Trailer Almost Complete. To be released 9pm


Tomorrow evening at around 9pm I will be uploading a trailer for our film documentary.


It will speak for itself so there’s no use my giving any sort of spoiler here.



When we do put it up, make sure you cut the lights, hit full screen mode and turn your sound up.



Its powerful but keep in mind it is only a trailer.



The completed project will take about four months, there’s a huge amount of work involved, and large portions will be on location.



What I need are people just like the people who have made it possible for Operation Frankish to go from a thought to what we are over a year later. People of action. People who give.




Its people who give and people of action that will enable us to create independent documentary film that will serve as a powerful tool in so many ways.




In this age its absolutely plausible for a documentary of this type to be seen by millions.


Not only in the UK, but outside of the UK as well.




As I have said many times, powerful film done well has the ability to resonate with people and be remembered more than the written word.




I need positive and go ahead people that see the obvious benefit in an information war.


I need people that can easily see that if a brilliantly made documentary film is watched by a huge number of people, then out of that number its inevitable that a % will not merely watch it, but watch it and be inspired to take action themselves.



This is not a work of fiction after all.




I need people with the vision to see how something well made and unique to its type has great potential to be picked up in all manner of ways that would elevate the audience even further.




There’s honestly no use you getting yourself into a foaming lather on the Internet over such pukes. If all people do is that then they’ll stay stuck on furious time and again, and I don’t think that’s good for anyone.



Its not as if it bothers the abusers in the slightest if you get all angry and aggressive but don’t take constructive actions. If anything they’ll be happy to think you are all angry and not doing anything. That’s how they think.



There is nothing that equals the power of the medium of film.




People are far more inclined to sit and watch a real life film documentary than read a book or an article.




They are then far more liable to share the documentary than they’d ever pass a book around. Thanks to the Internet one click is now all it takes to share it almost anywhere.




A film documentary is far more likely to garner genuine interest from the mainstream media than anything anyone could ever write.




A film documentary of this type sends out a clear message that we are serious people who will undertake seriously ambitious projects in pursuit of better outcomes.



It sends out that message to everyone, to new people who view it, to public officials who are paid to protect society from such filth, to the abusers themselves.



Central to the documentary film will be – just the truth.



There is no requirement to do anything other than build it around truth and reality.



Truth has always been their nemesis.



Truth exposed them for what they are.



Truth brought them to my attention.



Operation Frankish was born out of that.




For all their crying, whining, and false victimhood, all we have ever really done is hold steadfast to the truth and made sure people got to know the truth.



We’ve never needed to threaten them or lay a glove on them. The exposure of the truth has always been more than sufficient to achieve all possible aims. The truth is more powerful than raw anger.





Do not think they will especially relish the release of this documentary. Think about it. Have they ever enjoyed the constant exposure in the press? Have they ever really enjoyed having to up sticks and move over and over because the neighbours find out and rightly don’t want them? Of course not.



There is nothing to ‘enjoy’ in that. Anyone that thinks othewise just isn’t thinking about it! They are known and rightly disliked and rejected across multiple parts of the North of England.



I doubt a well made documentary seen by millions across the UK will be particularly good for them.


I do think it will be vital to the very important mission to wake the many up to just how dangerous such people are, and just how liberally your local authority and judicial system treat them.





You want to change the present conditions?



Well, there is obviously progress there already. It very much seems like the Governments new legislation will be passed through in 2018.


Multiplying the maximum that one can get for a crime by ten fold is pretty unusual for the usually slow moving and uber cautious justice system. So when they do it – I’ll be nothing but pleased.



Anything of worth is created by doing work of good worth.



If your issue is legitimate, if your cause stands up on its own merits, then this is the sort of work that serious people will take seriously.




Serious people will not remember nor take seriously a facebook post in a comments section in which such offenders are called a “cunt”. Its not the calling of these abusers names that will alter anything. Its constructive actions that will alter the landscape.




One is easy and takes zero effort or commitment.


The other is tough but of pure value.




Its the latter people that I need to get right behind this.






I’d avoid the following as well, I see it quite a lot. Don’t promote the culture of despair.



I’ve learned to generally skim past or ignore anything that I consider to be written in the culture of despair mode.


Some examples of it at random.



Wallowing in pre emptive negativity and going on about ‘how the courts wont use their powers’.


Lets take this a bit at time.


There was a long standing issue with the maximum not being long enough. That IS about to be changed.


Getting into this cycle of future based despair wont help you and it wont help the cause.



If you ARE concerned that could happen then the very best thing you can DO about it is take some constructive action.


Making these issues a big public deal is the ONLY way to reduce the risk of that happening.



Its most certainly true that if you do not make a big public stir, then yes, it would become easier for new powers to go grossly under used. You can only prepare for the eventuality with good works. You cannot condemn judges in advance for future cases yet to occur.







Also, another good reason why I’d be wary of that slippery slope of thinking is that it just keeps on sliding and sliding. Consciously or otherwise, you finish up in a situation in which no matter what progress or advances are made, your inclination will be to seek out the one thing that’s a negative and focus on that. That does a person no good to get stuck on that.




