This is the conclusion carried out by a lady I ‘met’ on Facebook, before my three accounts were deleted / banned / blocked.
It was this UK Infringement that caught my attention first – pointed out to me by a German father who has problems with the UK family system.
She then dug into this EU Directive 2011/92 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.
Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent
Systemic Patterns of Child Snatching and Forced Adoptions in the UK
Extreme Emergency Scenario and Background in Petitions Committee
- I Sabine K McNeill, spokesperson and publisher of petition 1707/2013 to Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent, bring to your attention a matter of utmost urgency regarding the protection, safety and return, of two children to their Russian born mother and grandparents that we know of and countless other children who, according to evidence thus far presented, remain at very serious risk.
EU Directive and Infringement
- The Ethos of EU Directives & legislation in dealing with this type of crime most clearly, places emphasis on victim and/or witness testimony as ‘smoke’ from a fire that needs investigating and regardless if victims later retract their statement. The Law very cleverly strives to undermine the pervasive nature of this type of crime i.e. an understanding that witnesses are often in fear and may later, retract their allegations.
- This is an important point because it is here, that the true drive of the EU Directives move into action; the action to preventand to protect. The directive very clearly, guides Barnet Police and the UK Family Courts toward continuing in their investigations despite any later retractions because of the aforementioned evidence and because the children later, retracted their allegations only after having been placed in the care of their alleged abusers.
The Accused and their Allegations
- Alleged abusers in this case, include; a head teacher and all her staff at Christchurch Primary School Hampstead, the London Borough of Camden, the London Borough of Barnet, CAFCASS Officers (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service), Social Service workers, Police, Church Staff, Parents (including the estranged British father of said children) and local shopkeepers: “Wednesdays” the 8 year old boy and 9 year old girl inform us, were “sex days” and the 20 “special” children would be escorted from class to places where they would suffer sexual, physical, emotional and psychological abuse and witness murder of babies.
- Six days after visiting Barnet Police for the first time, on 11 September 2014, constables kept the two children with an ‘Emergency Protection Order’ when taking second interviews. They were considered “at risk of serious harm” in their mother’s care, until their allegations were further investigated by Barnet County Court who took over the case from Barnet Police.
- Once in the care of CAFCASS/alleged abusers, the children retracted their allegations and Barnet Police closed the case on 22 September with ‘Crime not Confirmed’.
The Lower County Court
- Judge Vera Mayer in Barnet Family Court then decided that mother had “failed to protect her children” in light of medical evidence of abuse. Father’s/alleged abuser, twice monthly contact was increased to weekly contact and mother lost custody of her children who were taken to foster parents, first in Camden, later in Dartford Kent. Mother was awarded only twice monthly contact.
- Under UK Family Court Rulings, parents are strictly forbidden from speaking freely about their case or mentioning their children’s names publicly. They claim this is for protection of the child’s “rights to privacy”. Punishment for breaking family Court Rules is from 3 months up to 7 years imprisonment.
- From September 2014 until now, the mother, myself as her advocate in the public interest, McKenzie Friend since November 2014, and all directly involved in this case, have been forced to suffer in silence with our burden of suspicions and fears: to suspect that people in positions of power and authority over children are collectively conspiring to sexually abuse children, to think they have taken control of a school and a church, to think of them engaging in trafficking and killing babies, to be aware that the children’s testimonies are credible and detailed beyond a child’s normal life experience, to be aware that only in the hands of the alleged abusers did those children “retract” their story, to know that the “retractions” (as recorded on police tapes after questioning by CAFCASS and Social Services) are flimsy, do not match, are very obviously coached and prompted, to know that the children later, withdrew their retractions and talked of their abuse to foster carers, to know that another 20+ children and countless babies remain at risk…
Barnet and Metropolitan Police
- Barnet Police wrote on 22.09.15 “Case Closed” with “Crime not Confirmed”. They told the mother on 26.09.15.
- Our Judicial Review (JR) filed against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on 22 December 2014 was acknowledged with this denial and two extra legal proceedings – against the expert who had produced a Witness Statement regarding the lack of quality of the Police Report and the video interviews and about the use of ‘confidential’ documents in the JR.
- The Met had contacted Barnet and Haringey Council, who both suggested that all interested parties, including three MEPs, should destroy the evidence, i.e. the interviews recorded by Police.
Fact Finding Hearings in the High Court
- Judge Vera Mayer transferred the case to High Court Judge Dame Anna Pauffley OBE who began to hear the case before the fist scheduled hearing, due to an emergency caused by Barnet Council. This resulted in the ‘corporate gag’ of the Association of McKenzie Friends and the ‘confiscation’ of the Police videos as evidence – despite her remark “the genie is out of the bottle.”
- Two weeks of further fact finding hearings are scheduled to take place from 03.03.15 until 17.03.15.
- Since the mother had fled, her McKenzie Friend was refused access to the court room. Hence three days of hearings took place without anybody knowing what went on with regard to her and her children.