Wednesday, 24 February 2016


Hampstead Abuse Case - One Year On

Fifteen months have now elapsed since two Hampstead children were forcibly removed from their mother without good reason. They have not been returned and remain in the care system. The only people prosecuted to date have been individuals who sought to represent the mother and children. Almost a year ago, the children's maternal Russian grandparents were interviewed. The moving session was published on the web and can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF1ewVyHMVw . With criminal prosecutions of two activists imminently pending, in addition to a further Family Court hearing to determine the fate of the children, many may be interested to read or refresh their memory of the debate attached to the video. Needless to say the children and their welfare has been encased in almost total state secrecy and contact with their mother prevented. None of their accusations have been properly investigated.  People should be advised that the genetic father against whom many of the complaints were made, has been noted for multiple internet personalities, some of which are revealed here. Readers will make up their own minds what, if anything, this suggests.

MANY MORE COMMENTS CAN BE VIEWED ON THE YOUTUBE VIDEO.

re. Hampstead alleged abused children I feel obliged to write to you regarding the above, in a case that is currently pending before Her Hon. Judge Dame Pauffley. The case has attracted international attention, so I am sure I am not the only one to express concern regarding it. The eyes of the world are upon what has happened to date and the need for a speedy and just resolution in the best interests of the children involved. The process and outcome will be viewed as an acid test, in the context of numerous recent high profile cases, most recently in Oxford, of both Judge Pauffley's public pronouncements and the whole British justice system. We are not in a position to know whether the well publicised claims of the children, are true in fact or not. We are however able to conclude that they have been remarkably consistent and detailed, displaying anatomical, physiological, geographical and procedural information, that in children of that age is highly unlikely to have been gained from imagination or coaching alone, even were that to be the case. Perhaps more importantly the information has been corroborated (incredibly ignored by police) by medical, behavioural and third party evidence. In short their statements have been credible and compelling and must not be dismissed out of hand, as appears to have been done so far. Secondly, were we to accept that the children's testimony was embroidered, exaggerated or even inaccurate, in part at least, it is thoroughly consistent in this regard at least, that the natural father is the subject and focus of the specific claims of abuse. This is corroborated by other evidence of related violence, in which the police were involved, that led to the mother being given full custody and limitations placed on his access, which it is alleged he flouted, seeing the children, it is claimed by them, daily. They also claim they were under threat of death by him were they to reveal what he had done. Yet despite this, quite incredibly, he has apparently been afforded access to the children by the Family Court, whilst the mother, against whom no suggestion of abuse has been levelled, indeed both children in police interviews repeatedly restated her love and care, has been forced to flee the country, on threat of arrest! Thirdly, in view of the nature of the allegation by two young children, of both rape and murder, the police approach has been as inexplicable as it has been incompetent.  As far as it appears, no concrete steps were taken to properly inquire into the specific allegations, either to substantiate or disprove them. This repeats what has been revealed most recently in the Oxford and Rotherham cases - i.e. a refusal to believe or to act on information received. This is then compounded by the way the children were treated in three interview situations that are now widely available on the internet. Can it be right that these highly vulnerable children were questioned by a male officer, alone and unsupported? Has the Metropolitan Police learned nothing in such cases? Further that the evidence is there to see that the officer in question appears unable or unwilling to seek detailed information about the alleged abuse or to follow natural lines of enquiry provided by the children's statements. Rather quite the opposite, on the third occasion, seeks to prompt confusion and retraction, upon which flimsy basis the police decide no further action is necessary. In contrast to this inactivity, "ten burly officers", could be provided, to arrest, without warrant, the mother at her home? What sort of 'topsy turvy' - even corrupt - country are we living in, when officers sworn to protect life and property and uphold the law, operate in such a perverse fashion? In the light of all this, I sincerely hope that justice will at last prevail, and the High Court at least can be trusted to secure it, by returning the children without further delay to their mother or at least the maternal grand parents, who appear more than competent to provide them with a safe and caring home, that all the grandeur of the British State has so far, conspicuously failed to do. Yours sincerely, Tim Veater.
