Old Man Charged With Assault for Brainwashing Woman Into BDSM 30 Years Ago – She Loved It & Wouldn’t Leave

He upped the pain to make her go…

By Anna Mercury

They must have no statute of limitations in the UK.

A very old man, Hilary Alflatt, 87, who has been deemed by the court as unfit to plead, is on trial for five counts of assault and two counts of false imprisonment arising out of an adulterous BDSM affair he had with a woman more than 30 years ago.

From 1983 to 1992, Alflatt, then in his 40s, while vicar of a church in Sheffield, had a kinky relationship with a woman who refused to break up with him.

The trial is based on her version, against his; there is no physical evidence of these sordid events of the last century.

The old vicar claims it was consensual, that she could have left anytime and, more than that, she refused to break up, threatening to ruin his marriage, destroy his career, and collapse his church.

Yes, he was married at the time, the sinner; yes, and a hypocritical leader of a church promising salvation. Yes, this beast of a husband kept his affair secret from his wife.

And the alleged victim claims the once young Alflatt heated a needle and branded her with a tiny cross under her arm.

[This, to my mind, is better than branding a woman on the pussy, like NXIVM perv Keith Raniere, did to his subs.]

But not only that, the Vicar tied her up and ‘walloped’ her with a bamboo cane, which left her [buttocks?] ‘black and blue.’

She claims he almost drowned her in the bath, and locked her in the vicarage cellar.

Since the judge ruled Alflatt, who lives in Northallerton, North Yorkshire, as “unfit to plead,” jurors will decide whether he committed the crimes, but they won’t deliver a verdict.

Part of the case is what police claim old Alflatt told them when they interviewed him some time ago.  He said the woman ‘asked me to do things,’ including tying her up and striking her with a cane.

She alleges that he punished her for looking him in the eye, ordered her to prostrate herself before him [not a crime n England], kiss his feet, [not a crime in England], told her to call him ‘master’ and make ‘life vows’ of poverty, obedience, and chastity.

What is not in dispute is that she could have left the relationship at any time for he did not physically force her to stay – he wanted her to go.

But she continued to stay because he brainwashed her, she said.  She says she was under his mental control, so she kept coming back.

Yet, when he wanted her to leave, the mental control suddenly ceased, and she demanded more BDSM kink.

Vicar Alflatt allegedly told police he wanted her to go so badly, and she was so eager for more kink, that he upped the pain in their BDSM, hoping she would finally go and relieve him of her extortionate control before she ruined him.

He told police he branded the woman with the needle to make a tiny cross to mark the end of their affair, hoping Jesus died on the cross for sinners such as, especially she and him.

But Louise Reevell, prosecuting, would have none of it.  The prosecutor knowing that women are feeble and men are always to blame, said, ‘This case is not about an affair and consent, it’s about power, control, depravity and sadism on his part.’

But somebody ask the lady prosecutor, why did it take so long? The two broke up 30 years ago?

Police interviews read out to the jury allege the old man told them he thought if he ’caused her more pain, she would leave me alone.’

He also allegedly said, ‘I felt I had to keep her happy because I was in a relationship which, if it came out, would have destroyed my parish. She had a real hold over me.’

But, showing signs that he is not entirely out of it, Aflatt claims that the lady’s claim that he ‘brainwashed’ her was ‘nonsense’ [which it is, of course] and that she ‘never raised any objection.’

Kathryn Pitters, defending, said, ‘They formed a romantic relationship and although some of the proceedings that took place may make you raise an eyebrow, the reality, as he puts it was, ‘you don’t know what goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults.”

The jury will judge whose version to accept —

His: That it was a BDSM relationship and he could not get rid of his horny submissive, who kept thirsting for more.

Hers: That he brainwashed the poor dear, and her apparent consent was no consent at all – for he had her under his mental thrall.  Then when the poor-feeble-because-she-is-a-women little love would not be brainwashed anymore, he gave her enough pain to get her to leave, making her permanently mentally scarred, never to be happy again. It took her all these decades finally to realize what he had done, thankfully before old Alflatt went to meet his maker.

The jury is in deliberations ,and halted for the weekend, are expected to resume on Monday.

The case reminds me of a joke. A woman says, “you bad Vicar, I think this is sadomasochism, but you better whip me again to make sure.”

On the other hand, this is a politically correct prosecution, guaranteed to make headlines. Nobody gives a damn that these events happened 30-plus years ago and there is a reason for statute of limitations for almost all crimes except murder – for evidence is gone, witnesses gone, versions shift, memory fades, and the damn crime is not so damn serious – it is a joke – 35 years later.

But this is new justice – prosecutor-driven 100 percent – and prosecutors hungry-for-headlines’ gold. It’s adultery; he a vicar, so its extra religiosity, scandalous, brainwashing, a new buzzword for us feeble women, or, if you like better, “coercive control” and weak little woman, an adult at the time, not mentally incompetent, is a victim for, after all, her identity is shielded. It must be shielded. She cannot be brave enough to use her name while she ruins the reputation of the man with the accusation alone.

So the public understands: You don’t shield a woman’s name unless she is a true victim: the poor woman, and that horribly brutal man who brainwashed her and beat her fanny with a stick.

If she had gone to the police 30, even 25 years ago, I could buy it. I guess the old vicar has some money, and if she wins this case, it will be ripe for a civil suit unless, of course, the statute of limitations has run out.

Very suspicious doings in merry old England.

Anna Mercury