Sabine lauds Hemming, Twitter hilarity ensues

We were browsing around Belinda and Sabine’s new blog, McKNews, yesterday, and couldn’t help but notice this laudatory post about ex-Member of Parliament John Hemming, whom we’ve discussed elsewhere on this blog.

McKNews-Hemming 2016-05-13

First, that headline: “The Media act as an Equaliser to Bring the Powerful to Account”. Hang on just a tick, there—aren’t we always hearing Sabine rabbiting on about how the media are ‘out to get her’ and ‘cover up the satanic cabals of social workers’ and whatnot?

Is this new, media-friendly approach part of Sabine and Belinda’s attempt to woo the mainstream media? (And will they fall for it?)

But wait! There’s more! Here’s Sabine’s list of all the wonderful things Hemming has done in aid of ‘Children’s Rights’:

McKNews-Hemming-2 2016-05-13

As it happens, El Coyote mentioned this amusing post to some of his friends on Twitter. Hilarity ensued:

Twitter-Hemming-2 2016-05-13

And well you might ask, Jerry. Well you might ask.

Twitter-Hemming-3 2016-05-13

Twitter-Hemming-4 2016-05-13

Twitter-Hemming-5 2016-05-13

Eventually, of course, the man of the hour arrived, and opened fire with a blazing nonsequitur:

Twitter-Hemming-6 2016-05-13

But by this time, reinforcements had arrived.

Twitter-Hemming-7 2016-05-13

Quick translation note: ‘CoP’ is Court of Protection, where cases have been open to the public for some months now. Apparently no one thought to notify Hemming.

Nearly Legal comes up with a real stumper:

Twitter-Hemming-8 2016-05-13

Yet sadly, he receives no response. Clearly, Hemming wasn’t feeling the love on Twitter.

Twitter-Hemming-9 2016-05-13

Twitter-Hemming-10 2016-05-13

That’s it in a nutshell, really. To date, Hemming hasn’t responded.

Last we saw, he was standing in a corner, muttering to himself, “But I’m sure Sabine told me the Court of Protection was always held in secret! She wouldn’t lie to me, would she?”

Hemming & Sabine.png

55 thoughts on “Sabine lauds Hemming, Twitter hilarity ensues

    • Good question. Fortunately I’m not a constituent in his riding, but to my mind his conspiranoid view of the law has much broader and more harmful implications than any riding casework could possibly outweigh.


  1. The words of LORD JUSTICE WALL sum Hemming up very well.

    To quote part of those words (Taken from Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWCA Civ 462 Case No: B4/2007/2168)

    Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWCA Civ 462

    Case No: B4/2007/2168
    29th August 2007
    Royal Courts of Justice
    Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

    Date: 08/05/2008


    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    RP (Appellant)

    – and –

    Nottingham City Council (1st Respondent)

    -and –

    Official Solicitor (2nd Respondent)

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    RP was a litigant in person together with AP and Mr John Hemming MP as McKenzie friends
    Shona Rogers (instructed by City Council) for the 1st Respondent

    “88. I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming’s position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them”.



    Seems to be a common theme for Sabine, Belinda and Angie.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. JW -Those are interesting thoughts and conclusions of a leading Judge.

    Perhaps MR Hemming should consider how unfounded allegations and claims affect victims of those claims.

    For arguments sake lets consider a hypothetical situation. A claim is published on the Internet that says Mr John Hemming likes to wear girls frilly knickers and he sleeps in bed wearing a gimp mask. Something like this:

    Now none of us (mere mortals) know if this is true or not, however its been published on the internet and a person has claimed its true, the person who has published it claims its true, but we don’t really know.

    Such a claim does raise suspicion and would make most people quietly wonder if there is any truth in it. It raises a question in peoples minds. People might look twice and see if there was any evidence or they might just think it was true. Whatever way, it taints the person.

