We’re covering a statement the Hate Campaign maintain is a direct quote from Peter Tallack in reply to questions one of them apparently sent to him last year.

It’s unknown which HC member is supposed to have asked the questions (Day) but you’re required to believe the whole Q&A thing is genuine  – once again without proof.

♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠

The questions apparently put to Peter Tallack :

In your experience do you think Lennox stands any chance at all of being allowed to live? Could he be reassessed and rehomed somewhere well away from his former home?”

The alleged response from Peter Tallack :

The honest answer from me is, no I don’t think he could be safely re-homed anywhere.

When I examined him he was the most unpredictable PBT I have ever dealt with and that is taking everything into consideration. (1)

I don’t know if you [are] aware the first defence expert used by the Barnes family never even took him out of the kennel, she just said Pit Bull Dangerous!! and that was that. Her statement has never been mentioned or served on the Council. (2)

The second expert as you are aware was David Ryan who stopped his examination when Lennox lunged at him.

The third examination by Sarah was a farce and no real test whatsoever. (3)

Again I don’t know if you are aware but at the first Magistrates hearing there was me and the DW who said he was unpredictable. David Ryan and then Caroline Barnes in evidence said that Lennox had always been bad with strangers and was always leaded and muzzled since they had him. (4)

There were no family photographs of Lennox in the house or with her children which does lean toward our suspicions that Lennox was permanently chained in their yard. (5)

It is my view that Lennox is not a cross breed but pure PBT and for this behaviour is worrying, generally pure PBT when they have been looked after have superb temperaments. I really don’t know but suspect something has changed his temperament/ behaviour. (6)

Again I don’t know if you are aware the only person who has successfully made any bond with Lennox is the dog warden who was slaughtered by the campaign and yet every week drove all the way to the kennels just to spend time with him. (7)

Sadly it is my view that Lennox was the wrong dog to campaign for. There have been many other cases that could have been much more worth while cases. I do believe the law needs amending. (8)

I will say and my view will never change, human life must come first! It is very sad but because of some really stupid people out there, there has to [be a] law to protect human life and this is one of them.

I wish I had a magic wand and banish one or people out there, but I have now been involved in four fatalities in the last five years and three of those have been young children, if I had a pound for every time I’ve heard, if only I’d known or if only!

You can see why it was not a straight forward yes no answer! Sorry! (9) ” 

According to the Hate Campaign the above statement was received via email from Peter Tallack in April 2012… while the case was ongoing.

Bearing in mind Peter Tallack knew why the first defence expert’s report wasn’t used and why that expert and her report were never allowed inclusion in the proceedings, it was very ill-advised and unprofessional of Mr Tallack to draw attention to the subject at all.

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ 

Let’s break the statement down and have a nitpick :

(1)  ” The honest answer from me is, no I don’t think he could be safely re-homed anywhere. When I examined him he was the most unpredictable PBT I have ever dealt with and that is taking everything into consideration. ” 

According to Peter Tallack’s CV, his experience and involvement with ‘Pit Bull Terriers’ spans at least 25 years, some of it within a geographical area that was, according to him, “very densely populated where Pit Bull Terriers became very popular very quickly ” (a district of South London). 

And so we’re all expected to believe that, in 25 or more years and with all that experience and involvement with ‘Pit Bull type dogs‘,  Peter Tallack had NEVER come across a dog as unpredictable as Lennox.  

As usual, there isn’t a speck of recorded proof for that claim, and no witness statements to back it up. Unless you include Sandie Lightfoot, with her alleged ten years similar experience with canines, who oddly enough said the same thing as Tallack, almost word for word, again without proof

The only difference between those two is that Lightfoot’s claims were exposed as outright lies via online evidence, some of which had originally been leaked by the Hate Campaign with the intention of damaging Lennox’s case for his owners, but which justifiably backfired on Lightfoot and the rest of the HC.

It was very convenient for Tallack that his ‘examinations‘ of Lennox (on two occasions*) went unrecorded (not a requirement for the Respondent). In addition, to all intents and purposes Tallack was entirely alone when he conducted his examinations, because there is absolutely no mention of a witness in the court documents, and the issue of an accompanying witness or witnesses to Tallack’s assessments was not brought up in court.

*On the subject of the two visits by Tallack – the court documents state that he attended on the first occasion purely to take measurements and basically ascertain type (Tallack claims he ‘just happened‘ to be in Belfast at the time). That was three weeks after Lennox had been seized.

But on the one hand there’s Tallack in a radio interview saying that his job was to confirm type and, after much hedging, finally admitted (in a roundabout way) that he’s not a qualified behaviourist. On the other hand Tallack visits Lennox again a few months later – to do what exactly? Presumably he’d already taken his ‘measurements’ the first time around, so why come back again, if not to ‘assess’ Lennox’s behaviour, which is something he wasn’t (isn’t) qualified to do.

We should also bear in mind, by that time Lennox’s owner had been advised to agree type in order that Lennox could be assessed on merits, and this was already known long before Tallack’s second visit, so there wasn’t any need for him to see Lennox again, if indeed his involvement was purely about ‘type’.

In fact Tallack himself confirms in his radio interview that it was the responsibility of the Appellant to prove Lennox was not a danger to the public, not the other way around, so why was Tallack ‘assessing’?

