Stanley Casson was probably one of the most prolific, never-convicted sex offenders of 20th century England.  That is the picture which has emerged in recent weeks.

Casson was for many years a serial bottom spanker (he targeted young women), and sources speaking of the early 1970s recall that Casson occasionally took children and teenagers to the Hollingworth Sauna, a private sauna on Market Street in Ashton-under-Lyne.  At that time, this venue was used for occasional orgies and regularly for swinging (charged at £1.50 per couple per hour).

How did Casson get away with indecent assaults on women and child molestation for all those years?  The answer is probably at least partly to do with his connections.  Casson knew and associated with anybody who was anybody in the Ashton area; behind the scenes, he was both powerful and influential.  Though a quiet man, not an extrovert, Casson was, whilst discreet and discerning in the company he kept, nonetheless quite the socialiser.

For example, to name just a few of Casson’s associates (1960s/1970s): Chief Superintendent Kenneth Bedford Mellalieu, the first chief (1974) of GMP Tameside Division, upon whom Casson could call at Mellalieu’s home, Higher Hague Fold Farm; Dr James Comrie Hill, the 1960s police surgeon for the old (pre GMP) Ashton Police Division; the Hibberts, who ran the Tontine Hotel (76 Penny Meadow); John Frost, landlord of the Broadoak Hotel; the Cordingleys, including David Cordingley J.P., chartered surveyors and estate agents in Ashton; John Farnsworth, former Mayor of Ashton; businessman William Meeks (Ashton Golf Club member and Fidelity Lodge mason); Wellington ‘Duke’ Derbyshire (Ashton Golf Club member and past Master of Fidelity Lodge).

As bad if not worse though than Casson’s kiddy-fiddling are the murders in which he may have been mixed up, and which likely would have taken place in the context of Satanists’ religious rituals.

And water is a theme which has emerged regarding unexplained deaths – murders, in all likelihood – for which Casson (or his close coven associates) may have been responsible.

My reading and research into ritual murder by Satanists tells me that generally they do not leave victims’ bodies to be found.  Bodies are normally disposed of so as never to be found.

However, the Casson coven seemed to have a thing about killing people at or near water sources, or of disposing of victims at such locations.

(Presumably, this leaving of victims to be found happened only on rare occasions; and many more bodies were disposed of so as never to be found, as one would reasonably expect of those engaged in acts of ritual murder, carried on over many years.)

Why this would be, I can only speculate, but probably there is some ritual meaning to it, something significant to the Satanists involved; moreover, it could also be that the Satanists derive a sense of power or pleasure from the fear and horror inflicted when the dead are discovered and have to be dealt with by others.

Ashton woman Kathleen Waugh was found dead in the Derwent reservoir (1992).

Another instance of this macabre phenomenon – one I can mention here – is that of the gruesome discovery in 1973 of a dead, unborn baby at Crime Lake.

(Crime Lake is just north of Ashton-under-Lyne and east of Failsworth.)

Police divers found the floating dead body of the 12-week-old foetus after being alerted by the public.

One of several things I find interesting about the case is that Chief Superintendent Leslie Palmer, the head of [the pre-GMP] Oldham Police Division, in company with senior detectives, was present when the tiny baby’s body was recovered.  Why, exactly?

At the very least, I’d suggest the reported circumstances of the body, on discovery, raised immediate suspicion of something extremely unusual and perhaps especially sickening about the baby’s death – something the top man simply had to see for himself, as soon as possible.  Whilst the mere fact of a dead baby floating on the water would’ve been horrifying enough, I suspect there was more to the scene confronting the police than that.

“Aborto es sagrado.”  That’s Spanish for ‘abortion is sacred’.  Quite a shocking statement, emblazoned across a young woman’s naked bosom.  Words with which I cannot agree.  And why the boobs?

First, let me give my general thoughts on boobs (in the context of public political action).  I find it odd and inconsistent that, on the one hand, women want to be taken seriously, and to be treated with respect – not objectified, not raped – and yet, on the other hand, think it a good idea to get their boobs out in public.

Boobs are not news, and I back the many women who want an end to Page Three nudity in The Sun – yet many young women nowadays seem to think boobs are the perfect publicity vehicle for feminist political slogans.

I’m not sure why that would be.  It strikes me as a major failure of logic by the boob-flashers.  When the typical man is confronted by a woman with a political slogan written across her naked boobs, he doesn’t stop to consider her politics, but he does think, “Mmm, that woman’s got her boobs out.”

