Sunday 26 June 2011

A final word about Christopher Warren and home educators

If there is a stick anywhere about, one can as a general rule expect many home educators to catch hold of the wrong end of it. After the post which I published recently about Christopher Warren, some people commenting here seem to think that I am suggesting that there is something sinister about his connection with Alison Sauer and Kelly Green; some kind of conspiracy perhaps. I was hinting at nothing of the sort. Let me state the case as clearly as I am able and see whether or not people grasp the nature of the problem.

Some home educators feel beleagured and under threat from governments and local authorities. As a result, they adopt an attitude that all home educators should stick together for self-protection. When somebody steps forward and says, ‘I’m a home educator, trust me’; why then, they tend to do just that.

Alison Sauer, Kelly Green, Tania Berlow and a number of others all have a broadly similar outlook on home education. They encourage each other in these beliefs and make common cause with others who say that they feel the same way. When a dangerous, religious maniac with a predilection for under-age girls gets in touch with people like this, their first instinct is often not to ask themselves who on earth this man is or to examine his background. It is instead to welcome him with open arms as a fellow persecuted home educator. This was what happened in Alison Sauer's and Kelly Green's case certainly. When the man concerned is alleged to be a predatory paedophile who operates via the Internet to find lonely and vulnerable women with young daughters; this can cause problems and possibly expose children to danger. Warren is holed up in compound in Sweden with a number of ’wives’. It is widely believed that he recruits new members to this strange commune on the Internet. Accepting that somebody is OK simply because he says that he is a home educator is incredibly dangerous. Publicly endorsing a man like this, as Karen Rodgers did, or naming him alongside other genuine home educators on a blog, as Kelly Green did by publicly thanking him for his help, is reckless and irresponsible.

There are quite a few vulnerable single mothers reading the Badman Review Action Group, the Kelly Green and Gold blog and so on. If they see somebody like Christopher Warren being publicly associated with home education, praised and applauded by high profile home educators; then it has the effect of making some people think that he must be OK and trustworthy. They feel that he is in the same category as Alison Sauer, Kelly green and Karen Rodgers; just one more person fighting hard for the fundamental freedom to home educate.

My contention is that only in home educating circles would such a man find it so easy to be accepted and endorsed. I have sent his details to a few friends who work with children in both the statutory and voluntary circle. All were horrified at the thought of such a person being associated with any movement or group involving children. There are clearly many questions to be answered about Warren and his activities and yet as far as some home educators are concerned, the fact that he is, or claims to be, a home educator trumps any such worries. By definition, he must be OK; he’s a home educator! As I remarked in a previous post, this is a disaster waiting to happen. If well known home educators are prepared to cosy up to such a man as this and ignore the warning signs; who else are they playing footsy with? And yet even after I drew attention to these matters on the Badman Review Action Group, the anger was directed against me. People were agitating for my removal from the list for telling people about Warren and the kind of person he is. Their way of dealing with the problem was to allow Warren to keep posting and even publish a link to his website.

My concern is, as I said a few days ago, that there are other people like this lurking in the world of home education. Those who have been friendly with Christopher Warren are obviously blind to the dangers and take any plausible rogue at face value, just as long as he utters the magic words: ‘I’m a home educator’. Terrible attitude, terrible danger for children.

52 comments:

  1. Charlie Manson and his Family could have been described as Christian Home Educators..

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Charlie Manson and his Family could have been described as Christian Home Educators..'

    Were they described this way?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Simon I am tired of your blog, but feel compelled to respond to this load of ...

    Trying to belittle genuinely caring and decent people is low even for you. A tactic we have seen elsewhere. I would far rather live in a world where people believe in good over evil (though you are really pushing the boundaries on this one), where they give people the benefit of the doubt, where they are prepared to stick their neck out for a fellow human being.

    It is the constant harassment and persecution by unscrupulous Local Authorities, many but by no means all, that force some home educators into a siege mentality. Social experiments have shown that when people feel constantly and unfairly under attack, when they feel embattled, they behave in ways that they normally would not.

    If local authorities, and at times governments, continue their unfair attacks on home educators, they they will be responsible for what you describe above. That is not a condition unique to home ed, and your attempts to paint it that way are shameful manipulation. It is well documented everywhere, and is a tactic used in sport, business, and especially by dictators to keep followers ... following.

