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 , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are you prepared for Muslim attacks?

So you’re a law-abiding British citizen and you’re not stupid: you know there’s plenty more trouble on the way from violent Muslims seeking to kill and destroy.

You may not be stupid, but are you prepared?  Are you prepared to defend yourself (and others) against the Muslims?  I’d guess most are not.

Law-abiding British citizens cannot bear weapons – firearms, knives, clubs etcetera – for self defence, as to do so is against the law.  We are emasculated and untrusted by the State; we are defenceless; we are obliged to rely upon the State -particularly the police – to protect us.

Do you trust the police?  Are you happy with the service the police provide?  Or would you prefer to be able to defend and protect your self?  Are the police there for you, or are they nowhere to be seen?  My experience over many years has been that the police are never there when you really need them.

When the Muslims are going berserk in your vicinity, will there be a handy team of police officers present to protect you?  The chances are that you will have to face the Muslims by yourself, along with other defenceless civilians.

But there are some things you can do to increase your chance of defending yourself against the Muslims.  And there are other things you can do which will mean you’re better prepared to cope with Muslim attacks.

Live a disciplined life; train to be physically and mentally fit.  (Oh, and how’s your spiritual fitness?)  Learn the basics of an unarmed self-defence system – a pragmatic system that you can apply in a real life situation.

Learn first-aid.  Always carry some water and an electric light source with you.

Consider carefully your clothing.  Footwear especially.  Are those flip-flops or high heels really wise in the event you find yourself under attack?

And carry items which will be useful to you in a defence scenario.  For example, do you have a rucksack which you can use as a defensive shield?

Here is an example of a bullet-proof rucksack.  (Ideal for London Underground commuters.)  You get the idea.  Such professional equipment can be expensive but you can improvise items which will be of some defensive value without the need to spend a fortune.

This is just a brief blog with a few basic suggestions, but I hope it encourages you to think about how you can be better prepared to protect yourself from an attack.

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

Lambeth Palace apology for Satanist Ritual Abuse delay


Andrew Nunn, the correspondence secretary to Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has written a letter of apology (22 July 2016) to children’s campaigner Robert Green.  The letter reads as follows:


“Dear Mr Green,

You have written several times to the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning ‘Satanist Ritual Abuse’.  The last letter from you that I have a record of was dated 26 May, but I am very aware that you have not had a proper response from Lambeth Palace.  I am sorry.  I sought advice about your letter but then was away for most of June and have only now been recalled to the correspondence as still being unanswered.  I shall follow up my request for more information and advice for the Archbishop.”


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



Image | Posted on by | Tagged , , ,

Statement by Kathryn Parsons (nee Wakeling) is not true

I’ve been saying I’ve got more to come on the story of the 2015 trial of Dr Patrick Sookhdeo.  Be patient with me please; I’m getting there.  There is so much material from a multitude of sources to process, in addition to my own notes and records.

But here’s a quick taster for you to nibble on for now…

It doesn’t actually concern the trial itself, as such, but rather something which prosecution witness Mrs Kathryn Parsons (nee Wakeling) said publicly many months after the trial.

In this post you can find where Mr Benedict Parsons wrote: “The former PA [i.e. Kathryn Parsons] comments … ‘…  It was not me that the judge reprimanded for lying in court, it was an individual on Dr Sookhdeo’s side…’ “

Mrs Parsons’ assertion is not true.

FACT: at no point in the 2015 trial of Dr Sookhdeo did the judge reprimand Dr Sookhdeo or any of the defence witnesses for lying in court.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , ,