Failing to learn from history: Hoaxtead and the Haigh case

Long before Hoaxtead was a knowing glint in Abraham Christie’s beady eye, there was Vicky Haigh.

Vicky had a problem. She had a little girl, whose father was her ex-husband, and she didn’t want the little girl’s father to have contact with her. The problem, you see, is that there was absolutely no legal reason for the father and daughter not to be in contact. And that pissed Vicky off, so she came up with a plan.

The plan was beautiful in its simplicity: she would claim that the father had sexually abused the little girl. Then the judge would be sure to order the father never to see his daughter again. Vicky would have her daughter all to herself. Problem solved!

She began coaching her little girl, telling her to say very bad things about her father. However, it wasn’t long before Vicky’s Brilliant Plan started to go pear-shaped.

The little girl was subjected to 4 medical examinations (none of which showed evidence of abuse), police interviews, and numerous contacts with professionals…all of whom agreed that the abuse was non-existent.

However, as the judge in Vicky’s court case, Rt. Hon. Sir Nicholas Wall, said in his August 2011 judgement, “As a result of inappropriate pressures and prompting, X came to make and believe the allegations. The mother used allegations of sexual abuse manipulatively as part of her irrational and longstanding hostility to contact which she sought to obstruct”.

(Is this starting to sound just a wee bit familiar?)

More from the judge: “…while professing her concern for X’s well-being, the mother consistently prioritise(d) her own needs over those of her daughter”. Unsurprisingly, the court found in favour of the father, and the the little girl was removed from Vicky’s care in 2010.

Despite the court’s findings, though, Vicky was unable to accept any of their judgements:

Ms Haigh, aided and abetted by one Elizabeth Watson, is not only unable to accept the judges’ findings but has put into the public domain the false allegations that she has not had justice and that X, contrary to both judges’ findings, has been sexually abused by her father. Those allegations have been posted on the worldwide web and are in the public domain. In addition, the mother has circulated the allegations to the parents of X’s school and to Mr. Tune’s fellow employees at his place of work. All this, of course, has been done illicitly and in breach of orders of the court.

(Wow. This is so close it’s almost scary! Is it possible that Elizabeth Watson and the Hoaxtead hawkers have read from the same play-book?)

One of the Haigh case’s outcomes should be of interest to those who’ve been avidly promoting Hoaxtead: Elizabeth Watson was found to have sent “aggressive, intimidating” emails to council staff involved in the case, which had found their way on to websites and “compromised the well-being” of a child.

Who could have guessed that the courts would frown upon this sort of thing?

According to a 24 August, 2011 article in The Star:

Sir Nicholas, sitting at a High Court hearing in London, said Watson had defaced copies of court orders with ‘childish scribblings’, ‘knew precisely what she was doing’ and ‘thought herself above the law’.

He jailed Watson – who gave her name as ‘Elizabeth of the Watson Family’ and described herself as an ‘investigator’ who was a ‘Montessori-trained teacher’ with a background in ‘child psychology’ – after revealing details of the custody battle over the child….

We wonder: has Sabine read this? Is she taking notes?

Watson, from Bournemouth, Dorset, told the court that she was ‘most sorry’ and suggested she had been ‘badly advised’ and ‘misguided’ after being asked to help with the custody case by the child’s mother, Victoria Haigh.

Sir Nicholas said Ms Haigh, with Watson’s ‘misguided assistance’, had then breached court orders by putting ‘unwarranted and scandalous’ allegations into the public domain via email and the internet.

Watson had sent emails which identified parties in the case and criticised social workers and police.

She had referred to ‘social disservices’ and ‘abductees’ who ‘snatched children’ and ‘tortured innocent parents’ and written about ‘nationwide child snatching reaching epidemic proportions’.

“You have seriously breached an order and seriously compromised the well-being of a child,” said the judge.

“There is no question of ‘misunderstood’. You knew exactly what you were doing – writing the most aggressive, intimidating emails calling everyone in sight ‘corrupt’. You wrote on the court orders you were sent. That is not someone who misunderstood.”


Obviously, the Haigh case is missing a few of Hoaxtead’s more dramatic elements: the whole ‘satanic baby-killing cannibal’ angle, for example; as far as we know, Elizabeth Watson didn’t do her damage from Parimaribo, Suriname; and Vicky Haigh didn’t bugger off to Spain when she realised the shit was about to hit the fan.

But still, we think the Haigh case is an interesting precedent, in legal terms—and if the clowns who currently shill for Hoaxtead had any brains whatsoever, they’d take it as a cautionary tale.

learn from history

38 thoughts on “Failing to learn from history: Hoaxtead and the Haigh case

  1. Indeed almost a prior run to the Hampstead falsehoods. I still think – although I would understand anyone involved wanting to keep their head down – that the innocent Hampstead victims should contemplate a private prosecution of the main Hoaxteders who have undoubtedly conspired to pervert the course of justice. That includes that malicious clown in Suriname. If she was named in court documents and did not turn up she would be arrested if she returns to the UK.
    And I also think the CPS would feel obligated to takeover the case & thus at least save the victims their money.

    The important factor here that differentiates Hampstead form the Vicky Haigh case is the extent of the conspiracy. Rather than 2 people conspiring as with Haigh we have many with Hampstead and agitators like Belinda McKenzie would be on very shaky ground. I mention McKenzie because she owns a property ( as my own lawyer says everything I want to pursue someone -“do they own a house?”) which can be seized to cover costs in a case the Hoaxteders could not possibly lose. Mind you Belinda’s house is probably owned by some obscure charity in..maybe Suriname ??

