THE (ALLEGED) ABUSE CASE THAT WILL NOT DIE
Hampstead in context?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suDHJDX90zE
Forced Mental Incarceration/Treatment for Hampstead Case Activist
Perhaps all those that follow this site, and particularly the legal travails of Sabine, Neelu and Belinda, should be aware of yet another individual who, 'coincidentally', has found himself subject to very incursive and controlling action by state agencies, of a very ominous and disturbing character.
Jake ...... , who has given permission for his circumstances to be made public, and who became very concerned and active in the Hampstead case, was subject to prolonged and vicious Internet 'trolling' from particular sources not unconnected to the people involved. (To a lesser degree, I have experienced this myself.)
A complaint was made to the police about this but after initial indications of serious attention, was subsequently 'down-graded', indicated by a visit of two "Special Constables" - i.e. unpaid, part-time and voluntary. The issue appears to have been 'shelved'.
As might be expected this harassment and bullying had psychological consequences, which resulted in a consultation with his GP for anxiety and stress. From there he was referred to the Community Psychiatric Team, which subsequently resulted in him being 'Sectioned' under the Mental Health Acts and admitted to the Luton Mental facility. Initially this was for 'only' 72 hours but before this period was up it was extended to 28 days and thence to six months! An appeal he submitted against this was rejected.
(Perhaps it should be noted that previously officers connected to the Hampstead case had requested an interview with him, in which he was effectively advised to desist from his publicity activities.)
Once in this position, an individual is in a very perilous situation and wholly dependent on the beneficence and good practice of the doctors, psychiatric nurses and administrative staff, for the way he/she is treated. The most obvious consequence is a loss of ones independence and freedom. His liberty has been removed, and any movement outside the bounds of the hospital - even the ward - are in the gift and at the discretion of the staff. Access to his computer, and thus contact with friends and relations via this route has been denied.
The facility for outside visits once a week, has been used to put pressure on him to submit to medication - both by tablet and injection - when he objected to it. Allowed one three hour visiting window a week to meet his parents was withdrawn when he refused the anti-psychotic medication. He has therefore agreed for it to continue. Given the known consequences of this chemical "Risperidone", the necessity and ethical basis for so treating someone, who it has been agreed may be 'obsessive' but not psychotically 'delusional', is deeply worrying and questionable.
His initial diagnosis was based on "obsessive and delusional thoughts" because he questioned the official version of events on 9/11 and 7/7, and believed the Hampstead children's account of their experiences. Even were this true, it falls far short of the normal threshold for 'sectioning' under the Mental Health Acts, namely a distinct and palpable risk of harm to oneself or others.
(I have referred elsewhere to the tragic case of Julian Assange's barrister, John Jones QC who whilst being treated for mental health problems, fell under a train. His psychiatrist stated clearly that despite this, "He had not reached the required threshold for him to be sectioned")
Of course the terrible irony exists that the medication may create the very symptoms that have been falsely attached to his beliefs and actions.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that were it not for his activities - that may or may not have been inadvisable or misguided, I cannot say - to publicise the Hampstead facts, it is unlikely that he would have found himself in his present predicament. Whether his doctor or psychiatric team were influenced directly or indirectly by the police is not clear, but if they were it would be perfectly consistent with the indications he received from them himself and how others, mentioned above, have been treated, so it is far from the realms of impossibility.
This raises the even more fundamental and disturbing question as to whether powers conferred under the Mental Health Acts, are being misused and misapplied to control the actions of an individual, for social and policing purposes - unrelated to his actual welfare or mental health. Even were this the case, as many suspect, it is high unlikely it would ever be admitted as it smacks of the worst excesses of the Soviet era rightly castigated by western media and governments.
So yet again we may pose the question, "why are agencies of the state so determined to ignore and refute the palpably genuine accounts of two children, effectively removing and silencing them, whilst coterminously, by every means open to them, pursuing and silencing those who sought to bring the case to the attention of the public, eschewing all usual norms of criminal enquiry and investigation of the accused, whether fairly or not?"
Could anyone, anywhere, ever think up a more disturbing set of circumstances than those revealed by the Hampstead case?
In the meantime Jake Clarke is in urgent need of proper and effective legal and medical representation to protect him from the excesses of state organs, whether for the right or wrong reasons.
September 15th 2016 in response to a FB question.
From the beginning this has been a complicated and sordid affair, involving dark and influential forces and agencies determined to keep it covered. They may have been successful were it not for the video relases and internet which disseminated them. Subsequently it has been an exercise in 'containment and control', unethically using the levers of power through the police and courts, to stifle information, debate and criminal consequences. None of this could conceivably happen, unless there was intervention at a very senior and powerful level, reaching to the upper echelons of political and judicial life. Beside the social consequences for people and particularly children, this must be one of the most worrying aspects: the failure of systems to protect the innocent and pursue the guilty; indeed a resolute refusal to do so. This is not just incompetence of failure to act but an intentional obstruction to reveal, by the powers that be, the only justification for which must be high level fear of the consequences, should the truth out. We can only surmise what this could entail - reputional damage to notable figures or institutions may be sufficient; criminal acts involving same; or the involvement of secret societies or agencies - are the only ones of sufficient import that I can think of, that would justify the extraordinary lengths to which the executive has gone to kill the story. The latest revelations to further discredit individuals, could of course be part of that exercise or they may be shockingly true of themselves. There is no doubt that all intelligence agencies (including British ones) have used sex (and the more extreme the better!) to entrap and control, and I have always thought this may be an element, that by its very nature, cannot be revealed, without disasterous reputational consequences for the state, were it to be the case. Nor can we exclude the Russian/American connections that are apparent or fail to see how they might be used to gain information on crimial networks or subvert them. So all of this is possible. Who is true and who is false in this affair is very difficult to divine, and it is probably far more complicated than we can even imagine. In such cases individual rights and protections sadly take second place to the secret world of strategic decision making and 'national interests'. However those on the outside, as it were, need to keep focused on the welfare of the children. There is absolutely no excuse in an open society with (still hopefully) Christian liberal values, that children in such dubious circumstances (and I still do not doubt for a moment their recorded testimony) should be secreted away, so that no-one really knows how they are being treated, or if indeed, as has been suggested, made available to the very people they accused, or allowed to travel unsupervised to foreign parts and subjected to even greater dangers and injury, without any recourse to family knowledge or protection. If the British 'child care' system still allows this in 2016, clearly it is not fit for purpose and we should all feel responsible and ashamed. Individuals bravely, and to their not insignificant cost, have endeavoured to bring the case before the public eye and there has been huge interest and outrage internationally, but unless there is a well organised, focused and influential domestic campaign, the effort falls on stoney ground. This should be a case taken up by a high-profile human/civil rights barrister, with the backing of a respected organistion. That none have come forward, speaks volumes of itself. In the meantime we should not let the issue fade, until it is absolutely clear that the childrens rights, wishes and interests are being properly protected, and how can this be guaranteed if they are kept incommunicado by a Soviet-style State? Indeed is this the true moral state of Britain today? See also: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/kennedyijcjs2015vol10issue1.pdf
March 27, 2015 at 1:12 pm
This is the latest post from Sabine MacNeill, currently forced to seek refuge in her native Germany from the English police arrest warrant, for actively publicising the now notorious injustice centred on a Hampstead school and children and for defending their interests. It consists of a sample of the actual quotes from two eight and nine year olds which is verbatim and graphic . High Court Judge Dame Pauffley has rubbished it as the product of “scrambled minds” and the result of drug induced coaching by the “evil” mother and step-father, which she categorised as “torture”. The father and other named individuals, against whom very specific and detailed allegations of abuse, were incredibly exonerated by her.