    MR JOHN HEMMING claiming that things are true without any evidence damages people in the same way.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s fascinating (and scary) this internet business. I notice among the Conspiraloons a tale is sweeping the net ( think Jake Clarke here) that Edward Snowden said Osama Bin Laden is living in the Bahamas and being paid by the CIA. Apart from the fact Bin Laden was worth about $200M and has no need of CIA finances, the very fact you could live in the Bahamas ( I’ve been 3 times) unnoticed is a fantasy. It’s a small community where everyone knows everyone (that’s rich that is). Cocktails & Gossip is the order of the day.

      But the original tale came from a hoax website 2 years ago as Snopes demonstrated ages ago and just now has re0surfaced and spread like wildfire.

      Come to think of it : if you told these Conspiraturds that if they set their heads on fire it would kill the Illuminati Satanists, introduce immediate Common Law and the Aliens would land to depose David Cameron we may find bonfires everywhere. Worth a try?

      Liked by 2 people

      • I propose that Jakey-Boy be dispatched on a sooper-seekrit mission to the Bahamas. His tasks? 1)To gently lure OBL out of hiding via a series of loving water-consciousness experiments; 2)to gather crucial intel/convert OBL to Rastafarianism in the process: and 3) most crucially, to be confined to the island until all aforementioned activities/goals have been carried out and met to absolute and successful completion. Win-win for anyone directly involved, and for the greater intergalactic community as well. In short, this will be Jake’s time to shine /save the universe from itself/steer clear of the UK…permanently.
        P.S. Hadn’t encountered the term ‘conspiraturd’ before, but I think it may be the most fitting variant I’ve seen thus far to describe that fetid bunch…


    • *laughing too hard over that (eerily plausible) hypothetical scenario & its accompanying gimp mask image to digest any further serious information for the time being/ shall revisit this once I have regained my composure…*

      Liked by 1 person

  3. The damage Hemming has done is immense.
    He has been at the forefront of a push for the rights of parents to be enforced above and beyond any other consideration.
    Of course parents have rights as human beings – they have Article 8 rights to respect for their family rights and Article 6 rights to a fair trial.
    what they don’t have are ‘rights’ to abuse children without consequence.

    Hemming’s way of operating is to create fear by repeating things which are lies. Which he must know are lies. He goes on television, radio, youtube, attends conferences. Breaks bread with every single one of the really nasty conspiraloons. And traded on his status as a Member of Parliament.

    He has just enough intelligence to jump ship when things get really hot – note his withdrawal as ‘patron’ to McNeill in January 2015.

    His activities, I am quite sure, have contributed to our present mess where we cannot have rational debate about the child protection system.

    that he is someone European politicians will talk to seriously in their ‘fact finding’ mission to London in November 2015 makes me feel sick. The Wall LJ judgment was 2008! How can he have any shred of credibility? But apparently he does.

    and I am quite sure where we end up is here

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Sorry, should have said – excellent post. It made me laugh.

    But now I have sobered up from my marshmallow binge and twitter hilarity of last night and I am just feeling sad. One thing you will note from the Wall LJ judgment is that he never mentions children. He never seems to consider what it might be like for them to have a parent who – for e.g. – tries to convince them their dad abused them. It’s all about his rage at the interfering State who won’t let parents just crack on and do whatever they hell they like.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Sarah – again an excellent and poignant post. I have no doubt that Hemming is feeding his own ego, sadly at the expense of innocent parties.

    I totally agree with your thoughts and ideals – the child’s need must come first and always be first.

    The link to the report that you published is a very sad story. Its clear that the system failed. Like you I suspect that was due to the authorities pandering to indirect pressure from activists such as Hemming, McKenzie and McNeill.

    The common denominator with those people is a self centered need for attention and publicity.

    I find it appalling that Hemming can pretend to stand up for family matters when his own family was ripped apart by his lack of morals or family values.