And did the cost of that second visit come out of his own pocket, or was it on BCC (tax payer) expenses? Maybe it was included in his extremely generous and unwarranted ‘expert witness’ fee of £7500

(2)  ” don’t know if you [are] aware the first defence expert used by the Barnes family never even took him out of the kennel, she just said Pit Bull Dangerous!! and that was that. Her statement has never been mentioned or served on the Council. 

The only truth in that statement is the last sentence.

Regards his ‘first defence expert’ remark, as Belfast City Council’s ‘expert witness’ and on their payroll at the time, Tallack was unwise to mention something disallowed in court.

His statement that the first defence expert “never even took him out of the kennel, she just said ‘Pit Bull Dangerous’ ”, makes us think that he isn’t the author of the email, because it’s a very blatant lie, as Peter Tallack is fully aware. 

The first expert, Madeleine Forsythe, was not requested by or known to Lennox’s owners; she was brought in by their original solicitor, Angela Douglas, who was effectively dropped by Lennox’s owners for making serious errors and professionally spreading herself thin (link).

As Mr Tallack knows, Madeleine Forsythe assessed Lennox for a considerable amount of time. He’s also aware that she took Lennox out of the kennel without using a catchpole! However, her written report described an entirely different dog and was dated incorrectly. Therefore neither Ms Forsythe nor her assessment were allowed to be included in the proceedings.

(3)  “ The second expert as you are aware was David Ryan who stopped his examination when Lennox lunged at him. The third examination by Sarah was a farce and no real test whatsoever. “

Very conveniently Peter Tallack fails to mention that at the point David Ryan stopped his examination, he had already been assessing Lennox for approximately an hour. Tallack also forgets to mention that David Ryan confirmed Lennox had the opportunity to bite him but chose not to do so (Court Doc 1, clause 25).

Considering Mr Ryan subjected Lennox to lengthy and numerous tests, goading and teasing him in an attempt to elicit an adverse response (at one point bumping Lennox on the nose with his fist), it says a lot about Lennox’s steady temperament that, after all that provocation, the only reaction from him was a lunge as described, followed by an immediate retreat.  A human reaction to that kind of incitement would likely end with Mr Ryan having his face smacked (or worse), even if that human was in a strange place but able to make sense of the situation, unlike Lennox.

Not surprisingly, Peter Tallack calls Sarah Fisher’s examination of Lennox ‘a farce‘; it’s the kind of defensive remark you’d expect from someone like him, with his very limited experience and tunnel-vision.

Tallack has also publicly criticised Ms Fisher’s use of the food she offered to Lennox, implying that she was afraid and attempting to bribe him, but Peter Tallack says absolutely nothing about David Ryan’s routine practice of doing exactly the same thing, as this extract from Mr Ryan’s own report confirms: “…in one movement he lunged towards me, growled, barked and snapped. He did not with me and returned to sit with Ms Lightfoot. As he did so, I again offered him cheese, which he took immediately in a relaxed manner” .

Unlike Tallack, Sarah Fisher (a fully qualified animal behaviourist with many years experience – link), spent much longer with Lennox, conducting a full and controlled assessment (link), as opposed to the haphazard one that Tallack seems to have carried out.  David Ryan also spent a long time with Lennox; in fact even the original expert who wasn’t allowed a mention (Forsythe) spent time with him.

Tallack, on the other hand, gives the impression that he barely got through the first half hour of his examination, and it’s easy to draw conclusions about that in the absence of a written report or witness statement to say otherwise.

It’s also easy to come to certain other conclusions bearing in mind Tallack’s public announcement that he would not hesitate to control a dog with extreme force. In fact, in one media article he was quoted as saying that standing on a dog’s neck is an acceptable form of control; now that’s something neither he nor the HC can dispute because it’s already ‘out there’ (that’s the downside of the Internet, information just never goes away when you want it to). And let’s not forget that even BCC describe Peter Tallack as a ‘dog handler‘. 

(4)  “ Again I don’t know if you are aware but at the first Magistrates hearing there was me and the DW who said he was unpredictable. David Ryan and then Caroline Barnes in evidence said that Lennox had always been bad with strangers and was always leaded and muzzled since they had him.

We can’t argue with the fact that Tallack and Lightfoot agreed on saying that Lennox was unpredictable, to the point where they mimicked each other’s descriptions, but it looks as if Tallack is also implying that David Ryan knew Lennox was ‘always bad with strangers‘.

It’s difficult to imagine why Tallack thinks David Ryan could know anything of the sort, given that he’d never met Lennox before nor witnessed him in the presence of other strangers, and Lennox’s owner did not use the word ‘always‘. In fact she explained that Lennox had been wary of strangers since an incident with a group of youths. She also stated that he ‘didn’t deal well with strangers who forced themselves upon him‘, which is entirely different to ‘always‘ and ‘totally unpredictable‘, and at no point did she say that Lennox had been ‘leaded and muzzled since they had him‘, so where the hell Tallack plucked that one from is anyone’s guess.

To quote David Ryan from his own assessment of Lennox : 
Lennox was taken from a kennel in the rear of a van by Ms Lightfoot at my request. He was happy to come out of the van and allowed himself to be clipped onto a short lead. As he exited the van his attention was friendly and mostly directed towards Ms Lightfoot. 

He acknowledged my presence but made no unfriendly move towards me, although he was walked to within touching distance of me. He was walked into a garage area where the assessment was to take place and began to sniff about.

