Sunday, 23 March 2014

The open air preaching at Westminster on weekdays at one o clock

Neil Purdom preaches in the shadow of Parliament the Plymouth brethren Christian church gospel telling tourists that they may well never see one o clock again, click here to view he and Donald Jay's joint venture; http://youtu.be/V_dj45TmupY
Then the next Mafiosi style PBCC thug Oliver Woodcock stands and pronounces his hackneyed version of the gospel, the average tourist having no idea that he was responsible for destroying untold numbers of families and causing the suicide of Anna Napthine;http://youtu.be/f52yovbCLNA

He is asked if his Church is a 'general Church' to which he answers NO!

Mrs Anna Joy Napthine (nee Brock) took her life on 25th August 1981. The cause of death was recorded as hanging, and the Coroner concluded that she killed herself.

She was found by her husband Peter when he returned to the family home in London, UK, after he had been out to the park with their two little children, Rebecca and Gary.

Anna was at the time under Exclusive Brethren ʽassembly disciplineʼ.

She had confessed to a sin some years before, for which she was forgiven although not withdrawn from. However in 1981 the EB leader of the day, J.H.Symington, put forward new teaching on 1 Cor 5:11-13, requiring that the assembly be ʽclearedʼ of all such matters. Anna and hundreds like her in the EB worldwide, had to be confronted with their sin all over again, and be withdrawn from for the statutory minimum, seven days. It was expected that Anna would be restored to fellowship after a week, but her case went on for some time longer, until she took her life.

The London Brethren buried her, and attended the Coronerʼs inquest which was held on 9 September 1981.

Anna was known to be vulnerable; she suffered with a nervous condition. According to the Police she was not on any medication at the time of her death.


  1. More nutters on the streets of London. Just out of interest Neil Purdom was heavily involved in the brethren's 'private inquiry' into a serious sexual assault on a minor by Duncan Whiley of Preston. Purdom failed to report a crime reported top him and sat by while the 'brethren's investigation team' swept it under the carpet and called the victim a liar... until it went to Crown Court last November. Hypocrite Purdom's preachings are as useful as a fart in a collander. Link; http://laurencemoffitt.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/injustice.html#comment-form

  2. Was Mr Whiley found guilty?

    1. I understand Mr Whiley was found not guilty, so unless Thomas Hind has direct first-hand knowledge that the crime was in fact committed, he should insert the word “alleged” in front of “serious sexual assault.”

    2. Ian, I do indeed have first hand knowledge that the crime was committed. You are either a member of the 'brethren's enquiry team' or just being pendantic - which one? Getting back on track after your pathetic attempt of derailing - Purdom committed a crime by not reporting a crime, therefore imo he's a fine one to spout off his self righteous claptrap.

    3. I can assure Thomas Hind that Ian is neither a member of the 'brethren's enquiry team' nor just being pendantic. Mr Whiley was found not guilty, therefore the charges brought were alleged and not proven. Fact. But don't get me started about who had the better barrister ......


    4. Thomas Hind,
      Thank you for that clarification. I was concerned, among other things, about the risk you might be creating for yourself. If you publicly accuse someone of a crime after a court has found him not guilty you need to make sure you have enough first-hand evidence to satisfy a civil court. Otherwise you put yourself and this Web site at risk of legal action.

    5. Please excuse my abrupt response Ian, but the main issue in this particular topic is about hypocritical old windbags blasting off on the streets of London. Purdom and his accessories are principal offenders acting on the 'alleged' rapist Whiley's behalf, and for that they are accountable to the law. And yes, based upon on my solid evidence I could satisfy a civil court, but I'm not at liberty to disclose details which may jeopardise future proceedings.

  3. I fear it is difficult to understand how someone could have 'first-hand knowledge' unless they were there.