    In every situation, you have sceptics and agitators like me and others, who help to expose these sorts of things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't be thick Anon, everyone knows that Charlie and The Family were hippies with a belief in Jesus. They were natural birthers, breast feeders and communal child rearers they were pioneers of home schooling...right on the cutting edge.
    Alison et al could correspond with Charlie too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah good...an agitator, not a very good agitator, but an agitator. We really need more agitators.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They were probably homeopaths too. And we all know how scary they are!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Those 'unscrupulous LA's' and their 'unfair attacks'..
    the fact is that they know all about a UK HE charity and it's close connection to a tragic child murder case.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'the fact is that they know all about a UK HE charity and it's close connection to a tragic child murder case.'

    I don't. Tell me about it. Try not to call me a thick bigot in the process though.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Plenty of murderers choose natural plant products as their weapon of choice..it's all in the dilution ratio.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why don't you look at the blog archive?
    And...I won't call you one if you don't act like one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am really thick then. I've been reading this blog right from the beginning and don't reall a UK HE charity being implicated in a child murder case.

    You aren't referring to the American woman who killed her children in Scotland, are you? Which charity had the 'close connection' with the murder? What did they do wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You argued for it...you're thick.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'You argued for it...you're thick.'

    And the close connection between the HE charity and the murder of the children was what? For the hard of thinking among us?

    Thick Fanatical Bigot Teacher Ex-Home-educator (delete as appropriate)

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'Plenty of murderers choose natural plant products as their weapon of choice..it's all in the dilution ratio.'

    Actually, I tried to apply homeopathic principles in my life at one point. For instance I figured that a 30C dilution of fairy liquid ought to be far more powerful than the first potency which I normally use. Unfortunately, I found that after diluting it to one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, it was noticeably less effective at washing the dishes. I am guessing here that I have not quite got the hang yet of this homeopathy business...

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Good science that, I've tried something very similar with Whisky.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Simon! you're at it again and i have to respond to this slur-
    you said-
    ''Alison Sauer, Kelly Green, Tania Berlow and a number of others all have a broadly similar outlook on home education. They encourage each other in these beliefs and make common cause with others who say that they feel the same way....When a dangerous, religious maniac with a predilection for under-age girls gets in touch with them, their first instinct is not to ask themselves who on earth this man is or to examine his background. It is instead to welcome him with open arms as a fellow persecuted home educator. ''

    I have never contacted this man nor has he contacted me.

    I have not once mentioned him or showed any support for him either publicly or privately.

    I have certainly never opened my arms to him as a fellow home educator.

    please remove my name and this accusation by tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'I have never contacted this man nor has he contacted me.'

    You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that you were not aware of this man's existence until now, were not aware of his connections with Alison Sauer and that you were nor the recipient in March of the emails regarding me which Alsion Sauer and Christopher Warren exchanged. You are apparently claiming that you did not know that this man was associated with Alison Sauer and Kelly Green. Have I got all that right?

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "You are apparently claiming that you did not know that this man was associated with Alison Sauer and Kelly Green."

    In what way are they associated above and beyond the exchange of emails - the same level of association as yours?

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'In what way are they associated above and beyond the exchange of emails '

    Rem acu tetigisti, Anonymous: you touch the matter with a needle. It is precisely this which I hope to establish and you are to be congratulated on putting the case so succinctly.

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So you are claiming they are associated even though you have no evidence of an association in order to find if there is an association? This sounds a dangerous game. If you libel someone who then loses income as a result, it could get quite expensive for you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Simon , I had heard of this man back in March. I was never a recipient of any email and I only discovered on this blog that any email existed.I fail to see how one email can be considered an 'association' any more than your emails can be considered 'an association'.



    Zilch Nada, Zero, Klum.......and neither do you or you would have gleefully put it here I assume.

    ReplyDelete
  22. One last thing..a few blog posts back you claimed there was 'a bunch' of emails between Christopher Warren and Alison Sauer.

    What is apparently in this one email is mostly about how big a fibber you are and not to take you seriously.

    Any association with the guidelines is a figment of your imagination and you are entitled to imagine and muse all you like- but saying that there is a 'bunch' of emails is not truthful

    ReplyDelete
  23. ' but saying that there is a 'bunch' of emails is not truthful'

    Your contention is then, if I understand you correctly, that Alison Sauer's contact with Christopher Warren began in March and was limited to one exchange of emails. Have I got that right? You are further saying that as far as you are aware, they had not previously been discussing home education last year or anything to do with the situation in Sweden or the EHE guidelines which Alison was at that time working on. I hope that I have all this right. You must therfore be very puzzled to hear that Alison forwarded her latest exchange of emails with Christopher Warren, to Kelly Green in Canada?

