Police reaction to Hoaxtead: Too little, too slow

For the past year, we’ve expressed our support for the children, parents, teachers, clergy, and business people of Hampstead, all victims of a malicious, cold-blooded hoax that has tried to falsely accuse them of the most horrendous of crimes.

We’ve talked about the court’s response to Abe and Ella’s ludicrous allegations—a full exoneration of RD and the Christ Church School community—and the ways in which the police have attempted to control the situation, trying to stem the tide of abuse and threats.

What we really haven’t addressed is the fact that the Hampstead community has been failed more often than they’ve been helped by the services that were supposed to protect them.

On the first weekend in February 2015, a group of parents of children at Christ Church Primary School were informed by police that they had all been named as ‘cult members’ who murdered, raped, and cannibalised children.

The parents sat, stunned, as they were told that Sabine McNeill had shared Ella Draper’s list of their email addresses and home addresses. Their hearts dropped as they realised that their young children had been named, and were now open targets for any paedophile looking for prey online.

At that time, police reassured the parents that this would all blow over in a week or two. Everything would soon go back to normal. No need to panic.

Despite the urging of the parents at that time, the police did not take immediate action to arrest the suspected perpetrators. Sabine, Abe, and Ella were all in London and could have been brought in for questioning on the matter; instead, there was waffling and indecision, and by the time the police had made up their minds to pop round to Ella’s house and have a word, the suspects had the wind up. Ultimately, all fled the jurisdiction.

Abe and Ella remain beyond the reach of the law; Sabine has returned, but has never been legally called to account for her role in sharing the original videos of RD’s children, the police interview videos, nor the lists of named Hampstead residents.

And rather than things blowing over in a week or two, the case virtually exploded on the internet over the year that followed.

For many months now, vicious and/or deluded people have posted reams of inflammatory and illegal material online, claiming that the allegations against the people of Hampstead are true, and that action must be taken.

The internet is now littered with posts like this, which provide names and addresses, and ascribe gory and fantastical crimes to completely innocent people:

Kane Slater 1 2016-05-09

Kane Slater-death threat-FB

It’s easy to claim that people who write this sort of thing are only brave when they’re behind their keyboards, but the parents, teachers, and clergy of Hampstead have lived for 15 months with the knowledge that anyone at all could read material like this and decide to ‘do something’.

Would all this have been avoided if the police had reacted promptly and firmly in the very early days of the case?

That’s hard to judge; hindsight is cheap. But it’s probably fair to say that had Ella, Abe, and Sabine been apprehended early on, they’d have had far less opportunity to spread their lies as far and wide as they did. If they’d had to stand trial for their actions, they’d have been exposed much earlier as lying, scheming hoaxers.

While the case still might not have blown over in a week or two, it could have been more effectively contained—and dozens of people would not now be living in fear for themselves and their children.

London Met police caps




44 thoughts on “Police reaction to Hoaxtead: Too little, too slow

  1. Brilliant post. Serious questions need to be asked regarding the lack of a police response to such serious issues.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Yes, a very good post.

    It is sad that the Police react so slowly, is it that matters such as this move into the “too difficult (for them)” category?

    Or is it the complexity of Civil law (the injunctions) and the point that crosses into Criminal law, that causes a reluctance for the Police to act more expediantly?

    At face value the Local Borough Council who initially applied for, and were granted the injunction (supposedly to protect the children) have been exceptionally unreactive. Perhaps pressure on them to act to bring the matter back into the Civil Court, would start a domino effect that would bring an ever increasing haste to this farce ending?

    Afterall long term the ultimate aim should be protection of the children, first and foremost. With protection of the public as an almost equal but second consideration.

    I am certain that this blog has had a very positive effect upon stopping matters escalating unchecked, without the blog it would have been awful. At least this blog has given balance to the whole torrid affair

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thanks, both of you–I hope we’ve had some impact. Ultimately, it’s up to law enforcement to ensure that this thing goes no further.