Rather significantly it appears none of the accused have issued denials or statements of innocence, nor have they as far as can be ascertained, with the exception of the father, been interviewed by police or made themselves available for medical examination to quash the children’s intimate descriptions. Despite making its web-site private and alleged staff changes, there has been no statement from the education authority or Church of England, to which it is affiliated. This to say the least, given the gravity of the allegations, is surprising. Rather suspiciously premises referred to by the children have subsequently closed and every opportunity has been afforded the alleged perpetrators to as far as possible, cover their tracks.
Amazingly, despite the severity of the accusations, the Met’s own specialists in either ritualistic or child abuse, were not engaged to lead the enquiry and it was carried out in such a desultory and incompetent manner as to allow any remaining evidence, in so far as it could be, to be destroyed. The subsequent actions of the police and courts, including the partisan and biased High Court proceedings and judgement, should send a shock wave through the whole of society. Its ramifications and implications for the justice system and child protection are so profound as to require the widest dissemination and debate. It should be an issue in the forth-coming election given recent events of abuse cover-up throughout the country and the assurances given by the Home Secretary herself.
However yet again the opposite is the reality. The national press just repeated the Judge’s version in a most sensationalist manner, demonising the mother that unprecedented in family proceedings, emblazoned her photograph and details as the chief miscreant across its pages. This is propaganda in its most blatant form, with no effort given to balance or critical analysis. A Daily Mail reporter is quoted (by UK Column) as saying it was “Just easier to report a Judge’s decision, as this gave rise to less problems from the lawyers upstairs”! (See below)
Meanwhile of course the children remain in the “care” of the state – effectively arrest – removed from each other, the loving mother and sensible grand parents, and accessed by the very people they have bravely named, and whom, with it appears good cause, they have stated they fear for their safety and very lives. Could a worse set of circumstances be conceived? Could the systems of this country, ostensibly designed to protect the vulnerable from the actions of adults, be demonstrated to have failed more calamitously? How in the circumstances can Judge Paulffrey retain her credibility let alone office? If ever there was a case where the Prime Minister, Justice Secretary and Home Secretary should intervene, this is it. In what appears to be a concerted effort to cover up and close down the incident it needs to be broadcast as widely as possible. Hopefully a swell of outraged public opinion will not allow it to go away.
March 29, 2015 at 12:41 pm
March 29, 2015 at 7:50 am All praise to those who, in the face of threats and defamation, have represented the kid’s interests, after they have been failed so calamitously and disreputably by the police, social services and courts, but somehow in the face of what can only described as a wicked inversion of justice, the effort to overturn the judgement needs to be coldly calculated and co-ordinated. Widespread public outrage needs to be channelled and focused if it is to be effective in its aims. These courageous individuals need all the support we can give them. After all we are sending them out as “sheep in the midst of wolves and therefore must be wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” As the whole case turns on the voracity and accuracy of the children’s testimony, effort should be directed as you suggest, towards independent professional analysis to establish this fact, particularly as the Judge has so misdirected herself on this point. She had no lawful right to treat it so flippantly and to put it down to malign coaching with such flimsy evidence to support it. Nor should the children’s words be dismissed as ‘hearsay’. As far as I am aware that term relates to ‘second-hand’ and ‘third-party’ reportage, whereas most of the children’s consists of first-hand witnessing and direct experience, which is not only evidentially admissible but also compelling. Is there not a top-notch barrister, moved as we are, by the blatant injustice of this case, prepared to act pro-bono for these children and appeal Pauffley’s epic failure?
April 22, 2015 at 12:07 am
I agree with you Forced Adoption
April 21, 2015 at 2:09 pm that it is prudent to remain sceptical about any claim by a child, particularly if it borders on the unbelievable or extreme. By the same token, it should never be dismissed out of hand. Indeed the rule is to believe unless or until it is proved otherwise. Almost as extraordinary as the children’s reports is the claim by Pauffrey that it all resulted from coaching by two ‘evil’ individuals (mother and step-father) in a period of about three months, yet she asks us to believe her, presumably as being more credible! The assertion this was achieved by ‘torture’ without evidence is not only flawed jurisprudence it is ‘over egging the mix’.