To prevent him urine marking. I took the lead from Ms Lightfoot and walked him a short distance to a patch of grass. During this time he paid me little attention…I offered Lennox small pieces of cheese to increase my positive interaction and reduce threat. He took them readily and appeared relaxed on his own with me. “

David Ryan had previously stated: He [Lennox] was walked up to me, a complete stranger, in an environment with which he was not familiar, without incident. This suggests he has no inclination to show aggression to anyone he meets in public if not threatened. 

(5)  “ There were no family photographs of Lennox in the house or with her children which does lean toward our suspicions that Lennox was permanently chained in their yard. “

*Sigh* Here we go again (link). Tallack WAS never, HAS never been inside Lennox’s home. It’s doubtful he’s been anywhere near it, unless he also made a habit of sitting outside their property like other members of the HC (link).

That statement alone almost convinces us that Peter Tallack is not the author of the email because surely he isn’t stupid enough, not only to tell such shockingly bare-faced lies, but to be that arrogant and careless during an ongoing court case in which he was an expert witness?

Or perhaps it was his way of saying that he had the backing and approval of Belfast City Council to say what he likes?

(6)  “ It is my view that Lennox is not a cross breed but pure PBT and for this behaviour is worrying, generally pure PBT when they have been looked after have superb temperaments. I really don’t know but suspect something has changed his temperament/ behaviour. 

Well, we can probably safely say by now that Tallack’s ‘view‘ and opinions are worth precisely zilch. It’s extremely doubtful Lennox was aggressive or unpredictable with Tallack; it’s much more likely he was scared stiff.

Tallack and Lightfoot have had free rein to say what they please because there is no physical evidence to dispute their claims. Equally there is no physical evidence to support their claims. What a tragedy for Lennox and his family that Tallack’s visits weren’t recorded and witnessed impartially, start to finish.

(7)  ” Again I don’t know if you are aware the only person who has successfully made any bond with Lennox is the dog warden who was slaughtered by the campaign and yet every week drove all the way to the kennels just to spend time with him. ” 

Sandie Lightfoot, that ‘pillar of the community, the only one who bonded with Lennox and who went to all the trouble of visiting him every single week of his incarceration’. The same Sandie Lightfoot who, along with Tallack, did her very best to destroy Lennox’s reputation, resulting in his death. For someone who allegedly took months to bond with an animal, she had a strange way of showing her affection. 

Tallack (or whoever wrote the email) has drawn attention to Sandie Lightfoot, the Belfast City Council Dog Warden at the time (now a BCC Animal Welfare Officer if you can believe it). So let’s discuss her briefly and run over a few points.

Sandie Lightfoot :

  • testified under oath that it took her six months to build a relationship with Lennox, and  yet we’ve all seen solid evidence released very soon after Lennox was seized showing Lightfoot looking extremely comfortable and relaxed in his company, almost distracted in fact (link);
  • claimed she visited Lennox once each week, but could not prove it, and when asked to provide visual evidence that Lennox was in good health during his incarceration, she ‘leaked’ photographs of an entirely different (and healthy, happy) dog, passing him off as Lennox (link);
  • was regularly found on Facebook using a fake profile (more on that in another entry);
  • could provide no evidence to support her claims that Lennox was ‘one of the most aggressive and unpredictable dogs she had ever met‘;
  • lied under oath – Lightfoot’s false claim that Lennox’s owner had said ‘the dog will rip your head off‘ could not be corroborated by the colleague who was with her at the time. When cross-examined in court, Lightfoot’s colleague stated that she did not hear those words being spoken.  Therefore that false claim was dismissed.
  • lied about stalking – a letter from her employers, Belfast City Council confirmed that Lightfoot was indeed sitting outside Lennox’s owner’s house on at least one occasion. That letter contained a warning to the owners not to use images they had taken of Lightfoot that day, therefore BCC themselves confirmed she was outside their property and was not, as BCC had previously falsely claimed, ‘on indefinite leave‘;

(8)  “ Sadly it is my view that Lennox was the wrong dog to campaign for. There have been many other cases that could have been much more worth while cases. I do believe the law needs amending.

Lennox wasn’t the wrong dog, he was absolutely the right one and his case alone has brought attention to deceitful and morally-challenged people such as Tallack and Lightfoot, not to mention an atrocious, ineffectual and dysfunctional law.

As for an amendment to the law, that just shows Tallack for what he is, unintelligent and narrow-minded. The law needs to be abolished, scrapped, and the emphasis placed elsewhere, on owners and backyard breeders.

Lennox, aged five years old at the time, never had a complaint made against him for any reason. He had never bitten anyone (in spite of ‘someone’ at BCC telling Sarah Fisher a different fabricated story), and he had never been threatening or aggressive. He didn’t bite David Ryan and Sandie Lightfoot has not been able to show evidence to support her own claims because they are false.

So that just leaves Peter Tallack, and it begs the question, what was the real reason he used a catchpole to keep Lennox at bay? Was it to goad him into some kind of reaction, or maybe Tallack had already done that? Or perhaps he just needed to show Lennox in a bad light. Whatever his reasons, it wasn’t due to Lennox being aggressive and unpredictable, because we all know he wasn’t. 