Hide replies 
Momai777 
Well stated logic, thank you.
Lyn Smith 
Well said indeed, Tim. Ah yes, the voice of reason. I remember it well. All be it a dim and distant memory in the Britain of today.
Tim Veater 
+Edmondo Willy suggest you study the article below. It might help your understanding of the issue. http://www.gundersenhealth.org/upload/docs/NCPTC/CenterPiece/Vol1%20Issue%206.pdf
Edmondo Willy 
+Tim Veater So you aren't qualified to comment and have no inside knowledge of the police investigation then?
Tim Veater 
More or less than you?
Lyn Smith 
Edmondo. Why are you being so vile to people on this comment site? There is absolutely no reason for it. State your opinion and leave it at that. No need for personal attacks. Unless perhaps that is all you have
Edmondo Willy 
+Lyn Smith Questioning somebody on whether they are qualified to make assessments on how the children act on video is not being vile.
7miranda 
+Edmondo Willy Every loving mother who has grown up children - and most loving fathers too - are more qualified to assess all the videos that the children spoke in ...way more qualified than the SS women and the police thugs who make profit for themselves and the government by fulfilling a 'quota' by taking a set number of children away from their parents each month. You are obviously a troll
Kathryn Quella 
Please add my name to this petition too. I agree to the above written statement by Tim Veater. Thank you, Kathryn Quella
Not SoFast 
+Tim Veater Loving mother allowed Abe to jam that spoon into Alyssa's jaw. Do not ever let that freak (mother) have those kids. She makes them yummy hemp soup. Mom will continue to bring boyfriends. She is unfit.
Diane Evans 
What happened to these children and their mother, grand parents?
Betty Pak 
Are the children being kept from their grandparents so that the children can be brainwashed? Trauma is an aspect of brainwashing.
Hide replies 
pookster78 
No,it's because social services cannot trust that the grandparents won't allow ED and AC access to the children, or try take them abroad.  Further, the father has legal rights to see the children, as they are British citizens, which would be complicated by them living with the grandparents. If the mother had stood up to Abrahams little plan she would still have the kids.
Betty Pak 
pookster78...thanks...
Rob James 
+pookster78 So why were the questions not allowed, such as 'what have you done in your free time?' 'Are you being bullied'
pookster78 
+Rob James They are generic questions so that a parent with some access does not get to know the every day pattern of the childrens lives. Basically in case someone tries to kidnap  their children back. These grandparents gave evidence on March 4th to the custody hearing. They say in their opinion the stories the children told are fantasy and nonsense.
Igor Proskurov (iPro Vision) 
+pookster78 It's too much of you here, trying to put nonsense. People here are not as stupid as you think or hope.Could you do us a favour please? Find another place for your typing. I can even refer you a company, you definitely know him (Edmondo). )))
Rob James 
+pookster78 oh ok, that makes sense. It's pretty convincing after watching the confession interviews from the children that they made it up. Still one thing is the injuries to the boy, he didn't have an answer for. I guess we will never know.
Igor Proskurov (iPro Vision) 
+pookster78 As I said many times "no real person - no discussion". Nobody ask questions to you personally. So, please, find another place.
pookster78 
+Rob James It has come to light in the judges review that the medical examiner passed her findings to colleagues for peer review and they believe the scarring would be a normal variate. The more concerning point for the examiner was lack of reflex anal dilation. However, current literature has discredited RAD as a sign of abuse because it is not as rare as once thought among non abused children. Further, it can be caused by constipation, which Gabriel complains about, or medical treatments involving anal insertion (the mother gave these kids enemas). The kids complained of a green liquid they would be given which resulted in stomach ache. Drug testing found the THC levels in the kids were equivalent to repeated cannabis use, and not just low THC expected from hemp juice.It would seem "Papa Hemp" was drugging these kids.
pookster78 
+Igor Proskurov First, you have not said it to me and it comes over as a cop out to be honest. Further, you don't seem to say it to people who agree with you. I understand it's your video which you have put in the public domain. Maybe if you don't want discussion then don't post public videos. I never asked you to discuss anything with me, nor did I instigate discussion with you.