The absence of any firm evidence for the theory of ‘coaching through torture’, the judge has failed to provide an alternative remotely plausible explanation of the children’s accounts. The step father’s admitted and deplorable actions, we may regard as excessive and inappropriate physical parenting, but by any definition falls far short of ‘torture’ nor is it related to imparting a particular story. There is no evidence from either of the adults, the children or third parties that this was happening. Perhaps most tellingly, neither did the natural father ever make such a claim, perhaps the first who would have been motivated to do so, if there had been any trace of it in his presence. Were they being ‘brain washed’, and were the natural father the loving, caring person the judge wants us to believe, might not it been expected they would have intimated what was going on?
Pauffley’s conclusion holds no credibility simply because the children’s testimony is cogent and patently honest. For her to have seized on two ambivalent, hardly convincing ‘retraction’ conversations, after six days enforced separation from parents (and each other?) as reliable, whilst apparently not even considering the earlier allegations, repeated in police interview, as worthy of consideration, and then basing her whole judgement on this fundamental error, can only be regarded as an intentional error that must constitute a misfeasance in public office at the very least.
She appears to reject the children’s clearly stated claims on the basis that they are too preposterous to be believed. This may have been understandable in the 70’s and 80’s when the public was far more naive but it surely cannot be acceptable for a judge to adopt that position now. After all that has been revealed and all that is known about internet child abuse, up to and including murder, and of all the high-level child abuse emerging from previous decades, most recently by (allegedly) a past Home Secretary and one of the most prominent Jewish leaders in the House of Lords, surely rules out ‘unlikelihood’ as a justification for dismissing the children’s accounts. Perhaps Judge Pauffley is unaware of what has and does happen in the world of porn and sexual exploitation, which even the British government now admits operates on a multi-billion pound level. Only a Carmelite nun could claim the accounts were too outrageous to be taken seriously.
No reasonable person could come to any conclusion, other than that the children’s accounts are believable. Yet a trained and experienced High Court judge takes the opposite view, based on an illogical and unsupported belief that the children were tortured into learning and regurgitating a bizarre script. This simply defies logic and common sense. To have any chance of viability two children apart from one another would have to have been word perfect to corroborate one another, yet from independent positions and remain consistent throughout on different days, with different interviewers. Even when being interviewed by police this was maintained and significantly without any indication of nervousness or shame. This was an exercise in honesty and relief, in the belief that if they at last told the truth as far as they were able – to “face their fear” as they bravely put it – they would be protected from those they feared. Sadly they were let down, indeed betrayed by the very people charged with the duty to do otherwise.
Finally, no reasonable person could dismiss the multiplicity of sexual and other detailed informations, far beyond the possible knowledge of the average eight and nine year old; nor the medical evidence that the judge unconscionably attempted to discredit; or the specific references to buildings, places and people; nor the anatomical distinguishing features that could only have been obtained by intimate interaction. Where is the evidence that each and every claim was meticulously checked out and disproved? Nowhere because as a police detective of many years standing was prepared to state, there was no thorough investigation carried out. An experienced High Court judge apparently found this acceptable!
There were of course many more indicators the children were telling the truth as far as they were able. How else to explain the descriptions of “sticky skin”, of blood tasting of “metal”, of adult anatomy of specified persons, the subjective experience of being anally abused, information on dildos and their manufacture, accurate representation of the act of severing heads, so on and so, all pointing to the fact this was NOT inculcated by torture or anything else but real time experience. The suggestion that it all resulted from watching the “Mask of Zorro”, apparently accepted by the judge, deserves only utter astonishment and contempt.
We now have been subjected to a media exercise that can only be described as propaganda, just replicating the judges deplorable reasoning, culminating in a nauseous BBC interview of the natural father, against whom the principle allegations were laid. If anything it underscores the children’s and mother’s worst fears. If somebody in government doesn’t quickly get a handle on this lamentable situation, the reputation of Britain in the eyes of the world, will plummet even further, to the disgrace of us all.