(9) ” I will say and my view will never change, human life must come first! It is very sad but because of some really stupid people out there, there has to [be a] law to protect human life and this is one of them. I wish I had a magic wand and banish one or people out there, but I have now been involved in four fatalities in the last five years and three of those have been young children, if I had a pound for every time I’ve heard, if only I’d known or if only! You can see why it was not a straight forward yes no answer! Sorry! 

Tallack showing there that he hasn’t a clue, although he’s right about one thing, there are some really stupid people out there. He’s friends with some of them and the next time he passes a mirror he’ll find another.

As for the magic wand, he might try using it for some self-improvement. If he really had absorbed and taken on board anything worthwhile in the last thirty years, you’d think he would have twigged by now that human behaviour is the problem. BSL is an ineffectual, grotesque sticky plaster, not a cure nor a remedy. The problem should be tackled where it starts, with the owners.

Maybe Tallack could try his violent dog-control techniques on the next bad owner he meets, see how far that gets him. That owner might have something to say about it, a dog doesn’t have a voice; it doesn’t have a choice. And neither did Lennox.

Tallack spent very little overall time with Lennox, yet used a catchpole on him. Not one other person who came into contact with Lennox needed to do that. He was observed with a neck injury that hadn’t existed before Tallack assessed him. Another easily drawn conclusion. 

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

Quick recap

  • There are no records or physical evidence to support Peter Tallack’s claims that Lennox was ‘aggressive and unpredictable‘;
  • There are no records or physical evidence confirming that Tallack’s visits to Lennox were witnessed by anyone;
  • There are no records or physical evidence to support Sandie Lightfoot’s claims that Lennox was ‘aggressive and unpredictable‘;

Everyone asks the same thing, ‘How is it that Peter Tallack remained a constable for all those years, without promotion‘. We think the clue lies in his attitude and conduct highlighted during the Lennox case.

It’s very telling that Sandie Lightfoot and Mel Page count him as a good friend, and it says everything about their poor moral standards we’ve come to know so well.

We’ve had a few messages asking us to include some information about Peter Tallack’s conduct and comments in court. Many people witnessed it on the day, so it’s only right to share it here

During cross-examination, Mr Tallack became increasingly agitated, sweating heavily and wiping his brow. Obviously extremely uncomfortable at being questioned, here are two examples of his conduct:

  • Peter Tallack, referring to Lennox’s owner, Caroline Barnes, randomly challenged her right to own a dog owing to the fact that she walked with a limp and required a walking stick;
  • Peter Tallack, whilst testifying in the witness stand, turned to the Judge complaining that he could not continue because ‘people were looking at him‘ !

Yes exactly, you really couldn’t make it up!

Let’s also not forget that during the Nando Brown radio interview on 14 July 2012, Peter Tallack clearly stated, at length, that it was the first time he had spoken out in public or given an interview about the Lennox case. His earlier interview for the Nolan Show, Radio Ulster on 31 March 2011 must have slipped his mind (link).

Tallack’s interview on the Nando Brown show begins at roughly 25 minutes (link below). You’ll hear Mr Tallack start with a touch of grovelling, then avoidance (re: his qualifications). After that your mouth will likely drop open at the lies spewing forth. He even manages to mention the first expert witness.

Then you’ll probably start going red in the face yourself when you hear the malice directed at Lennox’s family (try not to stick a fist through the computer screen). Be warned – you’ll hear the familiar innuendo and gossip that we’ve witnessed so often with the rest of the Hate Campaign. He’s even arrogant enough to imply on air that Lennox was a yard dog!

The rest of the show is taken up, quite rightly, by an interview with Sarah Fisher plus a chat with Victoria Stilwell and Jim Crosby. Well worth a listen, all of it. And someone very closely connected to the Hate Campaign makes a cameo appearance with some interesting own goal comments. (LINK)

Peter Tallack


just a reminder…


…that today (April 18th) is another National Stalking Awareness Day. Very appropriate in view of the Hate Campaign’s vendetta against Lennox’s family, their expert witness and close Save Lennox Campaign supporters, considering much of the HC’s vendetta has been about lies, gossip and personal attacks, including stalking and phone calls.

In the absence of fake profiles Roxanne Summers and Heather Jones, no doubt we can look forward to more bleating from the people who were behind them (link)…

National Stalking Awareness Day 2013

Polishing off


Our last post on this particular subject for the time being so we can concentrate on other things, unless of course they devise something else to blame us for 🙂

Just a quickie about something mentioned on Friday regarding Ted Ismay and his anti-paedophile groups. In a nutshell, Ismay made contact with a group admin and, in turn, that admin checked Ismay’s page, where he found the collection of posts mentioned in our earlier blog entry (link) and little else. In other words, there was nothing on Ismay’s page to indicate it was dedicated to anything other than the content of his warped state of mind.

Not long after that Ismay hid or removed all traces of his defamatory comments with the excuse that his kids were reading his wall. A strange thing to say considering he was the one concocting detailed sick stories which had been sitting on his page for some time, unless they’re used to seeing that tripe.

However, the admin did say that he’d passed Ismay’s details on to another group. We also understand from one of our followers that several similar groups and pages have now been contacted with a full explanation and links back to this site.

Mel Page and Ted Ismay have the morals of a gnat. As we’ve seen, they are prepared to say absolutely anything to deflect attention away from themselves, even to the point of dragging children into their spiteful games.

