I found a site called REVOLUTION HARRY and they were talking about Brian Gerrish's agenda on there as well. So I decided to put in my tuppence hapennysworth.
Here is some of the thread titled OIED PIPERS OF THE TRUTH MOVEMENT: HOW ABOUT BRIAN GERRISH?
I had a row with Brian Gererish today. He had a conference in Stoke in October, and I was the lady called Zoompad who shouted at John Hemming MP. Brian Gerrish had invited him to the conference. I am one of the Staffordshire Pindown child abuse victims. Brian Gerrish pretended to be helping people like me, all he's done is take money off us, and John Hemming and his Fathers Rights friends (one of whom is the convicted paedophile Nigel Oldfield) abused me verbally for 2 years on the grass roots Mothers For Justice website, because I posted about twp American psychologists who openly advocated paedophilia, Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager. As far as I am concerned, Brian Gerrish is a cruel fraudster who takes advantage of people who have had a rough time.
Thank you so much for doing this post. It explains a lot to me. I have been such a mug!
November 17, 2011 1:37 AM
As for Brians secretary MIKE, well all I can say is I hope he's got rid of that cotton wool he must have put in his earholes, when he pretended that he could not hear me talking to him on the telephone (even though he could, because I said WAIT! WAIT and he hesitated in his speech while he was telling me he couldn;t hear me talking any more. He just wanted to hang up on me because he didn't want to answer my awkward questions. Mike, if you are reading this, I'll give you a word of advice - DONT try to pull a stupid trick like that on a middle aged woman, we women are expert phone natterers, and we can spot a stupid mind game like that even while we are knitting and watching Coronation Street at the same time we are on the phone!
Zoompad (Barbara Richards)
November 17, 2011 1:48 AM
Mike Robinon said...
You are upset because we had John Hemming on stage at our recent conference. It has been explained to you why that happened, but you don't want to listen. If you can't, or won't, understand what was achieved by having him there, that's not my fault, or Brian's.
When you phoned, you were cut off. I could not hear you, and I asked you to call back if you were able to hear me. It is not my fault you did not call back.
Barbara, you can go through life thinking everyone is against you if you like. We are not against you, and we will continue to offer you support if you choose to accept it. Your choice.
November 17, 2011 11:33 AM
Mike Robinon said...
In your first post:
Point 4: You're right, there is a difference. But lets look at what happened. Roger, accompanied by John Hurst attend court to defend a case. Several hundred other people attend including me, Brian, and RSC. Lots of people enter the court room, including RSC, but not including Brian or me. Roger arrests the judge, the police rescue the judge. Roger and John leave the court and go to the police station to lay charges of Treason against the judge and the police who rescued him. In the court room RSC acts as leader and the only people who could have stopped him from doing that are either outside or are being arrested themselves by the police, assisted by RSC.
We, outside had no idea what was going on inside after Roger had left the court. What do you think we could have done about RSC at this point. As I say, we got what we needed out of it, because RSC demonstrated what he is.
Point 6: Harry, this is a little disingenuous. What I said to you was:
"It would be really great if you had a think about this and decide whether or not you might like to remove your posts. I'm not going to censor you - you decide. We are in a war. We have a single enemy. And right now, they are delighted we are fighting among ourselves."
That is a direct quote from the PM. Its a little ironic that its exactly the same point I've been trying to make here.
As for your second comment above:
"what I'm concerned about is whether you are leading people astray, intentionally or otherwise."
Why? What does that achieve?
Harry, if you think we are leading people astray, do a better job than we are and show people the right way.
The enemy is there, right in front of you, now fully exposed. But instead of directing people to it, and saying "there it is, fire!" you point them at us and say, "these guys are working for the other side".
Let me tell you, even if I were working for the other side, it won't be me that comes along and drags you off to the camps. I'll be there with you. Because this beast that we are fighting, eats its own just as often as it does its enemies.
So stop nit picking and fighting us. FIGHT THE ENEMY!
November 17, 2011 11:54 AM
Usually I do not believe in getting involved in any discussions in regard to the genuine persecuted or their groups. However from much, much research, personal experience and the time we have I came up with the following shortest lawful route for the people by the people
On sending this petition to be turned into lawful document to Brian Gerrish and Roger Hayes it has once again been maliciously ignored. Why, if they are really fighting the injustice for the good of all?
November 17, 2011 5:29 PM
Revolution Harry said...
Come on Mike. You said in your last comment that, 'the idea was to give him some rope to play with.' On the forum you said this was because he had a good knowledge of Common Law, or words to that effect. That doesn't quite square with the claim that he just acted as leader in the court room on his own accord. Besides he was seen to be acting as leader before the event. He even updated the crowd outside, on a megaphone, on events in the court room. Presumably while you and Brian were present. See this video.
