St Paul’s: Mystery in the Cathedral

Last week I made some enquiries with the press office of St Paul’s Cathedral; my enquiry email went to Karen Hart.

I did receive a reply, from Emma Davies, as below:


“Dear Mr Carvath,

The school arranges all activities in line with its highest priority of ensuring the safety and well-being of students.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Davies



Whilst it was pleasant to receive a reply, it was disheartening that this response didn’t actually answer any of the questions I had asked at all.

However, it’s possible to infer from it that the St Paul’s gang may have intended to imply a certain validity to the questions asked yet unanswered.  I simply don’t know.  Enquiries shall continue.

But in the meantime, the mystery for readers is this: what was the nature of my enquiries to the St Paul’s press office?  Are you intrigued?  Think it over…

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Anjem Choudary conviction proves EDOs unnecessary

Good news that Anjem Choudary was convicted of a crime for inviting support for Islamic State.  Hopefully other Muslims in Britain will take note and eschew the preaching of Choudary and others like him.

Bad news that though this conviction proves the legislation we already have is sufficient to nail Islamic extremists, the Government is determined to press on with its plans to introduce Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs).

And even worse, with Labour in crisis, this is happening when we have no effective Opposition worthy of the name.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Patrick Sookhdeo trial 2015: Kayleigh’s Panties stretch credibility beyond belief

I’ve been saying I have a tasty Sookhdeo stew on simmer, to be served soon.  Fear not; it’s coming.  But for now, let’s turn briefly to the question of Kayleigh Ghiot’s panties…

During Mr Gerasimidis’ examination-in-chief of ‘Mrs X’ (Dr Sookhdeo’s false accuser, who cannot be named), on Monday 16 February 2015, at Swindon Crown Court, Mrs X testified about Dr Sookhdeo that in January of 2014, at the Pewsey offices of the Barnabas Fund, during a conversation with Mrs X: “…the words that he used were … ‘…I can see her panties.’  They were his words.”

To give you the necessary background in a nutshell, these panties, if there were any panties, were allegedly seen by Dr Sookhdeo as allegedly being worn by a Miss Kayleigh Ghiot, who worked in the same office as Mrs X.  So, in Mrs X’s testimony (above) she was claiming that Dr Sookhdeo told her he could see Kayleigh’s “panties”.  (By the way, nobody corroborated Mrs X on this point.)

Again, Mrs X claimed Patrick Sookhdeo told her he could see Kayleigh’s “panties”.  This false statement about Kayleigh’s panties is one of the smokiest guns, one of the clearest signs that Mrs X was not telling the truth in the witness box.  Dr Sookhdeo did not say this statement falsely attributed to him by Mrs X – especially because he would never have said the word ‘panties’ as a word for a woman’s underwear.

Though ‘panties’ is a common-sounding word and everybody knows what this noun means, it is not actually a word in common use amongst British English speakers, particularly men.  However, ‘panties’ is a commonly-used word by American English speakers, particularly women.

Dr Sookhdeo, a scholarly, British, man-of-God, then in his mid-sixties, would simply never have made any statement to Mrs X (or indeed anybody else) about Kayleigh Ghiot’s panties.  On the other hand, Mrs X, a woman – and a woman known to have had at least one American female friend at work – does have the linguistic influences and gender-specific familiarity such that ‘panties’ would not have been an alien word in her day-to-day vocabulary.  Dr Sookhdeo would not have said ‘panties’; whereas Mrs X would, and did, in her fabrication intended to portray Dr Sookhdeo as a pervert.

As to the origin of the word ‘panties’ in Mrs X’s fabrication, the only question is whether the false statement was entirely her own, or did it involve somebody else who assisted Mrs X in preparing her false allegations?

To emphasise this point about panties, imagine if we were to substitute the word ‘pussy-holster’ for panties.  ‘Pussy-holster’: that sounds pretty shocking, doesn’t it?  I may have just coined that word, for all I know.  It’s the sort of word that one might expect to find in pornographic speech.  It’s a word that Dr Sookhdeo would never, ever say – a word just like the word ‘panties’.

But imagine Mrs X had told the jury that Dr Sookhdeo said to her that he could see Kayleigh’s pussy-holster.  That would really slap you in the face, wouldn’t it?  You’d say ‘No way did Dr Sookhdeo say pussy-holster!’  Well, Mrs X’s suggestion that Dr Sookhdeo said ‘panties’ is every bit as ridiculous.

