Some Notes on The Times and Allegations against Barbara Hewson

From Wednesday’s London Times:

Barrister ‘made death threats’ to student

Police have issued a harassment warning to a barrister amid allegations that she waged a campaign of online bullying, abuse and “death threats” against a law student and another lawyer.

…In a 22-page complaint to the standards board, seen by The Times, Mehul Desai, a student at Nottingham University law school, claimed that he had “received death threats and abuse over the phone” from Ms [Barbara] Hewson.

…The dispute allegedly grew out of Mr Desai’s support for Sarah Phillimore, a family law barrister at St John’s Chambers in Bristol. Ms Phillimore is a well-known campaigner on child protection issues who has frequently crossed swords with Ms Hewson on social media over their opinions on investigations into alleged historical child abuse.

…Ms Phillimore told The Times that, “following months of serious and frightening harassment” by Ms Hewson, she registered a complaint with the police. The Metropolitan Police confirmed that on March 1 “a 55-year-old woman was issued with a harassment warning”.

Such warnings have no legal standing and do not establish wrongdoing, but are used by police as a response to allegations of low-level harassment. There has been no finding against her.

That detail about so-called harassment warnings having “no legal standing” comes in the 11th paragraph of the article, 440 words into the story. The existence of the harassment warning is also the focus of a very brief preview blurb that appeared on the bottom of the front page of the print edition: “Police have issued a harassment warning to a human rights barrister after claims that she engaged in the online bullying of a law student and another lawyer.” The story itself was the lead item on page 5.

The story as presented in The Times is a mess, and it has brought joy to a social media crowd that has actually been subjecting Barbara Hewson to a campaign of trolling abuse and personal intrusion. Facts are distorted and misrepresented, and important context is missing that the authors – Jonathan Ames and Frances Gibb – could have checked out without requiring comment from Barbara.


First, a disclosure: I’ve met Barbara socially a couple of times and we get along. As such, I refer to her in this post familiarly, by her first name. I don’t agree with all of her views or ways of expressing herself, but I expect she gets that a lot.

Most controversially, she believes that the age of consent should be reduced to 13, and she has criticised some prosecutions that relate to “historic” allegations of abuse on these grounds. On these points, I concur with Matthew Scott’s criticisms, which can be read here. The Times article refers to Barbara calling “for the age of sexual consent to be substantially lowered”, but for some reason it doesn’t clarify that this means “reduced to 13” – one suspects the authors opted to be vague in the interests of sensationalism.

Barbara’s perspective has brought her into conflict on social media with a number of campaigners against child sex abuse, and she has not shied away from scathing rhetoric just because some of these campaigners themselves identify as victims – I noted her dispute with Andy Woodward in December. As I wrote then, many of these campaigners are quite reckless in their embrace of conspiracy theories about “VIP abuse” and are vicious in their pursuit of those facing allegations or those deemed to be insufficiently credulous. Some might fairly be described as “Operation Midland Truthers”, and they are particularly incensed by Barbara’s references to the false accuser “Nick” as “Toxic Nick” [UPDATE 2019: Nick can now be named as Carl Beech, and his claims have been found to have been fraudulent. More details here].

The feud with Phillimore, meanwhile, goes to back to debate over family courts.

The “harassment warning”

The Times cover blurb conflated the so-called “harassment warning” that emerged from the Phillimore dispute with the allegation of the “death threat” made by the student – this misleading effect is amplified by the opening paragraph, which lumps together Phillimore’s complaints and those of the student.

As I’ve discussed previously on this blog, a “harassment warning” is formally called a “Police Information Notice”. It is a mechanism by which police inform someone that a complaint of harassment has been made against them, and it warns them that if the complaint is true, then they should desist from continuing with such behaviour or risk prosecution. However, they precede rather than follow any investigation.

The problem with PINs is that they sound far more formal than they actually are. PINs are “issued”; recipients supposedly “have” a PIN, in the present tense, as if they “have” a criminal record. Also, despite a specific recommendation in the Henriques Report, the Metropolitan Police continues with the rhetoric of “victims” rather than “complainants” – thus a largely derivative Daily Mail article (“By Xantha Leatham for the Daily Mail and Katie French for Mailonline“) based on the Times story also includes a police statement:

‘The victim, a 46-year-old woman, alleged she had been harassed via a social media network (Twitter) between August 2016 and January 2017. 

‘The allegation was passed to officers in Islington to investigate. 

‘On 1 March the alleged suspect, a 55-year-old woman, was issued a harassment warning. The victim was informed of this outcome.’

In fact, however, a PIN is nothing more than “words of advice” written on a bit of paper – and those “words of advice” may be based on incomplete or even fictitious information. And, as I documented here, police forces seem confused about their status.

Phillimore’s complaint

The ongoing feud between Barbara and Phillimore was previously reported by Ames in The Times in January; and in early February, he and Gibbs referred jocularly to a “‘handbags at dawn’-style dust-up”. The was also a piece in Legal Cheek.

It is the case that Barbara has referred to Phillimore in crudely abusive terms, but the context here is two public figures engaging in a bitter debate. There is nothing in Barbara’s Tweets that would give Phillimore reasonable cause to feel frightened. There is also an extravagant element to her allegations: for example, she Tweeted about a family member, Barbara referred to this Tweet, and Phillimore then announced that Barbara is bringing her family member to the attention of  a “large audience of unrepentant paedophiles”.

Phillimore and the trolls

Phillimore has also undermined her complaint with a series of jocular interactions with accounts that troll Barbara with abusive comments. One particularly vicious account is anonymous, and it is largely dedicated to subjecting Barbara to a sustained stream of highly personalised abuse and mockery that goes far beyond Barbara’s uncivil comments about Phillimore: for instance, the account mocks Barbara’s Irish heritage, and has made gratuitous references to a family bereavement. Phillimore has expressly encouraged the account to “enjoy… freedom of speech”. Such a statement, which would obviously needle and goad Barbara while spurring on a troll, are not consistent with a credible complaint of harassment.

The “death threat”, and a “skinned cat”

The Times led on the claim of a death threat based on the allegation appearing in a complaint to the Bar Standards Council – this is flimsy, given that the student doesn’t appear to have been able to get the police to take his complaint seriously (he is complaining bitterly about this on Twitter).

Further, it should be noted that the student’s range of complaints is extraordinary. In his Twitter bio, up until recently he described himself thus:

Hewson Abuse Survivor (HAS): 11/03 forced in2 twitter, abused, blew whistle, Harassed 12-2.19am, complaints excluded uni, pedotrolled, 3xhackd, cat skinned

He has since removed “cat skinned”, but his Twitter feed includes a photo of his cat with a large gash on its back and tail, along with a letter from a veterinarian practice about treatment. For some reason, the letter has been partially redacted – some details are missing, and if there is a date on the original it is not visible on the posted version.

Does his extraordinary allegation that Hewson arranged for someone to “skin” his cat appear in the document he submitted to the BSB? If not, why not? And if it did, why didn’t Ames and Gibbs draw attention to such a remarkable claim?

Reading through his Tweets, he seems to veer between saying he was “frightened” by Barbara (an email arriving at an unsocial hour described like a phone call in the middle of the night) and boasting about how he might mete out violence against paedophiles.


I doubt that The Times would have run with the “death threat” headline simply based on the student’s word: instead, it was given extra weight due to Phillimore’s separate “bullying” complaint. Thus two weak claims were combined to make a supposedly strong claim, worthy of a prominent position in the UK’s newspaper of record.

Complaints to police and the BSB have served as a media strategy – and those now tasked with assessing their merits ought to take that into consideration.

UPDATE: Police dropped the complaint on 11 May 2017. Barbara has shown me a letter from Leicestershire Police dated 30 May 2017, which quotes the case worksheet (emphasis added, ellipses in original):

The original report of harassment was reviewed…… and found no evidence within the report that we could progress. ……….. there is no evidence to support Mr Desai’s allegation of social media harassment…. Suspect Hewson will be updated no further action will be taken.

Despite the 30 May date, however, for some reason her solicitor did not receive it until September 2017.

UPDATE 2 (24 May 2019): The Daily Mail has conceded that the allegations are untrue:

An article published from 12 April 2017 reported allegations made in The Times that the barrister, Barbara Hewson, was responsible for sending anonymous threats to a law student, including death threats, persistent nuisance phone calls, sending him pictures of his address and his daughter, and details of his ex-partner’s address. The report of these allegations was repeated on social media. However, we now accept these allegations were untrue, and have agreed not to repeat them, pay damages and apologise to Ms Hewson for any distress caused.

The notice is also carried on the website of her legal representatives.

UPDATE 3 (10 December 2020): The Times has now settled a legal case brought by Barbara. Here is the retraction:

An article published in April 2017 (and until recently online) headed “Barrister ‘made death threats’ to student”, reported on a complaint made to the Bar Standards Board against barrister and writer Barbara Hewson, alleging that Ms Hewson or someone acting on her behalf had made death threats and persistent nuisance calls to a law student and sent him pictures of his daughter, his address and details of his ex-partner’s address. We also reported that a similar complaint against her had been made to Leicestershire police. Neither the Bar Standards Board, nor Leicestershire police pursued the complaints. We accept Ms Hewson’s assurances that the allegations made in the complaint against her were not true and have agreed not to repeat them and to pay damages to her for libel.

Further details are on the website of the media law firm 5RB.

225 Responses

  1. Ms Hewson ‘crime’ was to call for a ‘debate’ on the age of consent ‘perhaps’ being lowered to 13.

    The age of consent in Spain was 13 until 2013. I have yet to hear any of those screeching voices calling for Barbara’s head on a spike to pass even a moment’s thought for entire generations of Spanish girls who until very recently were apparently fair prey for every paedophile in existence. Do they only care for fair white English girls?

    Incidentally only 64 girls under the age of 17 married in Spain in 2010, and the rate of teenage pregnancy is less than a third that of the US, so the ‘legal fact’ that the age of consent was 13 does not appear to have had devastating effects on those ‘poor groomed and preyed upon’ children, stuck with an age of consent at 13.

    Hey ho perhaps Spanish paedophiles practise restraint. Who knows?

    • The ironic part about those having a go at Hewson, especially Alan Goodwin aka ciabaudo, is that some of them live in countries where the Age of Consent is already lower than the UK. He lives in Germany, AoC there is 14 and yet you never see him campaigning for it to be raised in Germany. The irony is (as some would say) absolutely delicious.

    • Reported figures for sexual abuse of minors in Spain do not support the rosy picture you describe there –

      The experience you yourself recounted and published at your blog illustrates how predatory abuse of minors is liable not to be reported because of the way that a minor is liable to respond in coercive circumstances –

      It’s not clear why that experience leads you to be so dismissive of the reality of abuse on the basis of non-reporting and late reporting. As a lawyer, you would be aware that the victim’s acceptance of “the least worse choice” does not absolve the perpetrator from responsibility or obviate the crime.