    # I follow this case because of friends who have been maliciously attacked on the internet. One just won her 6 year battle against a nasty US website & Google in the Adelaide courts. Another was 85 year old lady falsely accused of theft. She has now passed on but the agitator has attacked everyone from her solicitor to the Law Society, authored websites and so on.

    They never give up. They should be pursued relentlessly.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Don’t worry, we know what you’re getting at. And if there’s ever a bit you’d like me to correct, just let me know and I’ll be happy to help.


    • I agree, Sam. And you’re right that the extent of the conspiracy is really what differentiates Hoaxtead from the Haigh case…I suspect that when Abe and Ella cooked up the original story, they were aiming to make a large splash, but they failed to anticipate the obstacles that would stand in their way.

      I see that Vicky Haigh is still out there on Twitter trying to drum up support for her position, though she’s now living in France and ‘helping mums on the run’. The mind boggles.

      You’re right that these people never give up (though Charlotte seems to have thrown in the towel, mirabile dictu.


  2. I’ve got to agree with Sam. The people that have been wrongly accused/slandered/libelled by any of the Hampstead lot (that have any assets) imo should sue them. I suspect Belinda will have put her house into the names of her sons. I suppose someone could pay £4 i think it is to look at whose name the property is in. As for Sabine and the rumours she has property abroad, then perhaps someone can do a bit of tunnelling (lol) and find out more. Not sure about Neelu, wouldn’t surprise me if she owns property and no doubt Fag Ash Angie does too. Not sure if any of the others have more than the clothes they stand up in??

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’ve felt this as well, but ultimately it’s up to the innocent victims and their legal advisors. Contrary to the word that’s been put out about them, not everyone who lives in Hampstead is fabulously wealthy, so I imagine that for at least some, a libel suit would be prohibitively expensive.


    • I wonder if the Hampstead kids will be able to do something similar when they grow up if there’s stuff still about on the internet. They may have to go to Court to get it all removed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • there are time limits on libel actions but you can get around that by putting the person on formal written notice that you may take action in the future which is something Hampstead victims should do to the main protaganists even of they don’t follow through with their threat.

        They would also have a good solid case for harassment which would have no time limit.

        This is what happened with Kenneth Clarke MP who decided to ignore the many internet ramblings about him. It was his son who read them and urged his dad to do something as he did not want his kids (and Clarke’s grandchildren) coming across terrible false accusations on the net one day in the future. At the very least this is why websites like this are so important by at the very least, putting the truth out there.

        Who knows how the children may react in the future? Could sail through unaffected or not. I hope they are getting counseling.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I’d say it’s a safe bet they’re getting counselling; but I’m also concerned about the children of all the families who were named as ‘cult members’. This has been a completely unexpected nightmare for so many people.

          And good advice about the legal end of things.


    • This is really an interesting story in the current context, Sam. I wonder whether the affected Hampstead families would be able to pursue something along these lines?


      • Sadly it can take a terrible emotional toll but sometimes people pursue justice no matter what the cost. However it would be much easier with the Hoaxted creeps as they are all known and mostly live in the UK. Depending on the territory, Google do now remove links especially in Australia and do so quickly when notified (no lawyers needed). We all know anyone can around Google by using proxy etc but the key is the linking and I think past judgements in the UK have decided Google etc are not publishers. Libel actions traditionally targeted everyone from the publisher, printer, distributor to newsagents although most litigants only ever pursued the publisher and publishers usually take libel insurance to protect other sin the food chain.
        I think a libel case against the hardcore group of Hoaxteders would be settled fairly quickly as they have no defence. Few could pay damages or legal fees but they could be bankrupted which would put a damper on rogues like McKenzie. She can also be examined as to whether she really owns assets like her house

        Liked by 1 person

  3. John Hemming MP was a big supporter of the Vickey Haigh case. He started posting all over Mumsnet around the time. If i remember correctly, Vicky Haigh also had a thread on Mumsnet about her case, trying to drum up support.
    It’s of my understanding that John Hemming, Belinda and Sabine move somewhat close together in similar “Child Support” circles, or they did before hoaxtead.


    • Emily, I’m intrigued. Would you be so good as to quote the line in the fact-finding report that states that the children were sexually abused? Thanks in advance.

      Also, would you be so kind as to bear to things in mind?:

      1. Before calling us arseholes, perhaps you could consider Charlotte Ward, Angela Disney, Tim Veater etc’s statements about how you guys are consistently polite and that we’re the rude ones. Moreover, I believe they’ve repeatedly stated that rudeness is a sign of guilt. Just saying.

      2. Please stop increasing the risk of further abuse of Child P and Child Q by not illegally stating their names on a public internet forum? Thank you

      Good talking to you. Let us know when you’ve found that official confirmation of sexual abuse. Cheers 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • Emily, on Hoaxtead-promoting blogs and discussion threads it may be acceptable to refer to people as ‘assholes’, but we don’t play by those rules here. Stay polite or you’ll be asked to leave.

      As for the ‘report’, could you tell us which report you’re thinking of? If it’s Dr Hodes’ initial medical exam, you should be aware that when she was challenged by her peers, Dr Hodes agreed that the method she’d used to diagnose sexual abuse was in fact faulty.


  4. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned as the saying goes.

    Emily i suggest you read through the wealth of information and facts here on this blog rather than relying on what you have heard elsewhere.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Pingback: Sabine’s history of ‘helping’ people get sent to prison | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  6. Pingback: Another lying, bail-breaching blog from Sabine | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  7. Pingback: Kevin Annett and His Affiliated Fellow Sociopaths | kevinannettexposed

  8. Pingback: Sabine’s chronic leakage problem | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  9. Pingback: ‘Child Protection Task Force’ conference coming up | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  10. Pingback: Punishment without crime in the Haigh case | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.