(And in case you’re wondering whether I’m going to expand on the efficacy or otherwise of boobs-for-billboards by considering the issues of ageing, Fat or wrinkles, well . . . no, I’m not; I could get myself into a lot of trouble by doing that.)

Generally speaking then, there’s no better way for a woman to have her politics ignored – and to demean and endanger other women – than by getting her boobs out in public.

Now let’s consider the specific issue of naked pro-abortion boobs.  What should we make of the senorita’s boobs above?  (Sorry, what should we make of the senorita’s pro-abortion message?)  Well, for one thing, there’s a certain irony in advocating for abortion on boobs, given that boobs are much more suited to feeding babies – to sustaining life – than to causing death.

Wouldn’t it be better, wouldn’t it be more honest, to scrawl ‘abortion is sacred’ over the body of an abortion victim and hold that dead baby’s body aloft for the world to see, until everybody joins in the jubilant ecstasy, and the whole world rejoices at the great wonder of abortion?

But that would rather upset the abortionists, and the militant feminists, and we can’t have that.  Whilst abortions are wonderful, they say, and every mum ought to have one, nobody – especially pregnant women – should ever have to see the ‘sacredness of abortion’ with their own eyes.

Abortion does get on my tits.  I don’t like it at all.  Ditto the suppression of clothed persons’ freedom to speak of abortion in Ealing.  So perhaps I ought to protest by exposing my pro-life man-boobs in the middle of Ealing Council’s PSPO zone on Mattock Lane?  I’d like to see Sister Supporter’s counter demonstration to that.  Would they try to block my man-boobs, or would they get their boobs out too?

Then again, doesn’t the whole idea of ‘Boobs Out for Abortion’ strike you as foolish, stupid and ridiculous?  But it’s about as good an argument as you’re ever going to get in favour of abortion.

That’s why Ealing’s pro-lifers must be silenced at all costs.

Their speech is powerful and persuasive.  It is a testimony to the truth, motivated by love.  It brings life and hope.

The testimony of history is this: there’s no way to silence a message like that.

I’ve been ‘pestered to death’ several times in my life so far.

When I stood for election a few years ago, there was plenty of pestering (and to some extent, rightly so).

And as the former face for the Sandys Superstars story, that meant a severe [and often criminal] pestering at the time.

But for over a year now, ‘Siminthi Winbald’, judge ‘Percy Pea’ &etc is the story which simply refuses to rest in peace.

I’m frequently asked about this story.  Everybody wants to know the latest.

Percy’s public suppression and/or inversion of the facts has only served to strengthen public appetite for the truth.

Though neither I nor any other British journalist can lawfully publish any facts, the key truth remains very straightforward indeed:

Siminthi Winbald told the truth.

Various information has come in about a ‘person of interest’ depicted above (and described here) who was a close associate of the late Stanley Casson.

(1)  In the early 1980s a man fitting the description occasionally visited the children’s day nursery at Coalshaw Green Park (Oldham), though he was not a parent or guardian of any child at the nursery.  At the time the nursery was run by Mrs Joan Guilfoyle for Oldham Social Services department.  There was nothing unusual per se about the man visiting or hanging around the nursery.

That’s because in the 1980s, in the Oldham area (and elsewhere), it was normal for anybody to stop by a council-run children’s nursery for a casual social visit – typically retired people who would pop in for a chat.  Such an open door policy to all and sundry wouldn’t happen today, but back then it was quite normal.

(2)  According to golfing sources in Saddleworth, a man fitting the description was known to have a remarkable and large collection of film and photographic pornography in the 1980s.  The man had pornography then classified as obscene, including, for example, Good Girls of Godiva High, about schoolgirls.  Sources described him as a “dealer” of pornography, and said he was rumoured to produce some of it himself.  One source said the man possessed what some people then referred to as ‘family films’ – i.e. child pornography.

(3)  A former Tameside Council source has said a man fitting the description attempted to open a children’s nursery in Ashton-under-Lyne in the 1990s but the council refused his application.

PHOTO: Delamere Road, Turf Hill, Rochdale – very close to where Lesley Molseed was abducted in 1975.

A man fitting the description of the Stanley Casson associate/‘person of interest’ had his DNA taken and tested by police in the 2000s (in relation to the 1975 murder of Lesley Molseed), according to a former police source.

