Josephs distances himself from Belinda, Sabine

Over the weekend we published a post in which we discussed the activities of Ian Josephs, hailed by Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill as the ‘veteran of all McKenzie friends’.

Ian is known for promoting the false and damaging rhetoric of ‘child-snatching’ social workers, who he claims reap a tidy profit from destroying happy families and selling infants to eager adoptive parents. He takes credit for coining the phrase ‘forced adoption’ (rather than the less-inflammatory ‘adoption without parental consent’). But above all, he is notorious for his activities in assisting pregnant women, whose children are deemed at risk of abuse, in fleeing the UK for countries where they may be able to keep their babies.

It didn’t take long for Ian to discover our post. He began inundating it with commentary, primarily long, barely readable diatribes on how we were either misunderstanding or misrepresenting his actions and intentions.

We don’t want to get into a rehash of the ensuing discussion, which you can read for yourself on the actual post (linked above). However, a couple of Ian’s statements were quite unexpected, so we decided to share them here.

Commenter JW asked an important question: “Do you support Sabine McNeill and Belinda McKenzie in all of their activities and beliefs?”

Ian Josephs re Sabine & Belinda 1 2016-05-23

To our surprise, Ian answered, “I do not know all their activities and beliefs so cannot support them all the way….”

In the same vein, JW said,

[S]urely you will have seen enough to question in your own mind their activities and ethics….Perhaps a look at the findings of the Judge in the Hampstead matter that started this blog would raise questions with regards the conduct of SM and BM with regards the publication of the children’s details and the lack of respect for the Court.

Ian Josephs re Hampstead  2016-05-23

Here’s Ian’s answer:

Ian Josephs re Belinda & Sabine 3 2016-05-23

“I work alone and cannot answer for others like Sabine or Belinda….I disagree with them on the Hampstead case….I feel no guilt for admiring a lot of things that these ladies do but not everything”.

We wonder how Belinda and Sabine will take the news that their guru of child-snatching/forced adoptions disagrees with them on the Hampstead case, which they’ve both described as pivotal, the most important case ever?

Or that he feels he “cannot support them all the way” in their actions and beliefs?

Given the reverence in which Belinda and Sabine seem to hold Ian Josephs and all he stands for, we’re sure it will come as a bit of a shock. Break out the smelling salts.

Sabine-shock 2016-05-04





38 thoughts on “Josephs distances himself from Belinda, Sabine

  1. Well good then. At least he answers his critics. I am quite sure social services bugger things up at times and terrible mistakes are made.
    But the sad truth is that child neglect is rampant in the UK. It’s also rampant in Australia with state authorities overwhelmed by 100,000s of referrals which they simply cannot keep up with. Why? I don’t know.
    To perpetuate this myth that all children who are removed from their parents are somehow stolen to feed an industry is stretching credibility when no proof is offered.
    The UK situation is unique but is that because the law has kept up to date or it’s excessive?

    Perhaps the Dame Goddard inquiry should be looking at this and those who make the claim should be agitating for same.

    Liked by 2 people

    • But of course when you have fanatics claiming Dame Goddard is part of the satanic Ruling Cult and is preparing a cover-up we are in a King Canute situation. The cult-like Cult fanatics will never be appeased, never satisfied. They seize upon a case where a dreadful abuser is convicted & jailed as proof but when the same authorities declare ‘co case to answer’ they scream ‘cover-up’.

      Liked by 1 person

    • There is a lot wrong with the child protection system in this country. That is why it is so utterly, utterly, utterly infuriating that time is wasted on these idiots. I discussed it last year

      Every second of my time I have to spend trying to convince a parent client that their blue eyed baby is not being stolen for order, is time simply wasted – or worse, time that is spent by the parents busily digging a hole in which they can bury their case.

      Ian Josephs emails are now finding their way into social work statements after parents have refused to work with them for months, to absolute detriment of their expressed wish to keep their families together.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Yesterday, (On the other thread) I posted this as a question to Ian Josephs:

    “Perhaps a look at the Musa’s or Haigh case would speak volumes.

    Perhaps a look at the findings of the Judge in the Hampstead matter that started this blog would raise questions with regards the conduct of SM and BM with regards the publication of the children’s details and the lack of respect for the Court

    Surely by the support (an association) you have given them you dilute any credibility of your own efforts?”

    His response was surprising (below is a quote from part of his response:

    “Vicky Haigh for example sentenced to 3 years jail for speaking to her own daughter when her ex (the father) drove into a petrol station to fill up his car where vicky was shopping locally and could not have known he would drive in at that time.Yes when she came out of jail and fell pregnant by her new Partner I helped her escape to France to give birth there full of praise for kind and helpful french social workers! Vicky now trains racehorses at Maison Lafitte and trained one for me recently ! Her new daughter is safe and happy and already riding ponies.
    She committed no crime against children except speaking to a daughter she had not seen for two years……..”

    Ian is obviously a keen supporter of the principle of no punishment without crime. A principle I agree with.

    Lets be very clear here that in the reference to “crime” I include actions that ignore the orders or instructions from a Court.

    Ians statement is a good example of a person trying to justify the unjustifiable.

    Vicky Haigh was far from innocent, during the course of her divorce she made a number of lies against her ex. Those included claims that he was a paedophile. As a consequence he suffered greatly. WHERE WAS HIS CRIME IAN? WHAT HAD HE DONE TO JUSTIFY PUNISHMENT.

    Sabine McNeil published a document that was claimed to have originated from a 7 year old child. I have copied the first page of that document below,

    The document is still published (

    The father was found NOT TO BE A PAEDOPHILE, yet his reputation was severely damaged by the false allegations. People have died because of such false allegations.

    Irrespective of the parents differences, the child should not be used to try to push those differences and should certainly not be used to try to support the lies of one parent.

    Sabine McNeill and Barbara Watson were the authors of the document. Surely (Ian) that is abuse. Surely that is a crime?

    The mother (Vicky Haigh) continuously breached Court orders and did end up in prison – a punishment for her crimes.


    Liked by 1 person

    • Another case of Sabine ‘forgetting’ to remove material from her pages. The Haigh case reads like a preliminary playbook for Hampstead: coaching small children to make horrific allegations against innocent people, backed up by an online campaign for ‘justice’. I applaud the courts for seeing through the lies, but the damage to the little girl and her father cannot be undone.


    • I’m glad you’ve commented that, JW.
      I couldn’t believe it when he made Vicky Haigh out to be holier-than-thou and innocent of any wrongdoing.
      As for Sabine’s involvement in the case, simply disgusting.

      Liked by 1 person

    • From page 2 of the document:

      And page 22:

      THE LIES in this case are from SABINE MCNEILL, BELINDA MCKENZIE AND IAN JOSEPHS, with their distorted version of “facts” THE COURTS FOUND DIFFERENTLY, they examined hard fact and evidence and then made their findings. Rather than the reliance on hearsay, rumour and speculation, fed by fanciful ideas

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Freeman of the Land woo is strong with this one.
        And Elizabeth Watson learned to her chagrin that ‘so-called injunctions’ are not to be trifled with, as I recall.
        This case reads like an early playbook for Hoaxtead: mother doesn’t want father to have access, trumps up sex abuse charges, goes public, harasses him online, uses insane McKenzie Friends to make it all sound kosher. All that’s missing is a cult and a few tattoos.


      • Well, she stuck Holloway out for a full 9 days before she went before the judge and ‘sincerely repented’ of her crimes. She’s a bit more discreet these days, but I don’t see any signs of her changing her views.


        • O yes, that ‘repentance’ was as genuine as Cameron’s desire to buy a Nissan Micra. She sent me a very abusive email not so long ago referring to me as an ‘ex-spurt’ (which to be fair was quite funny). But she hasn’t learned a thing – other than to be less publicly and obviously mad.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Whenever I try to reply to your points extra politely , nameing no names, ,making no personal attacks,and never using foul language or terms of abuse my comments are wiped out so that types J.W and friends can say I am silent ! Well if I just repeat again that there is noone with whom I agree on everything 100% and noone I know who claims to agree 100% with me (thankfully).We are all individuals and only the disgraceful thought police of the” politically correct” demand unconditional 100% loyalty to their stereotyped beliefs communist/fascist style and demand that those with opposite views should be prevented from voicing them publicly !


  3. Message coming in…

    … …. .. .–. … .. -. -.- .. -. –. .-. .- – … .-.. . .- …- .. -. –. … .– .. — — .. -. –. ..-. .- … –

    (ship sinking, rats leaving, swimming fast)

    I’m afraid that even a cursory look at McKenzie and her cronies would indicate to any sensible person they are not to be trusted or taken particularly seriously.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. And perhaps someone can explain this alleged “industry” and how it profits anyone?

    Of course adoptive parents or those who temporarily care for children who have been removed from their abusive or neglectful parents receive payments but that is just part of our great welfare state.

    It would hardly be profitable and I bet every penny is spent caring for the children particularly as they also have to account to social services for their actions. It must cost the government £100Ms annually with no return except hopefully those children will grow up in peace and unscathed, prosper and hopefully become citizens who contribute.

    Unless sane people are genuinely trying to imply there is some organized slave trade where British children are sold to the Middle East or elsewhere in their 100s. Of course the loonies make this claim but can never provide proof except linking to another website perhaps run by a ratbag like David Icke etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s frequently said that the reason councils are so keen on adoption proceedings is that they get money from the government for reaching adoption targets. As with many conspiracies, there’s a grain of truth in there somewhere, see here for example: Hammersmith and Fulham council received money directly as a result of hitting an adoption target. The number of children involved was just over a hundred, in a three year period. The huge financial incentive? Five hundred thousand pounds….that’s 5k per child. I’d imagine that this would not even pay for a day in court. And in any case, these targets were scrapped in 2006.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Even if the council receives a subsidy from the government it gets spent so no benefit there except ratepayers are saved some money. Unless they are implying councilors use it pay for home additions and holidays in Spain.
        As usual, there is little sense in these claims. A scenario is invented & repeated ad infintum and spreads (like a virus) on the net & just accepted as fact.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The adoption targets referred to in this article seem to refer to hastening the adoption of children who are already in the system, in foster care and waiting for permanent homes. Of course Hemming put his oar in and suggested that targets were met by removing babies at birth from perfectly fit mothers; however, as usual, he seems to have skewed the facts to match his own perceptions. And, as you say, the adoption targets were scrapped. That doesn’t stop people like Belinda, Hemming, and Ian Josephs from braying about them as though they’re an accepted fact, however.


    • The point that Josephs makes – which is reasonable, albeit served up with a dollop of hogswash on a bed of hysterical untruths – is that private profit making companies are getting FAR TOO involved in foster care/residential homes etc. I think any organisation which is supposed to be providing services for the vulnerable should be run efficiently but NOT for profit as that usually ends up with vulnerable people suffering so that profit margins can increase.

      But that emphatically does not mean and never will mean that the LA therefore must provide a constant stream of children to fulfil the private companies lust for children and the profit they represent.

      the illogicality of Josephs position is clear when you consider he opposes BOTH foster care AND adoption and believes the LA are deliberately trying to increase both. So the LA are trying to get more children into expensive private foster care agencies at the same time they are trying to get them adopted by nice middle class families with ponies? How does that work? I can understand they might get a financial kick back from the private companies, but who is bribing them to get more children adopted? The Government? But why? Why isn’t the Government trying to funnel more children into the private foster care agencies and take its own kick back?

      I cannot BELIEVE I am wasting my time even engaging with this drivel. You can see just how much I don’t want to get on with my tax return this afternoon…

      Liked by 2 people

      • Tax returns trump all. I will go to enormous ends to avoid dealing with mine.

        But yes. I am not a fan of private for-profit companies having any hand at all in foster care, residential homes, youth incarceration–you name it. However, that doesn’t believe I swallow Josephs’ insanity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Sarah

        Your work in the field of family law is true professionalism. The work of Josephs, McKenzie and McNeil is simply aberrant. Its little more than self promoting crap. Without doubt their “work” does immeasurable damage.

        I for one appreciate you taking the time to contribute. If just one desperate parent reads this and then chooses NOT to use the services of people like Josephs, McKenzie and McNeil then the time taken is worthwhile.

        In a desperate situation people will often grasp at a promised dream. However the promises of Josephs, McKenzie and McNeil are far removed from reality and the consequences life changing without any professional regulation or training (and certainly no comeback if incorrect advice is given). Its as risky as visiting a back street abortionist..

        Liked by 2 people

        • Thanks JW but I can’t kid myself that I am doing anything other than tinkering around the margins. The problem is that the rules around confidentiality of proceedings involving children means that it is quite difficult to counter the lunacy of these people. The people who get to shout loudest are the conspiraloons and they offer a very seductive narrative – you aren’t a bad parent! you didn’t mess up! your children have been stolen to order by the evil state!

          Over the past two years I have come very firmly to believe that the only way to lance this boil is to allow open access to and reporting of all court documents in care proceedings. Hopefully we can still keep the children out of it by referring to them only by pseudonyms.

          I know some US states operate ‘presumptively open’ juvenile courts so it can be done.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I completely agree – if the proceedings can be reported with names redacted it would be very useful for a number of reasons. The first is that justice is seen to be done. The second that social workers’ decisions and processes are open to scrutiny. The third is that parents, knowing how the courts work by reading cases, will be more confident that the process is fair, and will hopefully engage more with social services and legal reps.

            Liked by 1 person

    • nationalfosteringagency

      ———- STOP PRESS !The agency above has been sold for £130+million!

      Foster Care Associates

      Owned by: Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees through Ideapark Ltd

      Income from foster care in 2014**: £127.2m

      Payouts to owner in 2014: £7m

      Highest paid director salary and other benefits: £406,000

      National Fostering Agency (includes the Foster Care Agency)

      Owned by: Stirling Square Capital Partners (previously Graphite Capital until April 2015)

      Income from foster care in 2014*: £94.5m

      Payouts to owners in 2014: £14.4m to Graphite Capital

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £318,112


      Acorn Care and Education (includes Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering)

      Owned by: Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan

      Income from foster care in 2014*: £73.1m

      Payouts to owners: £13m accrued in 2014

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £266,420


      Partnerships in Children’s Services (includes Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House)

      Owned by: Sovereign Capital

      Income from foster care in 2014*: £29.8m

      Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.9m

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: not shown in accounts

      we have not heard back.

      Swiis Foster Care

      Owned by: Dev Dadral and family

      Income from foster care in 2014: £29.4m

      Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.5m (from the wider Swiis group, see below)

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £169,000

      Capstone Foster Care

      Owned by: Different individuals and companies (see below)

      Income from foster care in 2015: £21.1m

      Payouts to owners in 2015: £406,000

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £185,000

      Compass Fostering (includes The Fostering Partnership, Eden Foster Care and Seafields Fostering)

      Owned by: August Equity

      Income from foster care in 2015: £25.9m

      Payouts to owners in 2015: £3.1m accrued

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £131,000


      Owners: shares are publicly-listed – Farouq and Haroon Sheikh biggest shareholders with 20%

      Income from foster care in 2014: £12m

      Payouts to owners in 2014: £240,000 in 2014

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £324,000

      News story

      Adoption target met

      by Hammersmith and Fulham Press Office 10/03/2008
      101 children adopted in the last three years

      More than 100 children have been adopted in the borough during the last three years, after the Council met a target from central Government target that many experts thought would be unachievable.

      The Government target, known as a Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA), challenged the Council to successfully achieve 101 adoptions or secure placements during the last three year period in return for £500,000 of funding.

      At the time, the Council felt that the bar was set too high, as in the previous three year period only 71 children had been adopted – a figure that was then considered to be very high.

      However, H&F’s adoption team swung into action and pulled out all of the stops in order to meet the target.

      Adoption scorecards and thresholds published

      From:Department for EducationFirst published:14 January 2014Part of:Looked-after children and adoption

      This news article was published under the 2010 to 2015 Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government

      The Department for Education publishes the adoption scorecards for 2010 to 2013 and the annual uprating of the thresholds to 2016.


      The Department of Education is publishing an update to the adoption scorecards covering the period 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2013. The scorecards were introduced as part of a new approach to address delays in the adoption system, set out in ‘An action plan for adoption: tackling delay’ (March 2012).