      Both you and Barbara Hewson befriend and defend convicted paedophiles. In the interests of a properly informed public debate, perhaps one or both of you would be prepared to confirm that you have no personal interest in the matter of reform of the age of consent to 13 (or puberty,, as you have previously proposed) outside the abstract debate.

      • Owen,

        In the interests of a properly informed public debate, perhaps you yourself would acknowledge that you have posted on the blog of the dreadful witch Anna Raccoon.

        Otherwise I will have to pronounce you guilty, and sentence you to be dropped into a tub of water, until such time as you are very annoyed.

      • The age of consent issue is perhaps more complicated that is generally realised.

        For example, a lot of the countries in Europe that have lower AOC than UK, in fact, the lower age of consent only applies if people of similar ages are involved and not if an adult person considered to be in a position of care/trust becomes involved in a relationship with someone in their charge.

        So for example, an adult teacher who engaged in a relationship with a pupil would still be liable to be brought in front of the courts if the pupil was not under-age if it was two pupils of (say) 15 years old engaged in a sexual relationship – due to the different power dynamic.

        We saw a specific example of this in the case of the English teacher who was extradited from France a few years’ back, when he went on the run with his pupil and wound up in France (I can’t remember the precise details, but there was a lot of media publicity regarding the case at the time.)

      • Er, yes, I have commented at the AR blog, as would be evident to anyone accessing the blog. So I’m not qute sure what poit you’re making. I notice that some of my comments have been deleted since the blog closed, for no explained reason.

      • Owen,

        The point I was trying to make is that guilt by association is a wrong-headed and, frankly, potentially dangerous, game to play.

        As you have acknowledged, you yourself have contributed to the comments threads on Anna Raccoon’s blog (as indeed have I) does this mean that we are both also possible paedos, on the basis that Anna Raccoon is a friend of Jonathan King? We don’t burn witches any more…or do we?

        Anyway, this extract from a blog-post of Anna’s was re-tweeted recently, it might be worth a re-read:

      • tdf, I don’t know about you but I certainly have no recollection of having befriended or defended convicted paeedophiles in my commetns at the Anna Raccoon blog. Please remind me.

      • I should add that people are entitled to befriend whom they choose, including convicted criminals, but when they make belittling the experience of victims a motif of their writings while at the same time they are regularly finding reasons to excuse the perpetrators and decriminalise their actions, it seems to me that they are as close to championing their friends as they are to comforting them.

      • Owen, given that I didn’t state that you had ‘befriended or defended convicted paedophiles’, your comment doesn’t makes much sense.

        Incidentally, Owen (and I’m pretty sure I’ve asked you this before on Anna Raccoon’s blog – so please forgive me if I forgot your answer) are you one of the ‘IbelieveNick’ brigade? To put it bluntly, do you still ‘believe ‘Nick”, even though his claims have been found to have no evidential backing after a lengthy and expensive police investigation?

      • tdf, I’m not sure why you imagine I’m in a position to say anythig meaningful about Nick. I’ve simply read other people’s accounts of what he has alleged. I am not able to form a proper judgment. On the other hand I have read Barbara Hewson’s and Susannne Cameron-Blackie’s pleas in advocacy and I know that Nigel Oldfield, Jonathan King and Harvey Proctor have been convicted by the English courts of offeces that from their writings these two publicists appear keen to mitigate.

      • Owen, if you have any evidence at all that Proctor engaged in the crimes that he was accused of by ‘Nick’, you must immediately, without delay, bring it forward to the necessary authorities.

        If you DO have any such information, and you don’t do what I advise, then you yourself could be charged with withholding information or worse.

        I suspect that you’re a waffler, but who knows, I’ve been wrong before (including, to my great embarassment, when I initially gave credence to ‘Nick’s’ claims).

      • Where did you produce all that out of the bag from,, tdf?

      • Osen, regarding my own experience, I made it quite clear at the time that I had no idea whether the man concerned had any reason to know or believe that I might have been under age – and in fact I wasn’t underage. So your comment regarding ‘a minor’ in coercive circumstances is a non event. I wasn’t a minor and if I had been he would have had no reason to suspect that I might have been.
        As for your comment about ‘comments disappearing with no reason given’. What you are looking at with is a mirror site, purely capturing the ‘public’ side of the blog, put up by a commentator who had registered that domain out of the goodness of his heart at his own expense. I understand that it is now maintained on a a private server. I have no access to it, and it has only captured the front page of each blog post. The person who did it had no access to the ‘inside’ of the blog, so information that was held within the blog is lost forever. As you may remember when comments ran over the 50 mark, they turned to a second page – none of the posts have any more than the first 50 comments saved. He only saved the front page. Given that this involved some 2,500 captures, it was one hell of an effort. I salute him, whoever he is. I received an e-mail from a well wisher who knew him telling me what had been done and giving me the option of objecting if I was upset that they had tried to preserve some of what I had written.. I didn’t so object, in fact I was very touched by their efforts. I have been overwhelmed by the goodwill that has flowed towards me. Even from you if I remember correctly.

      • I certainly admire your fortitude in the face of physical adversity. I migght wish that you showed a bit more understanding of the experience of others who don’t have the same fortitude and talents.

      • But Owen, you don’t know that I don’t. You only know what you read on the blog. there you are, quite happy to say that you cannot draw conclusions about Nick because you ‘only know what you read’ – and yet you cheerfully condemn me on the basis of ‘only knowing what you read’. Its Illogical. You have no idea what I do in real life nor what I did or who I championed in my working life.

      • I think I detect a little bit of trying to have your cake and eat it.

      • I have never, ever, defended a convcited apedophile of his convictions. Ever. Yes, I am friends with someone who has been convicted of such an offence, and very grateful for his friendship I have been. He has served his sentence, we have never discussed it and never will.
        HI sentence was handed down by a judge, he served it. There is no part of his sentence that says ‘henceforth you will never have another friend’.
        There is a difference between being friends with someone who ha served thier sentence, and defending the crime of which they were convicted, and you have never heard me defend the crime of paedophilia.

      • You have not said that any convicted paedophile was not guilty, true. But your bantering atitude regarding their and others’ offences, minimising their significance and criticising their prosecution, is certainly a form of defence, along with your repetitive characterisation of victims.and survivors as compensation-seekers and by implication untrustworthy.

      • Owen,

        “I should add that people are entitled to befriend whom they choose, including convicted criminals, but when they make belittling the experience of victims a motif of their writings while at the same time they are regularly finding reasons to excuse the perpetrators and decriminalise their actions, it seems to me that they are as close to championing their friends as they are to comforting them.”

        Agreed on this.

      • Owen,
        How can I be sure that you have never been convicted of paedophilia?

      • It’s just possible that you can’t be sure, though I would have thought since you know my personal details that you would have bee able to use your profeessional expertise to access court records and confirm that.

    • Complete waffle, Owen. As I suspected, you are engaging in guilt by association.

      • You don’t seem aware of the full range of Ms Hewson’s not always popular activities.

      • Well Owen, this is just more waffle, isn’t it. I am not aware of all of Ms Hewson’s activities (how could I be? are you mad, Owen?). From such of her media appearances and commentary as I’ve viewed and read – as I’ve already stated, on this very blog, as it happens (you don’t have to look too hard), that I’m no particular fan of Barbara Hewson.

        But it has absolutely diddley squat to do with this debate, such as it is.

      • I hope Owen hasn’t come across any illicit material in the course of his online research.

        That would be simply dreadful.

      • I guess all I can say to that is, my hopes for you likewise. I seem to have poked a nest of hornets or something here.

      • Owen, have you ever considered the possibility that anyone would lie about being sex abused?

      • I’m not a fool. Certainly that happens. But so does non-reporting and disbelief, on what appears to be a far larger scale.

    • Owen, I brought it ‘out of the bag’ of being extremely annoyed at false complainants and the amount of police resources, taxpayers’ money and my emotional investment that they have absorbed.

  2. Ms Hewson’s crime seems to me, to be about two things. She believes that the age limit for consent could be 13. Immediately lots of people reacted badly and were quite insistent that, their opinion was the better one.
    They went about proving this by being discourteous and verbally aggressive.

    The second thing I noticed was, Ms Hewson dislikes false allegations. Her reaction to press cuttings (which I agree with her point of view) really seems to push the buttons of people who seem to be working in family law.

    I think Ms Hewson and Ms Phillimore started putting opinions forward to each other in the way they would in court. Then, a group of people started to join in and, before long, Ms Hewson was no longer exchanging points of view, rather, she was fending off verbally aggressive tweets.
    The others had no reason to group bully Ms Hewson. They have gained little by insulting her by, insinuating frequency of enjoying a drink, talking about her family and being over familiar.
    Ms Hewson has snapped some nights and tweeted back with profanity however, I would have done this long before she did.

    Since when did standing by your principals become a crime.

    • Only paedophiiles would want to have sex with thirteen year old kids and that is why I’m against changing the age of consent. Secondly, sending a ‘direct’ hate message to survivors of horrific sexual abuse coming forward to the Child Sex Abuse Inquiry saying they are ‘Mucho Whinging’ is beyond ‘nasty’, it is downright ‘evil. She tweeted, deleted, denied sending, but responded. So a ‘liar’ as well as a nasty piece of work. I put in a complaint to Barstandards about it. She was ‘thrilled’ to have sight of my ‘private’ email address, put my ‘real’ name and where I used to work on twitter. Referred to I and 3 other child sex abuse campaigners as ‘the lunatic fringe’. She has spent her evenings ‘tweeting and deleting’ abuse/hate to vulnerable people to get her ‘kicks’ and then cries ‘victim’ when they respond. I have even been likened to a ‘nazi’ in a tweet. I am a child sex abuse survivor and campaigner not prepared to sit back and watch hate and abuse being directed at decent folk, so Barbara Hewson can get her nightly ‘kick’ doing it. Enough is enough.

      • “Only paedophiiles would want to have sex with thirteen year old kids…”

        Presumably 13, 14 and 15 year olds wanting to have sex with one another – fairly common if memory serves! – are also, by your definition, ‘paedophiles’. Er…

        Another example: a courting couple of hormonal teenagers sharing saucy snaps of one another via their mobiles – it’s what many kids do these days so we are told, whereas in the good old days we had to make do with snail-mail love letters (if we were lucky!).

        Both of these people could easily find they are in possession of indecent images of children and therefore committing criminal acts. However, the law USUALLY leaves them in peace.

        Nevertheless they might be well advised to thoroughly scrub their ‘phones, social media accounts & computers of their own memories – sort of a virtual bonfire of yesteryear’s love letters – as they hit 16 (or 18) as otherwise they could have some explaining to do many years later (and would apparently transmogrify into ‘paedos’). The scene: a copshop.

        “Now then, now then, now then! What’s this we ‘ave ‘ere you ‘orrible specimen? Looks a bit young this ‘un! What do you ‘ave to say for yerself?!?”

        “But she’s my old girlfriend! We used to go out together all the way through school and college!”

        “A likely story! Indecent images of children is what we ‘ave ‘ere! You dirty paedo!”

