28 thoughts on “Barrister Barbara Hewson

  1. Lots of people reported Saville, priests, celebs, even nuns, all were shut up. It was only after the death of Savilly that people were allowed to complain of his sick antics.
    Other celebs are NOT being brought down because of Saviles antics, but because of their own antics.
    Paedos are protrayed as dirty smelly fat old drunk men, when in reality, the majority are judges lawyers, policemen, teachers, doctors, etc etc. Its a billion dollar industary and the rich and powerful run the show. And you wouldn’t believe the amount of paedos out there who are women. Its not just a man thing.

    • I’m reminded of the expression “the Lady doth protest too much methinks”

      Could it be that she has something to hide?

    • “Paedos are protrayed as dirty smelly fat old drunk men, when in reality, the majority are judges lawyers, policemen, teachers, doctors, etc etc. Its a billion dollar industary and the rich and powerful run the show”

      How do you actually know this?

  2. THIS cow is part of a cabal with Anna RACCOON Greg Lance Watkins, The Barrister Blogger and Keellan Balderson all happily trying to distract from child abuse. NOT once has any of them put forward a genuine case

  3. Provide a legit email address and I’ll publish your comment

    The original message was received at Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:57:16 GMT
    from localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]

       —– The following addresses had permanent fatal errors —–

        (reason: 550 5.1.1
    : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table)

       —– Transcript of session follows —–
    … while talking to mail.digitalsanctuary.com.:
    >>> DATA
    < << 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in virtual alias table
    550 5.1.1 … User unknown
    <<< 554 5.5.1 Error: no valid recipients

  4. I find her rather sinister.
    She says there is no such thing as satanic ritual abuse when people have been convicted for abuse of underage children in satanic covens. See the Kidwelly satanic cult in South wales where there were actual convictions.
    Yet she says it doesn’t exist. Bizarre.

    • @Matello. I agree you don’t have to believe in Satan, or spirits, or God for that matter for rituals to exist. I’m an atheist, but religeous rituals do exist despite my beliefs, and even though their imaginary friend is not real either.

    • That woman needs a slap with a wet cloth.
      I wonder has she any kids? Would any man dare to even go there?
      13??? Forget the wet cloth, I’ll change that to a spade.

    • I was actually in court with a friend the same day as the kidwelly case. (hers was a minor posession charge)lucky for her the paper didnt print her case because of the Kidwelly case. Anyway, if you saw these people…they looked inbred, dressed in dirty tracksuit bottoms, and seemed thick as shit, even the so called leader, who would quote Crowley at these abuse rituals, I doubt any of them even knew what he was talking about, even the guy doing the reading. I wouldnt be surprised if there were more people involved who never faced justice. The abuse took place 100%, the so called leader even dressed in robes. But I think perhaps others have been protected. I doubt the lot I saw in court had even heard of Crowley before being introduced to him by someone else.

      • “I doubt” and “I wouldn’t be surprosed” are expressions of prejudice, not evidence. Would YOU like to be convicted of something disdusting on that basis?

        • This kind of comment denigrating the words of others is why I attack people like you “Dr” Robert Forde. Despite your protestations and insistence that you are a real doctor, I don’t believe you.

          Lisa has given her account of what she saw in court, and you criticised her for expressing her opinions. You even misquoted her by misspelling “surprosed”. Just where did you get your doctorate in philosophy?

    • From Wikipedia:

      In March 2011, four adults who lived in a cul-de-sac in the Welsh town of Kidwelly were convicted of multiple sex offences against children and young adults. The group led by Colin Batley was described by the media as a “Satanic sex cult”, a “quasi-religious sex cult” and a “paedophile cult”[59][60] however the group members were not followers of Satanism. The prosecution said they practised “free sex” and were influenced by Aleister Crowley, a practitioner of ceremonial magic who founded the belief system of Thelema. They dressed in hoods and read from Crowley’s The Book of the Law, the central text of Thelema and some victims were made to wear inverted crosses.[61] Members of the cult were initiated in a ceremony involving sex with an adult, and they were threatened with being killed if they did not take part in the ceremony. Some of the victims were forced into prostitution.[62] The abuse also took place outside of a ritual context, such as Batley taking victims to a caravan [63] to rape, in line with Jean La Fontaine’s findings and her conclusion that sexual gratification, not religion, is the motive of abusers.