Their attempts at diversion reek of desperation and are so transparent it’s embarrassing, the same pattern of behaviour for all Hate Campaign members since their vendetta began.

So never mind Mel Page’s false claim of ‘guilt by association‘. With the disappearance of two major trolls, Heather Jones and Roxanne Summers, various other profiles and groups, even a child could figure out that Ismay and Page are in it up to their necks.

But, according to them, they have nothing to do with any of it; they’re entirely blameless, and yet Ms Page gives herself a get-out clause by saying she might have ‘retaliated‘.

They claim to be victims but they have fully supported and backed those involved with the HC in public from day one. That short memory lets them down every time – one minute they’re ‘guilty by association‘, then they’re ‘retaliating‘, and at other times just plain ‘innocent‘.

The fact that they have now removed comments, deactivated spare and fake profiles, wiped out Tweets and various other associations, is very revealing, but neither here nor there, since it was a waste of their time.

Time and again we’ve heard how the poor innocent things have been subjected to all kinds of uncalled-for abuse. There’s the ‘paramilitary threats‘ claim with no evidence to support it; the ‘I’ve been accused of threatening a child with violence‘, again with no evidence. Mel Page constantly refers back to vile threats and abuse, but no one has seen anything valid to support any of her claims.

And then there’s the incident where Mr Ismay allegedly took a ‘beating‘, altered and used against their targets. We know most people believe he either came off his bike or made himself unpopular with some locals and got smacked around a bit, but whatever the reason for his injuries, he and Page made sure that they ‘heavily implied’ Save Lennox supporters were responsible in some way for the alleged attack. Once again, totally untrue and with no evidence to back up their claims. Story of their life.

The ‘baseball bat threats’…

Mel page facebook starting the baseball bat ball rolling

Mel Page was the first person ever to mention ‘baseball bats and dark alleys‘ in the context of a not-so veiled threat (and there’s that mention of her ‘police friends’ yet again). When the people she named in that comment took exception and retaliated, Page swiftly changed her mind and it suddenly became ‘a wish and not a threat‘.

But putting that aside, the real thing highlighted in that screenshot is her obsession with Hate Campaign targets. She’s not observing, she’s taking part. In fact it wasn’t even ‘retaliation‘ on her part; it was a random comment she made about a subject she herself initiated. So much for ‘guilty by association‘.

As for the ‘Ann Banford‘ profile having nothing whatsoever to do with her, all we can say is, Mel Page should have quit while she had the chance on that one. It’s probably the most ridiculous claim she’s made so far.

But you have to hand it to her, she went the whole hog, insisting she knows nothing about any ‘Ann Banford‘, which is really odd, because that particular Ann Banford routinely posted on HC pages and groups targeting the exact same people Page mentions in her ‘baseball bat and alleyway‘ comment. What a coincidence.

In any case, that Ann Banford (with the same url address shown in the screenshot below) was a regular visitor to the very same HC pages Mel Page frequented all the time. It’s not as if she can validly say she hadn’t noticed Ann Banford, because there have always been just a small handful of HC members posting on those pages at any one time. Not exactly crowded or busy. Certainly not busy enough to miss someone commenting on a HC target

Ann Banford aka Mel Page aka posting a targets address

It’s plain silly to say she wasn’t posting under that profile, but apparently Page didn’t stop there. Bearing in mind Kathy Wardley’s blooper calling Larry Lawrence ‘Mel’

Mel Page aka Larry Lawrence outed by Wardley

: ……
Larry Lawrence aka Mel Page Facebook 1

Think we can safely say that’s not Mel Gibson in disguise.

Finally, a word on our non-existent attacks on Deed not Breed. That fabrication comes from the same mould as Mel Page’s claims that her kids are being stalked, and similarly she has no evidence to support the statement that we want to destroy DnB, because there isn’t any. She knows that of course; Page also knows that she is the only person damaging DnB, aided and abetted by the articulate Ted Ismay. Some free advice for the pair of them –  time to grow up.

We’re not sure what this is…

Ted Ismay Facebook on retired MOD officer and inferences of data bases leaks

Ted Ismay is definitely saying that a retired MoD officer is being stalked, but he’s also alluding to the fact that this particular officer still has access to Police databases. What could he possibly mean by that? We do hope he’s not insinuating that retired MoD police officer would consider breaking the law?


In response to one or two enquiries and comments on Friday’s entry, and the subject referred to, we confirm that it is genuine information in the form of a Facebook conversation carried out in public (i.e. not in a private or secret group).

Yes, it would be considered damaging to the people involved and, although we will not refer to it again unless absolutely necessary, it will be made available to authorities who wish to see it, including those investigating on behalf of Ms Page.

And that, as far as we’re concerned, is an end to the matter, for the moment at least. If Messrs Page & Ismay wish to wile away some time responding, that’s up to them; good luck with that.

Something for the weekend + Updates


**UPDATES below**

Ted Ismay is obviously hellbent on taking that one-way trip up Shite Creek, with all the out of control rants he’s come out with lately. So before he spontaneously combusts, we thought it would be good to do some of the work for him.

In addition, Mel Page has changed her story again, and the investigation is now back on (or never went away, it’s confusing), but whatever the current explanation is, this post may help with ongoing investigations.

If you haven’t already seen the following piece of babble from Ismay, basically he’s saying you are a ‘stalker‘ if you’re not his ‘friend’ and you dare read his public Facebook page.

