Satanicky Panicky Scams

[CrankyBoomer]

Apparently JA and her minions are coming for the satnics - this is a taking the micky video but she's planning another event in London on 19th July.

and David Icke is giving her the time of day now.

"POSTED BY RICHARD WILLET - MEMES AND HEADLINE COMMENTS BY DAVID ICKEPOSTED ON 13 JULY 2021
Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor Jeanette Archer Shocking Interview Exposing Prime Minister Edward Heath (who I exposed for this in The Biggest Secret in 1998) and members of the British royal family (who I exposed for this in the same book) – and ‘I know some of them were not human’

Read More: Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor Jeanette Archer Shocking Interview Exposing a Prime Minister"

Sorry I can't copy the page but will give the link - she's been interviewed on Boring Nutty Tube, sorry I mean Brand New Tube, (a platform something along the lines of YouTube but lets 'out there' people post. https://davidicke.com/2021/07/13/satani ... t-in-1998/)

[CrankyBoomer]

Ms Archer led a crowd, smaller than the 26th June one, around London yesterday. Some people may have had to work of course. There were larger Freedumb marches in the UK capital yesterday. Eyebrows & Co might have done their trick of piggy-backing on larger marches on the same day. They blocked Westminster Bridge temporarily. I don't know whether they entertained ideas of storming no. 10 - they did roll up there for a time (BoJo's not there at present) but security forces seem to be taking their duties at least marginally more serously since The Sun newspaper obtained pictures of ex-Health Secretary Matt Hancock kissing his lady friend.

As for Ms Archer taking part in a fraud, the repair of the 'satnic' banner was done on the cheap - looked like a paint over job so I wonder just which coffers money from the GoFundMe ends up in.

[CrankyBoomer]

People who visit here who also dip in and out of the Hoaxtead blog will probably be aware that she of the Arched Eyebrows is planning to hold another march on Monday 16th August. Her rhetoric has grown more warlike She's spoken about 'taking back' places which were never hers in the first place. Someone gave £1,000 to her GoFraudMe a few days ago. She received a police caution earlier in the year for naming the child in the Wilfred Wong case. R Cavath who entitles himself as a 'journalist' mentioned something on his blog about plans to set up a new charity 'Samantha's Children'. It could be co-incidence but another person who had been interviewed by Shaun Attwood ('true crime' YouTuber) last year, a woman called Samantha Baldwin, who lost custody of her children in a parental alienation case. Samantha Baldwin did suddenly find other commitments so that she couldn't make one of JA's earlier rallies when the news came out that JA's naughty granddad had died before JA was born. I've tended to think the SRA grifts were just that, grifts to make money, but now I'm wondering are these people trying to amass money to have something in store for kidnapping attempts. Then, I've also wondered are people trying to cause political unrest. (Or am I becoming over imaginative there?).

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I've tended to think the SRA grifts were just that, grifts to make money, but now I'm wondering are these people trying to amass money to have something in store for kidnapping attempts. Then, I've also wondered are people trying to cause political unrest. (Or am I becoming over imaginative there?).

There a mix of violent nutcases (e.g. The White Pendragons), the mentally challenged (John Paterson, Neelu, EWE etc.) and pure grifters (Wedger, Brees, Archer et al.) They all overlap to some extent. What is more worrying is the police complacency. It's not like they don't publish online exactly what they are up to.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

With the smart money being placed on Archer planning to lead the sheep in a march from the Royal Opera House to the Freemasons Hall, long term readers may remember that it is next door but one to the auction that sold of Neelu's house in Peel Drive!

Edward was not aware that the doctor was staging a Mental Health Sectioning Fraud by provoking him into a rage for the purposes of a Kidney admission in an assassination under the pretence of a Kidney dialysis or a Kidney transplant in a Murder Ritual attended by the Unseen Ones of Secret Societies who are running all public services from 66 Great Queen Street in London, UK, next door to Barnard Marcus Auction Rooms where my home was auctioned and purchased by an influx of these “Unseen Ones” from next door despite my informing them it was a stolen property.

[CrankyBoomer]

The GoFundMe HAS disappeared now. I thought perhaps Ms A had cashed it out and gone on a jolly holiday but maybe not because she vented on the SRA Facebook page (rant since deleted). She is certainly a less happy bunny than she was BUT it seems she is telling me they can donate by Paypal. The TrollExposure blog site has an interesting (to me at least) feature about the latest deveopments in the grift. https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/202 ... bananning/

[CrankyBoomer]

With the smart money being placed on Archer planning to lead the sheep in a march from the Royal Opera House to the Freemasons Hall, long term readers may remember that it is next door but one to the auction that sold of Neelu's house in Peel Drive!

Edward was not aware that the doctor was staging a Mental Health Sectioning Fraud by provoking him into a rage for the purposes of a Kidney admission in an assassination under the pretence of a Kidney dialysis or a Kidney transplant in a Murder Ritual attended by the Unseen Ones of Secret Societies who are running all public services from 66 Great Queen Street in London, UK, next door to Barnard Marcus Auction Rooms where my home was auctioned and purchased by an influx of these “Unseen Ones” from next door despite my informing them it was a stolen property.

Ha ha, you're funny Sage.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Ha ha, you're funny Sage.

Not really. I just have extensive Neelu archives

I was aware of her in the early 2000s. She is ultimately how I found Quatloos and Hoaxtead, rather than they led me to Neelu!

[Tinkle Bucket]

That's how I found Hoaxtead and Quatloos was a video on YouTube of Neelu on the phone trying to lien someone for three trillion pounds.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

That's how I found Hoaxtead and Quatloos was a video on YouTube of Neelu on the phone trying to lien someone for three trillion pounds.