  3. I am sure that many authorities, including the police, find this blog useful to keeping tabs on the many Satan Hunter activities. This is a complicated tragedy as the Satan Hunter piles one injustice and illegal action upon another. I am sure there are dozens of potential legal cases that can be made against the Satan Hunters, but the law works slowly.

    I think if the people and businesses of Hampstead want closure on this SRA case then they need to become more pro-active in challenging the Satan Hunter and demanding that the authorities use the civil and criminal powers that are available against the Satan Hunter including ASBO’s and a European Arrest Warrant against Ella Draper and Abraham Christie.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m not privy to all of the efforts that are being made, but I’m told they’re proceeding along several different avenues simultaneously, for maximum effect.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Perhaps a letter to the judge who issued the injunction that has been broken would be a good place to start? I bet that if I were to break an injunction issued by the high court I would find myself in hot water. Many mothers who have breached such injunctions have found themselves in prison, so it seems perverse and paradoxical that this particular case, which has seen the mass leaking of confidential material online on an epic scale has been reacted to with….nothing.

    Dear Judge Pauffley

    Are you aware that many breaches of your gagging order regarding P and Q have occurred, and are continuing?

    Please could you consider the message that not bringing the perpetrators to account, before you, sends out to the followers of those that have breached the order. I imagine it tells those people that they can act with impunity, something like: ‘Have no fear, High court gagging orders/injunctions are not enforced. You can do what you want, say what you want, nothing will happen’. No consequences.

    What happened to the rule of law? What good is an order without enforcement?

    Whilst I acknowledge the complexities of this case, and the possible attempt to quell further interest in it by a ‘low key’ approach, the reality is that people who are unable to grasp the intelligence of your judgement are only emboldened by such inaction. Such people are now calling for the hunting down and kidnapping of the children, and issue death threats to the father. This approach does not support the family lives of those who have already been traumatised by what has happened.

    Inaction only adds insult to injury.

    Please could you urgently review this case and what could be done to send out a message of support to those who should be protected by the High Court.

    Thank you.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You raise some excellent questions here, Mark. What is the point of things like injunctions if they can be ignored with impunity? And what does this tell the victims about how the courts view their plight?


  5. Sabine McNeill actually provided contact details for the clerk to Mrs Justice Pauffley (rather helpful of her) in one of her Internet missives.


    Mrs Justice Pauffley is of course the judge that issued the Injunction.

    The Head of Legal services for the Council that sought and were awarded the mandatory Injunction is contactable by email. :


    (its a Joint Council legal services)

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I think it will be up to residents (and perhaps they need to form an action group) to get the police taking an active part in railing in these internet trolls and defamers who breach court orders.

    I can’t understand why an arrest warrant hasn’t been issued for Abraham Cristie and Ella Draper. What are the cops waiting for? We have already uncovered people conspiring on FB to kidnap the children in this case. Will this be another case of inaction by authorities leading to something truly dreadful happening?

    Liked by 2 people

  7. How can it be certain that an arrest warrant has not been issued. Its very rare for such a warrant to be publicised. I’m told that normally a warrant would be actioned when the person crosses a border.

    In view of the allegations against both the mother and (step) father, then I would imagine that a warrant may already be waiting for them. Due to the nature of the allegation I can’t see that being made public.

    On the other hand the Injunction is very public and little seems to have been done about that being ignored. Even though the injunction carries a penal notice.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. @JW I am making the assumption that nothing has been done regarding the breach of the gagging order because Sabine would be the first to be hauled in front of Pauffley, as she is available in the UK, and there is plenty of evidence of her behaviour. Sabine has publicised every other aspect of her involvement with the authorities, I very much doubt she would leave this bit out.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The police will have to be fast, Sabine will be somersaulting away across the rooftops of Hampstead using her parcour skills.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, I think that if Sabine had even seen a police officer on her street, she’d be screeching about how she’s being harassed and traumatised. However, I take JW’s point that not all police activities take place in public.

