Monday 28 December 2015

Organised UK Child Abuse Prevention?

The following is the text of a petition document submitted to the European Parliament by Sabine McNeill, currently under conditions of house arrest in the UK, for championing the case of the Gareeva family, after the children made widely publicised and horrendous claims of abuse by individuals associated with a north London Church and School. 

The claims were dismissed by police following a perfunctory investigation and by a Family Court Judge after a 'fact finding hearing' in partial secrecy, in which the mother was not represented and did not attend. 

Since that date the children have been in enforced 'local authority care' and the mother and her parents effectively refused access, although none of the accusations by the children were directed at them. 

Subsequently the Court of Appeal, surprisingly some might think, given the convincing and detailed nature of the children's testimony, refused to allow an appeal against the judgement. 

None of those accused, save the principal, were interviewed by police, and then excluding many of the specific allegations. Rather incredibly, he has been given access, whereas the blameless mother has been prevented from even contacting them! 

This inexplicable reversal of natural justice has been replicated in the pursuit by police of all those who have championed the children's case, including M/s McNeill who was arrested and placed under onerous bail conditions, her property raided and computers removed for breaching a Family Court secrecy order, which she strenuously denies. 

Incredibly not one computer was seized from any of the accused abusers! In fact it appears the principal accused was forewarned within hours of the first accusation being made to the police, contrary to all norms of criminal investigations. 

Many millions around the world have watched multiple videos of the children's accounts and been outraged, but this has had little practical effect to protect the children or return them to their rightful family. 

There has been no rational explanation from the British Ministry of Justice for this lamentable state of affairs and in consequence it has brought the whole English Family Court System - already subject to much profound criticism - into further disrepute.

Another hearing is scheduled for February, 2016 to decide the children's fate. The omens are not good that they will be returned to their mother.

The case has raised wider issues relating to how child cases are investigated and treated by all the relevant agencies, and whether it has revealed a wider network involving elements of secret ritual practices, including child sacrifice as the children have in some detail, alleged! 

Within the context of recent revelations of institutional abuse, involving numerous high profile political and other influential figures and widespread concern over the multiple failures to follow up past cases in Britain, these claims cannot be taken lightly. The more that is learned about recent and past cases around the world, the more credible the accounts become. 

The topic is currently subject to several national police and judicial enquiries. This particular case however suggests that fundamental deficiencies still exist that make the welfare of children and proper examination of their compelling testimony very secondary to secrecy and cover-up.

M/s McNeill makes the case for general failure in the system, allowing uniquely in Europe, children being forcibly removed against the wishes of either or both parents. This she asserts is a relatively unpublicised national scandal that requires wholesale reform. The European Parliament and Commission appear to have given indications, partly as a result of her efforts, that they agree with her.

Her Majesty the Queen in her traditional Christmas address made reference to 'moments of darkness' in the past year.  She also quoted as a beacon of hope, a passage from St. John's Gospel, 'The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it’. 

She may not have been thinking of this particular case or the topic of the state's treatment of mothers and their children but it certainly qualifies for inclusion. As does the hope that the light that Ms McNeill and others have attempted to shine on the undoubted 'darkness' and injustice witnessed, will indeed be overcome."
(TTV)





Association of McKenzie Friends
voluntary public interest advocacy

Chairperson: Belinda McKenzie -- Web Publisher: Sabine K McNeill
EU Law Specialist: Deborah Mahmoudieh


27 December 2015


Using Bail Conditions to Prevent Online Exposure of Organised Child Abuse in the UK
Second Amendment to Petition 1707/2013 to Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent


Executive Summary
  1. This submission follows the second arrest of the petitioner by UK Police, claiming ‘harassment’ and ‘malicious communication’ on behalf of thirty plus ‘innocent abusers’ of two child witnesses and 18 other child victims.
  2. Instead of protecting the petitioner as a public whistlebloweri, Police have shocked and traumatised her by treating her as a ‘Criminal Suspect’: body searches and being locked up in a police cell, with flat searches and seizing property, while doing interviews.
  3. The bail conditions imposed by Police prevent her from travelling and publishing anything about her arrest.
  4. They also prevent her from publishing about the children and their Russian mother, whom she assisted from November 2014 to February 2015, the parents of the other child victims, and the seventy plus adults whom the ‘Hampstead Children’ accuse of rape, torture, sodomy and other crimesii.
  5. By the end of March 2016, the petitioner will have lived under these restrictions without charge for seven months.
  6. After UK authorities failed to follow the Rule of Law, she sought the Court of Public Opinion as legally competent authority, in the spirit of EU Directive 2011/92iii on combating child sexual abuse.
  7. The UK father is being accused by his then 8- and 9-year-old boy and girl of being the leader of a cult around Christchurchiv and other schools in London Hampstead, when they gave testimony on video.


The Challenging Context
  1. Petition 1707/2013 has a rich history since its first verbal presentationv to the Petitions Committee before the 2014 election, when 30 parents accompanied the petitioner, hoping to get their children returned from care or adoptions against their will.
  2. Its online versionvi has currently over 5,500 signatures. With a view to discussions in EU Parliament and EU Council, the title has been changed to “Protect the best interest of the child (across borders) in EU Parliament and EU Council!”
  3. The evidence to back up claims and requests includes not only over 20 petitions from the UK, but also these submissions:
  4. Significant actions with a view to changing the unacceptable situation have included:
    1. regarding the EU Commission:
      1. a meeting in December 2014ix with Chiara Adamo, Head of the Fundamental Rights and Rights of the Child Unit and colleagues, sponsored by Tatjana Zdanoka MEP;
      3. refusal of participation to four international victims and advocates in the 9th European Forum on the Rights of the Child by Margaret Tuite, Coordinator for Rights of the Child, in June 2015;
      4. the unfulfilled promise of a response to our report Discrepancies between EU Directive 2011/92 and the UK Family Court Systemx;
      5. the reasonable suspicion that any revision of the Brussels IIa regulationxi regarding matrimonial and parental judgements will NOT acknowledge the difference between custody issues among parents and the ‘corporate parenting’ role that the UK State has been assuming in insidiously growing and heinous ways;
    2. regarding EU Member States:
      1. Social Services in Europe: legislation and practice of the removal of children from their families in Council of Europe member Statesxii was published for the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development of the Council of Europe, by Ms Olga Borzova of the Russian Federation in January 2015 and was on the agenda in April 2015;
      2. Section 5.4 lists a number of ‘abusive’ practices that includes taking babies at birth and are standard in the UK;
      3. the resulting ‘hidden population’ was revealed by a recent report: 85,000 children deprived of their 43,000 mothers by UK family court systemxiii;
      4. via the BBC, the Prime Minister commented: worst children’s services face takeoverxiv;
    3. regarding the PETI Committee:
      1. five EU delegates participated in the Round Table on Child Protection at the Slovak Embassyxv in May 2015;
      2. Dr Claire Fenton-Glynn presented Adoptions without Consentxvi to the Committee in July 2015 and our critiquexvii was sent to all PETI members;
      3. we have challenged the accuracy of the report with the Commissioning Officer Ottavio Marzocchi without positive acknowledgement of the issue;
      4. a joint workshopxviii between the Petitions and the Legal Committee took the challenges on board;
      5. however, Sir Mathew Thorpexix claimed on the occasion that the report is ‘completely reliable’; we have evidence of him having adopted one ‘Alex Thorpe’ against his parents’ will: they recently showed a photo of their son to the local post office who recognised the boy;
      6. eight MEPs came for a fact finding visitxx in November 2015;
      7. a working group has been established with Eleanora Evi MEP as chair, to focus on child rights across Europe.


From ‘Public Interest Petitioner’ to ‘Public Whistleblowers’xxi
  1. The systemic aspect of institutionalised child snatchingxxii presented so far, has now lead to intimidating, threatening, arresting and harassing the petitioner and others as whistleblowers. Hence it has to be noted that an Infringement Noticexxiii of the EU Directive was issued against the UK Government in January 2014 and closed in July 2015 with denial of public disclosure by the EU Commission.
  2. Barnet Police are supposedly acting on behalf of about thirty of the seventy plus alleged abusers, some of whom are named by the children on video. Videos were recorded privately by the mother, her partner and a family friend, as well as by Police, when the mother reported the crimes in September 2014.
  3. As a result, her then 8- and 9-year old children were taken into care by Barnet Council. The mother fled jurisdiction when nine Police Officers attended her house without a warrant.
  4. The petitioner fled to her native Germany to avoid prosecution and the threat of imprisonment made by a secret family court against her and the mother in a Position Statementxxiv by Barnet Council and a Penal Noticexxv made by ‘judge JJ’ on 10 February 2015.
  5. These documents were the response to a number of online publications by the petitioner. Most popular became Return the Whistleblower Kids to their Russian Familyxxvi, which was eventually taken down with close to 16,000 signatures. Her blog In the Best Interests of the ‘Whistleblower Kids’?xxvii has attracted over 205,000 visits since February 2015, despite ‘gagging’ since August 2015.


Denial and Cover-Ups by Judgement
  1. A ‘fact finding hearing’ of the secret court took place without the mother or any legal representation, and the judgementxxviii was published in March 2015, denying the children’s allegations, without hearing them, and ignoring the medical evidence available to support their testimonials. Instead, Mrs Justice Pauffley estimated the internet community to consist of 4 ‘evil and / or foolish’ million viewers.
  2. However, the outcry in this Court of Public Opinion continues to be heard. A recent video by an US online analyst and news reporter is the 35-minute video Hampstead Abuse Update: This Isn’t Over.xxix
  3. American abuse survivor David Shurterxxx talking to the mother, in radio interviews and on his websitexxxi confirmed the children’s allegations from his own experiences.
    1. The medical findings by Dr Hodes were ignored by the Police. They did not warrant arresting the father or any of the other abusers named.
    2. None of the other abusers were interviewed. The Police report mentions only one suspect: the father.
    3. None of the other 18 children allegedly abused were interviewed.
    4. A hair follicle test was conducted, but the results were not made available to the mother. The boy spoke about sniffing white stuff. Did the children test positive for illegal substances?
    5. In Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement, only one paragraph was dedicated to the father which was a lie: he was NOT questioned about the whole series of allegations. He was not questioned at all.
    6. The Police ignored the places named by the children where abuse took place. Forensic evidence could have been found at the school, the church and teachers’ houses. The Police report says: No scene to preserve.
    7. The school, one of the main sites for abuse, was tipped off.
    8. The father, the main suspect, was tipped off by Police.
    9. The family reported first to a family friend who works for Haringey Police. These audio recordings, as well as home produced videos, were ignored as evidence and taken into storage.
    10. The police and the judge ignored the fact that the children repeated their allegations to the foster carer and spoke about nightmares about their father coming to kill them. They also ignored the children recognising the lubricant used for their abuse in a shop.
    11. The judge called her inquiry in a secret family court ‘forensic’ and ‘full and thorough’. She ignored the fact that none of the suspects were interviewed.
    12. The Police report does NOT classify this as Hate Crime / Domestic Incident / Carer Abuse.
    13. The Police interrupted the boy mid-sentence during the interview – according to Police report because support from specialist practitioners was needed, but the interviewing officer continued with the girl and the children did not receive any support. Instead the boy was left on his own for 20 minutes when he started to cry.
    14. The Police report states that the father’s arrest would be considered, once his address had been identified. But they invited him for an interview.
    15. Mrs Pauffley’s judgement refers 31 times to Dr Hodes when she ignores the medical findings that support the children’s allegations and disqualifies the expert.
    16. She states that the police were undertaking inquiries when Dr Hodes invited the mother to discuss her version. But the Police report does not record any such inquiry at that time.
    17. The father claims in his police interview that the mother told the children what to say and that he recorded all their skype calls. Why have his computers not been seized to confirm this?
    18. No real reason is given for the third Police interview in which the children retract their allegations. By then the Police failed to investigate any of the children’s accusations.
    19. A press release was published for the mainstream media about the mother and her partner having forced the children into making these ‘false’ allegations - before the judgement was handed down.
    20. Did the Police seize any CCTV footage of the church or the school? The report does not mention any.


