Monday, 15 May 2017

When Survivors Attack (Part 5): It Took You Enough Time To Get It Up

Short-term bump, from 21/8/14, for contemporary issues.


 Presumably, not the same 'joke' of a CPS, who brought the killer of her child to justice?

(Embedded Tweets - click date)

Oh look, no 'hook' ... law ... 


When Survivors Attack (Part 4): Lies, Lies, Lies - So Many Pants On Fire


Myths propagate ...

(Embedded Tweets - click date

(Embedded Tweets - click date)


So, with the work we are doing, on the small-minded, dangerous and slow-witted 'Paedo Hunters' [sic], of course, we open up a new pit, of newbie, brainwashed, lying, stupid, idiotic vipers ...




Even if you told them the truth, their small and/or angry brains could not process it  :( ...

... and just as those named below did and still do, in this article, the Sun lies to this very day, right Anthony? ...

... and what was the lie, that these people were selling and still do? That anyone, with a no-nexus-relationship, to an alleged action, by looking at an alleged image of the alleged action, has an alleged victim.

There can never be a victim, by looking at an image, in those cases, ever.

When Survivors Attack (Part 4): Lies, Lies, Lies - So Many Pants On Fire

(Embedded Tweet - click date)


More to follow.



  1. Dear Dr Oldfield

    I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Whilst I whole-heartedly agree with all that you say that the "paedophile hunters" are wrong, their actions are criminal, and they all need to be shut down, I do not understand this blog entry or your comments on Sarah Payne.

    We know that Sara, Sarah Payne's daughter was abducted and murdered by a dangerous paedophile, Ron Whiting. I do not know what you have posted on the internet about that or about Sarah Payne.

    But you, demonstrably an educated man, must know that the abduction and murder of a vulnerable little girl is unequivocally the most heinous, most sickening, most disturbing thing that can ever, ever happen. I do not know what you wrote on the internet and why you have been called a troll in the press and what went on.

    Could you please take this opportunity to explain? What did you write to Sarah Payne?
    What was your motivation for writing to her? Did you not feel it appropriate to offer words of condolence to her, given that her little girl was murdered in appalling circumstances?

    I, personally, do not care about your previous conviction, whatever that is. I would just like to know what happened regarding Sarah Payne and what you said, why you said it.

    The world might gain some respect if you can concisely answer those questions.

    Thank you,

  2. Dear fb,

    Thank you for your input, we will cover the main points:

    (1) This blog covers many issues, around the topic. It was bumped, due to recent attacks, on Dr Oldfield, initiated by newbie 'hunters'.

    (2) Mr W was diagnosed, to not be a paedophile, by a court-appointed psychiatrist.

    (3) We agree with your analysis of the SP case.

    (4) What was posted on SM, by Dr Oldfield, is included in the piece, or linked to it.

    (5) SK and SP, worked in cahoots with Anthony France, to attack Dr Oldfield. His address was obtained, almost certainly illegally, by France, to enable visits and exposure.

    (6) See (4), for main SM comments etc.

    (7) Anyone can challenge another, legally, on SM, victimhood does not make anyone immune from this. This is particularly true, when they are lying, financially-motivated, endanger people and are grossly offensive. SK/SP/Phoenix and followers, have a documented history of doing this. They also employ deflection/combination identity techniques (amongst many other underhand protocols), when it suits them. They are Professional Victims.

    This is why Dr Oldfield was successful, when assisting the police with their inquiries. He need only show them the archive. The Human Rights dimension was incidental.

    (8) Dr Oldfield's spent convictions, should have no bearing on this issue, only the 'haters' choose to make it one. Dr Oldfield has had to relocate, on a number of occasions, sometimes with concurrent violence against him.

    (9) Dr Oldfield needs no outside affirmation, for his actions, particularly from those who are ignorant, unaware, dangerous or have unethical vested interests. His circle is loyal, loving and supportive and not those things.

    We hope this assists, please feel free to contribute, further.

    Thank you again.

    The OSC