      Even so, I know that many of the residents of Hampstead are fed up to the back teeth with feeling victimised and helpless, and who can blame them?


  9. I am of the opinion that it is up to those accused to do something. It is only they that would be listened to. The local police and crime commissioner would be my starting place as they are new and I guess want publicity.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think it’s safe to assume that the falsely accused residents have been taking action on their own behalf and that of their children; I think their main issue is that it’s been like pushing boulders uphill, with relatively little reward.


  10. I believe that people expect too much of the police as in my experience a lot of coppers are pretty useless. They are either dim or just plain lazy. If residents of Hampstead expect a good deal of help from their local Bobbies then they need to go in to the station as mob handed as they can and demand to be listened to and then each week keep the pressure up so the Police stay on the case and don’t let it slip back into the background. If the cops don’t do enough or aren’t doing their jobs properly then threaten to take to the papers.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I wish I could disagree with you about the police. Relatives who worked with the Police Force in the 70s and 80s tell me that Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes were nearly documentaries.

      I would have thought it would be possible to start a civil case against the perpetrators. I suppose the problem is that the lawyers will say, why bother, they don’t have any assets.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, the suspects who might have been sued are skint for the most part. Those who have any assets have been careful to keep their hands clean, by wearing rubber gloves if necessary.


    • I know there are some very dedicated and energetic police officers, but for whatever reason, they’ve been unable to achieve critical mass in this case. I think this really does highlight the need for the community to continue to stand together in strength.


  11. The problem that the parents have had is that they are essentially third parties in the matter. They were not party to the original child protection proceedings – that was the local authority – and they had the traction to push for breaches of injunctions etc. Their focus was the safety and protection of the children not the parents and their offspring.

    Secondly you need to look at the law that applies, it’s the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

    1997, which means it will have been conceived and drafted in 95/96. This is basically pre-email, never mind pre-internet, and certainly never mind pre-twitter / facebook – platforms which allow people to disseminate info in seconds globally. I’m sure it’s like trying to get a round peg to fit a square hole for the police and the prosecutors – imagine if the Road Traffic Act was still based on horse and carts – same issue.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, good points. It’s hard to remember that the social media age has really only been with us for the past 15 or so years–I remember when terms like ‘Web 2.0’ were being used with complete seriousness. The laws really do require updating, and I think this case might be one that highlights that need loudly and clearly.


  12. I don’t know what the police have done in the background, but on the surface it would appear the people of Hampstead have been let down. I believe in freedom of speech but these witch hunters, who accuse people of rape and murder, were allowed to shout obscenities at people in the street. They were allowed to enter the church of people they accuse of these heinous crimes and they appear to have carried out very little action against those who publish the names, addresses…etc, including those of children. They also failed to stop Abe and Ella leaving the country and going on the run.

    I understand that they must follow procedure of law and have plenty red tape to cut through, but surely there is more that could be done.

    I also don’t know if the so called accused still experience threats…etc, but if they do then I agree with the sentiments of other commenters, that they must keep up the pressure on the police. A good place to start would be gathering up the evidence of court order breaches..etc, found on this blog, and taking it all to the police and asking why nothing is being done.

    Having said all that, I am glad the police have taken some action, but as the title states, “too little,too slow”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I believe the residents still do experience threats, their personal information can still be found online, and their children have been affected in various ways (from having to be closely monitored at all times to being sought out by online predators). These are just the stories I’ve heard; I’m sure there are many more.

      However, as they say, the worm has begun to turn. I feel it won’t be long before those who initiated and flogged this hoax will discover that their victims aren’t willing to sit still and take it.


  13. Sadly the problem is rather simple – the police will NOT deal with breaches of civil law, they will only deal with breaches of criminal law.

    The breach of the injunction is a civil law matter, in the first instance one would expect the local authority who obtained the injunction to refer the breach of the injunction to the Court.

    The local Authority is the London Borough of Barnett

    My understanding is that the breach has been notified to them, with evidence.