        The lunatic fringe? Oh God, where to start?!?

        I think you all got off lightly with the description!

      • Isteead of showing off, Bandini, why don’t you address the substance of what Clare’s said?

      • Because there is none.

      • It was so funny getting a comment from someone with a ‘Justice for Jimmy Savile’ link. It gave me my laugh of today. Keep ’em coming Thanks x

      • Thanks to ‘Owen’ for a professional response. I have had several trolls over the last few days on twitter, so great to speak to someone I can respect.

      • Likewise, Clare. Bandini gets so high on his own cackling insensitivity, he’s lost all ability to understand other people’s real-life experiences. Glad you’ve taken him in your stride.

      • People with something to hide will deflect, create a diversion, minimise, outright deny and recruit acolytes. Anyone who spends their evenings ‘tweeting & deleting’ has many questions to answer.

      • You have to ask yourself the motives of anyone thinking the age of consent should be lowered to 13. It is 16 for a very good reason.

      • Having seen your Twitter timelines in recent years, I’d refer to you and several of those you engage with as the “lunatic fringe” too.

      • Ask Barbara Hewson why she spends her evenings tweeting and then deleting. I, for one, would like to know. I’m sure she would be ‘thrilled’ for all her deletions to be made public.

      • @Clare

        I agree with you that age of consent should not be lowered. I personally think 16/17 is about right. I would not favour any move to reduce it to 13. Basically, we are in agreement on that issue.

        I must however put the same question to you that I put to Owen earlier in this discussion. Do you believe ‘Nick’? Do you regard his allegations as ‘credible and true’ – in light of the fact that the police no longer do?

      • tddf – I agree with you that 16/17 is about right – but I disagree that we ‘shouldn’t’ be having a debate about a law that was fixed 100 years ago, when puberty and marriage equally almost certain pregnancy was different. I think it should be debated and I would come down on the side of 16/17.

      • That’s a bit of a turnaround from the days when we were disagreeing over your advocacy of consent at the age of puberty, but it’s no less good to hear. Perhaps the woman who wrote the blog posts is mellowing. How about trying to help Barbara Hewson to understand the cruel error of her ways?

    • To be fair to Exaro’s ‘Nick’, he is a fine poet. His pomes seem to have disappeared from the internetwoogie, but rumour has it that they been saved for posterity, as it were.

      I’d rank him up there with the Vogons.

      I dunno, Clare.

      Is being sub-literate a requirement for the loony fringe? I’m just curious. I seek merely information.

      • Clare I’m not interested in why Barbara Hewson chooses to delete tweets. I don’t watch her account that closely but the “lunatic fringe” certainly does. Maybe she does it to wind you all up and give you all something to obsessively monitor. If so she isn;t being disappointed is she.
        When most of someone’s (Alan Goodwin being the main lunatic in the fringe here) Twitter timeline on a daily basis is taken up with tweets attacking Barbara Hewson, constantly posting screenshots of her Twitter activity, and for weeks and months on end, that is not only creepily obsessional but criminally stalking behaviour.
        ” sending a ‘direct’ hate message to survivors of horrific sexual abuse coming forward to the Child Sex Abuse Inquiry saying they are ‘Mucho Whinging’ is beyond ‘nasty’, it is downright ‘evil” <—— seriously, you complained to Bar Standards to try to cause the woman trouble over that? Disgusting.
        There has been dreadful behaviour on both sides in this long running saga but you lot have engaged in the very behaviour for several years that you claim to deplore – against all abuse but indulging in abuse and gleefully gloating or turning a blind eye at abusive behaviour when it is aimed at a target you're happy for it to be aimed at. That makes you no better than the target. In fact in my eyes the hypocracy makes you worse.
        If you don't like what one person on Twitter has to say, block, mute, don't look at their account instead of obsessionally stalking it and maliciously reporting.
        Using ye olde Exaro silencing trick of calling anyone who disgrees or challenges a paedo, paedo enabler or supporter at every opportunity does you no favours either.

      • If you’ve been observing Alan Goodwin that closely, you must be quite well acquainted with at least some of Barbara Hewson’s bizarre antics. I don’t get the impression that they’re the “lunatic fringe”‘s invention,

      • I’ve observed the antics of both sides from when this all started several years ago. Neither side is blameless and neither side’s behaviour impresses me.
        I am however increasingly appalled by the behaviour of this clique of so called campaigners against abuse who, if not engaging in abusive behaviour themselves, will condone or turn a blind eye to it from others when it suits them to.
        Owen may I ask what your opinion is of those who engage in a campaign of harassment on social media against a person which, amongst other forms, takes the form of repeated attacks on them for their physical appearance and sexual orientation?
        May I ask what your opinion is of those who condone that sort of criminal behaviour?
        Would you follow an account on Twitter like that?
        I refer of course to the spasticbrienne account.
        Aah but hate messages aimed at someone you don’t like are fine though aren’t they- They’re a hoot. Isn’t that how some so called anti abuse campaigners think? “At least @spasticbrienne is amusing trolling “it”” is just one tweet to demonstrate this I’ve just found. I’m sure more examples are there to be found.
        As I said utterly hypocritical behaviour at its worst.

      • savethenhs, as far as I can see there’s no element of “reclaiming the name” involved, so spasticbrienne and the other “mong” account are abusers in their own right and Alan Goodwin discredits himself by continuing to invvolve himself with them as log as they continue using those names.

        And yes, there is a nastiness in the way some people express themselves against Barbara Hewson and other apologists, but that’s hardly surprising when the likes of Hewson abuse their intellect, articulacy, wit and privileged status to to denigrate and sometimes savage people who have been the powerless victims of the predators whose case they champion.

        However intelligent and articulate Hewson is, her unscrupulous potty-mouthed vindictiveness comes as close to a challenge to mud-wrestling as you’re likely to meet under Bar Council rules and her other .

        All that said, though, we come back to askig ourselves where is our starting point – where is the fundamental wrong? For all your huffing and puffing and allegations of hypocrisy, I’m going to stick with my judgment that Hewsonn and her allies and associates are the prime offenders,

  3. Ms Hewson (who I am in no way a supporter of or advocate for) was disgracefully treated by her former barristers chambers. It was very cowardly of them to dissociate themselves from her simply because she expressed a controversial opinion on telly.

    May I be allowed to suggest that “jaw jaw is better than war war” .

  4. I’ve been thinking to myself, why did you ask that question – in that form, at least? You could have phrased it, “How can I be sure that anyone I communicate with on the internet has never been convicted of paedophilia ?” But the style is familiar by now.

    • That comment seems to have appeared out of place. It was a follow-up to my reply to AR, not a response to tdf.

      • Eh up, Owen! Long time no seeth…

        And I see you are once again encountering problems placing the reply where it rightly belongs – a problem that seems to pursue you from site to site like a ‘sweetbag-rattling nonce’ snapping at the tiny heels of some kids!

        It appeared where you placed it, Owen. Try accepting reponsibility for your actions, why don’t you? I know it’s not your strong point…

        Despite having previously mined the murky depths of your imagination to concoct the “Anna Raccoon received £35,000 of taxpayers’ money to fix her hard-drive!” brain-fart (even sneeringly insinuating that she might not be, you know, really ill at all, you total bastard) you’re trying to clamber back up the steeply sloped moral high ground, wheezing as you go, with this:

        “In the interests of a properly informed public debate, perhaps one or both of you would be prepared to confirm that you have no personal interest in the matter of reform of the age of consent to 13…”

        What in God’s name are you thinking of? Did you intently study a photo of Anna’s intensive-care bed & think that maybe you saw the bony fingers of a waif beneath it, the reform necessary in order to legally indulge her sick fantasies? You really are quite a number.

        Having said all that you’re right about Barbara ‘Babs’ Hewson.
        I can categorically state she has not one but TWO teenagers basted & prepared for the day the AoC falls – kept naked in a dog-crate beneath the stairs (behind the empty boxes of gin if my counsellor-interpreted vision is anything to go by). They’re only allowed out every day to attend school and then back in the crate they go.

        Help them, Owen, help them!!!

      • Bandini, you need help.

      • (I missed an ‘e’ off of ‘seethe’ up above. Or as Owen might say: “A letter seems to have vanished from my comment.”)

      • What is your problem?

    • Owen,

      Do you support the activities of those who trawled through public records to find that I gave birth to two children and threaten to reveal that fact if failed to prevent free speech to those whose views they found objectionable?

      On another matter, do you support those who trawled through other records (planning application) who found my new address in England and threatened to give it to ‘those who need to know’.

      Is this your idea of allowing free debate amongst those who commented on the Anna Raccoon blog?

      Yes, it is 3.30am and am struggling to type this thorugh a fog of medication.

      • No, I don’t support that sort of intervention in people’s personal lives. It’s a form of wilful cruelty and I don’t think paying cruelty back with cruelty is justified, all the more so when it’s liable to hurt innocent third parties.

        But I can certainly understand how sowing the storm provokes the whirlwind. You are cruel, and you deliberately cause indiscriminate pain to people who’ve endured enough in their lives already.

        Given your own experiences in life you might have been expected to have sufficient empathy to understand the impact of your actions. Instead you add the hurt of making them a form of public entertainment.

        You’re a woman who’s been blessed with very considerable talents but sadly not with the vision and empathy to use them well or kindly.

      • “You are cruel, and you deliberately cause indiscriminate pain to people who’ve endured enough in their lives already.”

        Owen, I can truthfully say that no one who knows me has ever expressed such a view of me. I shall take it that this is your personal view of me, and thus file it away under the heading of ‘one man’s view’.

      • From other people’s comments at your blog you’re not a disagreeable person face to face, but the personn who writes your blog posts is someone whose mean-spiritedness you seem to allow free rein, I’m afraid .

      • The aspens continue to turn.

        I see that the Exaro witness known as ‘Darren’ is on trial later this month on charges of sending malicious communications.

      • Owen – I used to write all my blog posts, certainly on the subject of historic sexual abuse. The person who writes those posts, and the person you might meet one day are one and the same.
        Why don’t you meet me one day? 1 hour and 40 minutes on train to Norwich. I’m happy to do so.
        Oh, and I have a new blog site – set up in a hurry, so not a good as the old one, but at least I can write once more.
        Call it displacement therapy if you will – but at least I can use what I can use to help others rather than reflect on my own misfortune. There is only the one post so far, but others will follow.. I’m better placed to think straight in the mornings.
        There you go – something to look forward to! Oh, and did I tell you I’m ‘standing’ for election to parliament – or more correctly I’m ‘lying’ for parliament in Islington North – so long as I can get nomination papers in on time. At least this candidate will be admitting to permanently lying to get elected… little joke. You probably won’t get it. Scouse humour.
        I’ll do it!

      • I didn’t make myself cleear. I wasn’t queestioning the fact that you wrote the posts yourself (the ones that weren’t under someone else’s name). What I was saying was that the person who wrote those posts was someone quite different from the congenial character whom people described meeting in person.