    Love Rat of the Year (or tosser of the millennium?)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Of course parents have rights but their children are not goods & chattels to be dealt with as they see fit. Children have rights as well and have the right to live without fear & abuse and if that means removing them from abusive parents- so be it and the sooner the better.

      Parents who abuse, neglect and beat their children should think beforehand as to what outcome may come their actions. Children are also very adaptable and if they move in with loving carers or foster parents who love them they can thrive. As a million adopted children will confirm.

      Liked by 2 people

    • This could so easily be a satirical ‘Onion’ article, it boggles the mind ! And I’m not normally one to judge people based on their looks, but it would seem that Mr. Hemmings is, indeed, too sexy for his cat. Well, for a cat belonging to one of his nearly thirty mistresses, anyway. Close enough.
      P.S. Can you recommend a good therapist, E.C.? Strain as I might, I CANNOT UNSEE THAT FACE…HELP !!!

      Liked by 1 person

  6. A group of us were sitting in the pub last night when the idea came up that someone should compile a ‘who’s who’ of conspiretards, fakes, fraudsters cross-referenced to their ‘peculiarities’…

    i.e. A wasted worthless workshy stoner living in a god-forsaken council scheme. General losers, bankrupts, wannabes. A failed/ex stripper brain-fried by weed. Petty crook/drug dealer/child abuser/thug. Failed clothes horse(s) now too old to sleep her way through life. Delusional psycho-groupie crackpot. Mitty (various assorted types). The educationally/mentally challenged. The wilfully uneducated. Straighforward liars and con-artists etc. etc. etc.

    Then ther would be their negative characteristics to consider. 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Journalists should hold the powerful to account, that is their moral purpose. But they should also always ask hard questions, strive to be dispassionate and disinterested, check all claims rigorously against any provable facts and avoid virtue-badging at all costs.
    That’s a difficult gig.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Well the problem there is that when Journalists DO act without fear of favour and publish the inevitable debunk of the impossible fairy stories that these hoaxes are based on; those Journalists are set upon and baselessly labelled ‘nonces’, ‘pedos’, ‘illuminati’ etc. – For McKenzie McNeil or any of the other con-merchants who have been behind any of these hoaxes to be calling out for the truth is sheer hypocrisy.

      The truth is the last thing they want to deal with! – Actually playing a part in putting a real-life nonce away only puts these creeps into ‘attack’ mode. And it seems to me they’re more about drawing the heat AWAY from genuine abuse cases. – They are the ‘boys’ that cry wolf all the time!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, one thing that surprised me when I first encountered McKenzie/McNeill et al. is just how many of their friends seem to be (ahem) ‘falsely accused paedophiles’. I don’t know that I know a single person in that category, but they appear to be acquainted with several.

        They do have a couple of pet columnists who willingly regurgitate their bilge, but we speak from experience when we say that anyone who opposes them will automatically be tarred by McK/McN and their followers as ‘nonces’, ‘paedophiles’, etc. I’ve been told by a few people that this blog is one of the few sources of sustained, direct, targetted opposition to McK/McN, and they aren’t used to that.

        Liked by 3 people

  8. Yes, as far as I know this blog is unique in being a focused attempt to take down this particular group. They are so used to people just not being able to comment (as their jobs depend on then NOT breaching court injunctions with gay abandon) OR people ignoring them as harmless group of nutters.

    That latter attitude is very misguided, given the malignant extent of their activities but I hope those in officialdom are waking up to that, given just how much public money must by now have been wasted trying to contain their dangerous idiocy.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Deborah Mahmoudieh has put a new video up where she shows one of the children and names one of them. She’s in breach of the Court Order. She’s also having a massive go at the interviewing police officer.

    About time some action was taken to protect these kids.

    Liked by 3 people

      • A foul-mouthed rant about “extensive anal scarring.” I’m sick to death of the hoaxers constantly lying about the Medical Reports. When will they get the facts of the Report into their thick skulls.