    I wonder how long before a national newspaper gets hold of the story?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I’m inclined to cut some slack for the cops even though it riles me to do so. The bloody law can be a complex thing to implement and of course, can work at a snail’s pace.
    Court orders can be obtained but it isn’t the police’s job to enforce them. I’m not too sure of the Injunction but I thought that carried more weight as it includes penalties like jail.

    The police generally only act – in complex matters like this – upon complaints. And that would be the residents. But as annoyed as I get sometimes, I still understand that the falsely accused probably hope this whole thing will just go away (God only knows how the poor father must feel) . I don’t think it will though. We are dealing with fanatics & there will be some dangerous ones among them.

    Remember social,council workers, judges and police themselves have had hideous things published about them. On that : recall the Scottish case & Robert Green. It really took the judge who he repeatedly attacked and stalked to finally do something for that hoax to come crashing down (& Belinda McKenzie of McKenzie’s Devils was in the thick of that one). It’s so very difficult. And awful for all involved.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. To be honest, if it wasn’t for Hoaxtead Research, the people of Hampstead would not have a voice online but perhaps that is what they wanted..to just try and get on with life in the hope the malicious lies told about them would fade away. Unfortunately, it hasn’t and their names are still plastered all over the net by a nasty group of fruitloops.
    These same fruitloops think we are all Hampstead residents or Ricky Dearman, which shows you their mentality. They call us Paedo Protectors, Cult Members, Baby Eaters, when all we are is a voice for the innocent wanting to see justice served.
    We don’t know what is going on behind the scenes by the Police at the moment but I remain hopeful.
    I’m sure they also didn’t expect the ferocity of the fruitloops at the beginning.
    The Police call the internet the new “wild west” where people can say what they want, with a slow-acting (if at all) Facebook and YouTube removal procedure.
    I’m sure reading this blog gives them valuable information and links which are of help to them.
    I can also confirm they are appreciative of information which I have sent them over the past year.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I had a go at reporting several of Kane Slater’s posts today – ones with libellous content next to peoples photographs and personal details:

      “Thanks for letting us know about the photo you reported for harassment. As of now, it hasn’t been removed because we found that it doesn’t go against the Facebook Community Standards.
      If you think that this photo should be removed for a different reason, please report it again, choosing the most relevant option after selecting I don’t think it should be on Facebook.”


      Liked by 1 person

    • someone on youtube called atya scat(something like that) accused me of being in the cult yesterday and ive never even met a person from hampstead! I think it may have been christie, talks like a witchfinder

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, I agree with you: I’ve heard from several people that this blog is useful in that it provides a rallying point for the falsely accused of Hampstead; and I understand that it’s read daily by various people in law enforcement. We don’t know what’s happening behind the scenes now, but I think all would agree that a crucial opportunity was missed in February 2015, and the past 15 months have been spent paying for that.


    • Quite right. That’s the case with many of the large online companies, like WordPress, Google, Twitter, etc. They are protected by the fact that while they ‘broadcast’ worldwide, they need only answer to breaches of U.S. law.


  16. How is the Hampstead matter any different to this ?:

    Spurned Met detective, 50, is facing jail for harassing his ex with fake leaflets advertising her as a prostitute

    The difference is of course : the harassment has been on a global scale that may haunt the victims for decades to come.
    I don’t think how the harassment laws are written makes any difference. The injunction is clearly written with a purpose in mind- to warn accusers of the penalties for breaching it.

    I loathe Facebook , Google etc with a vengeance. I feel sick each time I read about the share owners or Mark Zuckerberg or some new executive being paid millions$. The endless defense of the criminal libels perpetuated by these entities and ignored by Youtube , Facebook under US ridiculous ‘Freedom of speech’ laws (freedom to libel & defame) is ridiculous.

    These ‘freedom’ to defame claims have been perpetuated by tech writers who are as clueless as most are about the affects of internet harassment. I’ve challenged several well know tech writers to allow me to begin an internet campaign of abuse, lies & harassment against them and “let’s see in 1 year how you & your family feel then”. Not one has been brave enough to take the challenge.

