Sabine McNeill Interview - Whistleblower for Hampstead Child Abuse Scandal!

a reply to: midicon

Have you got a source for this? Trying to find the webpage you got it from but I can't find it.

originally posted by: TechUnique
This is Sabine in action!

There has been exactly one time in my entire life that I was literally moved to tears while listening to someone fight for a cause.

It was about 5 minutes ago when I watced ths video.

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: TechUnique

I will be conducting further interviews with Sabine so if you guys have any questions you want me to ask her please feel free to do so either here

ask her if it's a money making scam

link

link

i watched the video with the kids being interviewed - it looks 100% bogus to me - ask to see an accounting of the 'donations' she's asking for

I'm sorry, but go watch her addressing that committee. You can't fake that reaction, that was pure, unadulterated outrage, disbelief, stomach churning sadness, and seething rage pouring out of someone who just realized everything she thought she knew was a lie. Maybe someday, some actress will receive an Oscar for portaying this brave women doing this monumentally unheard of, totally selfless act of compassion. If they do it won't hold a candle to the real deal. You can't fake that.

a reply to: TechUnique

It was in one of the comments sections of a website. This so far from Wiki supports it. I will try and get more.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children document allegations of ritual abuse in 1990, with the publication of survey findings that, of 66 child protection teams in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 14 teams had received reports of ritual abuse from children and seven of them were working directly with children who had been ritually abused, sometimes in groups of 20.[45] An investigation into SRA allegations by the British government produced over two hundred reports, of which only three were substantiated and proved to be examples of pseudosatanic, in which sexual abuse was the actual motivation and the rituals were incidental.[46][47]

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: TechUnique

It was in one of the comments sections of a website. This so far from Wiki supports it. I will try and get more.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children document allegations of ritual abuse in 1990, with the publication of survey findings that, of 66 child protection teams in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 14 teams had received reports of ritual abuse from children and seven of them were working directly with children who had been ritually abused, sometimes in groups of 20.[45] An investigation into SRA allegations by the British government produced over two hundred reports, of which only three were substantiated and proved to be examples of pseudosatanic, in which sexual abuse was the actual motivation and the rituals were incidental.[46][47]

Thanks! I appreciate it.

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I might ask her how any donations will help and what they will be used for. I'm not promising anything though because it is going against every fiber in my being and it's making me feel sick just typing this and thinking about it.

I'm not bending over for anyone on this issue but I will consider it more. I still think it's ridiculous. There are much better ways to scam money out of people than a crazy story like this. Besides, she didn't once mention anything about donations to me outside of the interview or in the interview.

It's just offensive. If she was flat out asking for donations as a main theme or as a massive part of the site then I would be more suspicious.

Here is why you should ask these questions out of respect for her...I will assume, as you do, that she is not trying to pull anything. If this is the case, the opposition will discredit her at every turn. These rumors spread about whether you coddle them from her or not, and she has no reason that she can't answer any and every question brought forth if being sincere. She and you should welcome the opportunity to oppose these misleading points of contention and explain why people shouldn't listen to it. You phrase the question. "what would you say to people out there who would call you crook? Say it's about the money and the children were coached?" .. "I wanted to give a chance to clear the air with your critics yourself.. how do etc, etc."

You will not offend an honest women by giving her the means to "face her accuser".. so to speak.

a reply to: dr1234

I have worded a question already. I didn't like how the question was proposed in the first place, it was highly offensive! If someone had put it as you had just put it I would have added the question straight away, but whoever proposed the question at first was being highly accusing, and in my opinion, incredibly offensive.

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: TechUnique

Who are you again?

nobody

but well done - you've made the front page of ats with this thread - what a great advert for the site - maybe they'll be promoting the thread on twitter soon

And that is bad why exactly?
This sort of thing needs all the publicity it can get.

