Sabine’s most spectacular bail breach yet

Just the other day we were asking ourselves, “Gosh, we wonder what Sabine is up to these days?”

Since her court date with Belinda earlier this month over that whole Melissa Laird unpleasantness, and then her re-arrest a week ago, followed by her assertion that breaching her bail conditions was not illegal, we’d heard nothing from her, and we were starting to worry.

Five whole days? It’s really not like her to be quiet for so long. Turns out we needn’t have worried. First, Sabine turned up touting her new business selling a ‘Bionic Youth Activating System’, and then we saw she’d been busy over on the Tap Blog, publishing a “Second Amendment to Petition 1707/2013 to Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent“.

Because sure, why not?

Of course, what it really boiled down to was Sabine ranting about the injustice of being arrested for harassing innocent citizens.

We confess to being a bit confused by the random numbers thrown in after certain words, until we realised that this was Sabine’s own special way of indicating footnotes. Guess she must have learned that during her days as a ‘scientist’ at CERN.

She starts with an ‘Executive Summary’, telling us how the UK police claimed “‘harassment’ and ‘malicious communication’ on behalf of the thirty plus ‘innocent abusers’ of two child witnesses and 18 other child victims”.

Could someone please explain to us what an ‘innocent abuser’ is? We’ve tried to wrap our minds around it, but we’re just not getting it. Seems to us that one is either innocent or an abuser, not both.

There’s the usual whinging about how the police have ‘shocked and traumatised’ her by treating her as a ‘Criminal Suspect’: we’re not sure why she’d expect to be treated as anything else, given that she’s facing criminal charges, but that’s Sabine for you.

And then, of course, the complaint that she’s been prevented from travelling…and publishing anything about her arrest. Ahem.

Moving along…in item 6, she states that when the UK authorities ‘failed to follow the Rule of Law’, she ‘sought the Court of Public Opinion as legally competent authority’.

Umm, Sabine, we think we see your problem right there, dear: you don’t understand that the justice system isn’t actually a popularity contest.

Online petitions don’t decide cases; the law does. Perhaps this is why you keep losing parents their children…if you knew your arse from your elbow when it comes to the law, you might stand more of a chance.

About those bail conditions

There’s a bunch of EU Committee gobbledygook here, which we’ll skip over; then Sabine tells her own twisted version of the Hoaxtead story…blah blah blah…ah, here we are. The bail conditions.

Hmm. More of the ‘innocent abusers’ crap, and then this bit of madness: “The Protection from Harassment Act protects the petitioner as she was acting in the pursuit of detecting crime”.

Say what?

Does this mean that anyone who wants to can claim immunity from harassment charges by pretending they’re an amateur detective? Who knew?

On a related note, we really hope she’s planning to use this argument in her defence when her case comes to court. It’ll be a hoot to watch the judge’s face.

Sabine also reiterates her bail conditions (just so there’s no doubt that she knows that in publishing this piece, she’s breaching them six ways to Sunday).

More whinging about how her criminal acts have led to the police treating her like (gasp!) a criminal…and then a bit about her most recent arrest on 21 December:

The second arrest…seems to have been triggered by the supposed malicious communication in this blog post: the words ‘Hampstead Children’ linked to the petitioner’s album with the children’s testimonial videos some of them name some of the abusers.

Yes, that’d do it, all right.

This is followed by more narcissistic rage that the innocent people whom Sabine has accused of horrendous crimes have not been arrested, while she, Sabine, has had to endure the worst possible privations and indignities, yadda yadda yadda. Oh, and she’s annoyed, apparently, that Christine Ann Sands was allowed off with a fine and a suspended sentence before she was unceremoniously kicked out of the country. (Hint: she pleaded guilty.)

Ah, look at that: apparently Sabine thinks we’re ‘harassing’ her, presumably with our Perps List (in the right-hand sidebar) which lists all ‘prominent activists’. We prefer to think of them as trolls and criminals. Tomay-to, tomah-to. Oh, and the blog ‘Dearman Does Hampstead’ (are they still around?) has demonstrated that our publisher is the accused father. Uh-huh. If DDH meets her standard of evidence, it’s hardly surprising she’s such a dismal failure as a McKenzie friend.

Sabine also seems to think that the police were ‘falsely alerted due to public meetings’: does she mean our posts about the events she and Belinda organised? If the police read those and decided to check out what was going on, that’s hardly our fault.

And apparently Sabine has had two whole episodes of being threatened (by a brick at her front door) and yelled at in public.

Oh, dear. That must have been so upsetting. Now try to imagine a year of it, multiplied across dozens of families.

So there you have it. Another whining, self-pitying Sabine rant, in which everyone else is to blame for her problems, she’s done nothing wrong, and she’s being unfairly persecuted while others get away with murder.

In other words, same shit, different day.