If you want to know more about this film documentary there is a Q&A on this site and on our FB page.



We have had some people who have given generously to this ambitious plan. As always, we are very thankful to them.



However, leaving them to one side, its pretty important you play your part. It wouldn’t kill you to miss a few coffees, skip a few beers and take a rain check on take away – then donate that money to our production.



With it we can create something top class that can make a big impact.






Film Q&A






Q) Operation Frankish have commissioned the creation of a film documentary based entirely on the events of this case. When do you hope to have this released?




A) Its basically a four month production. Its a very involved project so I’d like to think it will be finished and ready for public release in early Spring next year. The only thing that would cause the release date to be delayed would be if funds are slower to come in than we hope.

That’s why its vital that people play their part, dig deep and give what they can afford to this ambitious production.






Q) In what ways will you promote and show it?



A) We are looking at various ways and options. We are looking into showing it at select independently owned cinemas across the UK. You Tube would give us the biggest audience the fastest. Well over half a million people have seen their piece of video evidence on You Tube. That gives you an idea of the reach of You Tube.

There have been independently made films and documentaries that have ended up with many millions of views and downloads over a short period after being released. We wont struggle for ideas and ways to host and show it.




Q) What sort of duration are you looking at?



A) We didn’t want something that was laboured and went on for two hours just for the sake of it. Its hard to give a set duration at the moment, but the aim will be to create something sharper that flows, and that is watchable.





Q) Would you accept a business sponsor?



A) Sure. If they were prepared to put funding in and if they liked the work that we do then of course. I’d be quite happy to work out something for them that would be a positive for their business. The aim will be to get this seen by many after all. That means the viewer will also get to know about sponsors whose backing made this possible. It would be good public relations for the right business.





Q) Will there be any interviews in it?



A) Yes. The feel of it will be original, but its a film documentary with realism in it – so we will include some key interview material.





Q) Where will it be shot?



A) The majority of the on location material will be shot in Redcar and Cleveland.




Q) If a TV company wanted to buy the rights to broadcast it would you accept?



A) Possibly. If it was the right company with the right offer. In such a case any profit made we’d put back in so that we could make people like this scream more (to borrow a phrase).





Q) Why would you like to see it released in the Spring on 2018.




A) We want it to be ready by then so we can release it at a time when the Government are meant to be raising the maximum for such actions from 26 weeks to five years. A top class independent documentary promoted to go viral will very much keep this at the forefront of public thought.





Q) Do you have a name or title for it?


A) No, not really. I’ve been focused purely on the substance. The best name or title will emerge naturally and in good time.






Q) What will be the message of this film?



A) To an extent the audience should wait and see. But what I will say is that it will serve to wake up the unwoken as to the extent of the sickness that blights our country, but it will also demonstrate to them that there are answers.





Q) The publicity that was generated over this made them despised all over pockets of the North of England. Would you agree that a documentary gone viral to a British audience could make them despised in the entire country?



A) Probably. And that would be a good thing.





Q) How can I donate to this project?



A) Simply send us a donation via paypal. The address is on the image.


Norman Bates Syndrome


Normal Bates was a fictional character from the film ‘Psycho’. His character was loosely inspired by a real individual though -an individual from the US called Ed Gein.



One central theme with both the fictional Bates and the real life Gein was an extremely over bearing mother.


The reason I make mention of this is that in this past year I have looked into a lot of very extreme cases of animal abuse, but especially those done by young males.



I cannot help but to notice that in a great many instances there is evidence of an over bearing mother, sometimes supported by her over bearing sister(s).



I definitely noticed it in the Frankish case.




It was always noticeable to us that it was never any males from within the family that would perform gymnastics to justify or defend them.



It was never any men in the family who tried to claim victim status, not for them and not for themselves. It was always the two over bearing women, the mother and her sister.




In the interests of clarity I should stress we have never had a direct dialogue with either women. They have not attempted one with us. We have not attempted one with them.




But that doesn’t mean that they weren’t out there on the Internet when this first broke, attempting to stop the video spreading, trying to keep the secret a secret, and generally behaving in this hysterical way in which you’d be forgiven for thinking that both the brothers and the women were the victims in all of this and that everyone was just decided to wake up one day and single them out for no special reason.




I find the women that are attached/related to such young males to have a huge and false sense of entitlement.




They believe that the entire Internet and the general public owe them and their sons/nephews a favour. And this sense of entitlement can include demanding in a petulant manner that damning evidence isn’t exposed, shared and spread.




That’s what I mean by overbearing. All too often with these young male abusers its the mother or her sister who will fight their battles while they themselves skulk in the background.



Not only do they fight their battles but when these overbearing women write, everything they say has this huge sense of entitlement about it.



You can see for yourself with this image. It was part of an exchange the sister had with someone in the very early days of when the video surfaced.



(Pictured. Back in 2016 when their criminal video surfaced, the auntie demanded that the entire Internet self censor the evidence and not share it. This was not a dialogue between her and us. Nevertheless, it proves my points well).





“He knows he did wrong”….(and yet, in the same year…)






You will be able to sense that entitlement and over bearing nature that I mentioned, and the expectation that the general public owed her nephew something and that the video shouldn’t be shared.