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

How do I feel about these kids being posted on the internet? Nothing. When they are older they will come clean or they won't. Are they to blame for lies? Definitely not in this case

no - they aren't to blame - but they are the one's that will suffer most - would you fancy going through school with everyone sharing these videos?

and in relation to the op, like i said shameful

If this is true, then the kids have already suffered the most.
I was accused of being a rent boy by the bbc when I was 14, yes it was hard to deal with, but at least I was never sexually abused.
Im not condoning the posting of videos of the children, they dont have the choice.
But what I very much do condone is publicising this story. So that when justice is served, it is open and transparent, you know, the way it should be.

I would really like to see some evidence of her being a fraud, its such an easy claim to make, and may even be true, but without a damn shred of evidence to support it, it means nothing.

You do realise that launching a court case and paying for legal representation isnt cheap?

I dont know if you are after "brownie points" and are deliberately being a "debunker", but to debunk you have to supply some evidence. To accuse someone of fraud without anything to back it up is pathetic.
It brings into question your own motives. Do you condone child sexual abuse?
Do you know that establishment paedophilia is no longer a conspiracy theory?
I would ask that until you have any evidence to back up those fraud claims dont make the claim, after all it is libelous. Some of your questions are very valid questions that should be asked and a degree of trepidation is required of course, but to make false accusations, whoever it is, is against the law.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: TechUnique

Who are you again?

nobody

but well done - you've made the front page of ats with this thread - what a great advert for the site - maybe they'll be promoting the thread on twitter soon

And that is bad why exactly?
This sort of thing needs all the publicity it can get.

and that will ensure what exactly?
other than money flow?

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: dr1234

I have worded a question already. I didn't like how the question was proposed in the first place, it was highly offensive! If someone had put it as you had just put it I would have added the question straight away, but whoever proposed the question at first was being highly accusing, and in my opinion, incredibly offensive.

she's a third party. in case of honest reporting what you like, what you think, and what your opinion is, does NOT matter. honest reporter tries to cover all the angles - asks every question imaginable and follows the trails from different points of view so the truth will show itself.

what you're doing isn't following the truth. what you're doing is imposing what YOU think is the truth, upon everyone else, and the whole reporting is biased by that. that's not honest reporting, that's propaganda.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: TechUnique

Who are you again?

nobody

but well done - you've made the front page of ats with this thread - what a great advert for the site - maybe they'll be promoting the thread on twitter soon

And that is bad why exactly?
This sort of thing needs all the publicity it can get.

and that will ensure what exactly?
other than money flow?

It wont ensure anything, but it might get this story out in the open where it needs to be, so the truthfulness of it all can be debated in a court of law. And JUSTICE can be served either way. Or at least attempted.

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: muchmadness

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

My only comments related to charities and general causes against pedophilia/victims etc.

how do you feel about those kids faces being posted on the internet? on this page even!

Actually, several much longer and more detailed videos of the children have appeared online in which they describe their experiences at length and are identified by their full names. Apparently the police, who made these videos, weren't too concerned about it.

Police would never show or even name the children, a lot of people would lose their jobs over this. The video was made and published by the mother.

And killing babies and drinking their blood on wednesdays at school all told by little children that are overtly clear being coaxed off camera by their mother, i have seen enough now. These children are indeed being abused but not by some satanic politicly linked cult group but by their own mother for attention and money.

However it happened, the police interview videos were released briefly online. They were extensive and undoubtedly police interviews.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

what you're doing isn't following the truth. what you're doing is imposing what YOU think is the truth, upon everyone else, and the whole reporting is biased by that. that's not honest reporting, that's propaganda.

No, its the sharing of information.
If people believe everything they come across without further investigation, then more fool them.
If people like to throw their money on causes without investigation of where its going then more fool them.
Its not like the major charities arent getting caught with their fingers in the pot from time to time.

Propaganda is a well crafted news item designed to elicit an emotional response to guide public opinion.

The video is certainly NOT propaganda. Its seeking publicity for what could well be a case of establishment child sex abuse at the very least.

a reply to: Sevka

I would certainly like to see the police interviews that were leaked.

