you find out about plastic willies? Who told you bout plastic willies?
Witness G. “Nobody, that’s true.”
At which point the same routine of intimidation and retraction is repeated.
Io.”Because I’ve been told something different.”
Witness G. “By (sister)?”
IO. “Yes. Look honestly, you can just be truthful..”
It is sickening. It is obvious and it is criminal.

A Repeating Pattern

The pattern of the Police Interview is very clear, Repeatedly during the interview witness G affirms the allegations he has previously made, the interviewing officer has clearly predetermined that the allegations are to be quashed at any cost and the tool that is used is intimidation.
The interviewing officer succeeded in his goal of intimidating the witness into retracting the claims and has probably destroyed the accounts of witness G as evidence. It is very easy to intimidate a child but the officer has made it absolutely obvious his intent, and it is not directed towards the discovery of the truth in the slightest. Quite the opposite.

Scrutiny of the counter story that the interviewing officer and his comrades in the cover up conducted reveal that they have created a story that is completely ludicrous and incoherent in a blatant attempt to obfuscate the truth and protect the abusers.
It is worth remembering that if there is no crime, there is no need for a cover up, no need to badger witnesses, to concoct a story that makes absolutely no sense, no need to intimidate, no need for any of this nonsense and the conduct of the September 17th interview is in itself powerful prima facie evidence that the claims made by the children G and A are based in the truth. It is inescapable, that the police involved in this interview believed there was truth to the claims and sought to debunk them in any way possible and that all ethical considerations were entirely abandoned by the Officers involved in this case.

The Interviewing officer deserves to be professionally destroyed for his conduct of this interview .The destruction of this Officer’s career would not begin to compensate for the wanton vandalism of truth and justice this minor league factotum for organised crime has conducted. All the Police Involved in this investigation should face instant dismissal if not Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice Charges. I have no idea how they are able to live with themselves. It is very rare that we get to see “Criminal police’ in action in the present and yet here they are in the flesh. The same police force that would not prosecute Saville, Smith, Hayman and so many others are still at it aren’t they? As the Coleman Experience would put it “they are up to their neck in filth” there is no other possible explanation.

”Return #WhistleblowerKids and #AbuseSurvivors to their Russian Family!

[link to www.change.org (secure)]

Sabine Kurjo McNeill | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy

[link to mckenzie-friends.co.uk]

[link to mckenzie-friends.co.uk]

Sources.

Extracts of EXPERT Statements re Police Videos and Investigation.pdf
[link to doc-14-80-docs.googleusercontent.com (secure)]
15 02 15 Chronology.pdf
[link to doc-08-80-docs.googleusercontent.com (secure)]

[link to crimesofempire.com]

Thread: Every form of child abuse is evil ; satanic

If I were on a jury I would have no choice but to concede to the above points.
In reviewing all the evidence available , I would then have to throw out the retraction and in view of it containing of seven further affirmations , and and yet another repeated and reconfirmed allegation of sexual abuse , I would have to add the reaffirmations and the one clear sex abuse allegation to the affirmations of the two previous interviews. If I were a Judge I would have no option but to do the same .

Any updates on the children and are they OK?

I understand protecting them would be hiding them from the public such as forums like this - however that protection can also work for those that abused them.

Is it the only charges pending are for the mother and her boyfriend?

Maybe they should come and face the charges now the publicity is there - it's a risk I know - but somehow I believe the guilty want them not to do that - as it would probably crack open a whole new level of what is going on.

I just can't understand why some hotshit lawyer wouldn't represent them (knowing the possible dangers involved).

The world just doesn't have heroes anymore huh.

Read the above interview and you will see no accusation against the mother on which to form any charges.
On the contrary you will see a complete stitch up of a child.

I thought the mother and bf were on the run though?

we've seen what happens to pedophilia whistle blowers in the Uk.

google "Melanie Shaw"

They would have hung,dawn and quartered A+E for daring to lift the veil on such high end matters of the dark side.

Of course they fled, the government took the kids, next step was sectioned/jail time.

TPTB commit so many hoaxs and psyops, that are easy to reveal! that when heavy satanic truth gets dropped on our doorstep, they are quick to call it a hoax, using they preproggammed techniques, mixing hoaxs with reality.

Divide and conquer, confuse and project.ANYTHING but transparency.

A pin prick of light is shining through the darkness, let us hope it can become a flame.

Love and light.

Empty road, silver car parked on left can see half the car rear
A clear christian cross painted on the road
At 2.28 in the video.

Why do the police think this has anything to do with investigating child abuse allegations?
Are they nutters?
And Why did they suggest it did to the child making them?
Are they insane?

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

video = Brian Gerrish @ ΑV5 ~ The Alternative View 2014

1 hr, 4 min - long, but well worth watching




we are all looking for answers. in this video Brian Gerrish of the UK Column explains it all, different cases and why we are experiencing all these horrible cases these days. you will begin to understand why absolutely nothing is done to help them, why the ruling had to be what it was.

he does not mention the case of our 2 children of Hampstead, jet I recommend to anyone who is trying to make a difference or just wants to understand what is really going on, than please watch it. I am glad I did.

for me personally stood out the name of 2 people of Hampstead, the wife is the one who is an artist and created a picture of Christ with an erection. I looked into her name and a little more her background. and with their political influence and pers. wealth it did not surprise me too much that the distance to christ church is only 1.6 miles. it must be a coincidence.

Pray is all I can say, very seriously!!! hope you brits have a restful weekend.

Folks, I have had to remove posts that were copy/paste without a link. Also the red message on the left side of the reply box clearly instructs you to paste less than 50% of the copy / paste article.

If you want to repost the ones I deleted, feel free. Just follow the GLP instructions about links and less than 50% content.

Have a good day!

Last Edited by calin on 05/03/2015 03:20 AM