        Perhaps when you’re as quick-witted as you obviously are, the thrill of the chase can be intoxicating and the brain may sometimes gives right of way to the tongue. But what often characterised your posts was a relentless determination to put down the “allegator/compensation seeker” – to make out that the victis/survivors of abuse who came to public attention were gold-diggers and fortune-seekers.

        At times that woman seemed almost to be licking her lips at the prospect of tearing apart someone who had spoken out on the subject of historical/non-recent abuse. For example, when you were announcing the prospective taing apart of Peter McKelvie as the supposed “Pied Piper of Paedo Hysteria”.

        I remember that one in particular beecause of the eager anticipation with which you annouced your proposed denunciation of Peter McKkelvie for promoting “paedo hysteria”. If even McKelvie could be a candidate for dissection, you weren’t holding back.

        There was intent there, not just intoxication. I’m still not clear what was driving that project, but you were taking no prisoners.

        Thanks for the invite. Of couurse it would be interesting to pursue our dialogue face to face, but even if I were more mobile than circustances allow these days I’m less keen to meet the intelliigent battler against adversity myself than I am for the cruel eviscerator to justfy her cynical brutality to her targets.

        Perhaps you might invite some of those islington North constituents whose lives were destroyed by the failure of their MP and councillors to protect the children in Islington’s residential care establishments in the 1980s and 1990s. What would be good to kow is that your concern for the truth and justice made a commitment to investigating the Islington cover-up a central plank of your platform.

      • Owen,

        “For example, when you were announcing the prospective taing apart of Peter McKelvie as the supposed “Pied Piper of Paedo Hysteria”.”

        Do you refer to this article?

        Bloody heck mate, surely you can see that it is a critique of the media?

      • “Today the ferret has been sighted heading for Peter McKelvie’s testicles. McKelvie is another Pied Piper of Paedo Panic, a £300 a day professional whistleblower for the Goddard Inquiry. He told Tom Watson that ‘a cabinet minister was linked to child molesters’ – not Tom Watson’s fault then….he was just doing his civic duty, spreading the gossip. Gossip it was too:”

        tdf, I’m sure you’re very well acquainted with Peter McKelvie’s expertise as a member of the team that investigated Peter Righton’s papers and connections. I’m not clear why you are saying that this was about the media rather than about Peter McKelvie.

      • Owen,

        The bit referring to McKelvie is not how I would have worded it, if I were writing such an article But the overall context of the article is a critique of the media, or so I read it.

      • tdf, bearing in mind the overall editorial style, the post sees more accurately read as a critique of what the author puts up as the “Pied Pipeers of Paedo Panic” establishment rather than as a critique of the media.

        Peter McKelvie was clearly in Susannne’s sights when she informed me in our exchange in the Comments (apparently no longer accessible at the archive), in a rather gleeful tone, that she was just waiting on a phone call before she embarked on a post for the following day focusing on Peter McKelvie as a Pied Piper.

        Obviously I don’t know the significance of that phone call but the piece on McKelvvie didn’t appear, with no explanation given.

      • “Calling him ‘professional’ is contemptuously pillorying the man?
        As it so happens, I have read this comment after coming off the phone with a very well informed person, who has given me a considerable amount of information concerning Mr MacKelvie. Fascinating stuff. You are quite right, his achievements should not be minimised – I had no idea.
        You will have to wait till later in the week for me to publish on the subject of Mr MacKelvie, a lot to check out. I normally publish around 9am – you may want to have breakfast early, wouldn’t want you choking on your cornflakes.”

        I’d say the glee was reserved for others:

        “Vindictive witch hunt against Meiron Jones? That unscrupulous bastard that was prepared to take a girl who had been hideously abused all her life, suffers from several mental health issues, and was in the middle of debilitating treatment for a life threatening cancer and feed her to the wolves of Fleet Street for the sake of – Quote – ‘the story any journalist would want’ – unquote?
        If he’s still breathing then I obviously have work to do on my savagery.”

        And that’s quite enough of that. (Why ever did I break my New Year’s Resolution to hang up my quill?!? Aaargh.)

      • Thanks, Bandini, that was pretty quick off the mark. Looks like I remembered it wrongly, the phone call from the source had already taken place, but I don’t think the McKelvie post ever appeeared. Any idea?

  5. Bandini,

    You have just sent a shudder down my spine.

    Those fulsome flowery letters full of overblown rhetoric borrowed from some cheap novel extolling the virtues of my young body that Joss would pen to me, and I would store away to read and re-read – of course, they would become evidence in the grubby hands of Mr Plod years later…..

    What a ghastly thought. No more attics full of ancient love letters tied in a bundle with ribbon.

    • I am now thoroughly depressed ‘only a paedophile would want to have sex with a 13 year old’.

      Nope. Only a paedophile would actually have sex with a 13 year old.

      Plenty of normal healthy males would appreciate the burgeoning beauty of a 13 year old body, and extol its virtues, appreciate its unspoilt beauty, and even, I hasten to add, wish to preserve its image on film or canvas.

      In the hands of the pitchforkers, that natural evolution of the male psyche has been turned into unremitting smut and the product of a disordered mind.

      I am looking at my bedroom curtains as I write this, some antique french chintz, covered in lovingly crafted putti or cherubs – I suppose the plates that printed that would be impounded today. those who created the design hauled away to be punished.

      I’ve been doing my damndest to stay alive, but dying doesn’t seem such a bad option reading the above comments – they are welcome to the world the pitchforkers have created.

      I’m off before I depress myself further.

      • “would … wish to preserve its image on film or canvas”

        You’re referring to Graham Ovenden? A bit late for “normalisation” now he’s been sent down, surely?

  6. Who has a ‘Justice for Jimmy Savile’ link? I don’t see one?

    • I didn’t actually have Graham Ovenden in mind – I was thinking of the many other artists down the ages who have been entranced by the pure innocence of the pubescent body. Was Michelangelo’s David definitely over the age of consent when that glorious hunk of pure marble was hacked into an object desired and viewed by so many.

      • I suspect we don’t share my respect for John Berger. The eye iformed by “Ways of Seeing” understands that marble isn’t all there is to David. Daubs of paint on canvas and a collection of pixels on a screen do more than create a simple image, they’re the meeting ground for the viewer’s, the artistt’s and the subject’s
        experiences. Art is more than aesthetics.

    • Still waiting to see who has a Justice for Jimmy Savile link.

      • ^ Anna, the hyper-link in Bandini’s name in his posts above links to a discussion on Rabbitaway’s blog.

  7. Thank you tdf – I was baffled.

    • Yes, thank you TDF. I did leave a comment to that effect but it ‘seems to have vanished’ – cosmic payback for poking fun at Owen, perhaps?!?

  8. Apparently I’m a ‘Mucho whinging, lunatic fringe, nutwing’ likened to a ‘nazi’ and now I should be ‘very afraid’ says Barbara Hewson. The only time I was ‘very afraid’ was at the age of ten and I woke up with a paedophile standing over me. I don’t intend being ‘very afraid’ of anyone ever again. The people standing up for her must be so ‘proud’ of her actions. Yes, I am being sarcastic. There are milions and millions of wonderful people on this earth. Barbara Hewson IS NOT ONE OF THEM. I don’t intend being intimidated into silence because I put complaints into Bar Standards and I don’t think anyone else should be told to be ‘very afraid’ either. It’s a ‘threat’. Pure and simple. I won’t keep quiet on twitter. Why should I. God gave me a voice, I intend using it.

    • That’s the second time you’ve mentioned the phrase ‘mucho whinging’ here; it’s the second time you’ve mentioned ‘lunatic fringe’, too.

      You mention it with alarming regularity & it appears in your ‘article’: “My thoughts on Barbara Hewson”.
      It also popped up in the follow up – coming a whole one day later: “My view on bullying paedophile apologist barrister Barbara Hewson”.

      Perhaps the suggestion that you spend a lot of time moaning would look a little less like the truth if you refrained from doing just that – moaning, endlessly & repetitively about the same trivial matter. Your blogs also raise the matter of Hewson using “many swear words” yet you label others as “twats”.You then post a picture of a horribly deformed beast of some sort and say that this is what your ‘trolls’ – i.e. those people who disagree with you – look like. It’s pretty childish behaviour and, I’m afraid, fairly hypocritical too.

      On the subject of your alleged ordeal as a 10-year-old – you’ve placed it in the public-domain and must accept that you may be questioned about it – I’m amazed that as someone who believes in massive cover-ups & deliberate failures to investigate appalling abuse and being in favour of dragging the deranged & dying before a court (Janner, for example) that you seem so sanguine about your own alleged abuser’s ‘escape from justice’:

      “I reported paedophile who assaulted me. Must say the police officer was very professional. Unfortunately he was dying, so not prosecuted.”

      No Trial Of The Facts necessary here?

    • Oh I’d disagree with her on the “likened to a ‘nazi’ part of that.

  9. Clare,

    Leaving B. Hewson aside entirely, can I ask:

    (1) Do you think that anyone has ever made a false complaint of child abuse?

    (2) If your answer to Q1 is ‘Yes’, what in your view is the appropriate legal penalty (if any) against those who make false complaints of child abuse?

  10. Wee bit off topic, though may be interest to some:

    “Developing a model of good practice for police working with survivors with Dissociative Identity Disorder – Dr Elly Hanson”

    According to the Mail:

    “The farce over the Sir Edward Heath child abuse inquiry grew yesterday as it emerged that a member of an independent panel [Dr Elly Hanson] scrutinising the probe has been paid to help on the case.”

  11. At the risk of repeating myself, and especially for Owen:
    Be sure to keep hitting the ‘page down’ button, ’til yer finger can take no more! Nurse!!!

  12. So ‘kind’ of Barbara Hewson to liken me to a ‘Nazi’. My wonderful late father was an Officer in the Second World War and must be turning in his grave listening to someone like you. I don’t give a damn who you think you are. or why you get your ‘kicks’ having digs at decent and vulnerable folk, all I do know is I, for one, won’t tolerate it. It’s plain for any normal decent person out there to see you have a ”personality’ disorder. You should seek help and maybe one day come back on twitter, act like a ‘normal’ human being and stand up for kids, who so desperately need help and support to come forward about sexual abuse, rather than taking it to their graves. Putting pictures of people’s kids on twitter to shut them up and taunt them shows exactly what you are. You have a ‘problem’, about time you took time out to deal with it. Any abuse/hate I am forwarding on to police and reporting to Support.

      • Bad timing, Owen! Another bottle was emptied in the post appearing seconds after your own.

        Why don’t you translate your concern into action and take a cool, damp towel over & place it on the fevered brow before it spontaneously combusts? Better be quick, mind…

      • Owen and Clare could certainly both benefit from the application of a damp cloth to their fevered foreheads. Or if all else fails maybe some of those odd herbal ‘remedies’ that David used to recommend?