However, he’s taken an innocuous comment about someone else’s TWO DOGS  and turned it into the stalking of his CHILDREN to satisfy his need to spread more bile using two of his favourite words, ‘pervert’ and ‘pedo’. He missed out the ‘C’ word this time, which is surprising really because it’s one of his and Mel’s faves.

Poor, extremely dense Ted, it hasn’t occurred to him that he’s the one looking like a fixated pervert with a one-track mind…

Ted Heath(er) ISMAY Facebook on his one way trip to Shite Creek

The comments Ted Ismay removed from his page are posted verbatim below to aid various investigations, including those of Mel Page’s legal team of course, and also to ensure they crop up on the Internet.

Speaking of ‘investigations’, for someone who has been advised by her solicitor to keep it zipped, Mel Page is certainly vocal on the Hate Campaign pages (the ones she doesn’t have anything to do with), even going as far as repeating Ismay’s ‘stalking pervert’ lies. Chances are it’s just a case of The Flounders all over again, but a reckless game to play nonetheless.

Mel Page is also suffering from HC Short Memory Syndrome, though it’s no problem to help her out there:

Mel Page Facebook short memory naming PC

The first part of that screenshot shows Mel Page going through the motions for the sake of an audience (that’s us and you) on a page she has ‘nothing to do with’, Lem Thirteen. Wonder why she bothers. But presumably she’s referring to this:

Ann Banford aka Mel Page aka posting a targets address

So this is what she’s referring to, the ‘false allegation‘? Good, that’s cleared that up and it would account for her denial of wrongdoing, because in fact she used her Ann Banford account to do the deed, and not the Mel Page or Melanie Page profiles. (And it’s over to the Mel & Ted double-act to flesh that one out a bit more for their audience; will be interesting to see their version).

For two people who claim to be ‘innocent’ (at least their definition of it), they crop up in all sorts of HC places, going back several months. They’re also very defensive, to the point of raising things nobody has even mentioned. We realise it’s their attempt at deflection, but it’s a bit daft to bring up unsubstantiated claims of ‘being accused of threatening a child with a baseball bat‘, etc, and drawing attention to subjects it hadn’t occurred to us to cover. (Wait for it, they’ll mention their unproven ‘paramilitary threats’ again soon).

♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠

Ted Ismay Facebook says:

Dennis, stop stalking my page and my children, that’s just perverted. Are you a pedo? The problem you are going to have is should my kids be contacted, messaged or even contacted by your shitty little blog then those that I do have addresses for will be paying for your mistake. And before you class that as a threat, it’s not, it’s a fucking promise and if you know as much about me as you wish to have your little gang believe then you know what I am willing and capable of doing. Its up to you old hoss, do you want to progress this into something you cannot control or stop?”

This is the profile picture of the person that is stalking myself and has now insinuated that he is stalking my kids. If you see or hear about this person the owner behind this profile is a twat. It goes by the name of dennisstephens59 and is connected with the lennox campaign, headed by craig winters and supported by Ange Manners aka Roxi Bennetti, Doreen Davies, Maria Fawcett, Carol Eden, Clare Campbell, Julie Boyland and Charlie Smith. I will post these peoples profile accounts on my page later and I will also post their profile accounts on every anti pedo wall on facebook, because in my eyes stalking kids and supporting those that stalk kids are as bad as each other

♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠


Just a quickie before we leave the blog for the weekend.

This from Mel Page in response to our post of the day ..

Mel Page Facebook admitting her claims of kids being stalked is a cat

Thanks to Mel Page for clearing that up and confirming that no stalking of kids, as they claimed, occurred, owing to the fact that at least one of the made-up kids is a CAT (the other fake ‘kid’ is a DOG presumably).

And yes, we stand corrected again, it was Our Mistake to leave Huge Mistake’s comment out of the post. Seems Mel & Ted had one of their little double acts going on that day…

Huge Mistake aka Ted Ismay posting a targets address

Finally, we’ve had an email informing us that Mr Ismay has made a prat of himself yet again, this time by contacting at least two known (and legitimate) anti-paedophile groups regarding his sick fake stalking claims.

However, an admin on one of those groups is a follower of this blog, not good news for Ted. On Monday we’ll post what the admin has to say about Mr Ismay and his comments.

Have a good weekend.

We stand corrected…


… because apparently Mel Page does not have a police investigation on the go (there’s a surprise):Mel page facebook has something to say to try and get herself off the hook

So, after seeking legal advice at least a month ago, Ms Page has only just been informed that her complaint is a civil matter, and it’s a no-can-do.

They didn’t tell her at the time, when she first complained and provided all her evidence, they waited until now to explain the legal processes. Why didn’t she ask her ‘Police friends‘? They could have told her the same thing ages ago. And it’s a mystery why her solicitor waited this long to explain nothing can be done. On top of that, at least part of her ‘complaint’ must have been made well over a year ago owing to her unsubstantiated claims of personal and paramilitary threats that have been floating around for months.

As for the fake ID’s, that’s rich – the next thing you know she’ll be claiming Heather Jones, a bunch of other Jones‘s, Angela Mannering, Billie Bennet, Larry Lawrence, twins Isabella & Nikola Black and even Roxanne Summers are all real !).