(Ronald Castree was subsequently convicted of the murder.)

So this person of interest (to the Kathleen Waugh case) has been a person of interest to police before now, in regard to a case of child abduction and murder.

Getty Images have video of Stanley Casson.

Go to gettyimages.co.uk and search for “Stanley Casson”

Stanley Casson was a man with quite an impressive social circle, though he didn’t shout about it.  Casson knew the late Lord Rhodes of Saddleworth, the late Sir Sidney Hamburger and the first Lord Lieutenant of Greater Manchester, Sir William Downward.

(I once met the formidable Sir Sidney: he fixed me with a piercing gaze when I produced a notepad and pen.)

Casson also knew two Oldham Athletic football club doctors – Dr Hendry and Dr McNamara (not to mention many other doctors known to him).

Both of these general practitioners were members of Crompton and Royton Golf Club, along with another Casson associate, the late Stanley Cheetham (who was a Conservative parliamentary candidate in 1955).

Dr Hendry kept a surgery in Hathershaw during the Second World War and until the late 1960s; he was the club doctor for the Latics throughout the 1950s.

Dr McNamara was a close contemporary to Casson, being just a couple of years younger.  In his later years Dr William McNamara became a popular local politician (Independent; and later, Conservative).  In common with the late Jimmy Savile, Dr McNamara held one of the highest awards in Catholicism: both were made a Knight of Saint Gregory the Great.

Dr McNamara was the president of Crompton and Royton Golf Club in 1971.  Dr Hendry was Crompton and Royton’s club captain in 1957 and president in 1962.  Cheetham was captain in 1958 and president in 1973.  Casson knew all three well.

Enquiries continue.

I note the nasty new outbreak of lies against Dr Patrick Sookhdeo on Wikipedia recently.

(For the record, I do not and have never contributed to Wikipedia myself.)

The Wikipedia entry for Dr Sookhdeo (last edited 30 June 2018, at 21:45) that I’ve just seen carries the following additional text recently tagged on to the end of the second paragraph under the heading “Legal problems”:

“However, allegations of victim blaming and shaming persist.  His victim, a devout Christian herself, has been unfairly described in some articles as wearing revealing clothing and displaying overtly sexual behaviour.  The repeated attempts to justify his behaviour by claiming her clothes could even be a factor are disturbing.  As are the claims that suffering anxiety is cause for calling her honesty into question.”

I don’t know who wrote this but, whoever it is, it’s an enemy of Patrick Sookhdeo – and an enemy of the truth.

In my own direct experience of the ‘victim’ (NO, she’s not a victim – Sookhdeo is innocent), having more than once observed her in person, I can say from what I’ve seen myself that she does indeed wear short skirts and manifest hyper-sexual behaviour.

And her unsuitable (in a formal Christian setting) clothing was testified to by several eyewitnesses who gave evidence at Dr Sookhdeo’s 2015 trial in Swindon.

Descriptions of Mrs X’s clothing and behaviour as unsuitable for a formal Christian setting are fair and truthful.

Whether or not Mrs X is genuinely a Christian is very much open to doubt.  She is a churchgoer, and would describe herself as a Christian, but that doesn’t mean she actually is a Christian.

If she is a Christian (only God can say for certain), then she is one with some very, very serious unresolved issues, to put it mildly.

As for the propaganda line about “repeated attempts to justify his [offending] behaviour by claiming her clothes could even be a factor are disturbing”, well, it must be said that nobody on the right side of this story has done any such thing, because Dr Sookhdeo never offended against Mrs X.  Nobody has attempted to justify behaviour which never happened!

As for Sookhdeo supporters’ alleged “claims that [Mrs X] suffering anxiety is cause for calling her honesty into question”, again, I’m not aware that anybody has done so.

Mrs X’s use of prescribed mind-altering drugs is a valid reason for questioning her mental functioning and, by extension, the accuracy and veracity of her assertions of fact (in regard to her false accusations), but nobody has said that an anxious disposition per se equals dishonesty.

In fact, quite apart from Mrs X’s drug habit, by far the main reason for disbelieving Mrs X’s false allegations is that no fair-minded, intelligent person could come to any other logical and just conclusion, in the face of so many obvious untruths told by Mrs X at the trial.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Patrick Sookhdeo is innocent.