Igor Proskurov (iPro Vision) 
+pookster78 OK, fair enough, I haven't said it to you in this clear form ( I think, I asked you somehow before why we have to believe in your opinion if we don't know who you are?) But, now you know. As to people who "agree" with me (and you can see that the number of them can't be even compare with the number of people like you) you're abslolutely right. I don't care about their real names by two reasons. 1. I don't need to spend my time to "answer" their questions or for discussion. Also, they don't abuse and offence people with real names and who I respect.  2. This is public video, public domain but... this is my "room". So if my friends and guests don't like to see you here, why do you try to get in?If I come to the place and don't like it or people who're in it I just walk away. Simples.As to discussions - just show us who you're then we can talk to you about substance... Otherwise it's just wasting the time. You can argue the same way with the street wall were is written something like "f.. blah blah blah"...)Have a good night, hope you've got my points.
pookster78 
+Igor Proskurov This is youtube, it is possible to keep your "room" private. I hope you see the hypocrisy in that though as the people you support are the ones moaning about private family courts. Transparency swings both ways. You don't have to answer my questions or discuss anything with me. I don't think I have been particularly abusive or offensive to anybody. If you are talking about people such as Belinda McKenzie and Sabine, then they open themselves to public scrutiny and are the ones asking for everything to be in public. What I have said about them is fair for the most part and is on point about their actions in this case. I don't understand why knowing my real name would make a difference. It is just a label to identify who I am. It bears no relevance to the points of discussion surrounding this case. In the same way the points made by the group Anonymous are no less relevant just because we don't know each of their identities. In fact, the point of being anonymous is so people focus on the case, and not on ad hominem attacks or threats.  
Igor Proskurov (iPro Vision) 
+pookster78 "This is youtube, it is possible to keep your "room" private." - of course, but I'm not "closing the door" for anyone. You're welcome to "come in", to watch and to have your opinion. And you had chances to see that I and "my guests" don't try hard to convince you in what we believe. But you do. Why?" I hope you see the hypocrisy " - not at all... As I said earlier you're welcome to com in, to watch and to have your opinion. But you don't need to become a main person at the "stage". Do you really like to be at the party when nobody likes you?"You don't have to answer my questions or discuss anything with me" - of course I don't have to. But you're my guest here and you leave your words on the walls in my room. "I don't think I have been particularly abusive or offensive to anybody" - but I do think so."I don't understand why knowing my real name would make a difference" - really? don't understand such simple thing? There are many reasons:1. I want to be sure that you're not trollollo. ( Don't want to waste my and my guests/friends time on trolls.) Actually, I already spent a lot of time on you.2. To know who are you, what are you doing for life and what are your interests, who are your friends just give me an idea what your opinion is based on, what kind of education you have and so on.If you're a children's father friend - don't want to waste time on you. If you're a barnet council solicitor or SS worker - don't want to waste time on you. If you're Abraham ex-wife - don't want waste time on you.So, the question is about the time, not about "attacks" or threats.Hope you understand my position. I don't come to your house (specially with anonymous mask) and put the furniture what I like but you. So, I expected from you the same in reply.We know your opinion in general. Thank you very much. If you want to discuss the details (I can answer many (if not all) your questions that you raised here but would prefer to do it on the equal basis. You know me. If you want talk to me ( or in my "room" ) please be so kind to introduce yourself.Have a nice day.
pookster78 
+Igor Proskurov Check my response to Poly Hedra for my motivation. This ain't a party or a popularity contest. Unless you are one of the people the judge described, doing this for YT views. If my opinion and highlighting uncomfortable truths makes me unpopular, I can live with that. Really, go through the comments here and show me what you found offensive and abusive? A troll would be off topic instead of focussing on the subject matter. I am the one wanting to focus on the subject matter. No, I don't know you. I just know that someone, who could be anyone, has an account using the name Igor Proskurov.I don't know anything else about you. I am not in any way related or friends with anybody involved or named in this case. I am David Forbes. I like football, music, reading, movies, science, the natural world, drinking with my friends and women. My opinion is based on the videos, audios, legal documents, medical reports and life experience. Now, will you be a man of integrity or come up with some other excuse?