Two Arrests, Flat Searches and Bail Conditions to ‘Gag’
  1. The petitioner’s bail conditions were imposed by Police on 04 August 2015 after an arrest at the Royal Courts of Justice, tipped off by the father’s barrister, despite the petitioner’s solicitor’s attempt to make an appointment for an interview to ‘surrender’. Eight minutes were recorded on videoxxxiv .
  2. This arrest was based on the supposed harassment by the ‘innocent abusers’ due to the alleged publication of their names, which the petitioner has always denied. The Protection of Harassment Actxxxv protects the petitioner as she was acting in the pursuit of detecting crime.
  3. However, Draconian conditions included
    1. to reside at her address to prevent disappearance;
    2. to report to Police three times a week between 1200 and 1400;
    3. to surrender passport to prevent disappearance;
    4. not to publish any material of any description to make comments on any media format relating to your arrest for this matter – to prevent further offences or obstruction of justice”
    5. nor to make any comments on any media format about ED, ED’s children, CC School, the parents of any children at the school, any staff or clerby related to this investigation.
  4. The petitioner’s chronic pain condition had been impacted so badly by the severity of traumatisation that she could not attend to Police and her solicitor succeeded in changing reporting to curfew.
  5. The second arrest on 21 December 2015 seems to have been triggered by the supposed malicious communication in this blog postxxxvi: the words ‘Hampstead Children’ linked to the petitioner’s album with the children’s testimonial videos some of them name some of the abusers.
  6. Bailed until 28.03.16, the petitioner has removed all videos. Bail conditions were repeated without the need to report to Police.
  7. On both occasions, the petitioner’s flat was searched and ‘electronic property’ was seized on the second visit. Phones and property seized at the Police Station on 04 August 2015 have not been returned yet.
  8. By 28 March 2016, the petitioner will have been put under these restrictions for 7 months without charge.


The Alleged Abusers: Innocent until proven Guilty while Activists are treated as ‘Criminal Suspects’?
  1. The petitioner has been treated as a ‘Criminal Suspect’ by UK Police, ever since she fled UK jurisdiction in February 2011. This included an alert to Interpol at highest terrorist level until shortly after the publication of the judgement.
  2. Further to all these very unbelievable statements, it has to be taken on board that the children describe in great detail the genitals of some of their abusers, as in this videoxxxvii.
  3. An online petitionxxxviii demanding that these distinguishing marks are to be examined is supported by over 2,000 signatures.
  4. US Activist Sheriff Sandsxxxix was arrested, imprisoned and taken to court. Before she travelled back to the US, she was fined with £185 and a suspended prison sentence.
  5. UK Activist Neelu Barryxl was arrested, imprisoned and taken to court on a number of occasions, and property was seized. The accusing party consists of two of the alleged abusers with distinguishing marks. But they did not show up for the court hearing. Final outcomes are still outstanding.
  6. Furthermore, Neelu Barry has evidence of three actors impersonating retired Police to potentially make arrests.


Who Harasses Whom?
  1. Online harassment abounds not only against the petitioner but other McKenzie Friends and Angelsxli, originating mainly from the blog Hoaxtead Researchxlii that lists all ‘prominent activists’. The name is to mimic Hampstead Researchxliii, the blog that produced remarkable investigative videosxliv.
  2. The blog Dearman Does Hampsteadxlv demonstrates that its publisher is the accused father. Slanderous and libellous posts include the publication of the petitioner’s bail conditions, sick note and arrests.
  3. Furthermore, the Police were falsely alerted due to public meetings having been announced on Children’s Rights Firstxlvi: first at the British Computer Societyxlvii and then at the Theatro Technisxlviii.
  4. The petitioner had a brick at the front door of her flat on 03 October and was verbally assaulted at a bus stop on 06 December 2015.
  5. Another seriously harassed victim is co-founder of the Association of McKenzie Friends Belinda McKenziexlix who fled UK jurisdiction, after having been handed an order to appear for a court hearing two days later. She didn’t go, but five police were waiting at the Royal Courts of Justice.
  6. Together, the petitioner and Belinda McKenzie will have to face a court hearing in January 2016. They are supposed to pay for the costs of the private barrister whom the UK Government hired accusing the McKenzie Friends of wasting the Court’s time when representing US mother Melissa Lairdl.
  7. She was deported from Holloway prison, even though an oral hearing had been scheduled, while her son had been put up for adoption – by Barnet Council – the same local authority responsible for the Hampstead Children. Whilst in prison, it was impossible to get papers signed and send and McKenzie Friends helped to file a Judicial Review.