You will note that the family of such people always pre face what they are about to write and what they really want to say with some hollow and artificial acceptance of wrong doing having happened.




They only ever do this as a means to lead in to what they really want to speak about – how troublesome it is for them and how much of a victim they are, and how it wasn’t even their fault really




You can see a very obvious problem if you have two young boys growing up smothered by these entitled and irrational mothers and aunties, who themselves care about nothing except themselves and their own comfort.




A case that was in court last week was that of James Cooper from Swindon. From the little I have looked into on him he doesn’t seem that different in some ways. He also has that defiant and over bearing mother.




An over bearing mother is not a good mother. In fact, an over bearing mother can be totally abusive herself.




A healthy and normal mother raises sons in a way that they grow into good and decent men. An over bearing one that’s a failure may very well produce two sons exactly like them. And when they do? Will they take responsibility even in part? No way. It will ALWAYS be another reason, it will always be something or someone else’s fault.




Its not hard to see the problem when young males in particular are raised with that mentality.




This by no means equates to the father being a saint or all the males in the family being saints either.


But there’s no doubt that while the father had nothing to say, the mother and the sister were running about online demanding the World didn’t share the evidence.



There’s also no doubt that to this very day the mother still clutches to some false idea of victimhood.




In a sense its almost like the women in the family dominate their lives. They are both adults. If they had anything they wanted to say then they were both free to say it for themselves. But no. The only time that Andy boy wrote anything was to say he was going to do it again. So much for that auntie and her claim that the bitch ‘knew he did wrong’.




There may be something substantive to this overbearing/weird mothering and the development of young males who are psychotic and sadistic.


If only we’d seen the rest of the video it would all have been cool


When I reflect back upon this case there’s always one thing that sticks out that I find a very great pity. Its a very great pity that the vet who put ‘Baby’ down didn’t take some sort of action.


She did offer whoever took her to the vets a scan owing to the loss of use of the hind legs.


When it was refused she simply euthenised the dog.

I believe that front line professionals like doctors, teachers and vets have a key role to play in identifying abuses of many kinds and I think they have a duty to take action and probe further if they have any doubts at all.



Unfortunately, while a doctor or a teacher is legally obligated to raise any suspicions they might have about an abusive situation going on, a vet has no such legal obligation as far as I am aware.



They can suspect that something doesn’t seem right – but they are not compelled to do anything with that suspicion. Its down to the individual vet and their own morality and judgement.




Obviously its quite easy to distinguish between say arthritis and the sort of skeletal trauma that ‘Baby’ would have endured.



A few scans and X Rays would have unearthed a whole host of fractures and internal injuries of that there is no doubt or question.


In fact, it was by way of such examination that it was revealed how the dog called ‘Halo’ had died and also how it had not died.




Indeed there are many many instances in which a vet has examined a pet more closely and its that which has allowed the abuser to be finally caught and prosecuted.




But as I say, without any legal obligation to do it, its very ad hoc and entirely down to the vet in question.




You can see the domino effect that occurs when its not picked up though. Had it been picked up at the time then there’s a far better chance they’d both have been given a custodial sentence. The fact that there was a big gap between the incident and it coming to light only took away from the case as far as the law was concerned.



Not to mention the small matter that in the gap in between they also owned and had other dogs. Quite how many and what became of them is anyone’s guess. But the point is that they did indeed have more.




I think professionals should always err on the side of caution if they suspect abuse or find that certain injuries are inexplicable. I think they owe it to their profession and they owe it to the victims.




In their particular case we wanted to give the surgery and vet in question a fair right of reply way back in the day.




Since this was a proven criminal case the normal rules of client confidentiality don’t apply. They’d have been well within their freedoms to comment on a case that was a matter of public record.



And I think they should have.



I also think the vet herself should have made a statement. I’d have liked to have heard them say this was a learning curve for them and that as of that day all their vets were now being sent on special training courses (which do exist for vets), in order that they are better able to spot cases of abuse and cruelty.




I think doing that would have been a whole lot better and been a great deal more positive than doing what they did – which was to pretty much throw up a wall of total silence and refuse to say anything.



For over two years they managed to stay at large with the World ignorant to what they had done. The last person to see ‘Baby’ was the vet who offered a scan to explain why the rear legs had gone.




Sometimes the reason the most dangerous of people slip through the net is that a whole host of professionals failed to either see the signs or they failed to follow up on a sign.




It was never a matter or case of ‘blaming the vet’. It was more a matter of them acknowledging that they had at least learned something from this tragic case.




Accept that things could be done better and the public would respect that surgery more than they would if they are only seen to put up a wall of silence/excuses/fake victimhood.




You’d maybe think that abusers don’t tend to take their pets to a vet. I didn’t think they normally would either, but apparently its not so rare that they do and sometimes repeatedly.



Of course it may not always be the actual perpetrator who is taking the pet, it may be someone in the household such as a flat mate or partner. It may be someone who themselves is not fully aware that injuries are being inflicted by someone inside of their own home.




In fact that’s how many abuse cases come to light, a persons pet will keep getting weird injuries and eventually they ask the vet to do some scans and the scans will confirm that the injuries were done on purpose.




