Big Sal Cranium - Bully Awareness

06/22/2026

Now look how the tables have turned.

For months, these same people claimed they were all about awareness, truth, and protecting others. Yet here we are watching them target someone whose biggest offense appears to be befriending Lesley.

Beverly has done nothing more than form a friendship, and suddenly she finds herself under scrutiny. Why? What exactly has she done that warrants this level of attention and criticism?

To me, this proves what many of us have been saying all along: some people will take any opportunity to bully someone if it means going after a person they don't like. It doesn't matter who gets caught in the crossfire. If you're associated with the "wrong" person, you're fair game.

At some point, people have to ask themselves whether this behavior is really about awareness or whether it's about control.

Which brings me to another question: Has Stephanie lost control? Because it seems like the standards keep changing depending on who the target is. One day people are told to stay away from someone, and the next day anyone who speaks to them becomes the new target.

And while we're on the subject, the Beehive isn't nearly as private as Stephanie seems to think it is. Information has a way of finding its way out, and when it does, people get a glimpse of what is really being said and done behind the scenes. The more that comes to light, the easier it becomes to understand what many of us have been pointing out all along.

Friendship is not a crime. Being kind to someone is not a crime. Having a conversation with someone is not a crime.

What is concerning is how quickly some people are willing to dogpile another person simply because they don't approve of who that person talks to. That says far more about the bullies than it does about Beverly.

06/22/2026

This post was made April 2026

06/22/2026

This screenshot is from Fraud Awareness, and the typewritten wording is from them as well.

Do they not realize that paying for a baby would be illegal? They claim this information came directly from the biological mother's family. If Fraud Awareness wants to present that claim as fact, then wouldn't that mean they are also presenting an illegal act as having occurred?

What I find interesting is that they seem to want people to believe this proves Lesley somehow scammed the biological mother out of money. But if the claim is that money was exchanged for a baby, wouldn't that be illegal in the first place?

The logic simply doesn't add up.

Fraud Awareness must think their followers are gullible enough not to question these contradictions. Instead of encouraging critical thinking, they appear to expect people to accept every claim at face value without asking whether it even makes sense.

They say this information came from the biological mother's family, yet Fraud Awareness writes it as if it were an established fact. Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Repeating an allegation does not magically make it true.

Common sense should also tell people that social workers and the court system would have been involved since the Bakers were granted guardianship. That involvement means there was a legal process that had to be followed. Guardianship is not simply handed out without oversight. With those facts in mind, I have a hard time accepting Fraud Awareness' claim that a baby was "bought."

Once again, Fraud Awareness seems to be presenting assumptions and allegations as though they are established facts. An awareness page should be focused on facts, evidence, and truth—not speculation, opinions, and narratives designed to push people toward a predetermined conclusion.

If someone is going to make serious accusations, then they should be prepared to provide proof. Otherwise, all they are doing is fueling gossip and encouraging people to accept claims without evidence.

Awareness groups should report facts. Facts don't need embellishment. Facts don't need assumptions. Facts can stand on their own.

Unfortunately, too often we see opinions being presented as facts, and that is the exact opposite of what a true awareness page should be doing.

06/22/2026

Is this really what the awareness community has been reduced to, posts built around comments like “we was told”?
Putting the glaring grammatical error aside, where exactly is the evidence? Because the only person I have seen make the claim that Lesley and Anthony were “paying the bio mom” is Miss Barkley herself.
This is supposedly coming from pages that want to be taken seriously?
No receipts. No verification. No standards. Just “we was told”, which says far more about the people posting it than the people they are trying to target.
Is this now the standard for facts and truth on these self proclaimed awareness pages?
For pages that constantly preach about “facts” and “bringing awareness,” they seem remarkably comfortable publishing whatever drivel falls out of the mouth of an “informant”. At some point, continuing to repeat obvious rubbish is not ignorance, it is wilful dishonesty.
This is not awareness, not truth, and certainly not facts, it’s just more recycled gossip, hearsay, and baseless allegations being dressed up as “information” for an audience gullible enough to swallow it.
If “we was told” is now the benchmark for awareness, then those pages are not investigators, advocates, or truth tellers. The only thing those pages are exposing is their own complete lack of credibility.

06/22/2026

What in the tarnation is this? Bullying is one thing, but making wild speculations like this is downright hysterical. I feel as though I lost a few IQ points just reading it.

But seriously, let's address this with a little logic. Fraud Awareness identifies itself as an awareness group, yet time and time again the focus seems to drift away from awareness and toward personal attacks, assumptions, and ridicule. If the mission is truly to bring awareness to scams, then where does a statement like this fit into that mission?

Awareness should be about facts, evidence, education, and helping people make informed decisions. Speculation, gossip, and personal insults don't expose scams—they simply create more division and hostility.

So I'll ask again: How does a statement like this combat scamming? How does it educate anyone? How does it protect potential victims?

From where I'm sitting, it doesn't. It only serves to mock, provoke, and encourage more bullying. If a group claims to stand against wrongdoing, then its actions should reflect that purpose. Otherwise, people are left wondering whether the goal is really awareness at all.

In fact, one could argue that Fraud Awareness is scamming its own followers by fraudulently presenting itself as an awareness page while repeatedly engaging in behavior that looks more like bullying and gossip. If a page claims to be dedicated to exposing scams but spends its time promoting speculation, personal attacks, and drama, then people have every right to question whether it is honestly representing its purpose.

An awareness page should bring awareness. When the content consistently fails to do that, the credibility of the page itself naturally comes into question.

06/21/2026

06/21/2026

I think we all know how this YouTube fiasco is likely to end.
I generally avoid making assumptions, the very thing those self proclaimed awareness pages seem to thrive on, but I’ll make an exception in this case.
That YouTube channel will eventually disappear.
At present, it serves as the only source for the blocked trolls on Lesley’s videos, and it provides a convenient source of content for those pages that claim to be raising awareness while continuing to target, criticize, and harass under the veil of awareness. Without that, much of their content and engagement would disappear with it.
There are only two likely outcomes. Either Ms Green and Ms Hudson are able to consistently repost Lesley’s content on their own YouTube channel, making the current channel redundant, or Lesley successfully has it removed through copyright infringements.
Whatever happens, don’t be surprised when the same self proclaimed awareness pages declare it a “victory” and claim that their continued reporting had the desired effect.