      • All that scintillating wit and judgment wasted on us when it could have been devoted to a former legal professional trying to normalise the offences of her convicted paedophile friends by threatening and badmouthing critics and distributing images of their children on the internet. Youu’ve got your priorities sorted, I see

      • Owen, I have stated before that I don’t agree with Hewson’s views on the age of consent, I might add that I also don’t agree with many of her tweets, including those where she has been posting photos of children (usually adult children, mind) of her opponents. I can’t comment on the allegations that she has been contacting employers of those she views as her enemies to try to get them in trouble, as I don’t have the level of visibility ‘access’ required to determine the veracity of those allegations. But if she has, then that is also wrong.

        But I also don’t agree with the manner in which a small number of Twitter accounts were attacking the FAMILY members of the late Greville Janner. And you yourself might take the opportunity of disassociating yourself from that kind of behaviour. and also I would be obliged if you would consider answering the questions I posed to you yesterday.

      • tdf, I dissociated myself from behaviour inflicting cruelty on others and possibly on third partiies. That said, I see no reason to stand between the Janner family’s manipulative ploys and the anger of their father’s victims. And I’m not going to answer your hypothetical questions about “Nick” or anyone or anything else when I’m not qualified to have a useful opinion. Just stop fishing, trawling or however you choose to call it.

      • “the anger of their father’s victims.”

        Alleged victims, or complainants, would be the correct forms of words here I think.

        “And I’m not going to answer your hypothetical questions about “Nick” or anyone or anything else when I’m not qualified to have a useful opinion.”

        Interestingly, your non-qualifications to have a useful opinion doesn’t hold you back from expressing it when you want to!

      • Good I’ve made you happy. Now I’d be grateful if you’d please stop obsessing over me.

      • Sorry, that was unfair, let me put it better – please stop obsessing with opiions I have’t expressed.

      • ^ No worries. I am interested in teasing out and debating the issues more than anything. You have to bear in mind I was a believer in allegations of networks of powerful CSA abusers in high level political circles three or four years ago. I now regard most of the allegations (though by no means all) as far-fetched.

        Speaking of Proctor specifically, his politics and aspects of his private life in the 1980s were deeply unsavoury. I don’t think he murdered anyone though.

    • In Alan Goodwin/’Ciabaudo’s defence, he is consistent in going after Labour and Tory alleged paedos, though his personal politics are left of centre. I just don’t always agree with the manner on which he does it on social media.

    • One of the odd ironies about all of this is the situation of the falsely accused. I say odd ironies, because Proctor was certainly no friend to my people during his political career (bear in mind those ‘no blacks, no Irish’ signs weren’t mythical). He allied himself to the far right wing of the Tory party and to even more right wing persons outside of it.

      I don’t know if he ever personally uttered “string ’em up!!” in relation to the falsely accused, falsely jailed and wrongfully convicted Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, and the Maguire Seven, but he was closely associated with people who did.

      Clare regularly uses her Twitter account to express delight when an alleged paedophile is convicted and jailed, and regularly also expresses hopes that such persons will die in jail or otherwise come a cropper. Judging from her surname, Clare is at least partially of Irish descent. I wonder has she thought this through?

  13. Message from Barbara Hewson on Twitter = ‘Esther Baker is about as ‘vulnerable’ as a lorryload of gravel.

    My response:
    Esther Baker’s case is with the CPS. You have continually harrassed her and sent evil and abusive tweets to shut her up over a long period of time. People are phoning the police and I have asked police to speak to a DCI to hopefully get you put behind bars today. I cannot even refer to you as ‘evil’ any longer. There are no words printable for creatures like you. You have brought shame on your profession and I will thank my lucky stars every day that I was never a barrister who had to work along side you and listen to evil all day.

  14. Owen,
    It is now 6.30 am, a brilliant sun rise is illuminating the marsh opposite and the Marsh Harrier has just flown past carrying a tasty morsel for a young one somewhere – so I might be slightly distracted writing this!

    ‘I have had an idea’. I daren’t say this out loud, because Mr G dives for cover if he hears even part of that portentous sentence.

    Seriously though.

    You may not be aware that I started the Anna Raccoon blog in 2009. The ‘strapline’ – “A jaundiced view of the main stream media’ said it all. I was appalled at the way in which the main stream media manipulated and distorted every story to suit the own agenda. At the time, it was the McCann’s who were on the receiving end of their antics. Then it was Christopher Jefferies – and I coined the phrase ‘Premature Articulation’ to describe the manner in which Christopher was being treated by the media. I am still proud of that phrase.

    I had a series of lucky breaks; I am a habitual early riser and the time difference between France and England meant that I was often able to research the basis on which the presses had rolled the previous night. To cut a long story short – a number of factors, nothing to do with my scintillating wit, nor my breathtaking prose, nor my towering intellect – (nor even my cunningly concealed modesty!) had anything to do with the fact that I found myself with a considerable audience, which in those days averaged around 20 to 25,000 hits day, had anything to do with my ‘rise’ to blogging fame and fortune. (No fortune sadly – the only time I have carried advertising was when I needed to independently finance someone to help me behind the scenes. I couldn’t get rid of it fast enough).

    So there is the background to the Anna Raccoon blog – the name originated from the time when I was acting as a moderator on the Anorak news site. Anorak…Anna Raccoon….say it fast enough and you will get there……there was never any intention to ‘hide’ my identity. It could have been ‘Puff the Magic Dragon’ – but given that Anna is a girl’s name, people unsurprisingly started referring to me as ‘Anna’.

    Back in 2011 a story started to circulate in Canary Wharf that the BBC was censoring a news story. No idea who or what it concerned. I was quite literally poleaxed to discover that not only did I know the people involved – Bebe Roberts and Meirion Jones, but I knew beyond doubt that the story was untrue because I was physically there. I agonised for four days as to how to deal with this situation.

    Keep quiet or speak out? I made the fatal (in terms of me having a quiet life – I was in the middle of chemotherapy at the time!) to speak out.

    ‘Tall poppy syndrome’ swung into action. I was the first to suggest that there was such a thing as a ‘false allegation’ – and here was rather a large one. My name became synonymous with ‘victim blaming’ and other ugly terms. I was royally vilified, lost many good friends (in real life) and smartly lost at least half of my readership – appalled to find themselves associated with someone described all over the internet as a ‘paedophile defender’.

    I am rambling as usual – and my apologies to Richard Bartholomew for hijacking his blog.

    What I am going to suggest to you might cause you to take a sharp intake of breath – but I am going to suggest that you become an ‘associate editor’ for any posts that touch on the subject of sexual abuse, historic or otherwise.

    I am quite prepared to give you sight of any posts such as the Peter McKelvie on for instance – and you can advise me as to whether my post appears to be mocking, denigrating, or otherwise, diminishing the position of genuine victims of sexual abuse.

    It can only be an advisory role – for at the end of the day, it is my name as author, and my roof over my house, that is at risk from legal action.

    The focus of my attention over the next few days, weeks, or dare I say, months, will be on the disgraceful situation whereby 56 billion pounds is set aside to feed lawyers, instead of being available to restaff closed wards, pay junior doctors, and employ less agency workers. There is plenty of meat there to keep me happy.

    Call it displacement therapy, call it what you will – but rather than lie here wailing that my present situation is unfair – I have made the decision to do something practical about the root cause behind it.

    I am awaiting the arrival of the nomination papers to allow me to stand as a prospective parliamentary candidate in Islington North. Jeremy Corbyn’s constituency – and he hasn’t even mentioned the NHS.

    So, how about it Owen – ‘associate advisory editor’ whenever the subject touches on sexual abuse? A bit like the Queen really – you can advise, but not overrule.

    Did I just offer to appoint you as my official ‘Old Queen’? You’ll need a sense of humour…..!

    Final apology to Richard Bartholomew – it wont happen again, because I have started up a wanky old blogspot site – but it will give me a voice again. It will have to do for now.

    Now, cornflakes, tea, and start writing on…….another day dawns.

    • To describe the response you provoked as “tall poppy syndrome” rather ignores the fact that a substantial number of your fellow alumnae of Duncroft disagreed with you.

      If profiling Peter McKelvie as just “another Pied Piper of Paedo Panic, a £300 a day professional whistleblower for the Goddard Inquiry” and summing up the information garnered from the investigation of Peter Righton and Righton’s self-documented exploits isn’t denigration, I can perhaps understand why you’re still unable to understand how the content of your blog might be seen as a sustained onslaught on the credibility of victims/survivors.

      You seem to have undergone some sort of Damascene conversion regaridng the age of consent, so your insistence that it wasn’t your intention to mock the reports that Professor Jay’s inquiry has been set up to examine gives me hope that your empathy for the predators’ targets will be a little more cleaarly expressed in future.

      Your prospective involvement in election campaiging in Islington North is good news. It’ll be the ideal opportunity for you to demonstrate your ongoing concern for and commitment to the Islington children whose lives were blighted while the politicians with a duty of care for the in the 1980s annd 1990s turned a blind eye.

      • Owen,

        You didn’t answer the question as to whether you would be prepared to advise me in future?

        It’s not my job to change individual mindsets – my job is to write blog posts that will inspire debate and hopefully be fair and balanced to everyone.

        Do you accept the challenge to act as advisor or not?

      • Absolutely not, I’m sorry to say. It would be a bit difficult working with trust alogside a colleague someone whose “forensically meticulous” investigation of the truth has so often spun information into disinformation?

        Take for example your piece referring to Peter McKelvie. You neatly transformed an announncement about the funding of a police pilot project testing out an approach to gang control into an unfavourable comparison of Metropolitaan Police funding priorities between a minimal sum allocated to gang activity policing and the cost of investigating Savile. Read your post at and then read the GLA report at

        You’ve been at the edge as far as alternative news is concerned – looks like Donald Trump may have been an early follower! So count me out on this one I’m afraid.

      • Islington now is it, Owen? That’d be the stomping ground of Liz Davies, who won’t let an opportunity slip by without reminding us all that she is a ‘whistleblower’. (Also a trumpetblower!)

        I previously suggested that she may have, you know, fallen in off the deep end (mysterious castles appearing on ancient postcards belonging to a man who HAD no memory of abuse but NOW has very vivid ones, including the names of the abusers!).

        The video up above shows Davies ‘campaigning’ along with a man now charged with malicious communications. Of course, anyone suggesting that these ‘campaigns’ were attracting some – ahem! – suspect characters was subjected to the usual tirade of emotional insults: ‘paedo protector’, ‘paedo apologist’, etc..

        I suggest that McKelvie (who was the sole reason I took any of this seriously, as perhaps TDF might recall… others were convinced the whole show rode into town on the back of the Mad Mary Moss & Chris Fay drivel) may have fallen into the same trap: taking seriously the rantings of lunatics.

        (Both McKelvie and Davies of course DID do good work; having done good work in the past – or the present, for that matter – rule you out of falling victim to a convincing fraudster, a genuinely believing nutter or other assorted oddballs.)

        Was the following ever sufficiently explained? Quite astonishing coming from the arch media manipulator himself:

        “Mr Watson wrote on Twitter: “Peter [McKelvie] is allowing his media appearances to bring the whole show down.””