The difference in their case is that whoever took her was not taking the dog to be healed or helped. They were taking the dog to be put down.



Whoever took the dog did not want to know WHY the rear legs had given away. They just wanted the dog put down.




Wouldn’t you be just itching to know why your dogs back legs had given away in such a short time?



Wouldn’t you be tempted to pay the money to get the scan that was offered? Of course you would.



The only reason you may not want a scan is that it would condemn you. Which a scan of ‘Baby’ woud have. No scan would have obviously shown exactly how it happened. But it would most definitely have shown skeletal trauma that was not as a result of a normal set of circumstances.



(Pictured. A message we received in 2016. As you can see the person not only thinks they did the dog ‘no harm’, but if we had only seen the rest of the SD card we’d have seen them happily playing with her. You really cannot make up just how brain dead these mutants and their family are. )







“Didn’t harm the dog”?







Thus the physical evidence of what they did was turned to ash – literally. And as a result two very unhinged and sick individuals remained at large and their actions were entirely unknown to the public for two years.





Now it could be that against all the odds they were absolute angels in the gap that followed. Maybe they both spent the time that followed helping old ladies over the road, sniffing flowers and writing poetry about ladybirds and pretty things.




But what’s more likely is that they got up to all sorts of other degrading and degenerate behaviours in that period.






Perhaps vets should be under a legal and professional obligation to report their suspicions?


Perhaps vets should be professionally obligated to attend courses which have been specifically established for this purpose? At the moment they are entirely voluntary.

Poison in, poison out


There’s that old expression- ‘you are what you eat’. Meaning that whatever you consume as your diet will determine your physical health.



Its undeniable of course. But surely we are also what we watch as well, especially at a young age.




A debate has waged on for years in different circles and that debate has centred around the exposure to violent content and its impact on thought and action.



I will say this before I get into some hard facts. My mothers favourite horror movie back in the day was the original ‘Psycho’. When that was released in British cinemas you had women fainting and all sorts.



But by today’s standards, just a few decades on, the original ‘Psycho’ would be seen as far too tame.


I cannot believe what gets made and mass produced for public consumption now. There is a genre of film out there now that is so sick you’d almost have to question the mind and motive of the person who dreamed it up and you have to start to question people considering it entertainment.



I wouldn’t sit and watch something like Human Centipede or Hostel because I consider such material to be unnecessarily sick, twisted, and going beyond the point of merely trying to scare an audience.


It may be actors and everything, but the films being produced for mass consumption are for all intents and purposes, snuff movies and torture porn.





At least back in the day a youngster would have found it almost impossible to access such stuff. There was no Internet, no DVD, only video shops in which only an adult could rent a fairly basic selection of films. But that’s not the case now.



Now any youngster (esp one whose parents are useless) can watch all material like that and as much of it as they can download.




It seems almost impossible to me that a developing mind of say 13-18 could sit and consume an excess of such material and not somehow be effected by it on some level.




They are seeing things that under any normal circumstances or conditions they would never see. And its very very extreme stuff, not like that original Psycho which alluded to violent scenes without showing every detail.




The reason I personally believe the accumulative effect must have some impact is that being from an advertising background, I am aware that any message seen over and over and on repeat is eventually taken on by at least a % of those watching.



If such things caused zero effect on the general public then the ad industry would not work. It only works because repeated messages do shift or shape peoples thinking.




Here’s a situation. Imagine a mother who is a waster and a dad who is either the same or not around. Kids pretty much left to their own devices, no particular boundaries, no particular rules or moral guidance.




Then say they start watching very violent films when they are around nine or ten years old. What do you think watching such things would gradually do to a mind so young?



Then since there are no proper parental controls, they go from watching very violent films to surfing for very violent content on the Internet.



They suck all of that up and then they move onto the Dark Web, and that’s where all the utter demons of the world go online.





By now they are seeing, consuming, talking about and sharing a lot of violent, sick, extreme and often illegal material.



Even if at this stage they still haven’t done anything physically in person, you know that by this point they are on a slippery slope which is only going to end with them doing so.




I’ve seen some of the video games that Danny boy plays since he records and uploads himself playing to You Tube.


While a game doesn’t ‘make’ anyone do anything, almost every game I have seen him upload or play has some weird violent aspect to it. In one clip you can hear a dog barking quite frantically in the background.






But what does the research say?


To what level can a developing mind be twisted or influenced by exposure to extremely violent material?



This from Psychology Today;


The Virginia Tech Research Division showed students several non-violent movies, followed by super-violent movies. Results indicated violent films can increase hostile behaviour.





The University of Alabama conducted a similar study and obtained similar results. The results also indicated the aggressive behaviour didn’t occur just after viewing, but remained with the individuals for “quite some time.” The study concludes with a caution for parents that immature and/or aggressive children should not have access to violent films.




The Macquarie University Children and Families Research Centre found that children who watch violent movies are more likely to view the world as an unsympathetic, malicious and scary place and that this stimulates aggression. It also suggests children are more likely to exhibit combative behaviour while becoming desensitized to violence. Reportedly, the MRI brain scans of children who have viewed film or television violence had a similar look when compared to those who have violently acted out.