    For yourself, until March you were unaware of Christopher Warren's existence. Have I got that right as well?
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 'If you libel someone who then loses income as a result, it could get quite expensive for you.'

    Your concern for Alison Sauer's financial affairs is curious. Would it be libellous to suggest that she had any connection with Christopher Warren prior to March this year? It is an interesting point.
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Simon take down the reference to myself welcoming a phaedophile with open arms '
    Its utter nonsense and lies and you know darn well that it would cause distress in this household given the history of malicious referrals to social services. There fore I consider this libel as .potentially damaging to my family This is an example of why people may want to remain anonymous.



    <>
    YES AS FAR AS I KNOW IT BEGAN AND ENDED WITH ONE EXCHANGE A DAY OR SO AFTER YOU EXPOSED SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE MAN AND WAS LIMITED TO 'WHAT A WANKER SIMON WEBB IS'.
    NOT ONE EXCHANGE OF EMAILS THAT BEGAN IN MARCH BUT ONE EMAIL TOTAL THAT BEGAN AND ENDED IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD. I HAVE NO IDEA IF WARREN FURTHER CONTACTED OR IF ALISON REPLIED BUT AS I SAID IF YOU HAD ANY PROOF I AM SURE YOU WOULD GLEEFULLY PRESENT IT

    << You are further saying that as far as you are aware, they had not previously been discussing home education last year or anything to do with the situation in Sweden or the EHE guidelines which Alison was at that time working on. >>
    I CANNOT SEE HOW IT IS AT ALL CONNNECTED TO THE GUIDELINE FRAMEWORK AND I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA IF ANYTHING WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.

    I hope that I have all this right. You must therfore be very puzzled to hear that Alison forwarded her latest exchange of emails with Christopher Warren, to Kelly Green in Canada?
    WHY WOULD I BE PUZZLED ?
    SHE COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO SEND IT TO WHOMEVER SHE WANTED.
    DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF IT WAS FORWARDED TO KELLY?


    For yourself, until March you were unaware of Christopher Warren's existence. Have I got that right as well? HOW MUCH CLEARER DO I NEED TO MAKE MYSELF?

    TAKE DOWN ANY CONNECTION TO MY NAME .

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have amended the article so that it is clear that I was not suggesting that you were one who welcomed Christopher Warren with open arms. However, you might have missed the point of the piece entirely. I was trying to show that a lunatic like Christopher Warren would not recive such an uncritical welcome in most quarters. His ideas on the New World Order would be enough in most circles to have hom branded a raving madman. Many home educators though, as you know, subscribe to this sort of worldview and he accordingly found it easy to get a foot in the door.
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Simon wrote,
    "Your concern for Alison Sauer's financial affairs is curious."

    It was concerned about your financial affairs. If you continue this way, her financial affairs could well take an upturn, though I suppose that depends on how much capital you have.

    and Simon wrote,
    "Would it be libellous to suggest that she had any connection with Christopher Warren prior to March this year? It is an interesting point."

    It would be if you are unable to prove an association. As you say, an extended association with someone you are know (or should know) is a risk to children would obviously be detrimental to the business of anyone working with children. You appear to be saying above that you cannot prove an association even though you suggest it. In a libel case, the burden of proof would be on you. If you could not prove an association, you would lose.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Many home educators though, as you know, subscribe to this sort of worldview and he accordingly found it easy to get a foot in the door."

    But we don't know if he has managed to keep his foot in the door or move further in. This seems unlikely. Your comments were not the only negative ones about Warren on the Badman group.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "If they see somebody like Christopher Warren being publicly associated with home education, praised and applauded by high profile home educators; then it has the effect of making some people think that he must be OK and trustworthy."

    So, do we all do background checks on people before we exchange an email with them on a matter of home education laws in other countries? No.

    I've been following Kelly's interesting blog and I have a hard time believing that she would willingly associate with the likes of C. Warren once she knew more about him. Perhaps this is the reason she changed her post in December? Thanking someone doesn't mean she's ever had contact with him, but that she was interested in what he had written about the state of home education in Sweden.

    And weren't you the whistle blower about this man on this blog? You should congratulate yourself for informing people about a situation they may never have known about otherwise so that they could take appropriate action. Like Kelly has. Give her some credit.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's all got very shouty and hysterical.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I do not see any ammendment to the paragraph which makes it read differently and no I did not miss the point of the article which followed the the usual tactic of demeaning home educators at any available chance you have .

    Has it not crossed you mind that because it was you who exposed someone (again) that many people did not even bother to follow up o what you were saying because so many times before and since what you are saying is made up dangerous , demeaning, hurtful fantasy?

    WOLF!

    In this instance I did not ignore you on the BRAG list and I did follow the links you provided . I was not one of the people on the BRAG list who jumped all over you for exposing Warren but I can certainly see how many people, whilst not activly saying anything about your expose on BRAG, would not look any further as they already took anything you wrote about with a grain of salt (probably epsom).I

    I am very angry indeed .'M GLAD YOU NOTICED 'ANAONYMOUS' ABOVE BUT HOW PATRONISING TO CALL MY ANGER HYSTERICAL

    Simon, You can say all you like and conjecture all you like - you always do . Go on poke fun, irritate , denigrate and scorn others - but when it is potentially harmful to another persons family life by implying that they associate with or welcome with open arms someone you name as a paedophile, I find it morally incomprehensible and reprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 'someone you name as a paedophile'

    Just so that nobody is in any doubt at all as to what sort of man we are talking about here, readers might like to visit this blog:

    http://my.opera.com/female/about/

    The author is a young woman who was seduced by Christopher Warren when he was forty and she was fifteen. I maintain that both Kelly green and Alison Sauer have been corresponding with this man and that Alison Sauer carried on doing so even when it was made clear that he was a child molester. Tania says that the first she knew of this man was when Alison sent her an email which she had sent to Warren and I have no reason to doubt that this is true. However, silence means consent and anybody who knew of this man's nature and did not take active steps to expose him in order to protect other families, should be asking themselves what led to this inactivity?
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I said nothing of the sort.

    here it is again on 27th June 1.22pm

    i wrote-

    ''Simon , I had heard of this man back in March. I was never a recipient of any email and I only discovered on this blog that any email existed.''

    ReplyDelete
  34. "I maintain that both Kelly green and Alison Sauer have been corresponding with this man"

    I'd like you to provide proof that Kelly Green has been corresponding with Christopher Warren, please.

    A defunct "thank you" note on a blog post is not evidence.

    If you can't produce real evidence, then you are making wild accusations without basis. Although, I'm not surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 'I said nothing of the sort.

    here it is again on 27th June 1.22pm

    i wrote-

    ''Simon , I had heard of this man back in March. I was never a recipient of any email and I only discovered on this blog that any email existed.''

    I really am getting a bit muddled up now! You say that you were not forwarded the emails which Alison Sauer exchanged with this fellow, but then above you say:

    'YES AS FAR AS I KNOW IT BEGAN AND ENDED WITH ONE EXCHANGE A DAY OR SO AFTER YOU EXPOSED SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE MAN AND WAS LIMITED TO 'WHAT A WANKER SIMON WEBB IS'.'

    How do you know what was in this email if it wasn't forwarded to you?
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 'I'd like you to provide proof that Kelly Green has been corresponding with Christopher Warren, please.'


    Well, she said so herself. In December, she said on her blog, Kelly Green and Gold:

    'I want to thank Pat Farenga, CCM Warren, Alison Sauer, Tania Berlow, Diane Varty, Grit of grit's day, and many other correspondents for helping'

    If we agree that a correspondent is someebody with whom we have corresponded, then it seems plain from this that Kelly Green is saying that she has corresponded with Christopher Warren. Tell me, what construction do you place upon this?

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hm. That's interesting. I suspect she didn't mean to indicate that everyone else in that list *was* a correspondent, but I can certainly understand why you've read it that way. Of course, she did remove C. Warren from that list. Perhaps because he never *was* a correspondent...

    ReplyDelete
  38. So in December Kelly Green may have exchanged some emails with Warren. Once his history was brought to light in March she removes mention of him from her site in order to avoid legitimised him in others eyes. Seems reasonable to me.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Don't you even read your own blog Simon or can't you keep up with your own tales?

    Twice Jacs has mentioned on this blog what was in this email and therefore anyone can summise, due to the 2 postings what was in it and that it was not complimentary to you.

    Look up the 27th June at 2.44 and 26th june 12.13 (which was 3 three times printed)

    Plus I speak to Jacs -so of course I wouldcall her when you publicly lie about me 'opening my arms' to a paedophile.

    She has summised content . I have not seen this email. It was not addressed to me and it has not been read to me.

    ReplyDelete
  40. you also wrote Simon-
    <>

    maybe you forgot Ali's BRAG email of the 17th march where in an extremly rare moment she agreed with you. Just a few days back people here were amusng themselves with whether my closest friend was allie rogers or the allie that posts here and i said it was Ali Edgley...well, her email to BRAG sums up how I felt about the CW issue and she and I discussed how annoying it was that we agreed with you on the issue even although there is no evidence to say that the Johanssens were copnnected with Warren, neither of us felt there was enough information to be able to know one way or another what was happening in Sweden, but enough to be wary of CW.
    I will leave it up to Ali to repost her own email from BRAG and i have asked her to do so about 5 mins ago.

    Are you refusing to take my name out of this equation because you're now labouring under the misapprehension that I repeated something you said to me 9 months ago- is this out of spite and vindictivness for a perceived slight or is it just to keep the nasty gossip going? Either way it's pathetic and immoral .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_bear_false_witness_against_your_neighbor

    I want you to fully apologise in public on this blog for implying that I had anything to do CW

    ReplyDelete
  41. 'I want you to fully apologise in public on this blog for implying that I had anything to do CW'

    I am surprised to hear that when Alison Sauer was forwarding the emails from Christopher Warren to Jacquie Cox, Kelly Green and others that she did not include you in the process. Nevertheless, if you say that this is the case, I am prepared to believe it. The whole point of this post was not to suggest that you personally were at all involved with Christopher Warren. rather, it was to hint that he was able to get a foothold among home educators in a way that would not have been easy elsewhere. The relevant part of the post reads:


    'Alison Sauer, Kelly Green, Tania Berlow and a number of others all have a broadly similar outlook on home education. They encourage each other in these beliefs and make common cause with others who say that they feel the same way. When a dangerous, religious maniac with a predilection for under-age girls gets in touch with people like this, their first instinct is often not to ask themselves who on earth this man is or to examine his background. It is instead to welcome him with open arms as a fellow persecuted home educator. This was what happened in Alison Sauer's and Kelly Green's case certainly.'

    I do not think that this gives people the impression that you are or were presonally involved with the man; rather that you are the sort of person who would be open to his lunacy in a way that many would not be. For instance his New World Order beliefs alone would be enough to alert some to the fact that he was mad. I rather suspect that these crazy ideas would not be enough to warn you that he was absolutely barking. If you are asking me whether I meant to suggests that you were actually involved at any stage with him; the answer is no, I don't suppose that you were. If you say that you were unaware of his existence until March, I am quite prepared to believe that. I am a little dubious though about whether you were included in Alison's forwarding of the email exchange which she had with him.

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous said...
    So in December Kelly Green may have exchanged some emails with Warren. Once his history was brought to light in March she removes mention of him from her site in order to avoid legitimised him in others eyes. Seems reasonable to me. '

    I have no idea of the extent of Kelly Green's involvement with Christopher Warren; let alone whether it began and ended in December. I was asked for proof that she had corresponded with him and replied that I believed this because she has said so. This seems to me the best possible proof; that she voluntarily tells the readers of her blog that she has been corresponding with him.
    Simon.

    '

    ReplyDelete
  43. 'Are you refusing to take my name out of this equation because you're now labouring under the misapprehension that I repeated something you said to me 9 months ago- is this out of spite and vindictivness for a perceived slight or is it just to keep the nasty gossip going? Either way it's pathetic and immoral .'

    I have not the least idea to what you are referring. What exactly am I supposed to have said to you on this subject nine months ago? I am quite happy for you to repeat anything which I said to you on the telephone.

    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  44. rather that you are the sort of person who would be open to his lunacy in a way that many would not be. For instance his New World Order beliefs alone would be enough to alert some to the fact that he was mad. I rather suspect that these crazy ideas would not be enough to warn you that he was absolutely barking.

    ReplyDelete
  45. You really should try to calm down a bit Tania, it's really not dignified to carry on like this in public.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Really Simon..if this were not a Jewish household I would also smell pork scratchings when you write the above, and then go on to say :
    ''I have not the least idea to what you are referring. What exactly am I supposed to have said to you on this subject nine months ago? ''

    You threaten to 'expose' what we talked about last October because this week you are told that I mentioned my communication with you to Alison Sauer and To Jacquie Cox last October.