        Liked by 1 person

        • One child. One instance of RAD, and only in the outdated, non-reliable position, which Dr Hodes later admitted was done because she’d spoken at length to Ella (and had presumably been influenced by her allegations).

          So what about the other sibling, who apparently showed no evidence whatsoever of any abnormality, in either position?

          How can this very thin bit of ‘evidence’ be stretched to ‘extensive anal scarring’? Well, to start with, the person doing the stretching must be an accomplished liar….


  10. O lawks. Hemming has started up AGAIN on Twitter. He has now probably libelled the barristers who acted for Vicky Haigh by saying they threw the case and were corrupt. I think he doesn’t seem to notice that he can’t hide behind parliamentary privilege anymore.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sarah

      I don’t know if you remember the habeas corpus case Justice for Familes/Hemming brought.

      Tim Haines wrote here that Hemming knew that she had been released from prison when he went to court, which isn’t what he actually said to the court.

      I don’t care if Hemming was making some sort of point about “secret courts”, as far as I am concerned that’s no excuse for lying to the the court about a case you have brought.

      Liked by 1 person

    • The thing that gets me is that he certainly wouldn’t appreciate people explaining why he had social services involvement in his family. I think he’d be many more times more likely to get a sympathetic reception from people who he seems to think are some sort of enemies than the strange people he takes up with.

      And if any one’s curious, well JFGI.

      I mentioned the case because Tim Haines wrote here that Hemming said something he knew was not true in court. I think if that’s actually what happened, then he’s a big wibbly jowled hypocrite.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Pop over to Twitter. I think the whole of the family bar has decided to challenge Hemming’s errmm unique understanding of law and professional standards.

          Made my freaking day. Whoop whoop 🙂

          There are some really good people trying to make a real difference. The sort of advocate who takes on a big pro bono case that is a lot of work despite a mortgage to pay and mouths to feed. A parent trying to help other parents through her experience of child protection and who tries to educate child protection professionals. People trying to dispel myths. People who do their best to get the voices of parents heard.

          Then there’s Mr Wibbly-Jowls……….

          What he has done in the past is no different to what has happened in this case except maybe in scale. Or perhaps he actually believes the threshold for publicly calling your ex a child abuser and outing your child as a victim of a sexual offence is his personal belief in the overall truthiness of one party?

          Liked by 1 person

        • I was exagerating with the whole of the family bar thing.

          Nearly Legal is there too, Nearly Legal has a special Naughty Step. I need one too.

          Liked by 1 person

  11. Lord Justice Wall sums up Hemming rather well:

    “As to Mr. Hemming, my judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged, and speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nearly Legal has tweeted that a blog post is coming up.

      I imagine it will be some sort of explainer, maybe the Naughty Step will be wielded!

      Frightening that this Hemming is a man who imagines he has any understanding of family law or even law in general.

      And yes, that paragraph is rather pointed.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. If Colin Yeo and Charon QC wade in, they are on my legal blogger and commentator bingo card and I win.

    If (team) PopeHat has anything to say, I get the accumulator jackpot!

    Apologies to anyone not mentioned, blame the printer.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Is Charon QC ok? He keeps posting really sad things about having nothing to eat and no money…

    Yes, all my Christmases have come at once. Finally he has incurred the wrath of some quite serious people.
    but it is now horribly clear just what he has been telling parents all these years – that us lawyers are simply corrupt and evil and we represent local authorities and parents in clear contravention of professional standards.

    I have asked him to let me know what cases he and the Haines have ever actually won. Amazingly he claims he can’t answer that question right now because he is off to bed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Of for where JFG doesn’t reach

      Funny thing is, I did JFGI, what wobble-chops suggested. Conclusion, Hemming gave the wrong search term, when I worked out what the right one was, found the paper, from the originator of the term, read the paper, it didn’t necessarily support his argument, I could in fact wield it against him.

      Lies, damned lies, and statistics seems to be the thang.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Pingback: Hemming’s arguments demolished by legal experts | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.