Pownall gets maximum. 2018 now vital


As 59 yr old Alan Pownall begins prison life tonight for the savage killing of his own daughters dog, a question was asked(of me) which I think is interesting and worth addressing.



The enquirer wanted to know how it is possible that Pownall managed to get the maximum prison sentence that is currently possible and a life time ban on pet ownership when those two pukes were given a two year suspended sentence, a small fine and a home curfew.




There are lots of reasons why. The first reason is that this whole issue has really grown in the public narrative since the day those brothers were sentenced.




If an issue is under reported or there isn’t sufficient public pushback then its a great deal easier for an offender to be given a very lenient sentence. But if an issue suddenly grows as part of the public discourse, and if the issues are forever being picked up by the press then there is a natural inclination for the judiciary to react to that.




In short. Owing to the massive shift in public discourse and the exceptional amount of press that have covered this issue at last, if those brothers were to be convicted TODAY – they would also get the maximum that is possible.



If they were convicted in 2018 – there is a highly favourable chance that they’d be looking at a few YEARS in prison.



Now when a very serious case comes to light the courts are far less likely to be as lenient these days. They know this has all become a growing populist issue.




The next thing to consider is that the Government are preparing to pass legislation in 2018 that will increase the maximum by ten fold.  It is natural that as they move closer to that time the courts are going to get into the judicial habit more and more of giving a custodial sentence.




There is also the fact that in many instances it comes down to the personal perceptions of the judge or magistrates.



Although they aren’t meant to bring a personal bias into their judgements it would be naive to think they do not. Its obvious that if I were a judge and those brothers were convicted before me then I would give them the most I possibly could. But another judge/magistrates with a different perception to mine may not do so.



We see these anomalies occur in all aspects of the judiciary and with many different types of criminal case in which comparing two cases and the respective judgements doesn’t seem to make any rational sense.








The judiciary isn’t a machine or a piece of software. Its been created and its applied by people. It is therefore sure to be riddled with flaws and anomalies. It will throw up judgements that are totally baffling and it will throw up different judgements for offences that appear identical.




A judge will also take into consideration if the person has come before the Crown before. Pownall was nearly 60. He may very well have a number of previous offences to his name, not necessarily anything to do with dogs.




In the case of the two brothers they were obviously a great deal younger. They may simply have been totally unknown to the courts with no previous offences, or at most gotten into trouble for minor things like small drug possession offences.




There is certainly no evidence that the pair of them were a couple of well known hard guys who went all over Redcar with swagger, destroying everything in their path.




Evil they may very well be, but what seemed important to them (and esp the eldest) was fostering an exterior image of normality and even goodliness.





That is how Andrew Frankish liked to perceive himself and that is how he liked others to perceive him. He would make a point of self describing in such a way and there are those who knew him who considered him a bit of a clown – but they had no idea what really lay behind his mask.




The youngest was perceived as a bit of a loner who spent a lot of time playing weird video games, but who other than that didn’t really draw much attention to himself.





One thing that tends to be consistent in many of these cases is that the perpetrators appear to suffer a weird ‘amnesia’.




Pownall claimed initially that he ‘could not remember’. And when a member of the public originally confronted Andrew Frankish with his own video his first reaction was along on the lines of the same – he couldn’t remember.




They are all lying almost all of the time. They do remember. They all remember. No one commits such savage acts of violence and simply doesn’t remember.




Pownall and his motive may have been entirely different from the brothers and their motive. But Pownall remembered what he did. He did have the gumption to try to invent a cover story after all. Why would you invent a cover story if you just had no recollection of any wrongdoing? You wouldn’t.




Pownall was caught out by virtue of a clinical examination of the dog which proved his cover story was a fable.




Those two brothers remembering is a whole other thing. Not only did they remember but they ensured that they would by filming what they did and holding onto it like the two little weird sick fucks that they are. There is no amnesia there. There is no drug haze there.





Of the two of them the youngest tended to write less and keep quiet more. Andrew on the other hand just couldn’t help himself when this first came out (and before we came along).





I have read his pre OF dialogue with people who challenged him online. This is a guy who thought he was extremely clever. He has an usually high opinion of himself that isn’t reflected in any sort of reality.



Whether he is aware of it or not, what he tries to do with people who are sensitive or honest is gaslight them.



He tries to get them to question reality itself. This is what he does. When confronted with the video evidence that is exactly what he defaulted to doing. Look that term up if you don’t know it. This is someone who lives in a permanent state of sadism.




It doesn’t mean that he is always carrying out to what he did to ‘Baby’. It means that its always there, its ever present in everything he does, in how he writes, in how he writes it.







This is someone who considered himself very clever and beyond getting caught. And when caught, he then considered himself clever enough to easily shake it off. This is a fact. This is how he thinks.





The future just isn’t good for them either way. If they are caught and convicted of something similar in the near future there would be such a shit storm that no judge would dare not to give them the NEW maximum.



But if they just try to slither away and convince new neighbours that they are someone other than who they really are? Then the truth will be given to the community and, as always, they can decide whether they want them there or not (its always not).




