Amber Hartman v Confidentiality

10606306_249799585230919_2543099681175688772_n

Once of our sources has drawn our attention to Amber Hartman, an “independent lay advocate for children and human rights” and ex-employee of John Hemming, the former MP who has links with Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill.

Amber was working with the Police on the Hampstead case but had her knuckles severely rapped over an abuse of trust and breach of confidence.

Over the last few days Amber has allegedly continued to breach confidentiality by sharing inside information on the case. We say allegedly but we have in fact been privy to several links and screenshots confirming this. However, for both legal and ethical reasons, we won’t divulge the inside information that Amber has shared. She has been asked to remove every one of her comments at the request of both our source and the owner of the group where she’d posted them. She has now removed some but has stubbornly kept some up.

One piece of information from Amber that we are happy to share is that she personally believes the Hampstead case was one of “severe parental alienation'”, a phenomenon described here:

Parental alienation syndrome is the concept of one parent attempting to separate their child from the other parent as punishment or part of a divorce…a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against the parent, a campaign that has no justification. The disorder results from the combination of indoctrinations by the alienating parent and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the alienated parent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome


Moreover, this view is echoed by John Allman, the prospective MP who has posted extensively on the Whistleblower Kids site:

https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/extreme-parental-alienation

#SatanicJudicialAbuse #SJA #Pauffley Judgement in the #WhistleblowerKids’ Interest?


Amber has also echoed the claim made by Allman that there is extensive video evidence of Abe and Ella torturing the children.

https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/is-there-a-video-of-abe-ella-torturing-the-kids


Finally, Amber claims that it was another Hemming employee, Julie Haines, who tipped off Sabine that she was about to be arrested, enabling her to flee the country. This corroborates Sabine’s claim that she was “warned by someone in government that something bad would happen” if she did not leave the UK. However, some have pointed the finger at Amber, others at Hemming himself. We may never know.


We’ll keep you posted….


1358123472_HYPERSPEED

43 thoughts on “Amber Hartman v Confidentiality

    • Sabine has now admitted that Belinda suggest that she (Sabine) take a short holiday. I am vindicated from Amber Hartman’s poisonous attack. What action I take against her is for me to think about seriously.

      Like

  1. I also have a FB convo of Amber telling me her plan to sabotage Sabine’s involvement. So if anyone wan ts to use me as a weapon, they need to come to me first.

    Like

  2. Pingback: Responses Hartman & Haines | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  3. There is a lot to disagree with on this blog, but I would like to emphasise that neither Amber Hartman, Julie Haines nor anyone else associated at any time with JFF has assisted the mother in this case. I personally advised Sabine McNeill in writing to withdraw from the case.

    Sabine made her own decision to leave the country and none of us suggested that she did so.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Mr. Hemming

      Thank you for your response. However, you have been rather remiss on a number of details.

      1. We have not accused you or your employees of anything. We have merely quoted what your employees Amber Hartman and Julie Haines have stated. If you have an issue with that, you will need to take it up with them.

      2. The fact remains that someone in officialdom tipped off Sabine, enabling her to flee the country. Few people were privy to her imminent arrest and moreover, even fewer would have had a motive to warn her. It is a matter of public record that you are an associate of Sabine, so suspicion in many quarters has naturally fallen on you.

      3. It’s interesting that you feel you can state as an absolute fact that no one from your office tipped off Sabine. Correct me if I’m wrong but there is no way you could know this for certain. Furthermore, as I’ve already mentioned. Julie and Amber themselves have both stated that someone from your office was the perpetrator (as has Mr. Haines). In fact, they both appear to be having a lot of “fun” blaming each other. So which one are you calling a liar? Julie or your alleged squeeze Amber? Or both?

      4. Sabine herself has stated that she received a tip-off.

      5. You say that “there is a lot to disagree with on this blog”. However, you neglect to cite any examples or evidence thereof. I suspect, therefore, that that was merely a childish insult in response to our reporting of your office’s alleged behaviour. If, however, you have spotted any factual inaccuracies on here, we would welcome your feedback. I would, however, be astonished if a former MP had been taken in by this proven SRA hoax (but somewhat less astonished that you lost your seat at the last election).

      Thank you once again for your feedback
      Kind regards
      Scarlet

      Like

  4. He is a dickhead, and another that you have to question, putting himself as Minister for Families…oh hold on the fucker had two…!!! so he should know what he was talking about….he is an arse

    Like

  5. It is quite obvious that I was not taken in by this. I make the point that I suggested that Sabine withdraw from the case. I am not going to go through all the issues on the blog (and I only refer to this post, not to the blog more generally).