    Your bugbear seemed to be something about confidentiality although you make no mention of what confidentiality was broken.

    I have nothing to hide over the fact that we talked and I have the emails where it is YOU who seems to think I should not let the world and his wife know we talked.

    I did not break your 'confidentiality' I merely told people I talked to you. Nothing we talked about was earth shatteringly interesting nor juicy .

    Seeing as there was nothing further to say about the guidelines , nothing I said about them was any different to what I had already said on lists publicly.

    We talked about this 'new world order' belief system and how dreadfully uncomfortable the ideology often makes me . I said that I felt there is a contingent of home educators whose mistrust in government is laced with this ideology and therefore they think anyone who seems to trust government is a blind 'shepple' who is enslaved and who does not know the 'real' truth and agenda of what is going on . This then led us to discuss anti-semitism which is often veiled as anti zionism.

    Therefore when you say above that I am the sort of person who would be open to these ideas and that CW's ideas would not be enough to alert me , you know darn well that is a lie.

    I also mentioned to you that my daughters father has caused many problems and was continuing to cause problems in our life . You made mention of how people 'use' the HE card to try and convince the authorities there is an issue . One of your emails is below. I reprint it to show others that you have no compunction in making an association to CW and myself and implying that I lack judgement, would 'fall' for someone like CW and that somehow I have sympathy with the NWO ideology- even although you know that this lie could and has been used as ammunition against me by my daughters father.

    '' I was sorry to read about your having trouble with the police and social workers. I doubt that any father would pull a stroke of this sort, however acrimonious the divorce. I think that you are on the way to becoming even more disliked in some circles than me! It just shows how fickle home educators can be. Yesterday you were the darling of the anti-Badman crusade and today a traitor; It reminds me of the Wheel of Fortune in tarot. I hope that you are not letting this get you down too much. I was myself a little taken aback at some of the attacks which I have received over the last year or so, but these days I just find them amusing. I am sure that this will come to you to. I do not agree with you on some major points, but I have no doubt that you mean well. Good luck with everything. I am happy to ring and chat some time, but I rather suspect that you are too busy for this at the moment. Simon ''

    I repeat- retract what you have said about me being 'associated' 'falling for ' sympathysing with NWO ideology or CW and make a public apology on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous said...

    You really should try to calm down a bit Tania, it's really not dignified to carry on like this in public.


    mind your own business Anonymous- who of course would not put their real name- coward.

    If you had been maliciously reported to social services et al more than 3 times by an ex who would use the lies Simon is writing here , maybe you would also be rather angry and request it be retracted.

    I could not give a feck anymore about 'dignity' as truth is way more important

    ReplyDelete
  48. 'I reprint it to show others that you have no compunction in making an association to CW and myself and implying that I lack judgement, would 'fall' for someone like CW and that somehow I have sympathy with the NWO ideology- even although you know that this lie could and has been used as ammunition against me by my daughters father.'

    The email looks pretty innocuous to me and I know nothing about your private affairs.
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "This seems to me the best possible proof; that she voluntarily tells the readers of her blog that she has been corresponding with him."

    But so what? You corresponded with him. How does this translate to an association? You don't even know why Alison forwarded their email conversations. For all you know, she may have done this in order to warn others about him. Certainly she didn't do anything with Warren's information about his qualifications as he seemed to be asking her to do in the email we have seen. What makes you so sure that he fooled them for any length of time?

    ReplyDelete
  50. "The email looks pretty innocuous to me and I know nothing about your private affairs."

    You clearly know more than most, judging by the email text.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 'Certainly she didn't do anything with Warren's information about his qualifications as he seemed to be asking her to do in the email we have seen. What makes you so sure that he fooled them for any length of time?'

    Sorry, which email have we seen? As for whether Christopher Warren fooled anybody fro any length of time, I could not say. I was asked for proof of his correseponding with Kelly Green and I gave it. If I thank somebody here and call them one of my correspondants, it suggests that I have had some dealings with the person and think they are OK.
    Simon

    ReplyDelete
  52. "If I thank somebody here and call them one of my correspondants, it suggests that I have had some dealings with the person and think they are OK. "

    Simon, you are truly hilarious. You keep overlooking the fact that Kelly removed his name once she knew a bit more about the man. I know that you found the "cache" (also hilarious - you must be the only person I know of who would go to such lengths to bring someone down), but the fact that she changed it completely deflates your argument.

    ReplyDelete