  5. I started this video prepared to dislike and disagree with Barbara Hewson. After watching it I thought she made some serious points. The law is the law. As loathsome as some of these old perverts might have been many of the things they are accused of are in fact misdemeanors (if Hewson’s characterization is accurate). We shouldn’t prosecute people based on “feelings.” She makes a good point about the importance of raising these allegations at the time to make them easier to investigate and to prevent recurrence. Her suggestion that men are being prosecuted now in a sort of displaced vengeance for the sins of Jimmy Savile seems plausible.

    But this all needs to be viewed in light of the fact that the real crime is the way Savile (et al) seems to have been protected by numerous powerful people and institutions. This suggests that the establishment that coddled and honored him for so long is itself senile at best or, at worst, utterly corrupt. In such a setting Hewson’s legal punctiliousness looks out of place. How can we rely on the law in a society whose legal and governing (not to mention media) institutions have been shown to be rotten to the core?

    Barbara Hewson is right to point out the futility of throwing a few expendable old (or dead) perverts to the wolves to satiate the public’s lust for vengeance. But the problem is bigger than that. (And her notion that lowering the age of consent will somehow improve matters strikes me as truly asinine.) The real problem is that we, globally, are lorded over by a cabal of heavily-armed grifters with the morals of snakes who are perfectly fine with people like Jimmy Savile as long as their shenanigans stay out of the papers. The “trials” we are now seeing are every bit as much for show as the celebrity lifestyles the perpetrators once enjoyed.

    • Why are Savile and MPs being protected by numerous powerful people and institutions? Are they still in power? If so are they continuing to commit crimes of phaedophile and murder? As Anon said: What does the age of consent have to do with any of this when the subject at hand is about young people being violated against their will?

      Why is she trying to bring down the age of consent? One can’t help but wonder if Hewson is trying to protect those that be in power by using the law. The law is the law, after all.

      • Editor: This geezer had so much to say for himself, but now I have answered him in detail not a peep from him! He has since responded (kind of), but while I was answering his bullshit, a technical fault occurred, and his comment and my reply disappeared. I swore a lot and tried to get them both back but, to no avail.

        I agree with Hewson that a cult of victimhood has developed, which doesn’t help victims. It does, unfortunately, help false accusers. They wreck lives too, and often more than abusers.
        It’s an unpalatable truth for campaigners, but many victims of abuse don’t suffer lifelong trauma.

        It seems that anyone trying to inject a note of reason into this most emotional of topics is immediately accused of being an apologist for paedophiles, if not worse. Careful of the law of libel, I would say.

        The fact is that there are multiple viewpoints on this subject as everything else. Just because someone disagrees with your precise opinion doesn’t make them a pervert. I know of no evidence that Hewson is anything sinister at all, unless you hate lesbians as well. She does raise sensible questions, and on some of those (not the age of consent) I agree with her. But my agreement or disagreement isn’t the point. The point is that in a civilised society we should be able to discuss these things without descending to personal abuse and accusations of illegitimate motives.

        Of course, if you don’t agree with that there are other societies you could try, like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, “Islamic State”etc. Try them and then come back and tell us how you got on.

        • +’Dr’ Robert Forde.
          Are you using the doctor title in an attempt to garner a false respect from other readers who do not enjoy such salubrious titles? Do you believe that mere ‘misters’, ‘misses’ and ‘mizis’ have less authority or intelligence? Are you a real doctor?

          You say, “Careful of the law of libel, I would say”. OK, but what do you mean by that? Is there a “Law of Libel”?

          Do you believe, as Ms Hewson does, that removing the anonymity from accusers, the possible victims, will serve justice? When we dilute the seriousness of the crime of child abuse by introducing a strict “statute of limitations”, as Ms Hewson wants to, should we apply the same standard to murder as well? Would that reform, serve justice? I don’t think victims of crimes as heinous as child abuse and rape would agree. It is those people I care about not some overpaid crooner, or possibly pretend doctor. What is more, I have no reason to HATE Ms Hewson, nor do I. I just disagree with her.

          How dare you suggest prejudice on my part by stating “unless you hate lesbians as well”. I have no idea whether Ms Hewson is a lesbian and if she is it has no bearing on what she said or what I believe about her words. I believe in equality for all and that justice should be sought in all situations. Yes, an impossible dream, but a dream worth having nevertheless.