    Many countries are combating this : Australia has now ordered Google to pay out huge sums despite their weasel attempts to claim they operate under US law (but only when it suits). Yahoo were equally forced to pay out huge sums but now at least act responsibly and will quickly removed links to defamatory websites. Google are sickening : a researcher I know in Adelaide finally won her libel case against Google after 6 years & after exhausting her legal funds. She finally represented herself in court while Google had 3 barristers & a raft of lawyers. And that’s just in a remote Oz state.

    France , Italy and other countries are fighting these vile, tax avoiding mega-corps who scrounge of the waged taxpayer, use the facilities taxpayers fund but base themselves artificially in a tax haven while screaming “Freedom of Speech”. Politicians have been fully aware of this for decades and ignored it.

    The police may describe the internet as the Wild West- and it is- but they are the police for God’s sake. They should piss off out of the force if they think it’s too tough. No-one ever said policing would be easy.

    But I still say : NOTHING will happen until the falsely accused residents become active – they can legally seek anonymity under current laws as children are concerned – and they delude themselves if they think this matter will go away. They have a duty to their children and other children. They have no idea how this may affect their children in years to come. They have a duty to seek every avenue available to protect their children’s identities and reputations.

    These hoaxers are border-line dangerous fanatical morons. I haven’t heard a single conspiracy theory from them that I didn’t hear decades before the internet. They truly believe they are discovering something new just be landing on a new ‘truther’ website. A new generation will be just the same.

    In 10 years when a Hampstead kid goes for his first job, some prospective employer may surf the net & read he/she was inducted into the “Hampstead Satanic Cult” & just decide : too difficult to take them on & some problem may arise, there are another 100 waiting in the job queue.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You’ve nailed so many issues with this, GoS. Hard to address them all properly, but I’ll just say that I agree. Various avenues have been tried, including Google’s famous ‘right to be forgotten’–but I’ve heard from numerous people who’ve said they tried it, and had Google turn them down flat. I applaud your friend who sued them, and I think this might be a last resort for the Hampstead residents; meanwhile, though, they’re not taking this lying down. I haven’t really talked about what they’ve been doing, in part because I don’t know all the details, and in part because sometimes these things are best done behind the scenes, but you should know that they’ve been very active on their own behalf.

      You’re so right that the hoaxers are dangerous fanatics who won’t give up until they’re forcefully stopped by the law. I think it’s safe to say that everyone knows that now, even the police and courts.


    • I share your frustration. Without Google, Facebook, Youtube and WordPress the Hoaxtead saga would have died out a long time ago. The sight of the stragglers that attended the ‘real life’ meet ups on a Sunday gave you an idea of just how disparate and desperate some of these people were, and clearly lonely and looking for something to do, and someone to berate, full of grievances against the world. But they were a tiny group.
      It was the internet that propelled the case forward, gave it an endless platform and still attracts idiots online who take up the ’cause’ afresh. It won’t end until the internet’s ability to spawn and reproduce the case also ends, or at least the big organisations face a severe penalty. But that might bring the case to wider public attention, which, as has been said, is also problematic. The whole mess is an object lesson in the dangers of modern communication; from the shared videos of the children, to Sabine’s dominance of certain websites and manipulation of search engines, to the endless sock accounts and wordpress accounts, to the use of video by Farmer/Alton, the disinfo and debate on forums, and even this site, which is the opposite element, countering the lies and using the internet positively to track down and defeat the perpetrators. I’m too old to not see the new normal of life online as inherently problematic and, as it currently operates, as providing a licence to do wrong with impunity.
      It was much better in the days when the fruitcakes just muttered to themselves.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I have to agree–in the old days, you could tell who the fruitcakes were. They wore sandwich boards and walked the streets shaking their fists and muttering. Now, they make use of the internet to force their loony agendas upon an unsuspecting public.


Comments are closed.