#KNIGHTVISION: YouTube Channel for #whistleblowerkids #ChildRights #HumanRights #Satanic #Judicial #Abuse

This new channel has now four videos to show, including the one above – where the Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) case refers to the ‘Whistleblower Kids’: the two child victims and witnesses of regular sodomy, torture and even killing of babies, so that ‘abuse’ is truly an understatement.

Hampstead Research focus on the online presence of the 70+ abusers.

While I have been advised to close the blog I to increase my chances of coming back, there is a new online petition published by Hampstead Research. A previous one was removed with nearly 16,000 signatures.

This petition reminds High Court Judge Mrs Justice Pauffley that a Residence Order was in place since 2010 for the children to live with their mother, whereas the father has two Non-Molestation Orders against him. Yet Mrs Pauffley is determined to hand custody over the children to the father – a pattern we have sadly observed in far too many cases: Why Ian Josephs recommends mothers not to report crimes of abusive fathers – you lose your children.

Please sign, comment and SHARE!

Related articles


Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

7 thoughts on “#KNIGHTVISION: YouTube Channel for #whistleblowerkids #ChildRights #HumanRights #Satanic #Judicial #Abuse

  1. TimV July 2, 2015 at 12:14 pm Reply

    It is not only a law to ‘enshrine’ children’s ‘rights’ that are urgently required, it is the wholesale amendment of the 1989 Children Act (as amended) to substantially remove the SECRECY of the Family Courts which has permitted the most extreme inhumanity and injustice as recounted by people like Christopher Booker in the Telegraph and others. Sir James Munby has tried manfully to improve things and Court of Appeal has been critical of decisions in lower courts, but Hampstead has proved beyond peradventure there is still something radically wrong in the way the system works. (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11043704/New-plan-to-end-secrecy-in-family-courts.html)
    Crucial also is the legal obligation of taking seriously what the children report to qualified, sensitive professionals. It should not be lightly put aside to avoid complications or because it does not fit with preferred options. There also needs to be a positive duty on the police to at least interview under caution, anyone against whom a child makes a reliable allegation of serious criminal behaviour. The current ban on children making public their concerns whilst under the guardianship of the local authority should be repealed. No child should be removed from the primary care of the mother unless overwhelming risk to the child is proved and then only with the permission of a jury and representation of the parties.
    This would be a start at correcting the iniquities demonstrated in the Hampstead case.
    The Children Act 2004 introduced these changes to the principal 1989 Act:
    “Ascertaining children’s wishes
    (1)In section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of services to children), after subsection (4) insert—
    “(4A)Before determining what (if any) services to provide for a particular child in need in the exercise of functions conferred on them by this section, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare—
    (a)ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the provision of those services; and
    (b)give due consideration (having regard to his age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.”
    (2)In section 20 of that Act (provision of accommodation for children: general), in subsection (6)(a) and (b), after “wishes” insert “ and feelings ”.
    (3)In section 47 of that Act (local authority’s duty to investigate), after subsection (5) insert—
    “(5A)For the purposes of making a determination under this section as to the action to be taken with respect to a child, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare—
    (a)ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the action to be taken with respect to him; and
    (b)give due consideration (having regard to his age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.””
    It is clear that the Local Authority (Barnett) failed to do so in the Hampstead case, as it willfully gave access to the father that the children had accused and patently feared and now apparently intend to place them with him in preference to the mother. A more serious breach of this provision, or the general one of the primacy of the interests of the child, cannot be imagined!
    Section one of the Children Act, 1989 states:
    “When a court determines any question with respect to—
    (a)the upbringing of a child; or
    (b)the administration of a child’s property or the application of any income arising from it,the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”

  2. TimV July 2, 2015 at 12:21 pm Reply

    When Conscious Living Beings Think and Write the Truth, the Truth and Nothing but the Truth by ‘Drifloud’ – ‘A Conscious Human Being’.

