A Modern 'Holy Maid of Kent' (or Hampstead)?

I have every sympathy with Neelu's situation and empathise with her in what must be a very stressful and trying time. I believe organs of the state have assumed a confrontational position in order to disrupt and neutralize those that have attempted, not always in the most tactful and effective manner it must be said, to highlight the crimes reported by the children and the unprofessional (to say the least) way it has been handled by police, crown prosecution service, courts and other organisations charged with upholding justice and the rule of law.

The treatment of Neelu is yet another layer of incomprehensible over-reaction and heavy-handedness that we have come to associate with totalitarian regimes behind the 'Iron Curtain' and elsewhere. Indeed the behaviour of the authorities in response to the original allegations, and subsequently to anyone who has pleaded that they should be treated with the seriousness and gravity they deserve, is sufficient to make any fair-minded British subject, raised on the belief that freedom and justice prevailed in this land at least; and that innocent victims would be protected by the law; reassess their position. So many opportunities to recognise and correct the errors have been afforded and yet ignored or denied, that it is difficult to conclude any other than the system in this instance has, for some undisclosed reason, been incorrigibly and irretrievably, corrupted and that Neelu Berry has been chosen as a convenient scape-goat and warning to others.

Those in charge of the process should be advised that the world is still watching and the ramifications go far wider than one individual, as they strike at the heart of British justice and international standards of decency. The action taken by the police and prosecution authorities in this case appear to be out of all proportion to the initial alleged misdemeanor, that is there for all to see on video recording. I believe the action taken at Christ Church Hampstead was somewhat misguided and counter-productive, and particularly what can only be described as the offensive rabble rousing by the somewhat mysterious and dubious Christine Anne Sands outside the Church to parishioners and passers by. She has been dealt with leniently and expeditiously by the courts, and some might think rather suspiciously.

However Neelu Berry's involvement from what we can observe, although perhaps akin to the street preacher or Jehovah's Witness arriving at the door, somewhat unwelcomed and embarrassing, yet falling far short of offensive or criminal behaviour. This view was supported it would seem by no less a person than District Judge McPhee on 06 April 2015, who stated he was “not seeing a criminal charge”. Why then was the case not thrown out at that stage? Subsequently we see it being inflated, with nothing to support it, through "harassment" to the very serious one of "perverting the course of justice" that must have had the support of high level Crown Prosecution officials (DPP) to be even considered. (We cannot forget the contrasting decision of Alison Saunders not to proceed against Lord Greville Janner) Then the added fundamental failure to provide her lawyers in good time with their case called 'disclosure' required in all criminal cases, and particularly in potentially serious one.

We are faced incontrovertibly with a situation where the DPP appears to be reluctant to prosecute high profile persons for serious crimes yet 'throws the book' at relatively insignificant persons for little or nothing even constituting a 'crime'. It is hard to find explanations for this other than the obvious and disreputable ones. Make no mistake, the reputation of the DPP is at stake here.

It is an example of the State bearing down on an individual, with all the limitless resources at its disposal of men and material, to achieve an wholly contemptible, even sordid, end, namely the silencing of a 'troublesome priest'; the suppression of an inconvenient truth. The charges have been inflated despite an absence of evidence to support the initial lesser ones. The courts have failed their primary role of independent arbiter of the facts and guarantor of basic intrinsic freedoms of all UK citizens.

Englishmen generally abhor bullies, and there is sufficient evidence here to an elderly and disabled woman (handcuffs, forced entry and removal of property without warrant, incarceration in cells for many hours etc) the police on behalf of the state, are acting as such, and they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for so doing. It can only be described as thinly veiled and unlawful intimidation.

In fact it rather reminds me of the action taken by Henry VIII against Elizabeth Barton, the so-called "Holy Maid of Kent" and similar titles, who despite a popular following and royal support, in 1533 was forced to confess that she had fabricated her revelations and was subsequently hanged at Tyburn, suffering other singular indignities. Interestingly she was condemned by an attainder permitted by an act of Parliament, authorising punishment without trial. She may have said unpalatable things, 'speaking truth unto power' but her offence was much exaggerated. She was dealt with harshly and disproportionately because she challenged authority and the ego's of a few powerful men. The police and courts unfortunately still retail that aversion to being challenged, even when it is incontrovertibly justified.

We now look back on such things in horror believing we have moved on and would never allow such things to happen again. The case of Neelu Berry should be regarded as a cautionary tale: we may not have advanced as much as we thought!