I’ve just lost a couple of minutes of life by reading a Mark Woods article on the rather dubious Christian Today website.  But the good news is you don’t have to make the same mistake.

Woods’ headline was “Should Christians battle against sin? Not necessarily”.  (Published 29 June 2018, 14:33)  May I advise anybody seeking authentic Christian wisdom and instruction to read the Bible, and give Mark Woods and his ‘Christian’ website a very wide berth.

Mark Woods likes to present himself to the world as some sort of ‘Christian minister’.  This claim is, I believe, nominal at best.  I’m not aware that Mark Woods currently fulfils any active pastoral role, in or under the auspices of any sound Christian church; however, if I’m mistaken, I’d be happy to publish the details of Mark Woods’ pastoral ministry here.

As for what Mark Woods is about when he’s not writing (or bitching against the Barnabas Fund), my information is he’s inclined towards homosexuality.  Again, if I’ve overlooked any heterosexual facts regarding Woods, I’d be happy to publish the details here.

It would be good to do a video interview with Mark Woods, if only to ‘get to the bottom’ of what makes this man tick.  I’d like to put various questions to Woods – especially regarding his LGBT links, about Christian Today and David Jang, and on what advice he’d give to Jesus.  Maybe one day I’ll have the honour of meeting the great minister himself.

Stanley Casson is the subject of an ongoing investigation (the Kathleen Waugh case); search for either of those names to see all related posts on this blog.

Things continue to surface about Stanley Casson which tend to ring alarm bells.

Casson required his wife Olive (1909 – 1980) to be without any hair down below throughout their married life.  Though that is perhaps less remarkable today (largely due to the effect of almost thirty years of hair-free pornographic influence on general society), in their generation such behaviour was somewhat unusual.

Also unusual is that after Olive’s death, in the 1980s, whilst in his seventies, Stanley had new lady-friends.  That’s unusual because few men in their seventies and beyond are still getting it on with the ladies.

And of particular interest is that Casson has now been linked to General Book Distributors (GBD), a business based in Leicester in the 1970s which distributed what were then illegal obscene magazines, such as Male magazine.

Despite considerable difficulty in accessing police files/sources from so far back, I do know for a fact that GBD was definitely on the radar of Ashton CID in the late 1970s, but I’m not aware of anything to suggest local police suspected Casson of involvement with GBD at the time.

However my source, a paedophile, was aware of Casson’s connection to GBD and, furthermore, says Casson was involved in the production and distribution of illegal child pornography, though he was never prosecuted – either because the police knew nothing or because, for whatever reason, the police turned a blind eye.

Casson probably made a fortune from child pornography, which would help to explain his considerable wealth; it’s unlikely his money came only from the family shoes business and property portfolio.

Enquiries continue.

As a British citizen, raised in the precious tradition of British liberty, the current situation on Mattock Lane is not acceptable to me and I will not tolerate it.

I hereby serve notice upon the Metropolitan Police in Ealing that, at some future point, I shall begin a course of conduct of offering leaflets to the public in the PSPO zone – a matter of when, not if.

Any police officer(s) or other(s) having a problem with that will have to take it up with me personally.

Stanley Casson once visited a children’s home on Leech Avenue (Ashton-under-Lyne), bearing gifts of shoes.

I’m often asked “What’s the greatest news story of all time?”  The answer: Jesus.  Anything to do with Him (or His real followers).  Jesus & Co have been turning the world upside down for the last two thousand years.  Even the calendar is set to His birth.  History is His Story.

Now, anybody knows me knows I’ve got a long way to go to become Mr Holy Pants, and I don’t profess to know very much about anything, but I do know this much: Jesus is Lord, and the Bible is a faithful and true documentary record of Him.

(And the most accurate translation ever into English – albeit early seventeenth century English – is the 1611 King James Bible, by the way.)

The photo above, kindly sent to me recently, is of a group of Christians who walked in this year’s Gloucester Carnival on Saturday 21st July.

The local council (not to mention the current CofE ‘bishop’ of Gloucester) can’t stand these real Christians and has been trying to stop them entering the carnival for several years, but, short of crucifying them or throwing them to the lions, councillors have yet to find any way of lawfully suppressing them.

Christians have preached in every carnival since 1983.

A total of twenty-four Christians took part this year.  They distributed free literature and free Bibles, and preached their hearts out in front of tens of thousands of carnival spectators.