    1 Jul 2015 — For the attention of: Bernard Hogan-Howe, Cressida Dicks, Paul Speer, Mrs Anna Pauffley, Alan Rogers, John Cannon, Carl Savage, DS M.J. Fernandez, Steve Martin and any and ALL of you involved in The Hampstead Child Rape and Murder Cover-Up

    I, as a conscious living human being known as Drifloud, reported the Serious Crime of Fraud in a Police Investigation and Court Proceedings, first on 31st March, then again 28th May, again 4th June and once more 15th June.
    Detective Inspector John Cannon 189067 and Detective Constable Alan Rogers 207875 and High Court Judge Anna Pauffley were accused of the CRIME of committing, and conspiring to commit FRAUD, by concealing crucial identifying evidence in a rape and murder investigation and court hearing, and avoiding their duty to lawfully require medical examinations of the named accused, which would have conclusively proved the children’s assertions. Judge Mrs Anna Pauffley, DC Alan Rogers, and DI John Cannon were also accused of FALSELY claiming young gabriel and alisa of fabricating their accounts of being brutally raped by ALL those adults they named and intimately identified as their attackers.

    You were accused of these crimes and given the opportunity to respond. You were informed that if there were no lawful response from you by June 30th 2015, this will be deemed tacit admission of culpability, and the charge of FRAUD against you will be proven.

    It is now July 1st 2015, and there has been no response from any of you. Therefore, by law (Tacit Procuration) the charge of FRAUD against you is proven.

    Ex-Detective Inspector John Cannon 189067 and Ex-Detective Constable Alan Rogers 207875 and Ex- High Court Judge Mrs Anna Pauffley, as public servants, not only have you abused the position, the authority and trust of the people of this land whom you were there to serve, you have committed a far, far greater crime: that of branding as liars, two innocent and brave children who overcame threats of death to TELL THE TRUTH.

    You also branded their courageous mother and partner liars, proving your craven readiness to destroy the lives of this family in order to cover up the filthy, despicable crimes of the filth in the royal family, The City of London, the Rothschild banking fraternity as well as Parliament and the The Legal System.

    The Hampstead Child Rape and Murder investigation in September 2014, is nullified by your fraud, as is the subsequent court “fact-finding” hearing and judgement. All contaminated by your crime of FRAUD, rendering the investigation, hearing and judgement NULL AND VOID – FRAUD VITIATES ALL

    Ex Commissioner Hogan-Howe, and Ex-Asst. Commissioner Dicks: You have had since March 31st 2015, to investigate the FRAUD committed by DI Cannon, DC Rogers and Judge Anna Pauffley, but all you have done is choose to look the other way – choosing LEGAL prevarication and ruses, instead of your duty.

    However, James in your office and Wendy Newell-Gosling at DPS made the mistake of contracting with an actual living breathing human being – and NOT a fictional or “legal person”: “Drifloud” is the term of reference for a CONSCIOUS LIVING HUMAN BEING, and as a conscious living, breathing, human being I am invoking the FULL SPIRIT of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law here:
    STAND DOWN NOW! Bernard Hogan-Howe, Cressida Dicks, Paul Speer, Mrs Anna Pauffley, Alan Rogers, John Cannon, Carl Savage, DS M.J. Fernandez, Steve Martin and any and ALL of you involved in The Hampstead Child Rape and Murder Cover-Up.

    You are an utter disgrace to humanity. Stand down and turn yourselves in – or do the only TRULY honourable thing left open to you, instead of harming one hair more on the heads of little ones.

    You are, AT BEST, nothing more than zoo-keepers, protecting the inhuman beasts who feed off the innocence and energy of little ones and the suffering and misery of ALL. The same beasts responsible on July 1st , 99 years ago, for the mass-murder of gullible, impressionable young lads, at the Somme. The mass-murderer Douglas Haig, a Freemason just like you, Hogan-Howe – following the commands of his Freemason superiors – his Royal-Banking-Papal Masters. Mega profits that day, eh? Well, that crime too – and ALL of your crimes – are being uncovered now. And you have NOWHERE to hide.

    I hold only to that which is lawful, and do not consent to the transmutation of any living beings mentioned in this witness statement (including myself) to that of “legal person” status, or to any legal interpretation of my words whatsoever. All words and combinations of words used by me carry solely the meaning I intend them to convey, which is to tell the truth to the best of my ability in order to report the crime of fraud detailed above and to bring about an end to the brutalisation, torture, rape and murder of innocents – as I know such things to be contrary to the laws of humanity.
    from a conscious living being,

    Drifloud July 1st 2015

  3. TimV July 2, 2015 at 12:26 pm Reply

    In response to that I contributed the following:

    I presume being experts on the criminal law, they might have come across this learned review of the legal position in relation to a specific charge of committing crime. It of course equally applies to the very specific accusations by the children themselves. The power of arrest is not limited to police officers. In fact it is a Common Law duty imposed on every adult citizen. If I am wrong, no doubt a High Court Judge, sworn to uphold the law, will correct me.