    It is also rather obvious that I would not have been (and was not privy to) any plan to arrest her. Nor to the best of my knowledge were Julie Haines or Amber Hartman.

    In terms of the abusive comments I will not respond.

    Like

    • “I am not going to go through all the issues on the blog (and I only refer to this post, not to the blog more generally).”

      Nice backtracking, Johnny.

      Where’s Paxman when we need him?

      Like

  6. Mr Hemming, would you be prepared to go through the Hampstead case in more detail in private?

    But I would imagine if you were privvy to any malicious intent on the part of McNeill you would of course have alerted the appropriate authorities, and quite possibly still can, in view of the fact she is now in custody.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Neither Julie nor I has ever stated that “Someone from [John Hemming’s] office was the perpetrator”.

    It is possible that Sabine misunderstood a conversation which she had with Julie, during which Julie told her that she might expect trouble in the case from an un-named person. The un-named person was Amber, who had indicated that she might try to interfere with Sabine’s role as a McKenzie (we have this in writing). The reason for the call was not to support Sabine, but to find out whether Amber would actually do this, since she appeared to have been meddling with a number of other unrelated matters which did not concern her at all, and we were looking for confirming evidence of her behaviour. We were as surprised as anyone when Sabine left the country, and even more surprised when it was suggested that Julie might have had anything to do with it.

    For clarity, Julie and I have always believed the Satanic allegations to be completely ridiculous.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Tim

      Thanks for confirming your disbelief in the satanic ritual abuse allegations.

      To reiterate, both Julie and Amber have repeatedly stated that the tip-off came from John Hemming’s office, including on this very page. They have, in fact, blamed each other.

      You, Julie, Amber and John clearly have some relationship issues and you’re all pointing the finger at each other as a result. This blog is not a relationship guidance service, so I would suggest that instead of finger-wagging here, the next step is for all four of you to either to swallow your pride and move on or sit down in a room together to discuss your differences.

      Warmest regards
      SSx

      Like

  8. I cannot speak for Amber (not least since she has blocked every channel of communication) but, once again, you are wrong to suggest that Julie has ever stated that “the tip-off” came from John Hemming’s office. Neither Julie nor I have any knowledge of the matter, other than what has been stated above, so have no reason or grounds to make such an assertion. I will go so far as to say that we are both quite certain that no such thing ever happened. It is also entirely wrong to suggest that there are any issues between John, Julie and myself.

    Like

    • Ooh, resorting to childish ad hominem attacks now? Touched a nerve, did I? Come on – I didn’t even mention John’s alleged affair with Amber!

      Point is, we didn’t post crap, mate. In fact, as previously explained, we didn’t make any claims at all; we merely asked a question. The question has clearly made all four of you uncomfortable and you have been bickering about it ever since.

      Actually, to be honest, the rest of us moved on a week ago. I suggest you do the same. Besides, the post doesn’t even mention you. I don’t even know who you are. So quit while you’re ahead and run along, you strange person. Byeeee x

      Like

    • That doesn’t confirm anything. A general suggestion is not the same as a telephone tip-off about specific information. And as I say, the claim that that came from someone in your office was not made by us, it was made by your former colleague and squeeze Amber, so take it up with her. Or even better, move on. Thanks.

      Like

    • Hello John.

      I wonder why you took a different stance with this case from the one you took with the Vicky Haigh case? “Publicity is the very soul of justice” and all that. I mean in Vicky Haigh’s case it was just one man who had stuff sent round accusing him of being a paedophile, all the associated publicity and so on. In the Hampstead case it’s pushing a hundred. With your track record of absolute disregard for the consequences of publicity for a child involved in a difficult case and the concept of innocent till proven guilty being irrelevant, I thought you would lap the Hampstead case up. It seems right up your street. I actually am glad you didn’t.

      I just wonder if maybe the way you justify the change of stance is a belief that in one case the story was true, in another it was not? Who made you the arbiter of all this in that case? I don’t think you and people like you should be the ones to decide, this child gets named, that one doesn’t, that man is a rapist, this one isn’t. The same standards should apply to every child caught up in these sorts of cases, and to every parent accused of sexual abuse of their child.

      One thing I am certain of is that your behaviour has encouraged the absolutely disgusting way Belinda and Sabine have behaved. I am sure you did in fact tell them to not run with this case, maybe even not to name people. However, if they were previously encouraged to disregard concepts, laws even, such as innocent until proven guilty, not naming or identifying victims of sexual assault, privacy for children caught in conflict between parents in family cases and so on, how on earth did you expect to put the genie back in the bottle?

      You should look on this case and be thoroughly ashamed. You laid the groundwork. You have previous with some of the people. You even got involved with the “Association of McKenzie Friends” knowing their track record. You laid the path for them to follow. You led by example as a member of the establishment. You campaigned on family cases using similar tactics of name and shame.

