Sabine’s history of ‘helping’ people get sent to prison

Last week we were discussing the case of Vicky Haigh, which in many ways was like a small-scale template for Hoaxtead (minus all the cult ritual abuse nonsense).

Essentially, a child was coached and led to make false allegations of sexual abuse against her innocent father. These allegations were spread via the internet, to such an extent that the court felt it necessary to break its normal rules of confidentiality in such cases, in order to clear the father’s name.

But the Vicky Haigh case had another important link to the Hampstead satanic ritual abuse hoax: Sabine McNeill.

As we mentioned last time, Vicky Haigh was assisted by an ‘investigator’, Elizabeth Watson, who was sentenced to 9 months in prison for contempt of court related to the case. Elizabeth was sentenced on 22 August, 2011.

However, it seems prison life did not agree with her, and she immediately applied to be let out. Basically, she said she was really really really sorry, she’d been very naughty, and she wouldn’t do it again.

On 1 September, 2011, Sir Nicholas Wall issued his judgement on Elizabeth’s application to purge the contempt: he suspended her sentence, saying, “I would be entitled, if I wished, to keep her in prison until such time as the blog to which I have been referred and which is the one outstanding matter has been investigated and those responsible for it have been given the opportunity to remove the e-mail. I have considered that option very carefully. I have decided, however, in the end not to do it. I am satisfied that Ms. Watson has had a very unpleasant experience in prison. I am willing to accept her undertaking – which has the force of a court order – to use her best endeavours to remove the offending e-mail from the blog and I am satisfied that to keep her imprisoned would serve no real purpose as far as she is concerned”.

In paragraphs 9 through 12 of his judgement, Sir Nicholas noted the following:

Another aspect which makes Ms. Watson’s contempt particularly grave is that she breached the order not only by communicating through e-mails with a large number of third parties, but also gave material to an internet provider, one Sabine McNeill who runs a website called Inquiring Minds. Ms. McNeill (who at one point acted as Ms. Watson’s McKenzie Friend in these proceedings) lives, I am told, in Germany although she has a flat in London. The mischief of the publication, as Ms. Watson now appreciates, is that the publication of allegations which I and two other judges held to be without foundation not only puts the identity of the child into the public domain and renders it accessible to anybody who cares to look for it or to read it; but equally, Ms Watson has put herself in the hands and the power of the internet provider. The omens do not altogether look good.

Yesterday Ms. McNeill wrote to Ms. Watson’s solicitors in these terms:

Why on earth does the Guardian who has NOT acted in the child’s interest request me to remove the page about [the earlier fraud?]
Re Inquiring Minds I wrote to Malcolm & Co. and cc him for your convenience.” – [That is another matter on the website] – I am happy to cooperate but I am not happy destroying all the evidence that Liz [Ms Watson] has found and was just not sufficiently able to present effectively. The same evidence will help to get Vicky [that is the mother] her daughter back after all and the Guardian CERTAINLY has no right/authority/jurisdiction to tell me anything.
Sorry, but you will have to fight for the fact that Liz has undug more than ‘they’ would have liked her to.
With best wishes, Sabine.”

I forbear to comment; the e-mail speaks for itself.

Ms. Watson, fortunately, however, has had the good sense, at long last, to take legal advice and has been ably represented before me by counsel, Mr. Littlewood. She should be extremely grateful to her counsel and to the solicitors whom she has chosen.

So essentially, Sabine did almost exactly the same thing she has done in the Hoaxtead case.

While acting as Elizabeth Watson’s McKenzie Friend, she took material given to her by a client involved in an extremely questionable case revolving around child sex abuse, and smeared it around the internet. The result was that the false allegations not only publicly identified the child involved, but exacerbated the serious legal problems her ‘client’ had already created for herself.

Ring any bells?

This appears to be Sabine’s modus operandi: whether through deliberate malice or sheer deranged jack-booted incompetence, she has an unerring ability to ‘help’ her clients become ever more deeply embroiled in legal issues, whilst loudly and tearfully proclaiming her own innocence and good intentions.

We wonder whether, in her meeting tomorrow with the MEPs, anyone will think to mention any of this? We can but hope.

(We should note here that then-MP John Hemming also embroiled himself in Vicky Haigh’s case. Rather than go into detail here, we’d recommend you to this article on Head of Legal.)

Sabine McNeill EU committee

38 thoughts on “Sabine’s history of ‘helping’ people get sent to prison

  1. Sabine does just as she damn well pleases and doesn’t give a damn about anyone else. This is certainly the way she operates.She does everything she does to benefit just herself. Has she actually ever helped anyone? I think not. I’ve come to the conclusion that Belinda uses people like Sabine and Neelu, to say what she dare not, for fear of the outcome. Sabine is totally selfish imo, Neelu can’t seem to work out she is completely wasting her time with her lien nonsense and Belinda i still can’t completely work out, but i’m 100% sure it’s the money and the “fame”.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. MP John Herring was kicked out of office in the 2015 general election – good riddance.

    I think Sabine McNeill is so blinded by her own hubris that she has no idea the misery and trouble she brings to others and herself. I am confident that the boomerang is returning back to its owner, heading straight for her malicious little self.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I think Sabine should be put on this list: In order to protect the public. Perhaps this is not the exact right list, but there must be one, or should be one, for people like her, to stop them from representing people. Oh, I just remembered: The courts do have a list of banned or disallowed McKenzie Friends, I think. Perhaps that should be looked into.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I am more and more certain that Belinda is in it for the money. I have come recently across quite a few references to her “charities” and pseudo-charities and they almost all have names that piggy back on the reputations of legitimate organisations; “The Knight Foundation”, which sounds like it has something to do with the legitimate “John L. and James S. Knight Foundation” (but doesn’t), is only the latest in a long string.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. You have to be really naughty on an almost daily basis to get put on the vexatious litigants list. It’s for people who keep bringing silly actions to the Courts and wasting time.

