reSee.it - Related Video Feed

An individual confronts Roger about conversations on Grindr with underage boys. The individual claims to have evidence of these conversations and accuses Roger of being a pedophile. Roger denies knowing the ages of the people he talks to on Grindr, stating he assumes they are of age and cancels conversations if he learns otherwise. The individual expresses disbelief, asserting they wouldn't be there without evidence. The confrontation escalates, with the individual threatening to call the cops, go to Roger's church, or go to SDSU and reveal the chat logs to expose Roger's alleged actions. Roger's companion urges him to stop the recording. The individual states they are recording Roger because he is a "fucking pedophile."

The speaker confronts Mohammed, asking him who he is here to meet. Mohammed admits that he is here to meet a thirteen-year-old. The speaker questions him about the legal age of consent and whether he has said anything inappropriate to the child. Mohammed admits to saying a few inappropriate things but denies finding it funny. The speaker asks about Mohammed's job, and he reveals that he works in a hospital as a healthcare assistant. The speaker questions whether Mohammed has daily contact with children, to which he denies. The speaker presents evidence of Mohammed's conversations and pictures with the child, accusing him of grooming. Mohammed denies planning anything and claims he didn't think it was inappropriate. The speaker insists on honesty and warns Mohammed about the consequences.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

I'm here to expose Ariel, who I believe is involved in serious wrongdoing, including child pornography. I see Dustin caught in the middle of this controversy, and while I don't defend him, I think he deserves a chance to speak without being interrupted. It's frustrating to see others, like Stew, dominate the conversation and dismiss Dustin. This behavior is counterproductive and undermines genuine discourse. I also question the integrity of those involved, especially regarding past movements that have been sabotaged. Instead of focusing on personal attacks, we should address the real issues at hand, including Ariel's alleged actions. I'm just sharing my perspective, and I know it may upset some, but it's important to speak out against these serious allegations.

The speaker discusses allegations of government officials being involved in pedophilia, child trafficking, and grooming of children. They mention the similarity to Jeffrey Epstein's actions with the Clintons. Another person dismisses these claims as ridiculous.

The speaker confronts an individual, accusing them of grooming a child and planning to have sex with her, referencing condoms. The speaker claims to have evidence despite the individual possibly deleting it. The speaker questions the individual's early morning activities outside a flat and accuses them of using fake accounts to trap kids. They mention sending live locations and pictures of a front door. The speaker states the individual is getting arrested and remanded, as the police are present. They tell the individual to leave kids alone.

What's happening at this hotel? Reports indicate that individuals have been filming children at a nearby primary school. Don't touch me; I'm just trying to understand the situation. You're pushing me away, but I need answers. This is unacceptable. Illegals have been filming children here. Why are you preventing me from getting information? It's ironic that you're calling the police on me when there are serious allegations about people filming children just up the road. You have no evidence? There is evidence. Where is it? The community deserves answers about what's going on with the children.

The speaker expresses strong opposition to bills regarding transgender children and accuses those who support them of being part of a cult that promotes genital mutilation. They confront various individuals, including a father and a church representative, asking them to defend their support for transgender kids. The speaker also criticizes the behavior of leftist protesters and accuses them of wanting sexual access to minors. They express frustration with the media's bias and attempt to enter a trans space, claiming to identify as a trans woman.

The speaker expresses strong opposition to the sexualization of children and accuses the individuals present of being pedophiles. They argue against discussing sex with children and advocate for protecting their innocence. The speaker claims to be addressing the school board about the curriculum and accuses them of allowing children to be sexualized. They insult and berate the individuals present, calling them pedophiles and expressing disgust towards them. The speaker also mentions a banned curriculum from 2019 and accuses the government of being involved with pedophiles. The transcript ends with a profanity-laden insult.

Speaker 0 told Speaker 1 they need to read a book because they have no understanding. Speaker 0 then called Speaker 1 an incompetent journalist and said CBC has sunk. Speaker 1 responded that the accusations and shouting were not helpful to the case. Speaker 0 denied shouting and said they were just telling Speaker 1 something as someone doing an interview on the case. Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

Speaker 0 accuses the group of being pedophiles for not caring about child sexual abuse, claiming they “probably enjoy child porn” and are not looking. They ask Monica: “You’re not a pedophile? Then why aren’t you doing anything about the child abuse that's happening in the county?” They assert, “If you cared, you'd want to stop it,” and imply they would act if it happened to one of their own children or grandchildren, asking, “What if it happens to your grandchild? Would it matter then?” The speaker concludes by demanding action and states, “Next speaker, please.”