There are days I wish there was something redeemable about either of them, but there just isn’t. They are what they are – bizarrely dangerous.




The chat logs I read with those who challenged them (pre OF) were proof positive to me that this is someone who considered himself a clever deceiver.




The eldest brother is without question a sociopath, a sadist and a pathological liar. The younger one has those traits as well. But they also have differing personalities in other ways.



Its like I said yesterday – there are different kinds of animal abuser.




Alan Pownall strikes me as an older man with a probable long history of having a combination of a bad temper coupled with excessive drinking.



It would not be an amazing surprise if that has gotten him into many fights down the years. He killed that poor dog – but the trigger was his temper. Its that temper that has cost him his liberty and a relationship with his daughter now.




But there was no temper induced attack by the two brothers. There was no anger exhibited in their video. And when the youngest one spoke he sounded perfectly coherent.




Times are changing. Nothing stays still. Animal cruelty has morphed into a big enough issue that the Government (with no real need to do so since it wasn’t an election) pledged to increase the maximum to five years in 2018.




Andrew and Daniel Frankish got a £300 fine and all the other bits and pieces because the public narrative over this wasn’t what it is today.



Next year is key. It is vital that if there is a case like their one after the new maximum sentences are passed that the individual(s) are given the new maximum. Its crucial because it lays down a marker.

“…same method of killing on their human victims as they did on their animal victims….”



The term and the charge of animal cruelty is really a wide reaching and catch all term.


It can mean many things. The pet hoarder can cause the conditions for abject neglect which are cruel. But is the primary motive of the hoarder to cause pain and distress? Probably not.



Is the unscrupulous dog breeders primary goal to inflict sadism? I don’t think so. Their sole goal is profit and if that means cutting corners on care and breeding standards then so be it as far as they are concerned. But its the £ signs that drive them.



There are those who abandon a dog for whatever motive, perhaps by tethering it to a lamp post in the street. Somewhat cruel? Yes. Motivated by sadism? No.



All of the above could feasibly come under the broad description of animal cruelty.



Yet there is a strand within animal cruelty which is unique in of itself. Its so distinct from anything else within animal cruelty and has so many other implications attached to it that there’s a strong case for saying that it should almost be treated as a separate or additional thing.



Its a term not often heard, and that term is zoosadist.






Here’s an example of a zoosadist – those two brothers and those four freaks that stole and tortured that little dog called ‘Chunky’.


Here’s an example of an act of abuse not driven by a zoosadist – those two old guys from Redcar with that dog called ‘Scamp’.



To the best of my knowledge there does not exist a specific charge of zoosadism in British law.




Perhaps there needs to be so that it can be seen as distinct from general animal abuse?


Perhaps if it were a distinct offence then it would naturally follow that someone could be charged with animal cruelty and zoosadism.




You’ll note that I put a case in NYC on our FB page and that in this case the offender was additionally charged with torture (as well as the usual pet abuse charges).




Zoosadists are a demographic who obviously do engage in abuses of animals, but they are distinct in that its their entire motive and goal and not some secondary consequence.




It is impossible to say how many there are in the country today, since no figures or data has ever been kept that would demonstrate a number to us.



I’d suggest that its a tiny fraction of the overall population. Not even half a %.




It might be easier to ask what % of those convicted of animal abuse of all kinds are zoosadists?



Lets say that in the UK today there are 200,000 who have had a conviction or caution for something relating to the welfare of animals in the past few years. What % of those do I think would be actual zoosadists? Probably around 1% of that. 2,000 individuals in the UK are probably zoosadists, and that’s a decent estimate given the lack of data.








It doesn’t seem many set against a population of 60 million. But 2,000 is a substantial number once its fully understood just how deeply disturbed and dangerous that specific category are. 2000 is also a very modest estimate, since that really only accounts for those who are probably known.




Not all pet abuse is pre meditated. The guy with a temper issue who loses his rag with his dog in the street for a few seconds is not a good owner. But their actions are not pre planned.







The zoosadist nearly always pre plans what they do. There is always a level of planning and sometimes collaboration. Indeed, sometimes they even go out of their way and go to great lengths in order to do it.




And that is why they should be seen as something over and above pet abuse in general.




By lumping all pet abuse in as one thing you overlook the crucial nuance of this pathology in its own right.






The motive and the pre planning do make a difference.




If I got into an argument with someone in the street and in a fight they fell, banged their head and died it would be totally different if I pre planned to kidnap, drug and systematically torture that person to death just for the hell of it, right? Of course it would.


Any judge would perceive it differently and so would any lawyer or jury.



And yet since the end result is the same, why not lay the same sort of charge in both cases? Because of those motives, the planning, the pre meditation etc.



In the first example I might expect to be free in four years.


In the latter example I’d probably get life. I may even get life in an institution for the criminally insane.





That’s why these distinctions and nuance matter and thats why zoosadism should be recognised as a crime in its own right, over and above charges of the abuse.





There’s quite a lot of research done on general animal abuse – nailing down facts on zoosadists is less easy.




Its not impossible to create circumstances that take far more of them off the streets and at least keep the public safe from their evil for some time. That’s doable.