    I’m not aware of a list of banned McKenzie friends although there may be one. My understanding is that a judge has to ban each individual one, as in this case: (not relevant here but it shows you what goes on)

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Cheryl Corless is really upset to be misused by Sabine, in her usual way of attaching herself to a decent campaign, and genuine survivor, who btw, they have never before supported, at all. Sabine has included a video interview of Cheryl, explaining her story and about the UKCSAPT, which is an alternative to the gov’t led inquiry, though it will feed the info collated to the inquiry too, So Sabine puts Cheryls video on her latest petition update, and blogs, Cheryl’s comments on the petition, making her feelings clear, have been removed, tho Sabine has not removed the videos, So i asked Cheryl if it was alright for others to blog, and her reply was ‘Yes please anything else to stop vulnerable ppl following this crew thinking I support them’

    Liked by 1 person

  7. her status, just now… Cheryl Corless
    51 mins ·

    Sabine MacNeil and belinda Mackenzie have used a video off mine to promote more of their dishonest behaviour
    I was never consulted about them using this in any way Iv asked for it to be removed so they blocked me
    Please no I do NOT support or endorse these con women in any way shape or form and am seeking legal advice about this
    Do not be fooled by them Iv watched them screw up many people on my fight
    I also was sickened by what they did to those poor kids from Hampstead and would not share my breath with ppl like this

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Pingback: ‘Honey, Sabine stole my video…’ | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  9. Can’t say I have much sympathy for Cheryl Corless. You would have to be pretty damned thick to even entertain having anything to do with these 2 scam artists Mckenzie & Mcneil. When it all goes pie eyed these birds of a feather scream to high heaven even though their involvement has advanced the cause of these dangerous ‘activists’ just a little more. Corless is just another ‘activist’ out to cause havoc claiming children are being ‘stolen’ and she involves herself with those aggressive ‘men’s rights’ groups.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Why is Corless ‘liking’ a video that defames dozens of innocent Hampstead people and accuses them of Satanism? . She has a cheek to talk about ‘vulnerable’ people.


  11. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with Cheryl’s case, but it’s pretty clear that she didn’t ask to be ‘adopted’ by Sabine in this way, and has been trying hard to disassociate herself from her. Our point is to do with the fact that Sabine has no compunction about swooping in and claiming any seemingly relevant case for her own, with or without the permission of the person involved.


  12. That’s an unfortunate pic of Sabine, the Basil Fawlty of the legal world.

    Just don’t mention the war.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. A judge in one case awarded costs against her and Belinda operating as the the Association of McKenzie Friends. I think that led to them claiming the Association had been dissolved, only to carry on in the guise of ltd companies/not charities.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Fine and you are correct about Sabine’s latching onto almost anything to promote her own causes but Corless is as fanatical about social workers and Family Courts as Sabine McNeil including defaming social workers who do a bloody hard job for little thanks and get accused by people like Corless & McNeil of “stealing babies” to sell. Why wouldn’t she attarct the attention of Sabine who must have believed she was a fellow traveler.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. she has ‘liked’ dozens of Youtube videos who perpetuate numerous conspiracies. I was wrong about her liking a Hampstead hoax video after viewing it. But she does ‘like’ dozens of videos that perpetuate ‘vip pedo rings’ on no evidence and produced by the usual suspects. Corless has used her position to defame 100s of social workers. She may not believe the Hampstead hoax ( I apologise for that) but she adds to the atmosphere that produced it in the first place.


  16. The woman is amazingly fanatical tweeting sometimes 50 links a day within minutes of each other. That in itself is not so bad but she tweets support for some very dangerous self appointed ‘activists’ who accuse all manner of people of evil acts upon no proof except an internet search of like minded websites. She is an active supporter of the fool who promoted the Leon Brittan claims. Stuff liek that does great harm to genuine investigations of child abuse.
    While Sabine may have nicked her video I see this more as a turf war. I don’t think claiming that you believe Hampstead is a hoax necessarily gives you credibility. I’m sure there are many who waited to see which way the wind blows with Hampstead.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. She spray painted a statue at Westminster Abbey. She’s yet another Sheriff Sands, defacing important UK historic buildings.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. That would mean swilling around in the depths of Sabine’s web presence……

    I will have a look later.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. It’s a bit late on that front for me.

    Anyway, It was Mrs Justice Simler re the Mellisa L case.


  20. Having worked in UK social care field, I know there exists legislation, or guidelines, that have to be complied with with when working with ‘vulnerable people’. This is quite a loose term, children are counted as such, and so could anyone, depending on ever-changing circumstances. Any organisation that receives funding from a govt or local govt agency, would have to make sure all its workers (including volunteers) had appropriate qualifications – or were being trained and supervised accordingly. This training would cover necessary knowledge, various aspects of working with this client group eg confidentiality, ethics, safety, etc) and would require the worker to provide enhanced criminal disclosure documents (may be called something else now) before they could ever have unsupervised contact with such clients.

    My question is this: How can outfits such as Sabine’s and Belinda’s evade such scrutiny and requirements for professionalism? Is there not a body that could make sure they cannot ruin other people’s lives, such as exists in the wider (legitimate) social care field?

    Liked by 1 person

  21. That’s a really excellent question, and I’m afraid I don’t know the answer. It seems to me that Sabine and Belinda slide between the cracks in the system–they’re not ‘legal representatives’, but ‘legal assistants’, and they’re not mandated to work with vulnerable persons, although in effect that’s exactly what they do.


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

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

Comments are closed.