I went on TV to talk about grooming gangs in Telford, and police suddenly showed up at my door, claiming it was their duty to follow up. They had done nothing about the abuse for decades but decided to intimidate me after my interview. They said they were trying to make a difference, but it seemed like they were targeting a victim instead of the perpetrators. It's pathetic that criticizing them on TV drove them into action. I have no idea who ordered this "raid."

Nickelodeon employees and executives are accused of enabling predators on set, with specific individuals named and called out for their alleged involvement in child endangerment. The speaker demands accountability and protection for children, highlighting past traumatic experiences and lack of response from Nickelodeon. The transcript also mentions the need for investigations into certain individuals and a call for apologies from Nickelodeon. The overall tone is one of seeking justice and transparency in light of disturbing allegations.

The speaker asserts that discussions of child abuse and child trafficking are avoided in the UK Parliament, implying that avoidance signals a problem. They claim there is no separate crime of satanic child abuse in the UK; they say it’s simply child abuse, and suggest that the Netherlands similarly erases the subject. The speaker relates local discoveries in Leicester, described as the nearest city to their area, where they found extensive child abuse linked to both historic and current politicians and to the police. They state they gave evidence against the head of police about “industrial child trafficking.” A central claim is that there is industrial-scale trafficking of children from Ukraine via Moldova to the UK for sexual abuse and organ harvesting. The speaker says this information came from two Ukrainian secret service agents who independently reported the same scheme, without knowing each other. They alleged that Ukrainian secret services collected children during the conflict in the Donbas and handed them over to UK secret services. The two informants reportedly named individuals and were appalled by the task of collecting children for trafficking. The speaker recounts that one whistleblower was killed in a cafe when a bomb was placed under his table, and the second survived a car bombing after being warned by a car park camera clip showing the explosion as he approached his car. They claim the whistleblowers named people very close to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his regime, asserting that those individuals purportedly benefit financially from the war by enabling child trafficking. Further claims include that there is more money in child trafficking and sex trafficking than in drugs or weapons because of the trafficked children’s organs. The speaker contends that the trafficking scheme involves selling the children multiple times, and that victims disappear after organs are harvested, which is why victims are not found in the end. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the alleged connection between wartime activity, Ukrainian whistleblowers, assassination attempts, and a broader network that allegedly profits from child trafficking and organ harvesting.

People reacted strongly, demanding action, but the speaker says they have sacrificed for two years, facing ostracization, harassment, and threats. The speaker states that while others lived normal lives, they risked everything. The speaker emphasizes that nobody got hurt on their watch, and the allegation concerns something from six years ago that was hidden from them. The speaker also claims the alleged victim wasn't even harmed.

The speaker claims there's no evidence of them injuring children, accusing someone named Stu of having nothing but accusations. They allege Stu's news is fake and without evidence. The speaker then accuses Stu of being more of a pedophile than they are, claiming to have more evidence of it. They reference someone submitting that Stu is a pedophile. The speaker demands to be allowed to speak and questions why Stu uses a fake name, likening it to Thomas Paine writing Common Sense.

Speaker 1 attempts to interview Speaker 2, who claims Speaker 1 says lies. Speaker 2 says they founded the Asylum Seeker Network of Support to fight US policy, which evolved into creating programs. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1 is there to take from them, while they stand as a community. Speaker 1 asks why pictures of children are being taken, citing trans flags and condoms on a table as inappropriate for children. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of touching and stepping on them. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1 is not welcome. Speaker 1 claims they are being assaulted and asks why they were hit. Speaker 2 denies violence and asks for personal space. Speaker 1 accuses them of gaslighting and asks why coffee was thrown at them while covering the event.

The speaker accuses the BBC of not being an objective network and criticizes the journalist for calling one side of the political aisle ignorant and barbaric. The speaker suggests that the journalist should be honest about their political leanings. The speaker then asks if the journalist would vote for a particular person, implying that the journalist's questions reveal their own biases.