But its almost as important to get our hands dirty and find out what makes them tick. Perhaps a pilot scheme should be established comprising of the foremost brains in British psychology with a view to specifically and comprehensively looking what lies behind the zoosadist?



That’s the sort of thing the Government would have to be persuaded to do at a national or maybe local level. Either that or it would require funding from business or something.




In an effort to profile this specific class of individual I’ve taken a look at some of what is out there and I’m managing to build up a clearer picture all the time.




I’ve ran some other articles over the last week that has explored the subject.




What can we take from these findings, for example?






Among 1502 aggressive children and adolescents who had been presented and treated at the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Tübingen there were 25 who had been cruel to animals.




These were exclusively boys (23 out of 25). The age distribution of the zoosadists showed an increased incidence in 13, 17 and 18 year olds which is connected with problems of puberty, group constraints and proving virility.




Compared with a control group of “only aggressive” patients, organic brain damage owing to complications of pregnancy or delivery, overtaxing upbringing by the parents and absence of a positive father figure could be demonstrated in the zoosadists.



The hypothesis that aggressive children and adolescents have less chance to live out their aggressions in interpersonal relations use zoosadism as “evasion aggression” could only be confirmed in part.



One third of the zoosadists showed additional disorders of sexual behaviour and the sexual-sadistic component was manifested in the zoosadistic action.







The part that leaps out for me is the last part.


‘One third of the zoosadists showed additional disorders of sexual behaviour and the sexual-sadistic component was manifested in the zoosadistic action’.





This means that one in every three zoosadists ALSO have multiple other disorders and that their zoosadism is very much rooted in some sort of mixed up and badly wired sexual component.




Alan R. Felthous reported in his paper “Aggression Against Cats, Dogs, and People”



“A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a boy”.



Zoosadism is part of the ‘Macdonald triad’


What is that? Its a a set of three behaviours considered a precursor to sociopathic behaviour.


A bit more;



‘The triad links cruelty to animals, obsession with fire-setting, and persistent bedwetting past a certain age, to violent behaviours homicidal behaviours and predatory behaviour’.


‘FBI Special Agent Alan Brantly believed that some offenders kill animals as a rehearsal for killing human victims’.


‘Cruelty to animals is mainly used to vent frustration and anger the same way firesetting is. Extensive amounts of humiliation were also found in the childhoods of children who engaged in acts of cruelty to animals’.





During childhood, serial killers could not retaliate towards those who caused them humiliation, so they chose animals because they were viewed as weak and vulnerable.



Future victim selection is already in the process at a young age.



Studies have found that those who engaged in childhood acts of cruelty to animals used the same method of killing on their human victims as they did on their animal victims’








In my view, of all the many types of animal abuse(r), the zoosadist is without doubt the most dangerous, the most deserving of long incarceration and life time monitoring.



I think its absolutely vital that this is reflected in law with those shown to have committed acts of zoosadism being charged with animal cruetly and as well as additional charges for the specific zoosadism.



Let me know what you think in comments?



Judge sets dog torturer loose in Swindon. Doesn’t want prison to “ruin his life”


Do you live in Swindon and know this area, Severn Avenue, Greenmeadow?


Do you know or know of James Cooper?


If so then please get in touch via Facebook or e mail.




A MAN who killed a dog through multiple vicious attacks has been spared jail because “prison would destroy his life”, a court has heard.



James Cooper, of Severn Avenue, Greenmeadow, walked from Swindon Magistrates’ Court yesterday after admitting two counts of causing unnecessary suffering to two whippets.


Cooper, 23, pleaded guilty to the torrent of violence on six-year-old Millie.


Millie suffered what the court heard was blunt force trauma and went on to die as a result, months after he hit another whippet-like dog, called Tinkerbelle.



The court heard how Cooper and his girlfriend Katie Gardiner were looking after three-year-old Tinkerbelle for her step-mum, Carly Young, when the attacks happened.



When external injuries prompted a vet visit, Cooper had told vets that Tinkerbelle’s injuries, including multiple skin abrasions, were as a result of falling down the stairs.



Just days later, the dog was taken back to the vets but had other fractures, including an ulcer-type injury to her left eye.



In the weeks that followed Tinkerbelle suffered a human bite wound as well as injuries to her tail, which has since had to be amputated. She is now recovering.










Matthew Knight, prosecuting, told the court: “The defendant still hasn’t provided an explanation of what happened or why these offences occurred.

“In regard to Millie, the defendant said she had jumped over a six-foot fence and fell on some brambles, which is how she sustained the injury.”


Other excuses given to vets included that she had run into a patio door.


Mr Knight continued: “Millie suffered multiple fractured ribs and was killed by the defendant.

“However when asked he said the further injuries were caused by the fact he gave CPR.


“She suffered a number of blunt force trauma injuries and I am in no doubt that she was killed by the defendant. Her injuries were extensive, widespread and severe. In my opinion they were sustained on more than one occasion.








“There are striking similarities in the way both Millie and Tinkerbelle were assaulted front on, sustained multiple fractured ribs and swelling to the left side of her face.”


A post-mortem examination found Millie had emphysema and bruising – some that had been inflicted just 24 hours before she died.



