After I published this Open Letter to the Ham and High, below is my detailed response which I shall also send to IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) even though I am told by experienced McKenzie Friends (lay legal advisors) I’m wasting my time.
Dear Ham and High
This is to request a public retraction of your latest article about myself and Belinda McKenzie.
Here are my detailed responses to your two articles – as part of the IPSO submission.
First of all, my name is not Sabina but Sabine. Secondly why put ‘supporter’ in quotes? As McKenzie Friend I am certainly a SUPPORTER!
- Who are you to confirm rather than question what is clearly more of the mother of cover-ups than anybody would like to have to admit?
‘The material published online’ refers to ‘names and addresses of dozens of individuals’.
- I have categorically denied the publication of this information.
‘Innocent individuals’ who found their names published online.
- This has absolutely nothing to do with any of my websites.
‘False allegations’. ‘Retracted allegations’ made by the children.
- You repeat without checking.
‘The two children tortured by their mother and her boyfriend’.
- You make and repeat allegations by the other side that were invented in a ‘strategy meeting’ between Police and Social Services on 09 September 2014, 2 days before the children were removed from their mother’s care.
‘Videos and articles posted on the internet concerning pupils and parents at a North London School’.
- Same false allegation.
All of these quotes are implications starting from the bias of
- not listening to the children
- accusing the mother and her partner
- assassinating my character.
Your second article targets also Belinda McKenzie who had been in Barnet Court and the High Court as ‘McKenzie Friend’ of the mother, after I had written all legal submissions:
I’m labelled as ‘UK fugitive’, implying I’m a criminal.
- The ‘crime’ I am accused of is ‘contempt of court’.
- How can anyone have respect for a local and a High Court that
- use their secrecy to cover-up crimes that should have been investigated by Police rather than closed after 11 days with “crime not confirmed”?
- give WEEKLY contact to the father whom the children accuse and who had two Non-Molestation Orders against him?
- give FORTNIGHTLY contact to the mother with whom they’ve lived all their lives with a Residence Order in place?
- ignores the mother’s requests for a non-molestation order and application for equality of contact?
- Did you read the Position Statement that the High Court judge ignored with the clear intention NOT to return the children to their mother?
Belinda’s charity is described as ‘masquerading’.
- What evidence to you have for using such a denigrating term?
‘Almost all donations’ are being sent to me!?…
- Where on earth do you get facts for this statement from? I have been given £400 by Belinda personally as well as an £900 laptop but nothing of the £800 that were donated to the charity, as she says on http://www.theknightfoundation.org.uk/home/2015/07/save-the-hampstead-children-25-ham-high-24-july/
- Who has discredited the allegations?
- Why not list Hampstead Research’s videos gathering facts to substantiate the children’s allegations?
- Since I left in February 2015, a new Secretary has been appointed.
‘fears of being arrested on contempt of court charges relating to the case – an allegation she denies’
- The contempt of court accusation is a ‘gagging order’ that includes threat of imprisonment – one of the five points that make UK family courts unique in Europe.
- I have not denied the allegation, but I have filed an Application to set the ‘Penal Notice’ aside.
‘misleading potential donors’
- Nobody is being misled. There are more cases and websites being published than you’d like to know about relating to our experiences of helping parents whose children were removed, forcibly adopted or handed to their abusive fathers:
- Individual cases:
‘not wholly charitable’
- Is it not charitable to try
- and get children from the clutches of their abusive fathers?
- and reunite parents with their children, after they have been removed by force?
- and stop institutionalised child snatching at the rate of 1 child every 20 minutes, as published by Channel IV?
So, all in all the ‘factual errors’ are based on innuendos, false assumptions and character assassination.
The critical facts are:
- Neither the mother nor I published the names and addresses of the abusers which Barnet Police try to use against mother and me on behalf of the abusers.
- The ‘contempt of court’ charge does not relate to the publication of these names.
- The contempt of court charge relates to the SECRECY rules of the family courts, supposedly there to protect the identity of the children. However, in this case, the children have been PUNISHED by being traumatised through the separation from their mother, having been given WEEKLY contact with the father whom they accuse and who had threatened to KILL them, if they were to talk. The first foster parents recorded nightmares regarding these fears!
Furthermore, the secrecy of the family courts has been used to cover-up crimes and is against the EU Directive 2011/92 which the UK Government has violated. An Infringement Notice was issued in January 2014.
For more information about ‘misleading potential donors’, please visit http://www.theknightfoundation.org.uk/home/2015/07/save-the-hampstead-children-25-ham-high-24-july/