    “Criminal Law-Silence as an Admission of Guilt-The defendant was indicted
    for robbery, being accused of taking four dollars and ten cents from the
    person of Oscar Glenn by force and against his will. At the county jail, the
    night after the robbery, the eight or ten prisoners, among whom was the defendant,
    were lined up for Glenn’s inspection. Glenn pointed out the defendant
    as the one who had robbed him. The defendant remained silent, and made no
    denial of the accusation that he was the identical person who committed the
    robbery. Testimony of this fact was admitted at the trial, over the defendant’s
    objection. He was convicted, and appealed, claiming among other things, the
    admission of the above testimony as error.

    Held, that silence in the face of pertinent and direct accusation of crime partakes
    of the nature of a confession, and is admissible as a circumstance to be
    considered by the jury as tending to show guilt, even though the person accused
    is in custody on the charge. Muse v. State, 196 So. 148 (Ala. 1940).
    Failure to reply to a direct accusation of crime, when the person charged is
    free to do so, is generally held to be an acquiescence in the truth of the accusation.

    This rule is based on the common knowledge that an innocent man will
    resent an accusation of crime, and will repel it as a matter of self-preservation
    and self-defense. State v. Mortensen, 26 Utah 312, 73 Pac. 562 (1903); Commonwealth
    v. Martin, 23 N.E. (2d) 876 (Mass. 1939) ; Lett v. Commonwealth, 284
    Ky. 267, 144 S.W. (2d) 505 (1940) ; People v. Smith, 78 Calif. App. 68, 248 Pac.
    261 (1926); People v. Yario, 346 Ill. 233, 178 N.E. 338 (1931). Silence, under
    these circumstances, is an admission against interest. State v. Sorge, 123 N.J.L.
    532, 10 A. (2d) 175 (1940). Evasive and equivocal responses are considered
    tantamount to silence. Commonwealth v. Turza, 16 A. (2d) 401 (Pa. 1940).

    The circumstances surrounding an inculpatory statement must be such as
    would naturally call for some action or reply by a defendant before they can
    be treated as an admission by acquiescence. A leading Kentucky case, Merriweather
    v. Commonwealth, 118 Ky. 870, 82 S.W. 592 (1904), gives the requisites
    of the admission of evidence of acquiescence by silence:

    (1) Did the person to be bound by the statement hear it? (2) Did he understand
    it? (3) Did he have an opportunity to express himself concerning it?
    (4) Was he called upon to act or reply to it?
    If the evidence meets these requirements, it is admissible. It is not the accusation
    itself, but the conduct of the accused that is evidence, and the accusation
    [Vol. 25

    is merely admitted to explain the conduct of the accused. People v. Zoffel, 35
    Calif. App. (2d) 215, 95 P. (2d) 160 (1939). His actions when charged are
    admissible, and if he makes a false explanation, this fact is also admissible.
    Diamond v. State, 195 Ind. 298, 144 N.E. 466 (1924). The fact that the person
    who made the accusatory statements is incompetent to testify, is no bar to their
    admissibility. Skidmore v. State, 59 Nev. 320, 92 P. (2d) 979 (1939); Richards
    v State, 82 Wis. 172, 51 N.W. 652 (1892).”


  4. TimV July 2, 2015 at 12:28 pm Reply

    The Power of Arrest.

    The lawful power of a citizen to arrest is provided by BOTH statute and the Common Law. The valid circumstances vary slightly in each. Both become operative if a police constable is either unavailable or unwilling, when asked, to do so.

    Here are better summaries than I am able to provide:


    A cautionary tale in relation to trying to arrest people who have the protection of government:


  5. bob townsley August 5, 2015 at 8:54 pm Reply

    Why haven’t they checked the teachers body’s for tattoos and birthmarks if there are none fair enough if a was getting accused of this ad do anything to cooperate to clear my name get Jeremy Kyle involved lie detectors get Ella and ab to give lie detector and then the police carnt say they’ve coached the kids a believe the kids if there dad gets them back then they will end up getting silenced by him theyl have some accident a bet lock Ricky Dearman up

  6. bob townsley August 5, 2015 at 9:02 pm Reply

    Try to sign petition and a couldn’t they really dnt want this in the news the judge must be one of them

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: