Punishment without crime in the Haigh case

In yesterday’s discussion of Ian Josephs’ repudiation of his soon-to-be ex-friends Belinda and Sabine, the topic of the Vicky Haigh case came up. As usual on Hoaxtead Research, the comments section yielded much food for thought.

Commenter JW pointed out that on Sabine’s Victims Unite! blog, she published a 25-page synopsis of the Haigh case, written by Elizabeth Watson (who served 9 days in Holloway before begging to be released and saying she was very, very sorry for her actions). Here’s the cover page of that synopsis:

Sabine-Haigh-daddy paedophile 2016-05-24As always, Sabine’s dedication to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth shines through.

Crime without (much) punishment

In our article last fall on the Haigh case, we briefly touched on Sabine’s involvement: she acted as Watson’s ‘publisher’, putting material on her website in defiance of the law against publishing Family Court cases.

As Sir Nicholas Wall pointed out in his judgement on Watson’s application to purge her contempt of court proceedings,

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 [Sabine]. The omens do not altogether look good.

Sir Nicholas described this email from Sabine to Watson’s solicitors:

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 [her blog] 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

On the basis that she had repented, Sir Nicholas did decide to suspend Watson’s sentence, but noted,

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 other  words, Sir Nicholas decided against further punishing Watson for the crime that she and Sabine had committed together—Watson having provided Sabine with the material and Sabine having published it.

Punishment without crime

However, two people who had committed no crime wound up being punished quite severely in the Haigh case.

Sabine-Haigh-David Tune 2016-05-24

One was Vicky Haigh’s ex-husband, the father of her little girl.

In this 2011 Daily Mail article, David Tune described his anguish as his “world fell apart”:

Haigh-David Tune 2016-05-24

The article describes how, with Watson’s help, Vicky Haigh sent emails filled with vile accusations, “slurring not only David but accusing almost every professional involved of corruption, and worse”:

Sickening statements of a sexual nature, made by the little girl about her father, were submitted to a British court. Versions of these accusations found their way online, leading to a powerful internet campaign to get Vicky’s voice heard.

Of course, anyone familiar with Hoaxtead will know all about ‘powerful internet campaigns’ and the harm they can do, whether to individuals or to entire communities.

What crime had David Tune actually committed? Apparently, the crime of wishing to have contact with his daughter. The crime of wanting to play a full and meaningful parental role in his child’s life. In fact, it’s the same crime RD committed in 2014, when he told Ella he wanted increased, regular access to their two children.

The other person who suffered punishment without crime was Vicky and David’s daughter.

Sir Nicholas pointed out that Haigh’s actions “were ‘wholly contrary’ to her daughter’s interests, to the point that it was she who was harming her daughter, not David”.

Further, like RD’s children, the Haighs’ daughter, who is now on the verge of adolescence, will need to make sense of what happened to her.

Why did her mother force her to tell lies about her father, not just once, but on 5 separate occasions? Why can she no longer see her mother or her young half-sister? Why is her family’s story—her story—splashed like an indelible stain across the internet?

Confusing questions for anyone to answer; even more confusing for a young person at the centre of a storm that she had no part in causing.

We wonder: when people like Ian Josephs and Sabine McNeill bray loud and long about ‘no punishment without crime!’, do they ever spare a thought for the true victims?

crime & punishment

 

32 thoughts on “Punishment without crime in the Haigh case

  1. Again an example of how false accusers cherry-pick bits of truth and completely ignore that there are 100s who are routinely “punished without crime” as these ghastly false accusers continue their campaigns of harassment.

    After reading that Google were fighting the French government over their demands that French citizens had a lawful right under the EU ruling to be “forgotten” worldwide over infractions they may have committed many years before ( think of a 40 year old who had been convicted at 17 of a crime but had since led a lawful life, married and had children ) and for which they paid a court imposed penalty, I almost whooped for joy to read today 100s of French authorities had raided Google offices in France over allegations of mass tax avoidance.

    I think this will be a growing campaign by the governments of mainly European countries who will demand these rapacious tax dodgers who profit of misery (a pox on their shareholders) obey laws.It’s time the UK became involved.

    I also hope when the children affected (and indeed fathers or mothers or individuals) who have their lives destroyed by these “forced adoption” advocates who cherry pick the bits of a personal fight that align with their ridiculous but vicious beliefs in organised devil worshiping cults to publish worldwide, seek legal help to drag these conspirators through a civil court and sue the bastards for every penny they have.

    There are so many of them who are vulnerable to lawsuits : Rupert Q for instance ( US lawyers would jump at the chance to take on such a case) who publishes on Twitter who “fights child abuse” but abuses children by publishing their images. Even Jake the Peg and the penniless can be made bankrupt and may then see how that affects their life severely (credit rating destroyed for 2 decades).

    Liked by 2 people

    • Another point in my anti-Google rants :
      my Adelaide academic friend who won her libel suit against Google (appeared for herself after exhausting finances while Google had a team of solicitors & 3 barristers) after a 6 year year battle also conducted a very successful campaign with Google advertisers.

      I helped her with research and it was a real chore but she was successful in every instance and this was used as evidence in her case : adverts appear routinely on the false accusers websites ( as they do on Hoaxtead which acts lawfully) and certainly on the false accusers websites. Some were very high profile advertisers : banks, car sales websites and so on. You all know how this Google system works and ties in with your search details.

      When she contacted the advertisers and stated she held them responsible for aiding in libels (which is correct under UK and elsewhere laws) they responded immediately demanding Google cease allowing this to happen. Bacially Google had to blacklist these websites from ads appearing -a big headache for some websites.

      Hampstead residents affected by the Hampstead Hoax Cult may consider this. A solicitor’s letter works a treat in this matter and creates a record for the future,

      Liked by 1 person

  2. How difficult must it be for mothers genuinely in trouble, who are having their relationships with their children damaged or ended by abusive partners who are highly intelligent and manipulative. I have known several cases. Looking for help, they might well come to this pair, and might well believe the stories on their sites because of their own experience. They would have plunged deeper into trouble even where they sought help.

    Liked by 3 people

      • EC and amama- personally speaking, I’ve avoided Sabine’s yawnworthy blogs like the plague in the past – mainly out of a deep fear that their yawnworthiness may catapult me into a spontaneous protracted coma. My curiosity regarding her past “work” has grown recently, though, in light of her various legal woes and missteps related to the Hampstead hoax. While I have primarily turned to this blog for any pertinent info’ about her over the past year, I just wanted to note that in addition to her blogs, McNeill also has an active YouTube page that includes one-on-one “client” interviews and courtroom scenes featuring some of these past “projects” – including the Haigh case itself, if I’m not mistaken.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I think I just posted my comment in the wrong thread, EC. So sorry about that…I was trying to add to the exchange between you and ‘amama’, whose post now appears further down this tiny screen…hope no confusion was caused !😦

        Like

      • Well, looks as though my comment’s in the right place after all ! But I do have one correction to make: the McKenzie Friends/Haigh/Hemming courtroom footage is divided into several sections on a YT channel called “spacecowboyuk”. I think it’s presented in its entirety on another YT channel as well…sorry for the blunder !

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Thanks for the post on this subject.

    Could you in very simple terms tell me, if i understood correctly, that Sabine McNeil was, and has been involved with not only obviously the Hampstead case, but others cases that you know…..1? 2? ….etc where she has distributed false alegations of other fathers…..and that the courts/judges know about?

    How many times?

    When?

    What, and with whom?

    The court/judge involved?

    Thanks

    Like

    • These are all excellent questions. We’re unable to discuss anything that might be current, as it could affect Sabine’s right to a fair trial; however, if you look online you’ll discover that she has many blogs that she has used in the past to discuss various cases.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Slightly off-topic… What’s happened to the ‘latest comments’ section in the sidebar? That is generally how I, and I know a number of others, follow the conversation here. It was a little “buried” before, now it seems to be just gone! 😦

    Liked by 1 person

      • The tags section in the side bar reads like a found poem. Just by putting words in alphabetical order you get some apt combinations – starting with “Alcoholic, Angela Power-Disney, Anti-Semitic, Araya Sooma…”

        Liked by 2 people

  5. IAN JOSEPHS – its obvious that you read this blog, your silence is indicative of a person that accepts that what was said yesterday is an inevitable acceptance of your mistakes.

    It takes a real man to accept he made mistakes (in his choice of who to support, the obvious mistake was his seemingly blind support for Sabine Mcneill and Belinda McKenzie)

    I take my hat off to you in your decision to not to try to defend the indefensible

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hmm…I’m not sure about that, JW as I recall Charlotte Ward and all the other hoaxers saying the people of Hampstead’s silence would be taken as guilt which is incorrect.

      Like

      • Hi Jake

        The Hoaxers would find it hard to argue that they got silence.

        Instead that got reason supported by evidence, as fact.

        Like

    • I Do not normally read this blog but when extracts naming me are sent to me I sometimes take the time to reply as I do now.You say I blindly support belinda and Sabine (i have never given blind support to anyone) whilst elsewhere this blog claims they will be ex friends and that I am distancing myself from them because I merely said I speak for myself and cannot be responsible for what others say or think ! I think these ladies are quite right to oppose forced adoption for risk of emotional abuse (not abuse mark you just what someone says is a future risk !) So should you JW!
      I helped Vicky Haigh escape to France to save her unborn child who is living happily with her in France now and I am very glad I did it ! Saving that child from the perils of State care was the right thing to do.
      Vicky’s daughter reported abuse by her father to her teacher who believed her and reported it to the police who also believed her,so when the judge asked her “do you accuse David Tune of abusing his own daughter” she replied I accuse noone but I do not think my daughter is a liar. No criminal charges were brought against either parent even though the child never retracted but the judge took against Vicky and decided she probably coached her daughter to accuse her own father.Subsequent judges just supported the first judge and sentenced her to 3 years jail when she spoke to her daughter at a petrol station !
      Even if the accusations against Vicky were true it cannot justify jailing her a second time for giving the vicar a lovely and harmless birthday card written not by her but by her stepchildren to pass on to her daughter.The vicar never did pass it on and gave it to the police instead so off to jail went Vicky !
      She prefers now to live in France where everyone I know who has had contact with french ss says how kind and helpful they are! None of the parents affected say that about our lot !
      I am sorry if you support taking newborn babies for risk of emotional abuse and congratulate you if by chance you oppose it ;No other country in the world permits such horrible deeds.

      Like

      • Ian,

        You have an ability to cherry pick the facts to try to paint the picture that you want to portray.

        I believe in caution on the part of any proceedings with regards a child. The child’s safety must be the paramount consideration – don’t you believe in that Ian?

        If a parent or partner has a propensity for neglect or abuse of a child, should that not be a factor taken into consideration with regards a new child for that parent – come on Ian, surely even you can see the importance in that?

        With regards Vicky Haigh – she repeatedly ignored a Courts instructions. Perhaps to refresh your memory you should read the following judgments

        http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/2412.html&query=(victoria)+AND+(haigh)

        Ian, to help refresh your memory, below are a couple of quotes from those judgment’s:

        “X’s mother is Victoria Haigh. She told me on 15 August 2011 that she now lives in the Irish Republic. Although it has been held that supervised contact between Ms. Haigh and X is in the latter’s interests, Ms. Haigh has declined to take up the local authority’s offer of such contact and has thus not seen X since X was removed from her care. The local authority now has an order under s.34 (4) of the Children Act 1989 permitting it to refuse to allow contact between Ms. Haigh and the child. The absence of any contact between X and Ms. Haigh is thus entirely the mother’s choice and is an illustration of her inability to act in the child’s best interests.”

        “The mother appears to be convinced that she is the only person in the right and everyone else involved with her and her family are wrong.”

        “As Judge Jones stated, Miss Haigh has not been able to accept the findings of either judge. What renders the case unique, however, is that Ms Haigh, aided and abetted by one Elizabeth Watson, is not only unable to accept the judges’ findings but has put into the public domain the false allegations that she has not had justice and that X, contrary to both judges’ findings, has been sexually abused by her father. Those allegations have been posted on the worldwide web and are in the public domain. In addition, the mother has circulated the allegations to the parents of X’s school and to Mr. Tune’s fellow employees at his place of work. All this, of course, has been done illicitly and in breach of orders of the court.

        The hyperbole which has been employed by Ms. Watson might, it could be thought, categorise the allegations made by her and the mother as “absurd”. I will give a flavour of these in this judgment. I will give more detail in the judgment I propose to give later in relation to the local authority’s application to commit Ms. Watson to prison for contempt of court. All the statutory authorities, they say, are “corrupt” and are only in it for the money. The police are “negligent and incompetent”. The local authority is “motivated by financial gain and peopled by those whose sole aim is to snatch children from right-minded parents”. The list is endless and extremely dispiriting.”

        One thing you did “forget” to mention Ian, was that whilst Vicky Haigh’s sentence was initially for three years, it was reduced upon APPEAL OF SENTENCE to 2 years 3 months on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

        HOWEVER – Vicky haigh only appealed the sentence, she could have appealed the conviction (as well), instead she appears to have accepted that she was convicted justly, but was sentenced (initially) harshly.

        Oh, one more thing Ian – if your ideals were followed in accordance with what you preach, then I am certain that more cases similar to the Baby P case would occur – is that what you want?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Baby_P

        Liked by 1 person

          • Ian, we can see it and just to remind you, EC kindly took the time to give you a polite, detailed explanation as to why some of your remarks have been deemed inappropriate, irrelevant and in some cases offensive. I respectfully suggest that you stop whining and truth-twisting and specify which part of his explanation you didn’t get. In case you’ve forgotten what he said, here it is again:

            “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.”

            https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/josephs-distances-himself-from-belinda-sabine/#comment-30469

            Liked by 1 person

  6. There’s definitely a similarity in most of the cases which Sabine takes on. It really does make me wonder why she takes them on and wants all the most sordid details to be true.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Hampstead residents falsely accused along with an innocent father do not deserve punishment without crime and after reading the EU’s directive on the “right to be forgotten” I believe these victims have a legal right to demand Google etc remove all links to websites making false claims about them.

    This applies to all search engines and websites no matter in what country they are based. No matter what the result of Brexit (but I believe Brits will vote to stay within the EU : the Devil obsessed Cult of False Accusers are voting to leave on the basis Satanists rule the EU) it will still apply.
    http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf

    Moreover it is specifically mentioned that when a court ruling has specified non-disclosure this ruling applies and there are strict penalties:

    4. The proposed Data Protection Regulation allows data protection authorities to impose fines of up to 2% of annual worldwide turnover where companies do not respect the rights of citizens, such as the right to be forgotten

    This would not be a relatively expensive legal course for Hampstead residents or the father to take. They need to form a working group to pursue this as a class action and find the right lawyer.

    They should start a GoFundMe page we can all contribute to, to pay for legal costs. They need to contact media & alert them. There would also be a case for a lawsuit for large damages against search engines and those who promote the falsehoods.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Pingback: Zealots disrupt Child Protection Conference | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.