The Best Interest of the Hampstead Children
  1. Custody of the Hampstead Children is expected to be given to the father in February 2016. Apparently, the children refused to go with him at the time of the last Order and are still staying with foster parents. They have not seen their mother with whom they lived all their lives since February 2015. Whilst beign hosted by the Russian Embassy, their grandparentsli were asked by Barnet Council to sign a statement affirming the judgement against their daughter - in exchange for seeing their grandchildren. Hence they have not had contact with them either, even though they are the best possible care solution for the truly best interest of the children.
  2. This submission relates especially to the original petition, as the two child witnesses reported abuse in the offices of CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services) and by Social Services. They also reported that some of their friends and child victims were adopted.
  3. Forced Adoption in the United Kingdomlii has become an entry in Wikipaedia - without input from the petitioner - who wrote The European Dimensions of Forced Adoptionsliii: Imposed by Judges – against Parents’ Wills – in Secret Family Courts.


Colindale Police – the Child ‘Protection’ Unit for Barnet, Westminster and Surrey Council
  1. Since assisting the mother of the Hampstead children, the Association of McKenzie Friends has helped one mother whose five children have been given to their abusive father by Westminster Council, just as the two children snatched by Surrey Council whose paedophile father has mounted unbelievable crimes against their mother, currently on bail after two months of unlawful imprisonment.
  2. The three cases have Officers of Barnet Police in common, even though Walton-on-Thames is 25 miles away from Barnet.
  3. As McKenzie Friends, we know that this sounds like “over the top” and “can’t be true”. It is only through the collective experience of a network of people all over the country who have dealt with many cases over many years that we could establish
  4. In this spirit 90-year-old McKenzie Friend Norman Scarthlvi submitted his EU petition to complain: The UK is a Rogue State. He feels deeply betrayed as WWII veteran, hounded by UK authorities, ever since he won his case in the European Court of Human Rights. This included incarceration in a mental hospital.


From ‘Perfidious Albion’ to ‘A Rotten Country’
  1. Historically, Perfidious Albionlvii has meant not implementing international treaties and agreements. To be member of the EU, but not implementing its Human Rights Articles 1 and 13, and not following EU Directives, is one such aspect, as every decision is up to individual judges and immunity protects civil servants from prosecution. Hence this latest online petition asking the Ministry of Justice to fully implement EU and UN Directives across Britainlviii.
  2. Current news in the German paper FAZ have been:
    1. In a Rotten Countrylix about abuse in Oxfordshire and Rotherham;
    2. The Unspoken Ethnic Dimension about rape in Rotherham;
    3. the Süddeutsche Zeit published: Rotherham – the Tacit Citylx.
    4. a long list of links to international mainstream media covering the UK scandals is at the bottom of British Monarchy | UK Parliamentary Paedophilialxi.
  3. Child abuse has been regularly documented by
    1. Children Screaming to be Heardlxii - a charity addressing the issues;
    2. The UK and Ireland Data Baselxiii with over 41,000 registered sex offenders;
    3. The Coleman Experiencelxiv- “about the shenanigans in Westminster and beyond”;
      1. VIP child abuse and the missing religionlxv explains the Talmud as the basis for Satanism;
      2. The Alternative Queen’s Christmas Speech could not be more explicit;
    4. Cathy Foxlxvi – publishing officially released historic reports and child sexual abuse;
    5. Aangirfanlxvii- joining most remarkable dots systematically and internationally;
    6. Hollie Greig Justicelxviii – the cover-up of a woman with Down Syndrome abused by Scottish VIPs.
  4. The petitioner was 4 months old when her then 22-year-old mother saved her from the bombings of Dresdenlxix that were carried out by the British Royal Air Force. She hopes that her life experiences contribute to a future for children and grandchildren that enhance rather than deteriorate life on earth.







Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. Veaterecosan22 January 2016 at 16:54

    An early interview with Leon Brittan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EwpdtZwlVQ

    ReplyDelete
  2. Veaterecosan18 February 2016 at 17:02

    Published on 25 Oct 2015
    A very important update in the Hampstead abuse case that summarizes the case and speaks directly to people doubting the veracity of the children's claims.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tekb1ozVBJk

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)