The only mildly savvy thing she’s done so far is use aliases, a Facebook admin and a ‘handle’ on the LLAAV website to post her bile, alongside using her own name to appear squeaky clean, which didn’t quite work out because she let herself go on more than one occasion. So much for having nothing to do with the Hate Campaign or any of its’ outlets.

Think we can safely say that Mel Page did not contact a solicitor or the police with or without ‘evidence’ for the simple reason that (as she knows very well) if something could be done about her complaints, her online activities would also be exposed, along with those of Ted Ismay. Page knows that in any police involvement regarding Internet crime, the track records of all concerned would be scrutinised.

As for the rest of that speech, it’s another crock again, familiar Hate Campaign stuff – the ‘poor me I’ve been caught out‘, ‘I’m the victim in all this now‘. They do it every time, predictable and samey. Well, Page should have thought about that before. 

But in one of her remarks above, the ‘I’m the victim‘ whinging has taken an altogether nasty turn with her accusation that ‘friends and children‘ are being targeted and stalked. Desperate and very silly. What ‘friends’ would they be we wonder, her Hate Campaign colleagues? And the ‘kids‘ someone referred to, they would be another person’s ‘dogs‘ right?

If Page insists on spreading lies accusing others of stalking and targeting her children and Ismay wants to chance his arm branding people ‘pedo’s‘ (below), they should be extremely thankful this really is currently a civil matter, otherwise they’d both be up Shite Creek with both arms tied behind their backs.

Mel Page and Ted Ismay are finally reaping the benefits of their malicious stupidity and should take their own advice;they seem to think they can say what they like…without any backlash. Not true“. As for their ‘bite’, it’s toothless.

Before we go…

Ted Heather Ismay facebook orchestrating his own demise

Ismay eventually removed that post. Maybe he realised that naming people he would like to think have a hand in this blog makes him look even more stupid than usual, or maybe it crossed his mind that taking yet another comment out of context, for his own very unhealthy reasons, was a bit too revealing.

The ‘kids’ he’s referring to are dogs, believe it or not, but Ismay thought or hoped nobody would notice. Besides, that lie came in very handy for his own sordid purposes to spread yet another sick rumour, in true HC style. (Ted has had his fair share of ‘mucky’ little conversations on Facebook in the past. Shame he has a short memory, otherwise he’d have steered well clear of accusing someone of speaking inappropriately in the same sentence as he mentions ‘kids’).

In the screenshot below Ted got cold feet and quickly changed the names of his victims to initials, but he forgot that the editing history of Facebook comments remains visible. Not the brightest bulb is he…

Ted Heath(er) Ismay Facebook correcting itself

A word of warning from the Hate Campaign – did you know that if you read one of their public Facebook pages, but you’re not actually friends with that person and that person hasn’t given you direct permission to look at their public page, then you are officially a Stalker? But if they do the same to you, that’s perfectly okay?

Donations revisited


We’ve been here before it’s true (link) and you all know we don’t need to spend too much time on this, it’s cut and dried. You also know (thanks to Mel Page) that we are being ‘investigated’, so it is our aim to assist in any way we can (after all, that’s why we’re here, although it doesn’t look as if that has dawned on them yet. Give them time, it’s only been seven months!).

For our most recent visitors, we’ll begin by stating the obvious, that the Hate Campaign have maintained, without proof of any kind (no change) that Lennox’s family received untold thousands in donations.

In fact the viper behind Heather Jones at one point concluded at least £60k had been collected.Heather Jones Facebook aka estimating againAs someone rightly said “Sixty grand, a quid for every nasty and vindictive thought that has ever run through the person behind Jones’ warped and tiny mind“.  

Can’t argue with that, although 60k vile thoughts for that ‘person’ sounds a bit on the moderate side to us, and it’s obviously not confined to thoughts alone.

The following is the SUM TOTAL of the Hate Campaign’s ‘evidence’ that copious amounts of cash was received in donations :

Paypal 2Paypal 1

This is an interesting one. For some reason they’re still using the screenshot below to back up their claims that donations were received(?), but as you can see it’s a £1 refund.

In fact that particular refund went straight back to the person who donated it, one Mel Page, who apparently only sent it to check if donations were being accepted so that she could go and report back to the other HC members.

That screenshot was originally provided some time ago by Mel Page for use on the various Hate Campaign pages and the HC website, LLAAV (affectionately known as The Lav).

So much for Mel Page’s protestations that she was never directly involved with the Hate Campaign

Save Lennox Hate Campaign LLAAV Donations 5

We all know Page is a main player in the HC; her reasoning behind this was to prove donations were being taken so that she and her HC friends could start the ball rolling with false accusations of a ‘donations scam’. Shame she wasn’t brave enough to make it a fiver, or maybe she assumed Caroline Barnes was as dishonest as she is, and wouldn’t give it back.

Page (along with her pal Gunther) also knows, from her experience running Deed not Breed that Legal Aid did not cover the expert witness brought in by Lennox’s family (see below).

The following screenshot shows a donation given by someone who at one time had a foot in both camps, and is now a fully fledged member of the Hate Campaign, Ann Endbsl Roberts:

Save Lennox Hate Campaign LLAAV Donations 4

And that’s it. That’s all they have.

This is what their whole campaign is based around. Let’s not forget Sarah Gunther also mentioned donations, she’s someone else who apparently has nothing to do with the Hate Campaign. For two people who are supposed to be detached from a vendetta against Lennox’s family, their names sure do crop up a lot in relation to the spreading of lies and gossip against Len’s family and the Save Lennox Campaign in general.