Gloucester has longstanding and very important links to Jesus Christ, including Robert Raikes, Bishop Hooper, George Whitefield and William Tyndale.  (Go google.)

Anyway, the news is Jesus.  Read all about Him in the Bible.

************************************************************

I’ve been very busy indeed this year so my apologies to all those waiting for attention.  Thanks for your patience.

Free speech protests re the Ealing PSPO zone remain scheduled to go ahead next month (August 2018).

British journalist Richard Carvath was present throughout the Patrick Sookhdeo trial.  This is his quick comment on the trial.

NOT guilty.

The right verdict, without a doubt.  (Thanks be to God.)

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, 71, the founder of Barnabas Fund, was today found NOT guilty of a false allegation of indecent assault dating back to 1977, following a six-day trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court.

Patrick Sookhdeo had been charged with a single count of indecent assault, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

The charge read: “Patrick Sookhdeo between the 1st day of May 1977 and the 30th day of September 1977 indecently assaulted [complainant’s name], a female person.”

The complainant who made the false accusation cannot be named (in the UK); she is reported here as ‘Mrs Z’.

His Honour Judge Richard Merz presided over the trial.  (An excellent judge.)

The prosecutor was tenacious lioness Miss Sonya Saul.  (Wouldn’t want to get on her wrong side!)

Defence counsel was the formidable Mr Edmund Vickers QC.  (Incidentally, a left-hander like myself.)

Edmund Vickers made mincemeat puree of that pair of liars, Mrs Z and her husband Mr Z, who together were the main witnesses for the prosecution.

Mr & Mrs Z had concocted a shocking pack of lies against Patrick Sookhdeo, and their lies were thoroughly exposed during the trial.

Mrs Z, on the witness stand from Monday (23 July) to Thursday, fell apart on the first day, during Miss Saul’s examination-in-chief.

The jurors were clearly amused.  They knew she was a liar from the first day of the trial.

Prosecutor Miss Saul was obliged to ask if Mrs Z was telling the truth.  Mrs Z struggled to find an answer.

From that first day, the outcome of the trial was never in doubt.

Everybody knew then that Patrick Sookhdeo was an innocent man, falsely accused.

The only real question was why the false accusation?

Mr & Mrs Z first went to the police with their false allegation in 2015 – thirty-eight years after they last saw Patrick Sookhdeo.

Their false allegation essentially had two parts: firstly there was Mrs Z’s false assault allegation itself, and secondly – in order to bring in Mr Z, to try to back up Mrs Z – they both claimed that they held a meeting with Patrick Sookhdeo a couple of weeks after [nothing had happened], received an apology and agreed henceforth to keep it a secret!

Anybody believe that?  (I didn’t think so.)

The best moment of the entire trial came during Mr Vickers’ cross-examination of Mrs Z on Thursday morning (26 July).

Mrs Z was drowning in her own lies when, all of sudden, completely unprompted, the word “grudge” slipped from her forked tongue.

Mrs Z denied having a grudge against Patrick Sookhdeo.

And so it was that at 11:09 on Thursday morning, Edmund Vickers QC got to utter the immortal words:

“Mrs [Z], no one has mentioned a grudge.”

Mr Vickers’ execution was flawless.  Beautiful.  A work of art.

With those eight words, Edmund Vickers QC pulled the trapdoor lever which hanged Mrs Z on the gallows she had built for Patrick Sookhdeo.

And it wasn’t just what he said, but also the way he spoke.  It was like, you know, like the ecstasy of licking and gobbling a Lindt chocolate ball.  Vickers’ phrasing, pitching, timing, rhythm and tone were all perfect.

As for his learned friend, prosecutor Miss Sonya Saul was, from the outset of the trial, handicapped by the fact that her main witness Mrs Z was obviously one of the worst liars she’d ever heard, but Saul nonetheless excelled herself in a thoroughly nasty and ruthless cross-examination of Patrick Sookhdeo.  It was pure panto.  Almost a parody of a nasty cross-examination.  By the time Miss Saul had finished, the jurors were more convinced than ever of Patrick Sookhdeo’s innocence.  (Perhaps that’s what . . . .)

There were a few gems during the trial.

Patrick Sookhdeo had the jury in stitches when he was asked to explain a 1977 ledger of the In Contact ministry’s income and expenditure.  It was comedy gold.  Sookhdeo was so funny that several jurors struggled to regain their composure.