The video she made of herself trying to pay her mortgage at a bank branch with a Swissindo M1 certificate was special!

[Tinkle Bucket]

oApparently according to Neelu every one is owed 500 quintillion dollars or pounds or sea shells or something also we get our gold from other planets which is then promptly nicked by pirates.
"Aaarr Jim lad".

[CrankyBoomer]

I believe Sage is aware but Jeanette A along with Wilfred Wong is featured in Private Eye the magazine this fortnight (no. 1555). I don't take the magazine so can't link but it's probably somewhere out there are on t'internet.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Tin Ribs has posted the image of the page on Hoaxtead. I tend to OCR them and I wasn't near my scanner this week.

[longdog]

I was reading about this case on Hoaxstead the other day and Wong's affirming rather than swearing an oath got me wondering about how I'd look at that if I'd been on the jury.

As an atheist I would always affirm and would be mightily pissed off if I thought that a jury would make any negative inferences on that basis, never having seen any evidence that atheists are any less honest on the whole than religious folk. But...

When you hold yourself out to be an extra-special servant of god and then affirm I can only think of three possible reasons.

1) You are a member of a religious group that has a theological objection to swearing oaths. I think the Quakers (my favourite Christians) do that but I can't be bother to check... I know it's somebody and whoever it is I'm pretty sure it's not Wong's flavour of Christianity. Rather the opposite end of the spectrum.

2) Your whole extra-special servant of god thing is, and always was, bullshit and in a brief flash of honesty you have decided to drop the pretence in court. Just before you start lying to the court.

3) You know you are about to lie through your teeth and as a genuine extra-special servant of god you fear the consequences.

I'd like to think I would take my duty as a juror seriously and just accept his affirmation on face value as I would expect if I was doing it. But I don't think I could. The two positions of being both a extra-special servant of god and refusing to swear an oath seem incompatible and pretty good evidence that you are not only dishonest but calculatingly dishonest. You have to be lying about something.

Just for clarity. I'm no saint and would lie my arse off under oath if I thought it would save my neck from child kidnapping charges. But I'd want to have something much, much better than his piss poor defence first.

ETA: I'm waiting with baited breath for the sentencing. My Google-Fu suggests there are no published and current sentencing guideline for kidnap but my shiny shilling is on life with a minimum term of 15-20 years or, if that's not how it works, just 15-20 years.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

As an atheist I would always affirm and would be mightily pissed off if I thought that a jury would make any negative inferences on that basis, never having seen any evidence that atheists are any less honest on the whole than religious folk.

I was at a Employment Tribunal in which I was involved as a director of the organisation. Won't go into details but it was a racial equality organisation being accused of sacking an employee for racist reasons. I had taken the position that I agreed that the person sacked had been unjustly dismissed. I became persona non grata and left the organisation before the hearing.

The head had to take the stand. He was a leading voice in the local Muslim community. When he was offered (amongst other books) the Koran to take an oath on, he preferred to make an affirmation. At that point I knew he was going to lie through his eye teeth to the tribunal judge. He did. His testimony was called a series of falsehoods in the judgement

However, the judge wouldn't have known that little nugget of information. I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference to a jury, unless you are well known as being religious. If The Pope refused to take an oath on the Bible, it would raise some eyebrows, for the ordinary person, not so much.

[The Observer]

The Christian doctrine of affirmation is based on Matthew 5:37:

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay:
for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

and James 5:12:

But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

The interpretation here is, that as a follower of Christ, you should be establishing a reputation that your speech can be accepted at face value and that an oath (or swearing to tell the truth) only undermines the reputation of Christianity.

But this doctrine does not relieve the testifier from telling the truth in court. So speculating as to why a person chooses to affirm is rather pointless. The bottom line is whether they told the truth.

[longdog]

Sure. I get the reasoning behind the "Let your yes be yes and your no be no" bit, also a great reggae song by the way, but the whole oath / affirmation thing seems to my too-lazy-to-check mind to be largely the province of the opposite end of Christianity to Wong's half baked, evangelical, probably never read the entire bible in his life, 'Satan 'n' shit' end. People who actually take time to think about what the bible says rather than just picking out the bits that serve their own purposes.

I agree that speculating is pointless but I can't help but wonder why he chose to do it. We know for a fact he was prepared to lie through his teeth, after affirming, in a futile attempt to save his skin, and that's a massive and literal breach of the eighth commandment, so I see little reason why he would concern himself over much with the second.

My point is that we know he's a liar and we know he intended to lie in court. Did it never occur to him that the jury might wonder the same thing as me (not saying they did of course) and it might be better to lie about that too? Rhetorical question perhaps as he's clearly not the sharpest flick-knife in the dartboard.

[CrankyBoomer]

Arched Eyebrows has been lying low for a while but she's back on the grift. I'm not well enough versed in north American accents to know if the lady interviewing her has a United States accent or a Canadian one but looks like Netty is going after the green back (backed?) dollar now.

[Frater I*I]

Accent sounds US to me.

[morrand]

Arched Eyebrows has been lying low for a while but she's back on the grift. I'm not well enough versed in north American accents to know if the lady interviewing her has a United States accent or a Canadian one but looks like Netty is going after the green back (backed?) dollar now.

The accent is probably southern Ontario, like near London or down that peninsula going toward Detroit. It's not a hard Ontario accent (she pronounces "out" like "owt" and not "oat," for example) and the baseline US accent tends to be more nasal. This might explain why Our Reformed Stannist clarifies "London, England" at the start of the interview, but I'm not sure of that.