      • Ian, I’m no fan of privatisation of government services either. You really do not need to keep hammering at the fact that privatisation is generally a bad idea. We get it.

        What we object to, however, is your conspiracy theory regarding ‘child-snatching’, ‘adoption targets’, and the myth that the UK is the only country in the world that permits adoption without parental consent. We also object to your supporting fleeing parents, with no regard as to the safety of the children they may be harming. We object to the fact that rather than helping to create any kind of constructive dialogue, you advise people to refuse to co-operate with social services (even using the childish ‘SS’ acronym to suggest a Nazi connection), and rather than accepting that your methods might have poor or even tragic outcomes, you insist that you are on the side of the angels. Your fear-mongering is unhelpful at best, dangerous at worst.

        And you are not being blocked here for any nefarious reason. You have your own blog, where you are welcome to spout your own theories at will. We have no interest in your turning this blog into your own personal soapbox.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I imagine most people would agree that there should be no punishment without a crime, but there are some grey areas. An example would be the on going case which involves a father that sells a ‘miracle’ cure (ie a form of bleach).

    The parents refused allow the midwife, GP and police to properly check the babies health. They fought with social services when social services wanted them to have the baby checked over, and did not believe the medical staff when they found the baby to be ill, and in need of treatment. The baby was placed under an emergency protection order and the parents refuse to recognise the court or undertake an assessment.

    No crime as such has been committed, but i can fully understand why the court…etc would be reluctant to allow the couple to have full responsibility for the child without some assessment and on going checks.

    The problem is, if social services don’t step in and a child is harmed, people blame social services for acting to slowly. If they take action to try prevent harm, they are criticised for acting before the actual crime has been committed.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. The more I read of the psychology of cults the more I am convinced we are seeing a Hampstead Hoax Cult in full bloom. All the cult-like attributes are there but it’s a product of the Internet and a perfect example of how a cult has been started by a handful and taken on a life of it’s own and grown in it’s peculiar but actually very modern way.

    The cult members do not live in a compound somewhere in the country: they are worldwide and repeat mantras over & over, are fixated in certain beliefs and no amount of evidence will be accepted that proves their beliefs are false.

    And there are cult leaders in the form of the Belinda McKenzies who meet with the other hard-core cult leaders in regular get-togethers where this small crowd re-affirms their beliefs. Videos are made and disseminated world-wide to the Cult members. Every now & then there is an attempted takeover by a would be cult leader who tries to depose the current leader.

    No Cult Buster could really penetrate the Hampstead Hoax Cult as it’s members are like slippery eels and they are everywhere & no-where. And the core basis of this Cult is a fixed belief in devil worship, murdered & eaten babies, a faux anti-authoritarian stance. This Cult Bible is being created daily.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I was hoping that Ian Joseph would make another appearance and offer an explanation to the points raised today. But, I guess the points are difficult to address when faced with hard fact backed by evidence.

    The Courts of course based their decisions upon FACT and evidence rather than rumour and speculation.

    I must admit Ian did raise a smile with me in his comment to me (a few days ago)

    “Guilt by association is a communist/fascist idea and I am surprised you support it ;I feel no guilt for admiring a lot of things that these ladies do but not everything;”

    Well Ian, I do believe in guilt by association, just as I believe if you lie with a dog with fleas then inevitably you end up with fleas.

    Like minded people do tend to stick together. For example a group of people pushing a ridiculous hoax, or a group of people defending against that hoax. Especially when the group of people pushing the hoax are willing to ignore the law in matters such as Court Injunctions with the result that peoples lives are ruined, That damage extends to both the children and the adults.

    So Ian, how can you now justify and endorse statements such as the one below?


    Liked by 2 people

  8. Pingback: Josephs distances himself from Belinda, Sabine | ShevaBurton. Cross of Change Blog

  9. “Guilt by association is a communist/fascist idea ” Oh yeah? It’s also a very British thing as Britain’s tabloid media culture accuses all & sundry of all manner of things particularly in politics but in every day events as well.

    Liked by 1 person

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

Comments are closed.