Igor Proskurov (iPro Vision) 
+pookster78 "Check my response to Poly Hedra for my motivation" - don't have time to search your comments. There are too many of them here.You see, you're not even polite to me (who you come as a guest to), trying to make me spend time instead to copy and paste at least, if you're busy.Secondly, actually firstly, when I asked you to introduce yourself I expected some kind of proofs that you're real person. There are thousands David Forbes' in UK. Which one is you? "Really, go through the comments here and show me what you found offensive and abusive?" - O don't have to go to far... I found even your last reply quite unfriendly. You don't bother yourself to answer me (just send me to make a search), you try several time to pick on me... Not the best way to make a dialog, from my life experience. )Regarding what your opinion is based on... I'm not going to discuss here this case with you... Actually, this particular video was about loving grandparents and grandchildren who wants to live as the family. Do you have any issue to the grandparents? Do you have any issue to the children? Why are you talking here about mother, partner, father etc.? Do you  carefully watch the video? Grandparents clearly said - give us the children and then you can do investigations, charges, cases against whoever you want and do it for as long as you want. That's it. How medical reports or legal documents related to this video?You said that from the questions to children "How are you?" or "does anyone bullying you" grandparents can found out the daily pattern of the children and kidnap them? Do you believe in what you said?You said that the children should stay in UK as they were born in uk... There are millions people from around the word who live in the uk by different reasons (work is one of them), give birth to their babies... Should the children stay in the uk when their parents go back home? You said that the children were born in uk and they are british... Are you sure that they don't have Russian citizenship as well? And how do you know it?If you take as ABSOLUTE TRUTH the judgment of the only one person, if you believe that BBC and other MSM give you ABSOLUTE TRUTH, if you believe that police not able to do anything bad and so on - then you are too young or may be came here out of another world.Well, it's too much from me now... ))))Sorry, There are a lot of materials in this case, a lot of people are involved, it's quite big and complicated case... so don't have time to discuss it here.If you want you can come to the next demo and we can discuss it in more details. If you really do care about these children lets meet next time and talk and may be you can do something positive in real.At the same time, I would appreciate if you agree with me to close the discussion at this page.Thank you.
pookster78 
+Igor Proskurov So you are not going to discuss this case here with me, yet you claimed you had the answers. The reality is you wanted to know my personal details. Right now, you know more about me than I do about you.  I have no problem with the grandparents, they agree with me that the stories are fantasy and nonsense. I have no problem with the kids. Please read up on "Leave to remove" (abroad) laws. Both parents have parental responsibility. They both have rights of access. If one parent wants to remove a child from their country of birth, there are 3 mechanisms: 1. The parent (in this case father) gives written permission. 2. The mother can prove the father is an unfit parent. 3. The moving parent can show they will leave but give reasonable access to the other parent. In this case there is criteria: a) that they are not moving to spite the other parent b) they can show how the kids will be cared for and their welfare fully met. Under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction any child taken from their country of birth without the above is considered abduction. In terms of this case: - The grandparents have no parental responsibility. - The father has not been found guilty of any crime, so keeps his parental responsibility and will likely get primary custody. - The mothers boyfriend is a child abuser, shown to abuse these children and would be perceived as taking the kids abroad to spite the father. In short, there is no way the mother or grandparents can remove those children without permission from the father. The only way the mother can get access is if she moves back to the UK and truly ends her relationship with Abraham. Yet, Belinda is outside court saying there is no reason why the kids can't go away with the grandparents and that judge Pauffley can make that decision. Both those assertions are wrong. The father can stop the children being taken and Pauffley is bound by the Hague Convention, she can't just make it up as she goes along. What you need to think about is why Belinda does not know this. Belinda acts as a legal adviser yet has no idea of what the law states. Do you not think that if Belinda is going to act as a Mckenzie Friend, she should have at least researched where the grandparents and mother stands legally?
Igor Proskurov (iPro Vision) 
+pookster78 "The reality is you wanted to know my personal details" - not at all. I want to know that you're real person and I want to know how do you connect to the people involved in this case. So, I still don't have this information."I have no problem with the grandparents, they agree with me that the stories are fantasy and nonsense. "  - not true. They don't agree with you. This is what pauffley said. Grandparents said that they don't WANT to know anything about this (and I can understand why and they still don't know the story), also, the grandparents have had no chance to speak with the grandkids about what had happened. So, how the grandparents can say that this is nonsense if they didn't speak to kids? The right word that they can said is "nothing"."I have no problem with the kids" - so, you think it's good for kids to stay at the SS, right?And you don't see anything wrong or suspicious in the fact that grandparents refused to see the kids, do you? (Also, grandparents said that they can stay in UK if this is required to take custody of the kids.)Regarding everything else you wrote I just can repeat. 1. Don't have to much time to waste it on some not real person. 2. The difference between people like me, Belinda and thousands others from one side and you, pauffley and people like you from the other side is that we do care about children and are trying to help children but you do your best to find "an article" in the "law" which help you to cover-up and protect all kind of "rings"...
pookster78 
+Igor Proskurov The Russian grandparents described the allegations as "total nonsense and fantasies" and Abraham has even persuaded the mother not to tell the grandparents where they are hiding. It also turns out that the children were exposed to THC at such levels it came from cannabis, and not just hemp. The grandparents can try to gain custody in the UK but have no legal standing to do so. I think that would be the best solution right now, with conditions. The grandparents did get to see the kids. This isn't about sides, at least not for me. It is about the kids. I can't change the law to suit myself and neither can Pauffley go against the Hague Convention. You need to start being realistic. Remember, the only reason the mother does not have custody now is because her boyfriend abused (and it would seem drugged) those kids, while she turned a blind eye.
Igor Proskurov (iPro Vision) 
+pookster78 Don't see any reason to discuss any further... I always was talking about children and grandparents only, why do you try to tell me about Abraham all the time? "grandparents described the allegations as "total nonsense and fantasies" " - see my comments above. OK.1. You trust in pauffley judjment.- Accepted. (We don't) 2. You believe that the story is made up. - Accepted. (We don't) 3. You believe that Abraham and mother the main persons who to blame. - Accepted. (We don't) 4. You believe that it's right decision to put children to SS. - Accepted. (We don't) 5. You believe that it's better for children to stay in UK. - Accepted. (We don't) 6. You believe that children should be given to the father for custody. - Accepted. (We don't) 7. You don't believe that there is corruption, cover-up and protection the cults, paedo rings etc. at all level of the society (court, police, local authorities, parliament etc.). - Accepted. (We do!) Anything else to say?   Your voice have been heard. Your opinion is very clear. No need to get deep into details. Hope you will agree.
MVPappas60 
+Betty Pak They may also be threatened not to talk anymore and if they do they most likely are being told they will kill their Grandparents or mother. This is a global satanic society as their are many different umbrella societies of the same. Have you heard of any updates ? I pray for those children and the Grandparents and hope they do start to believe in our merciful God and know that Jesus will answer
Betty Pak 
MVPappas60...Yes, you are right about this being widespread. I have heard some about Jersey Island. I know some people are doing independent investigations.You may want to look into youtube.com Investigate Christ Church primary school.
MVPappas60 
+Betty Pak Thank you I have heard many years ago watching Mr. Maloney and his investigations after his brother was murdered. I always pray for the children.
Betty Pak 
MVPappas60, yes....we are in some dark times. Be blessed and covered by the blood of our Lord Jesus.


No comments:

Post a Comment