      And here’s Belinda’s next project.

      http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCC/Fam/2012/5.html

      There’s loads of paperwork relating to the case and including names on a blog by Sabine. The poor mother is seriously mentally ill and incredibly vulnerable. She deserves better than these McKenzie “friends”. It doesn’t help her case pretending that this mother’s behaviour is totally fine or by just letting the mother run with yet more lies unchallenged. I notice Sabine even puts a judgement about reporting restrictions up with the paperwork. She is either utterly clueless or arrogant in my opinion.

      Nothing is going to stop these two in the near future. Belinda was even recently recorded saying Mr Dearman HAS snuff films on his computer. She doesn’t care enough to use the shield of “alleged” anymore.

      I think the Hampstead case has been the straw that broke the camels back in a lot of ways. It could also have the effect of discrediting people who are currently doing work in other areas. It may even show some current campaigners to be utterly credulous despite the inherent ridiculousness of an allegation.

      One more thing. It was never the cases that Belinda and Sabine took on that were the problem, it was their behaviour. If you trusted Belinda and Sabine’s ethics, integrity and the lawfulness of their behaviour, no case should impact on your ability to support them. Unsavoury people need representation too, indeed they have right to it no?

      Yours in absolute disgust

      Like

      • I advised John Hemming to step down as Patron of the Association of MKF as although I believe the Council of Europe presence was awareness, I felt other ‘interests/ actions’ could damage John’s reputation. He took my advise.

        Like

        • That statement doesn’t get him off the hook. He shared those interests and actions. He’s done similar things himself. People are following a path trodden by him. What he did in the Vicky Haigh case was virtually unprecedented and she didn’t get in to the Palace of Westminster by her own efforts did she? He rightly got a lot of flack for that. I am not aware of any apology from him or statement saying it had been an error of judgement.

          But what is the difference between Vicky Haigh’s case and the Hampstead one actually? A difficult parental separation, issues about a child seeing their father, an allegation of sexual abuse, found on the balance of probability not to be the case, evidence of coaching by the mother, publicity about the case, naming the father and accusing him of sexual abuse even though he has been effectively cleared. Even a similar outcome, mother has no contact with child. Similar people involved. Time will tell whether there will also be time served in prison.

          All this was well before the Hampstead case so what he was doing with the “Association of McKenzie Friends” in 2014/2015 I don’t know.

          Their Council of Europe lobbying stuff barely reaches the level of incoherent rubbish on occasion in my opinion.

          There’s a reason campaigners are now having to resile from things like “the UK is the only country with forced adoption”. It is not true, it never was. That is the standard of actual knowledge of social care and standard of lobbying we are dealing with here though.

          And what’s this “could” damage his reputation stuff? I think it actually has.

          Like

  9. email from belinda and sabine

    Hi Yolande & all 1) Note I didn’t and haven’t named Julie Haines, she has only ever been someone in JH office� 2) It could fairly safely be presumed that she got this info from JH himself as how else would she know what was transpiring at high/judicial level, she’s only a McK Friend 3) However Sabine could retract and say the advice from the person working for JH rang her as a private individual simply to advise caution, her advice was non-specific� re. actually leaving the country

    My decision to leave was based on 3 councils wanting to mount a prosecution against me which was in the Position Statement which we discussed on Wednesday morning. Julies phone call was a pure dose of fear�, as it was completely non-specific, not what, not why, who or anything. Just a warning of something bad. It obviously made me consider leaving, as we discussed. When Julie phoned me later in the week, the specific badness� was that I would be taken off the case.

    Like

  10. Yolande Lindridge On the basis of what Sabine has told me, I have concerns that what Tim Haines is saying is the truth about his wife Julie and Sabine. Tim has said that his wife Julie did not speak to Sabine. At 8am this morning I recieved an email from Sabine
    14 mins · Like

    Amber Hartman Thank you Yolande.

    Yolande Lindridge At 8am this morning I received an email from Sabine K McNeill which said “Julie (Haines) spoke to me twice. First on Monday (9th) we travelled to Forest Gate. The second time on Friday 13th”.

    Like

  11. The truth is not that difficult to work out. There have been communications between Julie and myself and Sabine. I suggested to Sabine that she should drop the case. Julie told her there were moves to have her removed from the case. Neither of us made any suggestion that she leave the country. We are not saying that we didn’t talk to her. We are saying that we did not suggest she left the country.

    Like

  12. Pingback: Why do I worry about John Hemming? | Child Protection Resource

  13. Pingback: Blog share: Why should we worry about John Hemming? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.