The speaker confronts an individual, accusing them of grooming a child and planning to have sex with her, referencing condoms. The speaker claims to have evidence despite the individual possibly deleting it. The speaker questions the individual's early morning activities outside a flat and accuses them of trying to trap kids using different accounts. They mention sending live locations and pictures of a front door. The speaker states the individual is getting arrested and remanded, as Manchester police are present. The speaker repeatedly demands the individual leave children alone.

If Piers or anyone else wants to insult Tommy, I don't care. The real issue is why Tommy was the one leading rallies against the systemic rape of children while others, including the UK government and police, remained silent. If he's labeled a con artist, at least he brought attention to these horrors that I wouldn't have known about otherwise. I appreciate Piers and look forward to appearing on his show again, but maybe he doesn't fully understand the gravity of the situation. The transcripts detailing the abuse fill me with an unprecedented rage. Regardless of opinions about Tommy, he played a crucial role in exposing these issues.

An individual confronts Roger about conversations on Grindr with underage boys. The individual claims to have evidence and asks Roger how many underage boys he has been talking to. Roger claims he assumes everyone is of age and cancels conversations if he learns otherwise. The individual expresses skepticism, citing contradictory evidence. The confrontation escalates when Roger touches the individual, who states he is recording the encounter. The individual threatens to call the cops, go to Roger's church, and report him to SDSU with chat logs of conversations with 14 and 15-year-old boys. He accuses Roger of being a pedophile and says he will distribute the chat logs at the church in two weeks.

The speaker discusses their familiarity with Gary Shaba, who was known for his work on BBC shows. They mention that Shaba had a reputation for being unapproachable and possibly engaging in inappropriate behavior with young people. The speaker expresses disbelief that there was any mystery surrounding these allegations and criticizes the former head of BBC for claiming ignorance. They question why it took so long for the truth to come out and speculate about the existence of a censorship committee that suppresses such information. The speaker also mentions that Shaba was a friend of Prince Charles and suggests that this may have influenced the decision to keep the allegations quiet.

The speaker confronts someone who came to meet what they believed to be a child. They inform the person that the police have been called and that they have been exposed by a group called Predator Exposure. The speaker questions the person about their intentions and how they arrived in the country. They also mention the inappropriate conversations the person had with the supposed child. The speaker emphasizes that the person will be arrested for their actions.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about information found online, asking if Speaker 1 was a stripper. Speaker 1 eventually admits to being a stripper and bartender, specifying it was at a gay club but for women. Speaker 1 then says he was born in a trailer park to a crack whore mother. Speaker 1 claims he showed up to name a pedophile and defended himself for hours from lies. Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of sucking "nigger Jew dick for money," which Speaker 1 denies. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of defending a pedophile and being a Jew. Speaker 0 asks about a stolen firearm.

In this video, Speaker 1 confronts Dennis Gilliam about his alleged involvement in certain Signal and Telegram groups. Dennis claims to have no knowledge of these groups and suggests that he may have been added without his consent. Speaker 1 believes Dennis is not the creator of these groups and wants to collaborate in identifying the real culprits. They discuss the possibility of Dennis being transferred to these groups through links posted on Facebook. Speaker 1 emphasizes that their main focus is finding the individuals responsible for creating and participating in these groups, rather than accusing Dennis. Additionally, the video discusses how the speaker was led to various groups on Signal through provocative photos on Facebook. They mention that both boys and girls are being posted in these groups, with mainly women being posted in the videos. The age range of individuals in the groups is mostly teens and twenties. The speaker admits to clicking on links and seeing pictures and videos but claims to have quickly exited when uncomfortable. They mention that the groups are primarily in Spanish and that they have seen links with pictures and videos being posted. However, the frequency of inappropriate content being posted in the groups remains uncertain. The video also features a conversation between Speaker 1, Speaker 2, and Speaker 3. Speaker 1 confronts Speaker 2 about his alleged involvement in groups that post explicit content involving minors. Speaker 2 denies any knowledge or intent to view such content, but Speaker 1 presses for more information. Speaker 3, who is also present, shares that he has grandchildren and works in mental health. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of clicking on videos featuring young children. Speaker 2 admits to accidentally clicking on such videos multiple times. The conversation continues with Speaker 1 explaining their organization's work and Speaker 2's involvement. The video ends with Speaker 2 deleting evidence from his phone.