A separate but related point is the question of whether or not Kayleigh Ghiot even wore panties during the time she worked in the Barnabas Fund’s offices.  During the trial, neither the prosecution nor the defence asked Miss Ghiot (or any other witness) to confirm whether or not she wore panties to work.  It was not established that Miss Ghiot wears panties.

This is significant because it may be that Miss Ghiot did not wear panties to work.  For all we know, Kayleigh Ghiot may have worn a thong.  She may have worn granny knickers.  She may have worn a man’s Y-fronts.  She may even have worn nothing at all.  We simply do not know what Kayleigh Ghiot does or does not do for underwear.

Kayleigh Ghiot’s underwear ought to have been explored during the trial.  If indeed Kayleigh Ghiot did not wear panties to work, and had such a fact been established in evidence, it would’ve clearly exposed the statement of Mrs X as false.  Why then did neither the barristers nor the judge check for panties?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lambeth Palace issues invitation to SRA campaigner Robert Green

Lambeth Palace has issued an invitation, on behalf of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, to SRA campaigner Robert Green.

A meeting will now take place to consider the subject of Satanist Ritual Abuse.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo: should he have gone to Specsavers?


People have asked me if the vision of loveliness in the above photo is a young Minichiello-Williams.  I can see why, as there is a certain likeness; but no, it’s not Andrea.

It is in fact a young Russian lady – the good-looking kind that just might charm a British military attache into indiscretions he will later regret.

However, here on this blog, Olga is purely illustrative of a physically beautiful woman – the kind a man, any normal man, might find a tempting prospect.

In my previous blog about Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, I pointed out, in essence, that one reason why he is innocent is because he is not stupid enough to have committed the crime.

I should arrive at the meat of my Dr Sookhdeo blog-series next month, some time in August, when I expect to delve in detail into the sayings and doings of the 2015 trial witnesses, but until I do, this post is just another little taster of things to come.

Dr Sookhdeo is innocent because he is not stupid, and he is also innocent because he would never be unfaithful to his wife Rosemary.  All the good people who know Dr Sookhdeo – and there are many of them – know full well that he would never do anything so stupid or adulterous as to assault his false accuser Mrs X.

But are there any other reasons why he would not have done it?  Yes there are.

Another reason lies in the fact that Dr Sookhdeo would not have been physically attracted to or tempted by Mrs X – unless perhaps he was blind.  But Dr Sookhdeo is not blind.

Understand this: Mrs X doesn’t look anything like our Olga above.

How can I put this diplomatically?

Where I grew up, the word for a member of the uggos was ‘minger’.  Now, everybody knows I’m far too nice to be nasty, so I’m not going to say horrible words like minger.

So what can I say?  Well, what I can tell you with confidence is that Mrs X is no stunning model or beauty queen babe.  (Speaking of beauty queens, do you remember the Miss Cornwall who wasn’t Cornish scandal, featuring Miss Laura Anness?  Goodness me.  Wow.)

Is Mrs X a beauty like our Olga or Miss Anness?  No, she’s rather plain, if I’m being kind about it.  Mrs X does not have the body or the looks to be considered tempting or attractive.

If Dr Sookhdeo had had our Olga working with him, day in, day out, we’d have to give some credence to the possibility that he might’ve been tempted, beholding all the beauty before him.

But Mrs X?

Let’s be honest: there’s no doubt that Dr Sookhdeo would not have been tempted in the slightest.  Nor would any other happily-married, older gentleman.

Take my word for it.  It’s unfortunate that it’s illegal to publish a photo of Mrs X, because she has lifelong anonymity backed up by the State, so you can’t see her face for yourself, but she is, as I say, very plain indeed.

Dr Sookhdeo would’ve ‘had to be mad’ to have assaulted his false accuser Mrs X.  He didn’t do it.  Sookhdeo is innocent.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , ,

Scottish Named Person law: Victory for the Christian Institute

Thanks be to God for the Christian Institute’s (and others’) victory at the Supreme Court today.  The court ruled that the Scottish Government’s named person law is unlawful.

In their judgement, the Supreme Court justices said, “The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from … their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world.”

Hear hear.  Thankfully the Scottish Government’s anti-family, State snooper scheme is dead.  Should heads now roll in the Scottish Government?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , ,

Is Patrick Sookhdeo stupid? How stupid are you?