Sookhdeo also held the jury in awe as he spoke of his life and his Lord – Jesus Christ.

As for Mrs Z, she had the jury laughing at her when, during cross-examination (11:16, Thursday 26 July) – and whilst quaking like a leaf, from the burden of telling so many lies – she said of Mr Z and herself:

“No, I wouldn’t say we’re particularly liberal and left-leaning, unless we’re talking about sexuality.”

Just imagine Victoria Wood or Julie Walters delivering a line like that.

Said seriously and in earnest, yet also said in panic, Mrs Z hit a 10 on the scale of ridiculous.

Which brings us neatly to motive, to that little word – grudge – which Mrs Z said herself.

During cross-examination (Thursday 26 July), Mr Vickers asked Mr Z about why he refused to receive Barnabas Fund magazines.

Was Mr Z no longer in sympathy with Barnabas Fund?

Mr Z’s confirmation, at 15:59, was “yes”.

Later, when asked about an attempted coup by rebel Barnabas Fund trustees, which sought to oust Patrick Sookhdeo from the charity in 2013, Mr Z said (16:11) he “wasn’t aware” of it.

During Mr Vickers’ examination-in-chief of Patrick Sookhdeo on Friday 27 July, he asked about if Patrick Sookhdeo might have become a thorn in the side of the Church of England.

Patrick said “that is correct” (14:51).

And I say ‘Amen’ to that.

Speaking as one who watched the whole trial, there can only be one conclusion:

Mr and Mrs Z, malicious enemies of Patrick Sookhdeo and the Barnabas Fund, fabricated their allegation of indecent assault in an evil attempt to destroy the man and his ministry.

They failed.

And they will have to answer for their lies before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ.

And finally, something which really did happen in 1977 . . .

I’m back online.

(Thanks to the OBOs for holding the fort.)

The notorious Hampstead SRA Cover Up case is not a hoax, as those behind the Hoaxtead website are so desperate to have us believe.

Surveillance and source-work have been going on in Hampstead for quite some time, and are yet to be concluded.

I’m now at the stage where I’m happy publicly to nail my colours to the mast, not only in stating this is a genuine SRA case but also in revealing that I’ve gone to the trouble of looking into the case myself.

My team has video of ‘persons of interest’ as well as intelligence gathered from surveillance and human sources.

I’m not going to say too much more about this case in public for the time being, except to finish this blog-post by giving my opinion of Christ Church, which I have visited.

I do not think Christ Church is a genuine Christian church; the ‘core people’ there are not Christians.

There are many indicators that this is so, which I won’t divulge in detail; however, many of these clues could be listed together under a heading such as ‘The absence of Jesus’.

Anybody (a real, THS-filled, mature Christian especially) attending services at Christ Church Hampstead who is also familiar with a conservative evangelical Anglican church meeting will quickly detect that there’s something very wrong about Christ Church Hampstead.

For those who haven’t been to Christ Church in person, and probably never will, you could compare its website with that of a typical conservative evangelical Anglican parish church website.

It’s clear from the Christ Church website that the people behind it have no interest in telling others about Jesus, or about what they believe.  There is no gospel message on the website itself, and no links to Christian websites for those wanting to know more about Jesus and the Christian faith.

Christians – who know and are passionate about Jesus and want to make Him known to others – are not running the Christ Church website.

The Christ Church website is keen to tell us about local history, architecture and music . . . but not Jesus.

Christ Church Hampstead may claim to be a Christian church, and may superficially look like a Christian church, but in my assessment it is not.

Which leads to the question: Who do the core people at Christ Church really worship?

Whoever it is, it’s not Jesus.

Well, I’ve now had time to note that, in my absence, there’ve been a few moments of what I shall refer to as OBO ‘naughtiness’, both here and on Twitter.

I don’t have time to tidy everything up now, but a little tidying up is on the ‘To do’ list.

As for the [unpublished] yarn that I used to date Sophie Ellis-Bextor’s more attractive sister, one is suitably amused.

The outrageous false allegations of the last false accuser ‘Mrs Z’ (and ‘Mr Z’) against Dr Patrick Sookhdeo were, thankfully, thrown out by a London jury earlier this year.

However, for the time-being at least, in the eyes of the State [and his spiritual/political enemies], Patrick Sookhdeo remains stuck with the ‘Mrs X’ convictions wrongfully imposed upon him three-and-a-half years ago in Swindon.