Cooper had been due to face a trial and after he was convicted earlier this year, the RSPCA dropped the charges against his girlfriend Katie Gardiner, also 23, who denied the allegations.




District Judge Simon Cooper imposed a 12-week consecutive prison sentence for each offence to be suspended for two years.


He said: “Tinkerbelle made at least five visits to the vet for treatment while in your care and from that, examinations revealed that she had been severely beaten, suffering fractured ribs and a human bite wound and the effect on her was akin, in my judgement, to torture. Nonetheless she recovered, even if she had to have her tail amputated.



“Millie was taken back on the third examination while she had been in your care and you had been under investigation. They found her covered with wounds to the mouth and multiple fractured ribs which ultimately led to her death.


“I agree with the RSPCA that it is a difficult and disturbing case. You gave a variety of explanations for these offences but, in fact, you finally accepted your responsibility”.


“I have come to the decision that an immediate prison sentence would utterly destroy you”


I guess most readers don’t really pay special attention to judges or magistrates unless they have some direct or personal reason to do so. That’s understandable.


Its not the sort of thing the typical person might spend a night looking into as opposed to say going for a pint and a curry.




UK wide the number of judges doesn’t amount to many. I looked into it before and from memory it was about 1,000 – in total. This probably doesn’t include magistrates who are really just unpaid volunteers.




There is something deeply and profoundly not quite right among their circles. It has become so noticeable to me over the last few years that I am no longer apple to write it off as a few bad apples or as one or two isolated instances.



Their seems to be a culture among them which leads to not merely eye popping judgements but comments that would make any thinking man or women wonder about the morality and reasoning powers of that judge.



For example?


For example this quote by a judge in this case of cruelty that I will link below;


“I have come to the decision that an immediate prison sentence would utterly destroy you. What you did was vicious and savage but little would be achieved in the long run by sending you into custody”.



There is so very much wrong with that statement its difficult to know where to begin.






Anti paedophile network, the UK Database, has a whole section on judges of questionable character.



You can access a sample here;







There was a case just last year in which a man convicted of shocking offences was spared prison because the judge was told that he and his wife ‘wanted to start a family’. This is despite the offences being of a serious sexual nature against children.




I often read the page of Dark Justice, the anti child grooming group. They do great work those lads, but its really astonishing just how many of those convicted are either not sent to prison or if they are its for an insultingly short time.




Its not merely that the judgements are clearly impaired. Its the statements that they make upon making their judgement (some of which I have laid out here).



Judges are clearly highly trained and educated people. Its not that I doubt they know the nuance of the legal system. They are also very well paid for the job that they do.




But there is something deeply wrong when we have an undeniable culture in which our judges are not sending paedophiles to prison because they want to have a baby and they are not sending animal sadists to prison because they feel that the abuser could find prison quite tough?



I could fill ten pages with examples of precisely and exactly that kind.




These are not random judgement’s and statements that occur once every ten years. Its a pattern.




But why? I’ve thought about that as well. Some might say its ‘because the prisons are too full’. But this is not satisfactory.



This would not explain why a judge would then have to make statements that he is letting a paedophile off because he wants to start a family, nor would it explain their need to make statements that they don’t send an animal abuser to prison as they don’t think it would be very good for him.



And the prisons are not ‘too full’ anyway. They spent a fortune and opened a series of new ones in recent times.



Others may think its because judges are simply so detached from reality that despite being academically intelligent they all tend to have this hyper liberal outlook in which those who come before them are always treated leniently, regardless of the offence.




But this is also not true since the self same judges who are letting paedophile’s and animal abusers walk are sending men and sometimes women to prison for shocking lengths of time for something as innocuous as words on social media.




There is something very wrong when what might be deemed offensive words or opinions on social media are more likely to earn one judicial condemnation and a stay in prison than the truly dangerous people who are hurting animals for kicks, grooming children and abusing them.



There is something very very wrong when a call to the police about an ‘offensive tweet’ is more likely to be taken seriously and provoke a more immediate response than if one were to make a report of a real crime in place.




This doesn’t look like ad hoc incompetence to me, none of it.




This looks more like a wilful effort being made to prioritise so called ‘hate speech’ and hate thought over real crimes, with real victims and really dangerous individuals involved.



Details – Important


I need certain details and I need you guys to assist me in confirming said details.

The only reason I need these details is for the purposes of accuracy in the production of our film.


The chances are that you wont personally know these details any more than I do.


I need to know what age Baby was. For definite.


I need to know how long they had her.


I need to know where they got her from.








There are various ways you can perhaps assist us in establishing those details.


You can take this link and send it to each of DF’s apparent friends.


Here is a list;


You can also take the link to this post and send it here;


And perhaps even here;



Or even here, since this is the auntie.




They probably wont respond but it would be in their interests if they did and if they co-operated.



Set aside an hour. Then send the link to this article to as many people on the above links that you can in that one hour.



You do not even need say or add anything other than that. If enough people send it to all of them then there’s a decent chance one of them would see the sense in co-operating.



Its far too time consuming for me to sit here and plough through it alone so that’s why I need a bunch of you guys to jump on here and help out.