Scans of documents online are almost impossible to verify if they are the real deal.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: dr1234

I have worded a question already. I didn't like how the question was proposed in the first place, it was highly offensive! If someone had put it as you had just put it I would have added the question straight away, but whoever proposed the question at first was being highly accusing, and in my opinion, incredibly offensive.

she's a third party. in case of honest reporting what you like, what you think, and what your opinion is, does NOT matter. honest reporter tries to cover all the angles - asks every question imaginable and follows the trails from different points of view so the truth will show itself.

what you're doing isn't following the truth. what you're doing is imposing what YOU think is the truth, upon everyone else, and the whole reporting is biased by that. that's not honest reporting, that's propaganda.

So now I'm asking her about the donations you're still not happy? Give it a rest!

originally posted by: TechUnique
Tantrum? No Tantrum.

With this button you can donate to our Victims Fund via PayPal. It serves to run websites and to support victims of white collar crimes emotionally, mentally, legally and financially.

If you don't believe her that's your choice. I do however, so will not be asking her such an insulting question. Are we done with that now?

Ummm... victims of white collar crimes? Under no definition that I have ever come across (including writing professionally about white collar crime and time spent training officers who deal with child abuse cases) has sexual abuse ever been considered a white collar crime.

Something smells... off.

originally posted by: muchmadness

However it happened, the police interview videos were released briefly online. They were extensive and undoubtedly police interviews.

Edited to add: disregard what follows, my reading comprehension was a little skewed by some Friday-night ale. You're talking about video recorded interviews not written transcripts. Mea culpa. I've left the original post below so that this apology makes sense - though the same still really applies to a video of an interview unless you were able to positively ID a police officer in it.

Not possible to say that. I've written plenty of fake ones for training scenarios. Even had the proper templates used by our local constabulary. Unless the police themselves say it's genuine, there is no way to tell from just reading them.

They may well be completely genuine, of course, my point is that unless you were one of the people actually involved in the investigation, you can't just casually toss out that they are "undoubtedly police interviews".

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: aynock
a reply to: TechUnique

I will be conducting further interviews with Sabine so if you guys have any questions you want me to ask her please feel free to do so either here

ask her if it's a money making scam

link

link

i watched the video with the kids being interviewed - it looks 100% bogus to me - ask to see an accounting of the 'donations' she's asking for

I'm sorry, but go watch her addressing that committee. You can't fake that reaction, that was pure, unadulterated outrage, disbelief, stomach churning sadness, and seething rage pouring out of someone who just realized everything she thought she knew was a lie. Maybe someday, some actress will receive an Oscar for portaying this brave women doing this monumentally unheard of, totally selfless act of compassion. If they do it won't hold a candle to the real deal. You can't fake that.

If this is your standard when ascertaining if something is legit then you're on the wrong website.

She may be a very good actor, she may be telling the absolute truth, she may believe her own BS and be a little bit mental, she may be telling the truth about some parts but lying about other parts, she may have been told a bunch of lies by others and is being used as a mouthpiece.

This is the whole point of asking difficult questions, seeking the truth, finding evidence and what the point of this website is.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: TechUnique
Tantrum? No Tantrum.

With this button you can donate to our Victims Fund via PayPal. It serves to run websites and to support victims of white collar crimes emotionally, mentally, legally and financially.

If you don't believe her that's your choice. I do however, so will not be asking her such an insulting question. Are we done with that now?

Ummm... victims of white collar crimes? Under no definition that I have ever come across (including writing professionally about white collar crime and time spent training officers who deal with child abuse cases) has sexual abuse ever been considered a white collar crime.

Something smells... off.

it was first defined by sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939 as "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation".

Source - wiki

Sounds just like Peter Righton, Jimmy Savile, every single priest that abuses kids, and the westminster paedophile ring to me.
Sounds white collar to me. And you investigate it? No, because it automatically counts as sex crimes. White Collar sex crimes.