14
Mrs Justice Pauffley referred to our online exposure of the case in her Judgement as a ‘thinly veiled threat’. Indeed, Ella, Belinda and I were united in spelling out the ‘fear of exposure’ in our Position Statement that, unfortunately, Mrs Pauffley ignored in her hearing on 26.01.15. Belinda and Ella came out of that hearing convinced that the judge had no intention of ever returning Ella’s children.
Our first petition had as its title Return the Whistleblower Kids and Abuse Survivors to their Russian Family! I tell the story of its success on this video. Completely by chance, when I was testing screen capturing software, it had kept these screenshots, not too long before it was deleted – with nearly 16,000 signatures.
The malicious shill commentator David Le Dingue was“delighted to have helped get the petition removed” as a comment on the petition video.
The case has brought so many trolls and shills out of the woodwork that it is hard to know where anyone stands on the case, which is, of course, just what the intelligence agencies want in cases like this, where paedophilia, one of their preferred modes of blackmail, is involved. It even got as bad as leading to death-threats – against the exposers and not the abusers. The death-threat is made Here. The Hampstead Research blog asked about David Le Dingue: Is this troll threatening Abraham?
Does he, do you think, work for MI5?
With the petition I had the option of sending regular updates to the signatories. That was a great way of building a large mailing list where people could opt in, i.e. they volunteer their address. But all of those people were lost once the petition was removed – all part of the intelligence agency ‘management process’, of course.
First I noticed that links were missing and I visited the Help Centre on 03 March 2015 to submit a request about Links to deleted videos in petition text.
Then I couldn’t comment because my Facebook accounts had been closed (yet another system intervention) so I submitted another request on 06 March 2015:
And then on 11 March 2015 I complained about Links being deleted from Updates:
Here’s where the convenient gap between ‘legal-speak’ and ‘techno-speak’ shows itself, on 16 March 2015: the claim to have sent an ’email’ when, in fact, the lawyer had only put up a ‘Notice’ on the Help Centre – on 03 March 2015 – which neither their own technical crew nor I had noticed. This innocent-seeming sleight of hand opened up a perfect ‘gap’ in procedures, down which the entire united voice of 16,000 outraged members of the public clamouring for the children to be returned to Ella, could be dropped. This was ‘necessary’ for the system because if it grew to 100,000 signatures, the petition would have been eligible for starting parliamentary proceedings.
Of course, I never got a ‘resend’ of the alleged notification email, because it didn’t exist.
Instead, I got this shock on 18 March 2015:
Removal of both petitions without warning
But what does the expressi