The rest of the HC ‘evidence’ is based on claiming that ‘someone‘ told them she was donating £200 each and every month, and apparently you’re all supposed to be daft enough to believe it!

It gets better – according to the HC, they’ve been contacted by absolutely loads of people who donated, but guess what? Every last one of those people has decided they don’t want any details whatsoever revealed, and so we all just have to take their word for it.

The best bit – the HC claim that the people who have ‘confided’ in them are so afraid of reprisals if they ‘tell’ (!) they won’t even allow the HC to give out rough figures without any other details. Not wishing to appear rude, but if you believe that you’ll believe anything!

And it doesn’t end there, they’ve accused Lennox’s owners of a veritable catalogue of crimes, including :

  • scrounging off the state;
  • of asking for help to pay for the expert witness when they apparently know it was paid for by Legal Aid (see below);
  • of receiving such whopping great amounts of money in donations, they bought themselves a new BMW, new furniture and two weeks abroad on a luxury holiday !

(For anyone conducting an investigation, we will be more than happy to provide screenshots of all the above at any time.)

It’s interesting that at least two of the accusers are receiving State benefits, when in fact Lennox’s owners were not, so it’s a bit rich to label someone else a ‘scrounger’, but as we said in Gunther’s post (link), how the hell could they know anyway?

Legal Aid and the Expert Witness
The Truth is that the Expert Witness was not covered by Legal Aid (but then they already knew that, and if the flotsam didn’t know it, the jetsam certainly did).

For the record, and as those people running certain organisations already know, the expert witness was paid by Lennox’s owners and, for a ballpark figure fee, consider that Peter Tallack received £7,500 from Belfast City Council for his so-called ‘expert opinion’.

No doubt they felt safe spreading gossip and lies hiding behind the fake profiles, and having their lies questioned and exposed obviously hadn’t occurred to any of them at the time.

Well, it’s certainly occurred to several of them now, judging by their ever-dwindling Hate Campaign numbers.

It’s a tribute to everyone else’s common sense that they haven’t really been challenged on this one before, which shows nobody gives any credence to their malice. But it wouldn’t do to let them get off Scott-free with their bullying and lies.

You have informed us that there was indeed a running total for donations placed on the Save Lennox website, which was approximately £2,500, but certainly nothing even close to the wild amount the HC claimed was received. That total was publicised much later in the campaign so by any stretch of the imagination it’s hardly likely to have reached enough to pay for the expert witness, let alone a new BMW.

Malicious minds produce malicious acts, and they really went for it with this one without one ounce of proof. 

Does Anyone Know…


…what happened to the Roxanne Summers profiles? It’s a mystery.

The main profile went very quiet after posting what it claimed to be a big reveal, which turned out to be a huge mistake (link). Shortly after that, we did some revealing of our own (link).

We followed that with Connections, at which point not only did all the Roxanne Summers profiles disappear, but also Boycott Boycott Belfast and the ‘real les trollops‘ WordPress site. Zapped, overnight, literally.

On top of that, several people mentioned in ‘Connections cleaned up their Facebook pages pronto and one in particular began the process of removing or hiding comments, Tweets and associations (too late, sorry Ms Page). Now why would anyone do that if they had nothing to hide?

Was it all because of our recent posts? The Bar Council’s response to several complaints about Summers might have had something to do with it as well and, as we understand Mel Page’s solicitor is reading this blog in order to gather evidence (as are the Police according to her), we thought it would be helpful to show this:

Bar Council Northern Ireland Letter response re Roxanne Summers Facebook

The attached letter from Kathy Smyth stated:

05 March 2013


Re: Professional Conduct Committee – Your Complaint Against A Member of the Bar of Northern Ireland

I have been asked to write to you on behalf of the Professional conduct committee regarding your recent complaint.

Enquiries have been made on behalf of the Committee and it has been confirmed that there is no Counsel at the Bar of Northern Ireland by the name of Roxanne Summers.

It does appear however that a person using that name on Facebook has represented that he or she is a barrister.

Two possibilities arise, namely;

1. The person operating under the name Roxanne Summers is not in fact a barrister and the representation is false, or

2. The person is a member of the bar but is not using their real name.

The Committee is making further enquiries to establish whether it is possible to confirm which of these possibilities is correct.

In the meantime, the committee would welcome any further information, which might assist in establishing whether the person in question is in fact a member of the Northern Ireland Bar.

The committee is due to meet again on 12th March and you shall be notified of any further developments.

Yours faithfully

Kathy Smyth
Professional Conduct Committee

Needless to say we can post no further comments from the Bar Council at this time, but obviously that will be forthcoming when Ms Page’s legal team have completed their investigation, which hopefully will be soon.

After all, if they’re all as innocent and blameless of the deeds highlighted in this blog as they claim to be, doesn’t it make sense to punish us with legal action? If they’re truly guiltless it won’t cost them a penny, and our identities can be revealed. So what could possibly be stopping them?

We await to hear from them. Meanwhile, we’ll leave you with this thought. Why did the Roxanne Summers profiles, an HC Facebook page and a website disappear overnight, and why did various people clean up their Facebook pages and Tweets immediately after we posted the February entries mentioned above? Another mystery!