On the issue of removing posts off the forum. You have access to the actual words written. I don't as the forum is now down. You may not have directly asked us to remove our posts but from the quote this was obviously what you wanted us to do. To pretend otherwise is pure semantics.
I remind you again of why I and others raised the subject on the forum. In the post I said the following:
"If this was about establishing common law jurisdiction then surely the people involved in the enterprise should be of the highest moral character. In addition, if I could find out this information about Ray St Clair then so could the media. This would instantly undermine any good work done by the BCG."
That was our concern at the time, that the good work of the BCG would not become undone by the use of Ray St Clair. If the response to our concerns had been handled better then there wouldn't have been a problem. As it was it culminated with being told that there were reasons for what you had done that 'we didn't need to know about' and then being indirectly asked to remove our comments. Are you surprised that this upset some people? If what we face is going to be defeated it will only be done with truth, openness and honesty. Anything else is destined to fail.
I should also point out that this issue alone wasn't what made me write the article. It was only when other things came to my attention I feared I *may* be seeing a pattern emerging. As I said you had a choice as to how to respond to it. If the roles had been reversed I would have taken the issues raised on board, addressed them and tried to learn from them and so developed my understanding of things.
Mike, David Icke is clearly leading people astray. Do you think that those who are pointing this out aren't 'achieving' anything? This is a psychological war as much as anything and deception abounds. Attempting to understand this is paramount if we are to succeed. Own goals like the use of Ray St Clair or association with David Icke are not going to help your cause. If you're going to fight the enemy then you at least should try and understand how it is operating. Pointing this out is not 'nit picking'.
November 17, 2011 10:43 PM
Mike Robinson, you are a bare faced liar! You pretended not to hear me - you said "I CAN'T HEAR YOU ANY MORE SO I AM GOING TO PUT THE PHONE DOWN", but I interrupted you before you had chance to finish the sentance, I said "WAIT! WAIT!" and you hesitated, you COULD hear me, me blurting out WAIT! WAIT stopped you in mid sentance, I HEARD you Mike, so don't you tell me you could not hear me!
Whats this "support" then? You haven't given me any support at all! You explain what this support you are supposed to have given me then! I've given Brian Gerrish plenty of money, perhaps he's getting a bit muddled up about who is actually giving the support and who has recieved it?
Brian Gerrish invited that wicked man John Hemming to Stoke, knowing full well what Hemming and his Fathers Rights cronies (one of whom was the convicted and utterly depraved and shameless ex History teacher Nigel Oldfield) had bullied me for 2 years because I was posting explosive stuff about 2 American paedophile psychologists on Mothers for Justice. I was shocked at the barrage of abuse I got for that and at the time I was going through a secret family court case, being accused of one of the syndromes that one of those creeps had invented!
Brian knew all that, he knew I had gone to Hell and back, and he invited that scumbag to Stoke without saying a single word to me!
I think Brian Gerrish is a yellow bellied cowardly nasty creep and I think you are one as well. I feel such a mug now. You can tell your friend that I want all those documents back, he can use some of the money I gave him to pay for a stamp and envelope, he's had enough off me!
Zoompad / Barbara Richards
November 18, 2011 12:26 AM
And Mike, you and Brian Gerrish can quit trying to blacken my character, as it wont wash.
I am not aggressive, I don't "pick fights" and I don't think that everyone is against me.
I simply do not like being led up the garden path and I certainly do not appreciate being lied to!
And I cannot abide paedophiles, or anyone who defends or covers up for them.
Zoompad/ Barbara Richards
November 18, 2011 12:33 AM
"We are in a war. We have a single enemy. And right now, they are delighted we are fighting among ourselves."
Exactly the same manipulative reasoning tactic that was used on the Mothers for Justice website. They used that on me, tried to, to stop me posting the truth about Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager. I would have none of it! My dad always told me I was as stubborn as a mule, good job I reckon, the stunts that I have had played on me over the years.
Mike, while you are here will you explain to all these good people why my posts were removed from the UK Column forum - the ones about Gardner and Underwager? The elusive Welsh Messenger took them down. Martin, isn't it? (Martin who?)
Why was he offended by my posts Mike? Can you ask him to come here and explain please? Surely the UK Column would be obverjoyed for someone to come on and expose two wicked paedophiles who influenced the secret family courts all over Europe, Australia and America? Why cover that up?
Ask Martin or Brian tgo come here and explain that please Mike, because I do not understand.
November 18, 2011 12:45 AM