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 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…
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’…
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 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.