Sabine McNeill Interview - Whistleblower for Hampstead Child Abuse Scandal!

Had just started the interview but her internet started going haywire. Will try get her back on now and keep you updated. Earlier on, on another show she was on, (Freedom talk radio), a police officer turned up shortly before the show to warn the host not to do the show.

That hasn't happened to me luckily but we can't seem to get a solid internet connection to call each other on and now her Skype is freaking out signing on and off.

I'll keep you guys updated in this thread.

originally posted by: b14warrior
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.

That makes 2 of us.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

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.

"White collar crime" predates Sutherland by 20 years; it was first coined by Upton Sinclair in 1919(1) If you want to argue definitions then you should also be aware that Van Horne and Shaffner comment on the issue of evolving definitions, noting that the term ‘white collar’ has ‘always been a complicated and contradictory term’ with ‘no firm consensus’ and that ‘during the twentieth century, most attempts to define the category have begun by acknowledging the impossibility of doing so.’(2)

Sutherland's work was an attempt to focus on the massive difference in treatment received by those of the lower classes carrying out "traditional crimes" and those in position of greater responsibility carrying out "paper crimes". He was, at heart, a sociologist rather than a criminologist, though I don't seek to question or disparage his work in this area. But... he was talking about a very different kind of situation than the current one.

Interestingly enough, sexual offences have been recognised (to an extent) as falling within the remit of white collar crime(3), but those situations involve fraudulently obtaining sex. Sexual abuse is not usually brought within the definition, though I acknowledge there is an argument that many cases involve the abuse of a position of trust. I would continue to maintain that those cases are distinguishable from those cases that are accepted as falling under the rather vague banner of "white collar crime".

----------
(1) Sinclair, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism (University of Illinois Press, Urbana Illinois 2003) 78 – this book was originally published in 1919
(2) CE Van Horn and HA Schaffner, Work in America: An Encyclopedia of History, Policy and Society (ABC-CLIO, 2003) 597
(3) R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699, [2008] 1 WLR 2582 - victim consented to sex with her boyfriend on the recommendation of the police - it later transpired the boyfriend had contacted her, pretending to be a police officer, to give her this recommendation.


Edited to add:

I've just gone back to read the wiki link you posted. Hah. I notice you've picked the one line to support your argument and then ignored the fact that the rest of the rather extensive entry (including the opening line of it) pretty much excludes sexual abuse.

a reply to: dr1234

If the tag was correct, then it’s the Committee on Petitions. A forum for EU citizens to bring issues forward. The video was just a rant about the Family Court system in the UK. One -sided, selective, misleading and wrong.

I actually think – having seen it first hand with a friend – that the family court system in the UK works.

www.judiciary.gov.uk...

To the OP. If the mother has been exploiting her children by using them to pursue and agenda, then she may lose her kids to the father, or have them fostered, at least temporarily. Sabine McNeill thinks the UK Family Court system is the mechanism to take children form good mothers and have them forceably adopted. She’s mad.

Regards

I watched every single video, including the police videos.

There is no comparison between the children's demeanor when they're lying, vs. when they're telling the truth.

When they start to trust the police interviewer toward the end, they relax, express emotion, and opinion. They never laughed nor smiled once in Abraham's (grrrrr) interviews.

Gabriel put it best: "I hate Abraham. I don't want to see him." Gabriel *never* once expressed that type of emotion toward his biological father. In fact, Gabriel had quite a lot more to say about Abraham and his feelings toward him, but I'll leave it at that.

The "everyone in Hampstead did it" is clearly a badly-devised scheme by Abraham and Ella, AFTER videos of the children were found on THEIR phones, to engage in a last-ditch effort to blame everyone but themselves. The police were called on Abraham multiple times, including for going to the kids' school and "behaving aggressively" toward them and other students. After Abraham began his relationship with Ella, neighbors called the police because the children started to be left on the balcony, crying, for long periods of time.

All of the above is public information which has already been distributed.

Something smells fishy guys.. I can't seem to get hold of Sabine to confirm that she is safe. Last time I spoke to her was mid interview before it cut out. Its been an hour now.. I think someone is tampering with her internet connection. I'm uploading the video to YouTube now so you can see what I mean on how it seems quite dodgy. Maybe I'm just being paranoid but with the policeman turning up to the radio show earlier and Sabines internet connection messing up for a lot of the day, it seems strange.

After looking a little more into this scandal my personal opinion is that it is most likely a hoax. The things these young children describe seem incredibly unlikely to have gone on so long unnoticed by their mother. Not to mention the parents of other kids from the school. Now Sabine McNeill is making the rounds on all the radio programs etc. that will have her. Casting a wide net.

Even sensationalist Alex Jones isn't drinking this kool-aid.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
After looking a little more into this scandal my personal opinion is that it is most likely a hoax. The things these young children describe seem incredibly unlikely to have gone on so long unnoticed by his mother. Not to mention the parents of other kids from the school. Now Sabine McNeill is making the rounds on all the radio programs etc. that will have her. Casting a wide net.

Even sensationalist Alex Jones isn't drinking this kool-aid.

