In a recent YouTube comment, a user known as Babs delivered what can only be described as a masterclass in hypocritical outrage. While agreeing with another commenter that Kaley Einav is “evil to her core,” Babs called for a lifetime ban from the internet for Einav — along with Jake Clarke, Justin Pomeroy, Ass1000, Shelly Mote, and Matthew Taylor — and demanded they be barred from going near any children or having any indirect contact with them.
The accusation is as serious as it is sweeping: these individuals, in Babs’ view, represent such a danger that they must be digitally and physically isolated from minors.
The problem? Babs’ own circle tells a very different story.
According to information shared by the targets of her attack, Babs has long supported an individual known as James Hind, who now identities as AJ — a self-described Satanist who has openly admitted to:
Pretending to be a 12-year-old boy online
Interacting with children as young as 11
Sharing illegal content (of the most serious nature) with minors
Identifying a paedophile groomer but choosing not to report him to authorities, reportedly because he “didn’t like the thought of ruining a paedophile’s life”
This is the person Babs chooses to defend and associate with, while simultaneously labelling law-abiding critics as child threats worthy of total banishment.
Even Tom Zero — described as one of Babs’ close friends for many years — recently remarked that she has a low IQ. On current evidence, it’s hard to argue with that assessment. Launching extreme, evidence-free calls for lifetime bans and child safety restrictions against people you dislike, while giving a free pass to someone who brags about catfishing children and shielding actual predators, is not the behaviour of a rational or morally consistent person. It is the conduct of someone weaponising child protection rhetoric as a personal attack tool.
This kind of reckless online finger-pointing doesn’t protect children — it distracts from real risks. If Babs genuinely cared about child safety, she might start by examining the company she keeps rather than issuing blanket condemnations against those who challenge her.
Final note: Accusing people of being a danger to children is not a casual debate tactic. It’s a serious claim that can destroy reputations. Babs should perhaps reflect on the mirror before handing out more imaginary restraining orders.
No comments:
Post a Comment