          Your last remark reveals all! “Of course, if you don’t agree with that there are other societies you could try, like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, “Islamic State” etc. Try them and then come back and tell us how you got on.” If you are a doctor, you must be the thickest in the profession. The above statement is asinine, childish and straight from a school playground. How old are you 14 years?

          Furthermore, “Islamic State” is not a society in the same sense that the other COUNTRIES you list are. And I would quite happily live in Russia or China if I spoke the languages, but not Iran because of their religious fanatism and North Korea is a definite no-no for me. But, thanks for the offer, but no thanks.

          Please take your hate somewhere else; I’m bored with you.

  6. This woman is nothing more than a self righteous witch with a superiority complex, riding her broom of legal semantics! Her verbal eloquence doesn’t hide how ridiculously hollow and unsubstantial the gobbledygook she regurgitates out is!

    In many ways people like her can end up being as dangerous as the crimes & criminals they try to justify. What does age of consent have to do with any of this when the subject at hand is about young people being violated against their will? What 13 year (or even older adolescent) would EVER willingly (want to) consent to sex or fondling with an old man..EVER?? What the?! Lowering age of consent has no standing or relevance here at all, except to lower the age bracket to make it “okay” and much easier for perverts to have a better chance of legally getting away with molestation and statutory rape!

    Watching this I found the whole interview just really…bizarre! The “dropping age of consent” theme seemed to be the main point she kept trying to push for half the interview, which is downright disturbing! She comes over as a sociopath to me. Her passion certainly seem to come through in her desire to protect deviants by “following the law”, but didn’t seem as earnest when she stated that of course she wasn’t advocating rape, as that is a felony. So what, the only reason she’s against rape is because it’ a felony? That’s what it was starting to sound like to me. Maybe we should be suspicious of what her own personal motives may be here…..after all, what kind of decent,educated person in good conscience could proudly advocate something like this?

    Saying there should be a “statute” on things like abuse allegations is outrageous and thank god there isn’t. I’ve known SO MANY child abuse victims, and also due to my own experience when I was little, I know what can happen to children when a “prominent” man of the community is protected for his sick crimes. The fact is most children don’t come forward at the time because of the fear, shame and intimidation that is forced upon them on top of the abuse. it can end up becoming completely soul destroying, ruining lives and many may NEVER recover. It may not be until years later that victims feel the strength to come forward. “Better late than never” is ALWAYS better than never for any victim, because I guarantee that the perpetrators have and will continue onto others if they have the opportunity, and often it is only through the bravery of past victims coming forward that current & future victims may be saved.

    Today child sex abuse has become a proper cause (thank god!) not just something to hide away and ignore. Of course causing the most controversy will be people like celebrities, catholic church etc because they are high profile and the ones who have enjoyed the most protection; believing they are above the law. Well the stone is rolling now, big time, and it will continue to gather moss! I have a good feeling that we are going to see a lot more people exposed and receive many more “shocks” in the future on this front. Obviously people don’t want to believe that someone who is so revered, respected and high up in our society’s esteem is actually the most evil kind of monster. If they do then it confront them with the raw fact that anybody they know could be one too. The fact of the matter and the most terrifying truth of all, is that in many cases this IS the truth.

    Most people in life are not what they appear to be… ESPECIALLY celebrities. If they are guilty (no matter who they are) we need to rip them from their pedestals and lock them up in oblivion (or worse) and throw away the key! This viper of a lawyer has been advocated (by god knows who) to protect evil; pure & simple. Non of her “views” hold much substance or weight at all when it comes right down to it. It’s just a shame she didn’t have a more confident and aggressive equal as an interviewer to head her on. He tried his best i suppose, but she arrogantly walked all over him and his come backs were very weak. I’m not in England and don’t know the interviewer, so maybe he just wasn’t very well prepared, or maybe she deliberately went on a show with a host she knew she could intimidate and would be no real challenge to her. I would like to see her up against somebody who could really hold their own with her and give her the drilling she should have gotten. Smug cow!

    • Well said, anon. That woman struck me as a sociopathic personality too. She is very wrong in her views and her ‘superiority’. I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with this woman in any way, her mean little mouth and overall personality and grooming screams ‘wierd’ to me. Hiding her disorders behind the power of a suit. Loved the interviewer, he was very tolerant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*