Pages

▼

Wednesday, 4 March 2015

Sabine McNeill followed EU Directives - UK Authorities did not !!


Hampstead Abuse: Negligent/Incompetent Authorities


                                                                
Published on Feb 26, 2015

Please Sign The Petition to let the children return to their mother: 
https://www.change.org/p/the-rt-hon-t...



your_logo_alt_text




Email from Deborah Mahmoudieh to Sabine McNeill  (excerpts) 
February 26, 2015   

Subject:  According to EU directives, you behaved lawfully Sabine and the UK authorities have not.


Serious criminal offences such as the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography require a comprehensive approach covering the prosecution of offenders, the protection of child victims, and prevention of the phenomenon. 

The child’s best interests must be a primary consideration when carrying out any measures to combat these offences in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.


Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA should be replaced by a new instrument providing such comprehensive legal framework to achieve that purpose. UN Charter says:

(28)  Member States should encourage any person who has knowledge or suspicion of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child to report to the competent services. It is the responsi-bility of each Member State to determine the competent authorities to which such suspicions may be reported. Those competent authorities should not be limited to child protection services or relevant social services. The requirement of suspicion ‘in good faith’ should be aimed at preventing the provision being invoked to authorise the denunciation of purely imaginary or untrue facts carried out with malicious intent."

The case [of the Christ Church Primary School CE Ritual Sexual Abuse and Baby Sacrifice cult] includes child pornography, ie: sessions being filmed and photographed, the sexual abuse of children, child trafficking and child murder.

What choice did you [Sabine] have except to appeal directly to the authority of the general public in light of regular authorities being allegedly complicit and actually, negligent in dealing with this case which required immediate action.

Investigations, prosecutions and competencies

Investigations and prosecutions concerning offences must not solely depend on a report or accusation being made by the victim, and criminal proceedings must be able to continue even if that person has withdrawn his or her statement. Furthermore, for the most serious offences, prosecutions must be possible for a sufficient period of time after the victim has reached the age of majority.

Basically, you acted in ‘good faith’ according to the facts of what you had witnessed from the children, the police medical report, the mother and the authority - ignorance and negligence: 

Negligence = failure to immediately investigate verifiable facts. 

Negligence left other children possibly at serious risk – a risk which could not be adequately assessed without a thorough investigation of remaining verifiable facts.


Though allegations were later withdrawn, the tapes recording the children’s “retraction” would NOT be permissable as freely-given evidence in a Court of Law.  The children are very clearly encouraged to say what interviewers wanted them to say, and even with police putting words into the children’s mouths. 

By comparison, the first tapes reporting the abuse are consistent and are clearly, freely given statements with no leading questions by police interviewers. In respect of the obvious evidence, yourself and others, very strongly felt that the retraction was coerced and that children remained at risk.

The amount of time now passed has permitted the alleged abusers to escape and cover their tracks. Christ Church School CE Hampstead, now has ALL new staff and who knows what other evidence is now lost? 

Considering authorities themselves are accused, it can be construed that their lack of legally-required action was specifically, to AVOID confirming the children’s allegations. It is very reasonable to conclude that the authorities of Courts and police are at the very least, negligent in refusing to use their powers to protect children and limit child sexual abuse and child trafficking and at worst, actively complicit as abusers themselves.

In case of authorities being suspect and when immediate action is required, we call on:

 the Human Right of Free Speech – the RIGHT TO CRY FOR HELP!

What yourself, the mother and others involved needed and still need, is REASSURANCE that other children and babies were NOT at risk.  Without that reassurance, all of your lives have become hell. 

The stories of TWO witnesses, abused children are consistent, freely given, very detailed and include names and addresses of abusers/killers and other child victims. Testimony is informed beyond what an average child could know. The medical evidence confirms sexual abuse enough to provoke suspicion. 

Is that kind of suspicion, of such serious abuse involving so many children and professional people in UK authority, one we can live with daily? 

Isn't this exactly the kind of suspicion the EU legislation on "Combating Child Sexual Abuse, Pornography and Trafficking" written to ENSURE would be investigated?

This Directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in parti-cular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular the right to the protection of human dignity, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the rights of the child, the right to liberty and security, the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to the protection of personal data, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties. This Directive seeks to ensure full respect for those rights and principles and must be implemented accordingly.

British authorities involved in this case have acted negligently according to EU Directives and their negligence lends further credence to the children’s allegations which are in turn, supported by the medical evidence. The implications are extremely serious and if the children’s allegations are correct, this would mean those authorities cited as participants in child abuse and murder, are a deadly threat to possibly thousands of vulnerable, children. 


The gravity of that possibility do not weigh equitably against the children's very flimsy “retractions”. 

Where is the balance between allegation and fact? 

What is the point of tax payers funding police personnel who refuse to investigate verifiable FACTS provided by TWO witnesses to multiple murder of babies brought into Britain via child traffickers?

This Directive should be fully complementary with Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (8), as some victims of human trafficking have also been child victims of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation.

The negligence is in fact criminal given the trust and responsibility to uphold the law that is the oath and occupation of those professionals involved. This case is not simply about child sexual abuse, human trafficking and murder – all of which have yet to be investigated; This case is about a mother and her children’s and her legal counsel’s Human Rights and the rights of protection under EU law as EU citizens. 


The children have a right to speak and be heard. 

They have a right to have their allegations investigated.




Other blogs and websites:


at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated - BronnyNZ