I intend to get blogging in detail about the 2015 trial of Dr Patrick Sookhdeo over this summer, but in the meantime, here’s another titbit for you…
During the Prosecution’s opening speech at the 2015 trial of Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, barrister Mr Nicolas Gerasimidis observed correctly that Dr Sookhdeo is “very well known to many”.
Indeed.  Dr Sookhdeo is very well known to many people – men and women of excellent character and sound discernment – and these people know very well that Dr Sookhdeo is incapable of doing what his false accuser claimed.
These people know that Dr Sookhdeo would never assault anybody.  These people know that Dr Sookhdeo is a man of truth – in fact, a gentleman of exceptional honesty – and that his false accuser, ‘Mrs X’, is the one full of treachery, lies and deceit.
It is the very reason so many people have spoken out for Dr Sookhdeo in the wake of his wrongful convictions.  It is the reason people will continue to speak out for Dr Sookhdeo.  That Dr Sookhdeo is innocent is the reason he will be vindicated, sooner or later.

But what I really intend to address in this blog is the question of ‘How stupid are you?’  This was one of the fun games played by the Prosecutor with the jury during Dr Sookhdeo’s trial.  How he must’ve amused himself.  And, unfortunately for Dr Sookhdeo, the jurors were as stupid as presumably Mr Gerasimidis suspected.

But the questions for you, blog readers, are: ‘Is Dr Sookhdeo stupid?’ and ‘Are you stupid?’

During his opening speech, Mr Gerasimidis said, “…the prosecution say he [Dr Sookhdeo] had set this up.  He had even to some extent set up his defence by saying, ‘Would you mind if I accidentally touched your breast’, and so it was ladies and gentlemen when ultimately he was arrested in relation to this matter and asked questions about what had happened he said precisely that to the police…  So having said to her, ‘Will you excuse me if my hand accidentally touches your breast’, it was almost prophetic of what ultimately he was to say to the police when he was challenged…”

[Nota Bene: Dr Sookhdeo denied saying (to his false accuser) the words attributed to him by Mr Gerasimidis in the above quotation, and denied committing any assault, at his 2015 trial.  (Dr Sookhdeo has alway acknowledged, openly and honestly – including to the police – that a momentary accidental brush occurred during a hug sprung upon him by the false accuser.)  Since his 2015 trial, Dr Sookhdeo has maintained his innocence.]

Did you get that?  Did you get that!

In the quotation above, the Prosecution claimed – in the only possible logical inference – that Dr Sookhdeo not only committed an indecent assault but that, as he was doing so, fearing a future criminal prosecution, he “set up his defence” in advance of the trial he knew he would face.  Therefore, the Prosecution was encouraging jurors and observers to believe that Dr Sookhdeo was foolish enough to commit a crime whilst knowing he risked a criminal prosecution, but ‘clever’ enough concurrently to fabricate the world’s worst defence – namely that of speculative speech to his false accuser about accidental touching!

Is Dr Sookhdeo that stupid?  No, he most certainly is not.  Dr Patrick Sookhdeo is not a criminal or a pervert or an idiot.  But Mr Gerasimidis would have us believe he is all three.

It just doesn’t fool any intelligent person with the ability to think clearly through the facts and the logic.  (But unfortunately for Dr Sookhdeo, those sitting in judgement upon him, the twelve Swindon jurors, were unable to process the logic and to discern the truth from the lies and misrepresentations presented to them.)

And whilst I’m on the subject of ‘Is Dr Sookhdeo stupid?  No he isn’t!’ I might as well mention briefly that stupidity is one of the illogical premises upon which his wrongful intimidation convictions is based.

One clear proof that the witnesses were not intimidated by Dr Sookhdeo is the fact that they did indeed testify against him at his trial.  Witnesses who genuinely are victims of criminal intimidation generally do not testify – because, by definition, they are scared off.  Intimidated persons withdraw as witnesses in circumstances where, for example, the heavies come round and make it plain they will be kneecapped or their house burned down if they testify.

Furthermore, those intentionally seeking to intimidate a witness will conduct themselves in such a way as to avoid detection; for example, by the use of a proxy.  There would be no point in attempting to commit a crime if one knows one is certain to be caught in the act!

Now, Dr Sookhdeo is a very intelligent man.  Quite apart from the fact that he is a Christian gentleman of great moral integrity (i.e. quite simply, he would never do such a thing), to find Dr Sookhdeo wrongfully guilty of intimidation is seriously to believe that Dr Sookhdeo would be so stupid as to attempt to intimidate prosecution witnesses directly, by himself, in front of a large crowd of witnesses!

The logic is compelling here: think it through.  Even a really stupid person would not be so stupid as to attempt something he knew to be a crime in front of a room full of witnesses.  So would a very clever man like Dr Sookhdeo be so stupid?  No, he certainly would not.

It is very clear then that Dr Sookhdeo had no motive or agenda to intimidate anybody in his speech on 06 June 2014.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,