      • As so often, Bandini, I’m not really sure what exactly you’re hammering away at, but I’m glad to see that at least you respect Peter McKelvie’s and Liz Davies’s work.

      • “Mr Watson wrote on Twitter: “Peter [McKelvie] is allowing his media appearances to bring the whole show down.””

        Ian Pace said it was intended to have been a Direct Message to him (i.e., Pace!)

      • ” The video up above shows Davies ‘campaigning’ along with a man now charged with malicious communications. ”

        Pay attention, Bandini!

        Liz Davies is among those who were subject to the man’s alleged malicious communications!

      • It’s not completely clear to whom the alleged ‘malicious communications’ over which he has been charged were directed. And I’d far rather ‘others’ were up before the beak.

      • “It’s not completely clear to whom the alleged ‘malicious communications’ over which he has been charged were directed.”

        That’s true. I was told other Islington survivors present at that event didn’t remember him from their time ‘in care’. But media articles claim he did really spend time ‘in care’, so who knows.

      • Perhaps unsurprisingly, TDF, though we’re skating on thin ice here. I’ll draw a line under it with this unrelated-link for you:

      • “I suggest that McKelvie (who was the sole reason I took any of this seriously, as perhaps TDF might recall… others were convinced the whole show rode into town on the back of the Mad Mary Moss & Chris Fay drivel) may have fallen into the same trap: taking seriously the rantings of lunatics. ”

        It’s interesting. It’s important to note that the EGH stuff (which I now believe to be drivel – the Panaroma programme and the SAFF website’s commentary did a good job sorting out the facts from myths/rumours/speculation/general bulls**** ) wasn’t first reported on in the media in 2012, it was reported on initially in the UK print press – more or less contemporaneously – in the 1980s.

        The EGH ‘story’ resurfaced in 2012 when Moss put a bunch of papers up on a Youtube account, and then people transcribed them on the Icke forum.

        The story was then taken up the Independent newspaper (owned by a Russian oligarch who lives in London…just sayin’! ) and the Mirror, red-tops, etc.

        Exaro’s main financial backer was a wealthy hedge fund guy, its secondary backer was a man who runs a reputation management PR concern.

        Exaro as we know has now ceased, and lost money. But how could anyone have thought it was going to be a money making operation in the first place? Just a bad financial bet or something more sinister?

        I don’t know the answers, but important to keep an open mind. (To give an example, Warren Buffet, for example, generally regarded as one of the most successful investors in the world, lost money when he bought Irish bank shares during the Irish financial collapse, thinking the share prices of Irish banks had hit the bottom, and sold them on at a loss shortly after when it became clear that all Irish banks required bailouts).

      • “I previously suggested that she may have, you know, fallen in off the deep end (mysterious castles appearing on ancient postcards belonging to a man who HAD no memory of abuse but NOW has very vivid ones, including the names of the abusers!).”
        There is nothing particularly mysterious about Gorey Castle. It exists – it’s a real castle.As for ‘ancient postcards’, that is almost a contradiction in terms, given that postcards are a relatively modern invention. It’s an odd choice of words to describe a postcard as ‘ancient’.

        Whether or not the postcard you refer to is reliable evidence is a different matter. As I pointed out on Anna’s old blog, it would be a place that would have been among the sights of Jersey for any visiting tourist during the 1970s/1980s and indeed to this day.

        The postcard itself certainly doesn’t PROVE anything as such regarding allegations of abuse/trafficking, but – IF it is genuine – it might help to show that the alleged survivor was indeed present at Jersey on such & such a date.

        In other words, potentially, important validating documentary evidence, no?

      • TDF, the man had no memory of abuse (and did not even know if he HAD been abused) but, like many of us, had a less than satisfactory life.

        He was fighting to obtain access to his files, he says, having some success as far back as the year 2000; appearing post-Savile he still had NO MEMORY of abuse. Fourteen years after accessing those files – and after teaming up with Team Whistleblower – he had memories so vivid he could confidently name his abusers.

        If this is evidence of anything it must surely be the ability of a memory to ‘bury’ itself deep in the cranium, laying dormant for decades until ‘set free’ by people who have coincidentally been trying to prove that what he NOW states happened to him was happening to others. What a turn up for the books, eh?

        Anyway, why on earth have they been dragging their heels for so long when the motherlode of potentially incriminating paperwork might have been lying in the vaults of Karin Ward, prime Jimmy Savile accuser? She claims to have been shipped not only to Skull Island but also to Hell House itself – HDLG!!!

        Has no one thought to rifle through HER files? She even bumped into Savile there… and it’s all true! Somone buzz for Dr Liz and get her on the case.

      • Bandini, your btterness suggests that your reference to the “less than satisfactory life” you’ve experienced was an understatement. If that’s the case, my apologies for any unwarranted aggravation I’ve caused in our confiontations. All the same, though,try and bear in mind that sympathy for others doesn’t devalue your own experience.

      • Don’t worry about me, Owen – I’m off to book a course of ‘treatment’ with some deep-memory miners (with a crystal healing sesh thrown in free of charge).

        I’m requesting the full package: easy birth & smooth early infancy all the way up to a stress-free adolescence. If they don’t find these memories at first I’ll keep going back ’til they do. Can’t wait!

      • I hope you find something that helps.

      • It already is, Owen – whereas gurgling contempories had to make do with dull, boring and tasteless latex dummies I’m getting to remember a stripy sugared confection – a whole world of dribbling pleasure. Get yourself booked in!

      • “TDF, the man had no memory of abuse (and did not even know if he HAD been abused) but, like many of us, had a less than satisfactory life.

        He was fighting to obtain access to his files, he says, having some success as far back as the year 2000; appearing post-Savile he still had NO MEMORY of abuse. Fourteen years after accessing those files – and after teaming up with Team Whistleblower – he had memories so vivid he could confidently name his abusers.”

        Bandini, I do remember that he put up the postcard on Twitter, but I can’t recall the name of his Twitter account. Do you have anything further on this, particularly in regard to where he stated he had no memory of abuse until recent years?

      • The postcards (including one of Gorey Castle), sent by “Richard” to his father when he was five or six, provided the first solid evidence that children from Islington’s homes in the 1970s were sent on trips to Jersey in an exchange programme with children from Haut de la Garenne.

        The Islington children’s exchange trips are part of the picture of a child abuse ring operating in the UK during this period.

        A succession of inquiries has established that child abuse took place in Islington’children’s homes.

        As the relevant ocuments weere dstroyed Islington Council has no official record of children in its care having been sent to Jersey. Hence the importance of “Richard”‘s discovery of the postcards he sent home to his father.

        Richard told the Islington Tribune that he believed he was “interfered with”. He didn’t remember it but his behaviour afterwards was consistent with having been abused.

        He was trying to make contact with other residents not for the money, but in order to get Islington to admit that it had been wrong.

        “Richard” was at the 114 Grosvenor Avenue home in Canonbury while Nicholas Rabet was deputy superintendent. Rabet, who was from Jersey, is abused to have abused hudreds of boys. He was exposed by the Evening Standard but fled to Thailand where he comitted sicide while awaiting trial.

      • For TDF:

        There is a link to an older Islington Tribune article:
        ““I do believe I was interfered with,” Richard told the Tribune. “I can’t say that I remember it. But I displayed behaviour afterwards that is consistent with being abused… …I was in that care home when the likes of Nicholas Rabet was the deputy superintendent and I believe I was abused.””

        Rabet is now confidently named as his abuser (or one of ’em), responsible for abuse he did not remember… but now does.

        Dr Liz: “We want Islington Council to give us access to the building, so we can hold the hands of the children, now adults, the adult survivors who had lived there and talk them through the building to heal and to get some memories of what happened… …But also we need to set up some kind of charity. I don’t know if anyone here is willing to help. The charity will help survivors regain their forgotten childhood.”

        It soon was, of course – Dr Liz & the bloke with the postcards, a forgotten childhood now remembered.

        Enough! I’m sick of it all (again). Happy digging (and apologies to Richard for the server-strain no doubt caused by all this commenting lark).

      • Ok thanks Bandini & Owen.

    • Indeed Owen, that blog has some excellent CSA-related research links from contemporaneous media sources, although I wouldn’t put much credence on the Elm Guest House stuff (not the fault of the blogger).

      Bandini, unless I misunderstand him, seems to regard the link to the discussion on Anna’s blog as settling the matter. Seems to me that it is anything but settled.

      Bandini/Owen, did you get a chance to listen to the Richard Hoskins R4 interview? It is worth noting that Hoskins, although sceptical regarding the claims about Heath he was asked by the police to assess, fully accepts that recovered memory do happen in cases of persons subjected to traumatic experiences at a young age.

      • tdf, I didn’t hear Hoskins. To be honest, I’m rather wary of someone who although apparently an expert witness for the police investigating the allegations agrees to talk to the media before the investigation is complete and the police anounce their findings. I’m not an expert, perhaps this is legitiimate, but all the same it seems a bit unorthodox.

      • Not “settling the matter”, TDF; you asked for some more information regarding a particular point and I nudged you in that direction, that’s all. I’ve been through this particular case several times already and don’t have much appetite to do so again.

        A couple of quick points though: Owen says that Richard was 5 or 6, based upon that article. He was 7, according to Dr Liz, and the year was 1978, according to Richard.

        The postcards are postmarked – indeed Dr Liz makes much of this as it is PROOF!!! – so it’s hard to understand how the confusion over age came about though it’s something we really should be accustomed to by now!

        Is Hoskins an expert in memory? Or rather religion & religious/ritual abuse? It’s not clear, therefore, what store to place in said opinion. With all we know about how memories are formed and can be MADE, is a ‘memory recovered’ a true memory anyway? The evidence suggests that it may very well not be (though it will feel that way to the rememberer).

        (Whatever, it’s a shame that Richard couldn’t bury the whole trauma of the 2-years he spent in care from age of 5 (?) due to the death of his mother & an alcoholic father… some might say that this alone might lead to problems further down the line for some people but I couldn’t possibly comment!).

      • Just to correct you, Bandini, “Richard”‘s age has nothing to do with me or my opinions. As I thought was clear, I was summarisiing the Isligton Tribune article. I have no idea what Richard’s age is or was.

        As always, despite your world-weary disclaimers, you seem to have considerable knowledge of updated source materials, even if your reporting of their content someetimes falls short of being consistently reliable.

      • Owen: “… I’m rather wary of someone who … … agrees to talk to the media before the investigation is complete and the police anounce their findings.”

        Only the ‘expert witnesses’, Owen, or the bog-standard witness too? And their proxy story-spreaders, of course!

        Dr Liz, Whistleblower:
        “We won’t tolerate people who go on social media with the deliberate intention of misinforming people and misdirecting… … We are getting to know who those people are; with false identities, pretending to be survivors.”

        Aye, aren’t we just. At least, some of us are. Goodbye.

