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
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.
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.
The bail conditions imposed by
Police prevent her from travelling and publishing anything about her
arrest.
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.
By the end of March 2016, the
petitioner will have lived under these restrictions without charge
for seven months.
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.
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
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.
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!”
The evidence to back up claims and
requests includes not only over 20 petitions from the UK, but also
these submissions:
-
-
Significant actions with a view to
changing the unacceptable situation have included:
regarding
the EU Commission:
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;
-
-
-
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;
regarding
EU Member States:
-
Section
5.4 lists a number of ‘abusive’ practices that includes taking
babies at birth and are standard in the UK;
-
-
regarding
the PETI Committee:
-
-
we have
challenged the accuracy of the report with the Commissioning
Officer Ottavio Marzocchi without positive acknowledgement of the
issue;
a
joint
workshopxviii
between the Petitions and the Legal Committee took the challenges
on board;
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;
-
a working
group has been established with
Eleanora
Evi MEP as chair, to focus on child rights across Europe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
Denial and
Cover-Ups by Judgement
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.
-
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.
-
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.
None of the
other abusers were interviewed. The Police report mentions only one
suspect: the father.
None of the
other 18 children allegedly abused were interviewed.
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?
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.
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.
The school,
one of the main sites for abuse, was tipped off.
The father,
the main suspect, was tipped off by Police.
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.
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.
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.
The Police
report does NOT classify this as Hate
Crime / Domestic Incident / Carer Abuse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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’
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
.
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.
However, Draconian conditions
included
to
reside at her address to prevent disappearance;
to
report to Police three times a week between 1200 and 1400;
to
surrender passport to prevent disappearance;
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”
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.
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.
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.
Bailed until 28.03.16, the
petitioner has removed all videos. Bail conditions were repeated
without the need to report to Police.
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.
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’?
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.
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.
An
online petitionxxxviii
demanding that these distinguishing marks are to be examined is
supported by over 2,000 signatures.
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.
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.
Furthermore, Neelu Barry has
evidence of three actors impersonating retired Police to potentially
make arrests.
Who Harasses
Whom?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
-
Colindale
Police – the Child ‘Protection’ Unit for Barnet, Westminster
and Surrey Council
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.
The three cases have Officers of
Barnet Police in common, even though Walton-on-Thames is 25 miles
away from Barnet.
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
-
-
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’
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.
Current news in the German paper
FAZ have been:
-
-
-
-
Child abuse has been regularly
documented by
-
-
-
-
-
Cathy
Foxlxvi
– publishing officially released historic reports and child
sexual abuse;
Aangirfanlxvii-
joining most remarkable dots systematically and internationally;
-
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.