Patrick Sookhdeo has always maintained his innocence.  (I believe him.  So does any intelligent person to consider the case.)  The Sookhdeo Not Guilty report (which, since 2018, has been ‘out there’ publicly) clearly establishes the truth that Patrick Sookhdeo is an innocent man, wrongfully convicted.

Sookhdeo’s first false accuser Mrs X has never really left my radar.  She was never going to be able to keep up her web of lies and deceit, year in, year out, for the rest of her life.  From the beginning, I always knew Mrs X would crack up.  In fact, her record in life is that she’s cracked up several times in the past.

Mrs X is the kind of unstable woman who will tell a pack of lies – just like she did with Patrick Sookhdeo (2013/14/15) – but who is subsequently haunted and consumed by guilt, and needs to confess the truth – at least in private, to trusted confidantes.  Because, very early on, I understood that Mrs X was unstable in her thinking and moods, I always knew she’d slip up.  It’s just a matter of keeping a watch and being patient.  And so Mrs X remains under surveillance; she has committed very serious crimes against Patrick Sookhdeo (and hurt many others) and, if at all possible, Mrs X must be brought to justice, and Patrick Sookhdeo fully vindicated, in this life.

Mrs X (with Mr X) may have persuaded some people at her church to side with her, for the time-being, but those people won’t believe her lies forever – not once they grasp the truth.

I do have a measure of sympathy for Mrs X.  I know she suffers from long-standing mental and emotional problems.  And I know about her family problems.  These facts do not excuse Mrs X’s crimes against Patrick Sookhdeo, but they form the broader context in which she did what she did: Mrs X is not a well woman (as even her daughter admits).

Tellingly, one of several items in Mrs X’s home to indicate the underlying issues in her life is Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ classic Christian book Spiritual Depression.

Spiritual Depression currently sits on the third shelf up, where it is the thirtieth book in (from the right end of the shelf).

The ‘thirty pieces of silver’ Mrs X received for her appalling betrayal of Patrick Sookhdeo will never compensate for the guilty feelings of stabbing an innocent man.  Judas hanged himself.  I’m sure the good doctor, Dr Lloyd-Jones, wouldn’t recommend suicide.  Nor would the Lord Jesus.

What Mrs X needs to do is repent.  Properly; genuinely; publicly.  No more private confessions.  Mrs X must go to the police and confess that she made up a pack of lies against an innocent man.  Mrs X can have peace.  Mrs X can find forgiveness.  All she needs to do is repent.

Last night (21:45 hours), as he made his way home, a brief word was had with Mrs X’s youngest son.

A very revealing encounter indeed.

One of the many problems Mrs X and Mr X have had, ever since Mrs X attacked Dr Patrick Sookhdeo with her false allegations (February 2014), is that they effectively obliged their children to go along with them.

But the children know the truth by now.

One of the difficulties in advancing justice in the Hampstead Cover Up case is the simple fact that the police are complicit in the cover up.  When you know you can’t trust the police, to whom can you go?  If they can possibly avoid it, the police are not going to do anything to help justice-seekers in this case.  Worse than that, the police are likely to make strenuous efforts to suppress justice-seekers, not least because justice would mean police failings exposed.  This is the familiar dilemma every time serious, organised crime – in this case, SRA child abuse (&etc) – has the police in its pocket.

Consider, for example, that amongst the material I have obtained to date is video of an identified ‘person of interest’ (to the Hampstead Cover Up case) grooming a primary schoolgirl.  This particular video is what I’d call ‘useful’ or ‘helpful’, in intelligence terms.  But I know the police would do nothing with it, except perhaps to warn a few people of what they’d been given.  And if I were to put the video out online, the police would also do nothing, but I’d have revealed my hand to the other side.  These are some of the risks in considering how to proceed with a serious criminal investigation in which the police are part of the problem.

As so often in cases like this, and especially in the internet era, well-meaning amateurs make reckless cock-ups – poor tactical decisions, zealous but foolish – which serves only to muddy the waters for skilled, experienced operators, and sadly, the baddies are the only beneficiaries.  It is against such a backdrop of mistakes [plus a significant body of disinformation] that I have to weigh up how to proceed: what to do, what not to do, how and when.  It may be that video, such as that referred to above, does find its way online next year.  We shall see.  There’s a time to publish and a time to hold.  For now, I hold.