      • I presume from that comment, Bandini, that your expertise in challenging survivor veracity isn’t contractually constrained just at the moment.

      • Habla cristiano, Owen.

      • He’s a friend of yours?

      • Who, Jesus of Nazareth? What are you burbling on about?

      • Bandini,

        “Is Hoskins an expert in memory? Or rather religion & religious/ritual abuse? It’s not clear, therefore, what store to place in said opinion.”

        Fair point.

        Owen, he explains why he spoke to the media before the police report is published in the radio interview….so you’ll have to the listen to the interview to find out his reasons!

  15. Sorry I lost a letter in that last para: “… a duty of care for them in the 1980s and 1990s …”

  16. Owen,

    “You seem to have undergone some sort of Damascene conversion”

    I have never expressed a view as to whether it should go up or down – only that there should be debate on the matter – and that people should not be pilloried or vilified for calling for such a debate.

    So no Damascene conversion – I’m still in exactly the same position.

    One more chance to answer my question then I must go – I have a backlog of emails addressing the bigger question of NHS funding – and it is not fair to devote so much time to one particular commentator.

    The ball is your court – your serve!

    • Unfortunately so much of the Comments component of the interaction between you and your blog followers has disappeared but nervertheless perhaps your Edinburgh University archive keepers may be able to locate a relevant comment which you advocated puberty as the age of consent (possibly it was only for girls – my memory’s not fine-grained enough) .Or perhaps another reader can confirm.

      • Owen, I genuinely don’t know where you get this stuff from.
        For the record, I have never once thought that Anna was ‘in favour’ of reducing the age of consent & certainly don’t recall that which you mention.

        I might have the offending comment stored away – and quite possibly your ‘missing’ comments which you might feel are worthy of being preserved for the ages! If you could narrow it down a little I’d have a gander.

        P.S. From Wikipedia:
        “On average, girls begin puberty around ages 10–11 and end puberty around 15-17; boys begin around ages 11–12 and end around 16-17.”

      • That’s kind of you, Bandini.

      • Sorry, I’d meant to say that I ca’t really narrow it down as I don’t have an archive to persue. I hope it’s not too onerous to ask you to try a “Find” search through the material you keep?

      • Sorry, “peruse” that was meant to be.

      • I had already done that between writing that comment & this and find nothing.

        To be honest, it IS too onerous a task being asked to trawl away looking for something I don’t even think exists! A needle in a haystack, maybe; a non-existent needle, no!

        Let me know if your ‘memory’ unfogs.

      • OK, thanks anyway. It must have been a couple of years ago, before the bantering atmosphere cleared up a bit. Not to worry, someone else may have a better memory than you or I do.

      • I don’t think there’s anything wrong with MY memory, Owen!

      • Fair enough, Bandini.

    • Well, Owen has been made a unique offer to assist me in making the blog ‘friendly’ both to those genuinely abused, and their predators and the fantasists and those they falsely accused. He has declined.

      There is nothing more to be said – he obviously doesn’t welcome change – just wants to complain about the current situation.

      Like too many people – prefers whinging to action. I thought he was a better man that that.

      I’m off to fry the lawyers who bleed the NHS dry. A far better use of my time. I’m more of an action girl myself.

  17. I’m sure all Barbara Hewson’s ‘buddies’ would like to ask her how many deletions of tweets she has made over the last two years. I am asking whether it runs into four figures? Just a question Barbara. I know you so ‘love’ free speech.

    From an apparently ‘Mucho whinging, lunatic fringe, nutwing’ likened to a ‘nazi’. Thank you so much

  18. How kind of Sarah Champion. So nice to know there’s a really decent MP out there, who appreciates all the time and effort I have put into sticking up for kids and survivors. I shall raise a glass of wine to you tonight Sarah. I’m sure all the lovely folk on this blog would like to say how nice that is too. Thank you so much ……….

    You Retweeted
    Sunnyclaribel‏ @Sunnyclaribel 2h2 hours ago
    Sunnyclaribel Retweeted Sarah Champion MP
    Thanks so much Sarah. I’ve had some nasty trolls recently, backing each other up, so your kind words mean so much to me. xSunnyclaribel added,
    Sarah Champion MPVerified account @SarahChampionMP
    TY. You have done incredible work fighting for support & justice for victims/survivors of child abuse. You’re an amazing campaigner …
    1 reply . 5 retweets 9 likes
    Reply 1 Retweeted 5
    Liked 9 View Tweet activity

  19. Perhaps slightly off-topic but of the ‘Gang of 7’ MP’s – the cross-party group who lobbied Teresa May to set up the IICSA in 2014 – I see that both John Hemming and Zac Goldsmith are both candidates for their respective parties in the forthcoming general election (Hemming lost his seat in the 2015 General Election, Goldsmith announced his resignation as a Member of Parliament following the Government’s October 2016 decision to approve a third runway at Heathrow Airport, a decision he was strongly against. )

    Simon Danczuk meanwhile is still an MP but is currently suspended from Labour. He has insisted he will run, even if he has to run as an independent.

    Naomi Long of the Alliance Party lost her seat in the 2015 General Election to the DUP. That could be another close race this time around..

    John Mann of Labour looks safe enough, he has a large majority.

    Tessa Munt, like Hemming, was a casualty of the 2015 swing against the Lib Dems, I am not sure what her intentions are this time around.

    Caroline Lucas of the Greens, the only Green Party MP in the Commons, retained her Brighton seat with an increased majority in 2015 and looks safe enough this time around I think.

  20. ^ Must correct myself, John Mann wasn’t part of the ‘Gang of Seven’ as such, though he has raised issues to do with CSA in the Commons and on Twitter.

    The seventh was the former Childrens’ Minister Tim Loughton, who is in a safe Tory seat with a majority of 15k last time around.

    On a lighter note to some of the topics discussed above, Wikipedia reports that Mr Loughton in 2001 referred to his then party leader William Hague as ‘baldy and having a funny accent’

  21. Gah!

    I must now diagnose myself with a case of ‘advanced false memory syndrome’.

    Naomi Long of the Alliance Party was not part of the original 7, though she did lobby in favour of a Kincora inquiry.

    The seventh was of course Tom Watson, who is now Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

  22. Sunnyclaribel‏ @Sunnyclaribel 16m16 minutes ago
    Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t leave a child alone with anyone who slags me off because I’m a child sex abuse survivor/campaigner……
    0 replies . 1 retweet 1 like
    Reply Retweeted 1
    Liked 1 View Tweet activity
    You Retweeted
    Sunnyclaribel‏ @Sunnyclaribel 12h12 hours ago
    I wonder if ‘trolls’ are born or ‘made’? Is there a shop somewhere churning out petty, small minded people? My thought for today ……
    1 reply . 5 retweets 12 likes
    Reply 1 Retweeted 5
    Liked 12 View Tweet activity
    You Retweeted
    Sunnyclaribel‏ @Sunnyclaribel 1m1 minute ago
    It takes ‘courage’ to speak out about being sexually assaulted as a child & only someone ‘evil’ would slag you off for doing it ……….
    0 replies . 1 retweet 0 likes
    Reply Retweeted 1
    Like View Tweet activity

  23. Sunnyclaribel‏ @Sunnyclaribel Apr 19
    If anyone doesn’t like me standing up for kids/CSA survivors, happy for you to unfollow, block or report. I shall carry on regardless
    7 replies . 35 retweets 73 likes
    Reply 7 Retweeted 35
    Liked 73 View Tweet activity

    • I wish someone’d block you from posting your awfully formatted tedious tweets in the comment section!

    • I see you know call Hewson a “bitch”. What an utter fraud you are.

      • “… a non exhaustive list of Hewson’s abusive behaviour directed at me since August 2016 to date includes:

        repeatedly publishing my photograph with insults attached – ‘fuck off madam’
        linking insults directly to and about my Chambers
        foul, abusive language – for example, calling me a ‘nasty C**t’
        encouraging one of her criminal associates to email me and a senior member of my Chambers directly and threaten to report me to the police
        publicly discussing my sexuality on line with a man who I know to be a sexual abuser of women and girls (this man then takes to Facebook and repeats that I am an evil lesbian and ‘pure shit’)
        continually making references to my daughter when she knows full well that her tweets are ‘liked’ and ‘retweeted’ by at least one convicted and unrepentant paedophile.
        inciting her followers to target me – ‘will no one rid me of this McCarthyite barrister?’
        targeting anyone else she perceives as supporting me and publishing abuse directed at them via Twitter or sending threatening emails to them or their employers.

        I have been subject to serious abuse, but others have fared even worse. They have wished to retain their on line anonymity but been ‘outed’ by Ms Hewson who has no problem at all with posting people’s real names and email addresses, despite her very keen appreciation that her own privacy be respected. One particularly repulsive example of this kind of behaviour was her repeated publication of photographs of the children of at least two of her adversaries, with insulting comments attached.


        “It’s long been believed Barbara Hewson departed Hardwicke after a disagreement over her controversial comments regarding the age of consent.

        The reality: Barbara Hewson left after complaints by several tenants and other Barristers/Solicitors to Hardwicke.


  24. Oh, I can’t resist this! The ‘uninitiated’ may see it as being off-topic, but…

    “Article retracted. Hemmings was the victim of a politically motivated smear campaign prior to the last general election.”

    Ho ho ho! You don’t say! He bloody does! But who?!? Why, that joker with the most unaccountably bad track-record – Gojam the Fool of Noodleblog infamy.

    (Anyone keeping track of the litany of failure?)

    Aye, ‘Why I Do Not Support John Hemming’ has been vanished – get it while it’s hot on Google cache! But what on earth was an embedded-tweet from Graham Wibble of ‘The Project’ doing in the ‘article’ anyway? Anyone’s guess, I suppose… right, chaps?

    Still, a round of applause for the Tom Jones shite, eh?
    Wednesday Night Wail:

    • Bandini, cool the jets, if you don’t mind.

      The Needleblog has done very good work, so I’d appreciate if you’d rein in your instincts to be an arsehole, yeah?

      Otherwise, set up a blog of your own, and we can all gleefully critique it!

      Don’t forget, Bandini (just jogging your memory here, it may be a trifle selective at times!) IIRC you were initially a believer in a rather odd and now fortunately defunct online news agency.

      Sauce for the goose is fit for the gander, after all.

      • Noting time of comment I’l refrain from responding ‘cept to wish you a speedy recovery! Big glass of water’ll help.

  25. ^ Heh heh.

    Bandini, you’re a bad man. Funny though.

    I’ve been re-reading your discussions with Mr Hencke. The news, courtesy of ‘savetheNHS’ that one of the Twitter anti-CSA campaigners is himself a bad ‘un reminded me of a similar case.

    ( TRIGGER WARNING: link below may feature shocking revelations of Fleet Street’s finest embarassing failures to answer legitimate questions. Some may find this upsetting. No-one who believes in the truth would, however. )

  26. I must say Bandini, I can’t agree that Gojam has the “unaccountably bad track-record”.

    That dubious honour belongs to a man who has abused his freedom of speech on his Twitter account to defame many politicians, even though he personally has no evidence against any of them whatever. Indeed, the man believes that his own Tweets constitute ‘evidence’.

    I was told that this man believes everything that is told to him. This, however, is not true. In fact, he believes everything that is consistent with the idea of a vast VIP abuse network, and labels anyone who challenges or questions him as ‘a denier’.

    I understand that this man is currently in hospital for an operation. If I were evil, I’d call it a case of karma rebounding, but I’m not, so I won’t.

  27. Message on Twitter from Barbara Hewson – Listen, self-styled “survivors” and arch Twitter bores: your incessant “listen to me” trope is narcissism personified. Time to STFU I think – Sent on 10/09/2016, 21:28

    • The vocabulary’s more restrained than the gynaecological repertorie we’ve come to expect.

      For an example of the sort of “free speech” she seems to want to deter, see:

      • repertoire, not repertorie

      • Are we to assume that you prefer Clare’s twat to Barbara’s cunt, Owen? Surely only a question of taste.

      • Owen, Sunny Claribel spams this forum with copy and pastes, refuses to answer questions, boasts about her Twitter followers, and doesn’t even have the simple human courtesy to thank ‘SavetheNHS’ for pointing out that at least one of her Twitter followers is a convicted child abusers.

        Her campaign against child abuse seems to exist entirely in repetitive social media spam and support for the proven fraud ‘Carl Survivor’.

        Assuming she is a real person and not a bot, really and truly, Owen, is that someone that you want on your side?

      • tdf, what’s that got to do with my comment about Barbara Hewson? I make my own commennts. Are these synthetic questions to me your way of flagging up your membership of a Hewson “side”?

      • Owen, like yourself, I’m not on anyone’s side. Group think is always dangerous.

        Bandini will recall that I started as a believer in a lot of this stuff. Having been led up the garden path once too often, I have now become a lot more sceptical.

        SunnyClaribel made a good point in her interview with Irreverent Buddhist – cops are only allowed to work in paedophile investigation units for relatively short periods before being moved on, as there is a risk of them becoming traumatised to the extent of developing PTSD.

        I wonder, who should I sue for my emotional investment in initially believing false tales circulated by the likes of Exaro’s ‘Nick’ ? (Rhetorical question, unfortunately!).

      • tdf, that last paragraph was as inappropriate as Ivanka Trump’s talking about her “slavery” under a quote from Toni Morrison’s “Beloved”

  28. Owen, frankly, I think it’s your comparison that is inappropriate.

    Because unlike Nick’s tall tales of being threatened with castration by Harvey Proctor and being forced to witness murders of his friends, slavery actually happened.

  29. Just sayin’

  30. Barbara Hewson,

    why did you threaten me on Twitter?

    • Barbara Hewson, I am not difficult to find, whatever issues you have with me can be sorted out one-to-one over a coffee/drink/lunch, even though I’ve never even met you so what could I have done.

      But don’t be sending weird, odd, threats on Twitter, it just makes you look like a bit of a cowardly, hypocritical, eejit, you bully.

      Good luck with your plan to sue the Times. You’ll need it.

    • No idea what is being alleged here, TDF. A bit more information might be useful.

      • Would have thought that it’s clear enough.

      • Hmm.

      • No, it’s not clear at all! I have no idea what you’re on about, didn’t think you were still on Twitter, and have a hard time imagining what threats could have been made. Honestly.

      • Feel as though I’ve been sat alone at a table for two, bunch of wilting flowers in hand, avoiding waiter’s glances as the kitchen’s closing and they all want to go home…

        Nope, TDF’s not gonna turn up (with the goods).

      • Tres interesant, Mr Bond!

        Bandini, you were attacking Liz Davies on other blogs, if I recall correctly (and I do). Do you want to explain yourself?

      • TDF:

        “Bandini, you were attacking Liz Davies on other blogs, if I recall correctly (and I do). Do you want to explain yourself?”

        Er, I was ‘attacking’ her (or ‘criticizing’ in plain English) on THIS blog – indeed, on this very page! Are you on the poteen again?!?

        Should I explain myself (when I’ve already quite clearly outlined the criticism above)? I’d be risking Owen bawling about repetition (again)… and letting you off the hook for making odd claims of being threatened which you’ve so far not bothered backing up with, well, anything at all.
        Are you on the poteen again?!? (Sorry Owen!)

        Sandy Marks? I’d never heard of her. Nor the ‘Fallen Angels’ – unless there’s some yet-to-be-told tale of Islington kids going on ‘holiday’ to the good ol’ US of A:
        Is it a dot? You grab hold of one side, I’ll take the other, we’ll soon have it stretched into a ring!

        Anyway, bearing in mind that the age of consent for homosexuals was 21 at the time, and that as the article mentions…

        “But by January 1981 there was a vitriolic split between the two groups, when PIE denounced the Fallen Angels as “a clique of leftover intellectuals, political theorists and hydrophobic feminists”.”

        … it may well be true that Minging Marks (who we are told repeatedly is a ‘Ms’) was swept up ‘n’ away on a wave of right-on madness as she seems to imply. Who knows?

        Apropos of almost nothing, and rather than waste my time on the above, I’d been reading in The Atlantic of the horror that is the Trump presidency; a Watergate-veteran had penned a brutal (and terrifying) resumé of the story-so-far that included a reference to Hunter S. Thompson’s obituary of Richard Nixon.

        “Some people will say that words like ‘scum’ and ‘rotten’ are wrong for Objective Journalism — which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place.”

        I thought of this as I read about “the vile Paedophile Information Exchange” from whoever it was who wrote the articles from the Ham & High. Personally, I could do with a bit more objectivity, at least from those without such a way with words as the good Doctor.

        Right-o, where’s me glass/YOUR explanation? ¡Salud!

      • Bandini,

        I have never, in my life, drank poteen. I’m aware that commercial variants of it are now legally for sale, even in posh bars in Dublin, London, Edinburgh and other places but I am told that they are not ‘the real deal’. Probably for the best, as during my youth, if it wasn’t a story about the Troubles the media were ‘regaling’ us with, it was a story about rural people dying due to being poisoned by home-made alcohol. There is perhaps a good reason why the alternate name for poitin was ‘the cratur’.

        Incidentally, I approve of Gram Parsons and Emmy Lou Harris.

        I also approve of Nixon.

      • “I thought of this as I read about “the vile Paedophile Information Exchange” from whoever it was who wrote the articles from the Ham & High. Personally, I could do with a bit more objectivity, at least from those without such a way with words as the good Doctor.”

        So, your critique of the Ham & High article entirely consists in that they used the word ‘vile’ in front of ‘Paedophile Information Exchange’?

      • Bill Clinton could’ve written that, TDF:

        “I did not have sequential inebriations with that bottle…”

        Ho ho ho! And this:

        “So, your critique of the Ham & High article entirely consists in that they used the word ‘vile’ in front of ‘Paedophile Information Exchange’?”

        Yeah, that’s right. Or at least it would be if you ignored the rest of what I wrote! Maybe you missed it when you were trying not to see the bit asking you to back up your (presumably unfounded) claims of being threatened?!? Just a thought…

        Here’s Dr Liz from almost three years ago saying much the same as she always says:
        (The comments are great – gotta love those level-headed ‘campaigners’!)

        Maybe ‘what’s-her-name’ & ‘who-the-hell-were-they’ are the rug to be pulled from beneath the Establishment Paedo Conspiracy’s feet… or maybe the reason Davies’ much-repeated claim that journos/others won’t take her claims seriously (for some spooky reason) is because, you know, they are a bid mad. The claims, I mean.

        Right-o, I’ll sit back and wait for your explanation, shall I?

      • Tim Brown of Fallen Angels writes to Socialist Challenge about paedophilia (Bits of Books again):

      • ” Maybe ‘what’s-her-name’ & ‘who-the-hell-were-they’ are the rug to be pulled from beneath the Establishment Paedo Conspiracy’s feet… or maybe the reason Davies’ much-repeated claim that journos/others won’t take her claims seriously (for some spooky reason) is because, you know, they are a bid mad. The claims, I mean.”

        What an extraordinary statement, Bandini!

        You have, in fact, been provided with numerous links via both myself and Owen to the contemporaneous and well-researched evidence.

        I can only hope that you have – yet again – over indulged in the local vino.

      • How easily you allow yourselves to be blown along on a dusty waft of nonsense as ageing scraps of paper are extracted from old cardboard boxes!

        Last time I looked it was the year two thousand and seventeen and yet the actions of a little known group of ‘rights activists’ from the 1980s are suddenly Of The Utmost Importance…

        Consider some wise words from Joan Bakewell:

        “‘And Jimmy Savile?’

        ‘Later, yes. Repellent, you know. He once tried to get me to go to his hotel room. But many of the young girls who did go I’m afraid went willingly.’

        Bakewell says it’s odd to see how the ethos now looks so horrible and so bent. ‘You can’t re-create the mood of an era,’ she said. ‘You just can’t get into the culture of what it was like, transfer our sensibilities backwards from today. It would be like asking Victorian factory owners to explain why they sent children up chimneys.'”

        Indeed. Bearing in mind the in-your-face nature of those ‘rights activists’ – craving attention, so deluded they were! – it’s hard not to see you falling into the trap Bakewell warns against. Here, for example, a snippet from a link provided by exTDF:

        “In the PIE Chairperson’s Annual Report for 1975-6, Keith Hose wrote that ‘The only way for PIE to survive, was to seek out as much publicity for the organization as possible…. If we got bad publicity we would not run into a corner but stand and fight. We felt that the only way to get more paedophiles joining PIE… was to seek out and try to get all kinds of publications to print our organization’s name and address and to make paedophilia a real public issue.’”

        Still, if “a certain JS” can be found to be involved (tip: keep yer eyes peeled for the initials PR, or Pink Roller) it’ll all have been worthwhile, eh?


  31. Nobody cares which one of you has drunk what. This is not twitter you know.

  32. The reference to JS followed by ‘don’t let him get you down’ rather suggests that if it was a reference to Jimmy Savile – he was not ‘onside’ with PIE’s agenda.

    • A ‘Gay Rights Committee’ meeting around the same time (and dealing with the same topics such as the Child Protection Bill) included both Nettie Pollard, Tom O’Carroll & ‘a certain John Saunders’:
      Wonder if he drove a Roller?!?

      • ^ Occam’s Razor suggests it was more likely a certain John Saunders than the former DJ. I can’t imagine Savile, whatever his other failings, agreeing to be the humble transcriber at a meeting.

      • ^ actually my previous comment doesn’t make sense, does it.

        The note referring to a ‘JS’ that was apparently written by Tom O’Carroll to Nettie Pollard doesn’t make any reference to the ‘JS’ (whoever he was) taking notes at meetings.

        Probably still inclined to go for Occam’s Razor suggesting ‘JS’ not all that likely to have been the former DJ, unless other info comes to light.

Comments are closed.