Monday, 14 August 2017

The Hampstead Gareva/Dearman Children Sexual Abuse Allegations Investigation

Family viewing London skyline : Stock Photo

The latest response by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) (23rd November, 2016) has been published on the internet and may be found here:

Anyone concerned about violence to children and the systems in place that purport to protect them, need to read the full document. However the following is an inadequate summary.

For a second time the IPCC has upheld the appeal in relation to eleven significant issues (1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21) It did not uphold ten other complaints, not because there was no substance to them but because, "there is insufficient evidence on which a reasonable tribunal properly directed, could find, on the balance of probabilities, misconduct or gross misconduct." Of course lack of proof of misconduct, is not the same as proof of blameless conduct.

The allegations of misconduct upheld by the IPCC and requiring further investigation by a Metropolitan Police Officer unconnected with the initial investigation are as follows: 

1. Police Officers failed to investigate thoroughly and properly the allegation of sexual abuse against the children.

3. No named suspects were interviewed.

4. Retraction statements (by the children) were inadequate in relation to the level of detail in the initial allegations.

8. The power of arrest against Mr Dearman was not employed at an early stage despite the seriousness of the allegations.

9. No forensic search was carried out on Mr Dearman's flat.

10. The (reasoning behind) the decision not to arrest Dearman was not fully documented.

14. The (initial) recordings made by Officer Yaohirou were not made available or reviewed by the investigating officer. (Despite affording crucial evidence)

16. A lack of information relating to the absence of securing CCTV footage (in stark contrast to how CCTV in respect of the un-accused step-father was handled)

18. Evidence of coercion by investigation officer in obtaining the retraction statements and consequent inconsistency.

19. Leading child Q to retract allegation of murder of children. (Of course this was in the context of allegations ritual abuse within occult ceremonies)

21. It is not altogether clear what the finding is in respect of the claim that in a number of respects the MPS perverted the course of justice.

In addition to this catalogue of disasters, the IPCC suggests a number of specific and important "discrepancies and inconsistencies" need to be specifically looked at in the new investigation.

These are: 
  • whether a solicitor was present with Mr Dearman when he was interviewed or not? The report is conflicting.
  • why the police put such confidence in the suggestion that the allegations were merely the result of watching the film "Zorro" despite it having no bearing on the case?
  • were the resources devoted to the case adequate or not as there are conflicting statements in respect of it?
  • why if the initial interviews were stopped because the children "needed the support of specialist practitioners" were subsequent interviews carried out without them being provided?

The wheels of justice grind slowly on. This latest finding by the IPCC may provide some vindication for the mother's efforts to get some justice in this deplorable situation and even a glimmer of hope. But we should be aware that whatever procedures are in place, whatever lengthy bureaucratic processes are followed, time-consuming and emotionally draining, the children are still effectively imprisoned and separated from their natural mother, whilst apparently exposed to the father against whom the allegations were made. 

Everything about the way this case was investigated, substantiated by not one but two IPCC  reports, screams miscarriage of justice and a continuing inhumanity against the children and their mother. The British State is to blame, not only because of mismanagement at every stage, but because it has compounded the abuse by not intervening swiftly and appropriately to return the children to their rightful mother.

Just this one case has highlighted the total hypocrisy of all government statements on the subject of child abuse, whether ritually and sexually motivated or not, and a damning indictment of police, social work and family court procedures in such matters. 

It is long past time that it was put right.


  1. A series of short videos by Deborah Mahmoudieh discussing the IPCC response:

    Hampstead Evidence: IPCC Report
    In 8 parts
    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3
    Part 4
    Part 5
    Part 6
    Part 7
    Part 8
    IPCC Report online at…/336846780/HampsteadCoverUpIPCC-pdf
    Also here at #BelieveTheChildren

  2. Mrs May, the current Prime Minister, was Home Secretary at the time of the Hampstead case. She was therefore ultimately responsible for the action (or inaction) of the police and other authorities in cases where extreme abuse of children was alleged. Given its huge notoriety she could not have been ignorant of the Hampstead case, yet has singularly failed to intervene in any way to put the matter right. She claims she is against child abuse - how could anyone say otherwise? - and dedicated to preventing it, yet the Hampstead case proved quite the opposite situation. Is it the exception that proves or disproves the rule? The case amply demonstrates that incompetence went far higher than a lowly investigating detective constable, although there are indications that ultimately he may be the scapegoat when much later, politicians wring their hands in false concern and apology. The crass failure that can only be explained in terms of being intended, went to the very top of the High Court - in this case the 'FamilyCourt', that bastion of secrecy and injustice since it was created, ostensibly to protect the interests of children. Despite none of the accused being arrested and the innocent parties hounded and forced to run and hide, it is not they but the government and its organs that are on trial here. Children have been sacrificed on an altar of government intentional cover-up and hypocrisy.

  3. Still trying, aren't you Tim, you sad twat. Bless

  4. So Tim, you realise that Hoaxtead Research reported on the second IPCC letter back in January, right? Has it really taken you this long to catch up? Oh wait, foolish question....

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Moreover, I've heard from Tim's alleged victims that he has a pineapple-shaped tattoo on his 'little friend'. All he has to do is pop down to his local police station and whip out his trouser snake to prove his innocence, so what the holdup is is anybody's guess.

  6. Abusive and libelous comments by "Sam Best" have been deleted. If he/she would be kind enough to supply their true identity and address I should be happy to instruct my solicitor to contact him/her with regard to it. The Google site he/she provides is here, and I think speaks for itself as to the character of person or organisation it represents: as do the others.

  7. Incidentally, for "Spiney Norman" who obviously has a vivid imagination and fascination with such bodily parts, and anyone else who might be interested, I confirm that I have a very mundane "little friend", not I assume unlike three billion others on the planet, all of which no doubt are precious to their owners. Nor is it decorated in any way including the suggested and bizarre "pineapple". It is also available to view by anyone brave enough and stupid enough who might wish to do so, in stark contrast to those we might think of that could easily have proved their innocence of serious allegations, by doing so.

    1. "It is also available to view by anyone brave enough and stupid enough who might wish to do so."

      OK, then. Do it. Please upload the photos of your diminutive 'member' within 48 hours or I will report you to the police, the IPCC, the ITCCS and your leader Angela Power-Disney. This may seem harsh but it is nothing more than you have repeatedly demanded of numerous members of the Hamsptead community and with no less evidence to support it. Sooo, let me know when you're done, Timmy. Thanks in advance

      PS: unlike those little pills you're clearly on, there is no 'e' in 'Spiny'. You're welcome.

    2. The stupidity of your comment is there for all to see. Why do you insist on making a self-incriminating fool of yourself?



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