I find myself agreeing. The more you read around the situation, the more it sounds wrong. For a McKenzie friend to be doing this as well is appalling, but that's possibly a separate matter again. It might do massive damage to their (McKenzie) reputation, which isn't going to help all the people who are genuinely benefiting from them.

While I doubt we will ever know for sure, I am left with the impression that: (i) mother and partner are fabricating and coaching the kids, and (ii) McNeill has been taken in by them, probably believing this is entirely genuine. Actually I have questions about her motivation as well, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here.

Okay I have managed to contact her. I will also have access (not in my possession, but access to a link online) to the police interview tapes. She is okay and safe her computer stopped working for a while but its okay now.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
After looking a little more into this scandal my personal opinion is that it is most likely a hoax. The things these young children describe seem incredibly unlikely to have gone on so long unnoticed by his mother. Not to mention the parents of other kids from the school. Now Sabine McNeill is making the rounds on all the radio programs etc. that will have her. Casting a wide net.

Even sensationalist Alex Jones isn't drinking this kool-aid.

originally posted by: TechUnique
I think someone is tampering with her internet connection.

... or a problem is being invented to strengthen the conspiracy.

Regards

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: TechUnique


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]

Hmm. That's interesting. In one of the videos the girl tells the police interviewer that it's not just her and her brother who were abused in these rituals, but that there are "twenty special children" at the school who are used.

Anyone else see that one?

a reply to: TechUnique

What point are you trying to make with that video?

I already agree that there are probably pedo rings.

I'm just failing to see how this particular scandal is legit.

ETA:

Just to clarify my position. My position is only my opinion.

Maybe it is true, or partially true. I don't know for certain.

There really is no way for me to know for certain at this time.

The "we dance with the skulls in the church" thread is interesting though.

Just want to add though, whatever someone's opinion may be on whether this scandal is true or not, judging solely on how you perceive the children telling their story (i.e. "they give so many details it couldn't be made up", or alternatively the opposite) doesn't amount to anything. Except opinion.

originally posted by: b14warrior
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.

Well, at least one person posted a shortened video from one of the interviews after the full-length ones had been taken down, so somebody got copies.

I can't give you a link due to T&C, but Google "we dance with the skulls in the church" and go to the thread that pops up. That's where I saw the police interviews and where you can find a lot of discussion by many people who watched all of them and give their thoughts on the initial claims as well as the ultimate retractions.

I believe the interviews were initially posted somewhere between pages 100 and 120 or thereabouts. Discussion is still ongoing and more videos of the interviews may pop up there.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

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".

Well, I can't say for sure that they were genuine, but they absolutely appeared to be. If not, whoever made them did a hell of a job and got an amazing actor to play the cop.

I suppose if there's any way to find out the names of the police who work at that station you could match them up. The man doing the interview told the children his name was "Steve" and the lady officer handling the recording equipment was named "Cleo". You can see him in the couple vids I watched but you couldn't see the woman off camera.

The videos had a "picture-in-picture" thing where the main picture was of the girl or boy being interviewed and in the corner of the screen was a smaller picture was kind of an overhead shot showing the kid, the interviewer and a large part of the room.

At one point in one of the vids there is an audible conversation taking place out in the hallway. The interviewer pauses and goes to the door and asks whoever it is to keep it down because he's doing an interview.

The whole thing is eminently authentic. At least I have no doubts of it's genuineness.

a reply to: TechUnique

Hi...

Im reading, but cannot make heads or tails of what happened.
Can u sum up this scandal in your own words? I know most of the residents in Hampstead, and many more throughout Barnet borough.

This is alarming to say the least!

It's definitely worth reserving judgement until viewing the police interview tapes. See what your gut tells you, and if you don't have time to watch them all, just watch the final interview with each child. That's all I needed to see to know that Abraham Christie is very likely going to be looking at the world through bars before long (unless he's fled to Morocco, which I suspect he has).

Ive just found a video on liveleak of an FBI drug bust in 1998, that stumbled across human sacrifice and satainism.

For those that dont believe Satanists do this sort of thing.

Warning the video contains some VERY graphic images. I SAID VERY GRAPHIC, you have been warned.
Including the brutal murder on video. FBI footage.
Mentions that its the first case they came across in which victims heads were to be sold for profit.
I wont post the video, but heres a link...

Actually on second thoughts Im not sure if its a breah of the rules, because of its nature.

If you really want to see it, go to liveleak and search "Satanic Human Sacrifice FBI Raid 1998" if you really want to see it.

There is a lot of text along with the video, but I dont have the first idea what it has to do with the video.
Its totally irrelevant to the video.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Grisly video indeed. Not sure if real though, tbh.

It's those kinds of things that make me consider that this case may have some legitimacy to it. I'm torn between belief and disbelief. On the one hand much of the claims by these children seem outrageous. The calm demeanor in which they describe things doesn't help sway my opinion. On the other hand.. groups of people who are into the things they describe are extremely secretive about it and no doubt many of them are string pullers of one kind or another. It's also not beyond the scope of reality for PDs to do dishonest investigations on a plethora of things just to protect their own.

Are there any other children/parents from this school coming forward about this? Or is it just these two kids and their mum and them? If it's just them that feels like a red flag to me.

ETA:

Also, where are all the skulls and bones from all these hundreds of alleged dead babies?