Restraining orders spell end of Hoaxtead

In the aftermath of Neelu and Sabine’s ‘not guilty’ verdict on charges of conspiracy to commit witness intimidation, the Hoaxtead mob enjoyed a brief moment of gloating, writing blog posts like Sabine’s “Happy ending under the Shard!” in which they celebrated their great victory.

On Monday, however, the dust had barely settled in Courtroom 2 at Blackfriars Crown Court after that morning’s extraordinary events when HH Judge Worsley issued two restraining orders against the two erstwhile defendants. In all the excitement of the Hoaxtead promoters’ apparent victory, few seemed to pay much attention to the restraining orders…except Belinda.

Yesterday she wrote: Belinda on restraining order 2016-07-19.pngBelinda, it seems, has grasped what few of her minions seem to have understood: these restraining orders, once enforced, could very well spell the end of the Hampstead hoax.

For the past 18 months, Sabine, Neelu, and others have posted what they pleased — about RD, his two children, the ’20 special children’ and their families, the teachers and staff at the school, the clergy at the church, police officers, social workers, businesses — and have suffered very few legal repercussions.

Sure, some arrests have been made, but in the absence of convictions they’ve had almost no effect other than to convince the Hoaxtead mob that they are invincible and immune to any consequences. Emboldened, they’ve continued posting what they pleased.

The first hint that their reign of terror might be grinding to a halt came on Friday, when all three barristers, as well as the judge, agreed that the ‘Hampstead case’ has been a hoax from the outset.

In fact, one of the leading arguments in favour of the ‘no case to answer’ submissions on Friday was that while a normal, rational person might understand that posting witness statements online would serve to intimidate witnesses, the defendants in this case were not normal people. Words like ‘delusional’, ‘obsessional’, ‘irrational’, and ‘odd’ were used to describe the defendants and their oddball campaign.

In closing Friday afternoon, Judge Worsley remarked, in an almost off-handed way, that he was “minded to consider some restraining orders” against the defendants. This did offer a tiny flicker of hope to some of those watching the case unravel. But overall, the mood amongst those on the side of the prosecution was gloomy: it appeared that Neelu and Sabine would walk free, once again suffering no consequences for their actions.

It wasn’t until the restraining orders were actually issued that things clarified themselves: the orders mean, finally, that those who’ve been maligned and had their lives turned upside-down by the Hoaxtead mob and their supporters are now able to take swift, decisive, and effective action against their harassers.

The wording of the orders means that not only Neelu and Sabine, but any of their ‘agents’ — in other words, anyone who can be shown to have been acting on their behalf — can be stopped in their tracks, should they choose to post defamatory material about any of the named individuals or the groups mentioned.

To clarify, ‘anyone acting on their behalf’ does not mean ‘all other Hoaxtead promoters’. It does mean that if another person put up a post or video, for example, and it could be proven that they had done so on instruction from Sabine or Neelu, Sabine or Neelu would face the legal penalty.

Will there be a backlash? Quite probably. These people have been used to getting their own way for the past year and a half.

Will the backlash mean this thing explodes again, as it did after the Pauffley judgement in March 2015? Unlikely. The restraining orders will require vigilance on the part of those they protect, and it may take some time for the hoax to die out, but it is inevitable that it will.

Belinda is right to be feeling all bitter and twisted about the restraining orders: they mean her latest pet hoax is about to be flushed down the loo before her very eyes, and there is absolutely nothing she can do to stop it happening.

Sabine + Neelu after trial

132 thoughts on “Restraining orders spell end of Hoaxtead

  1. Does this mean that any of us that have read about this Hoax are not allowed anywhere in the vicinity of the Church etc. Not that I have any intention of going there, as I don’t?

    I’m glad you’ve put up that email of Belinda’s.

    At least I can’t be accused of being a spy, as she knows that email has not been sent to me!

    To any of the Hoax crew reading this, GET A REAL LIFE, saddos.

    I’m still thinking that Chasing Rainbows video of Angela Power Disney and Jake Clarke is going against the restraining orders, as the 2 children are mentioned by their 1st names in that video, by Angela I believe.

    It seems it was recorded over the weekend, but nevertheless I believe it was put online after the 3pm timing of the Judge’s Restraining Orders.

    The pair of them should certainly be up in court charged with identifying the names of alleged sexual assault/rape victims.

    Malcolm Blackman aka Joe Public (find him on facebook) was up on a similar charge of identifying an alleged rape victim and even that con man pleaded guilty as he knew there was evidence against him.
    He didn’t even name the woman!

    So I would have thought this pair are a slam dunk very easily.

    It’s going to be one of the only ways to stop these Hoax weirdos.

    Angela’s grooming of Jake Clarke is shockingly despicable.

    I know he may be nearly 30, but he’s clearly a Vulnerable Adult under the Mental Health definition.

    It is so blatant that she is setting him up to do her dirty work that she is just too frightened to do herself.

    Angela is clearly aware of the consequences.

    How psychopathic of her.

    I can’t stand the woman, she’s a nasty piece of work all round.

    I can’t think of one redeeming feature about the fraudster.

    If she beat her own children, of course she’d throw this Vulnerable Adult under a bus.

    His Social Worker, Parents, Siblings, Mental Health Team, Police etc. need to know what she is doing…

    Liked by 3 people

    • That video also includes Jake illegally slandering a named police officer, stating that he has links with convicted paedophiles. Literally within minutes of that interview being uploaded, we’d informed the officer in question of Jake’s unacceptable comments.

      And both he and Angie repeatedly slander Mr. Dearman (and the “logic” they use to “prove” that all of us are his sock accounts is hilarious – e.g. Danielle asked Angie how reporting her had worked out for her, ergo she must be Ricky D). I would urge Mr. Dearman to report them.

      Liked by 5 people

    • If I were to put my money on who the next arrest will be, it would have to be Jake. A cat has 9 lives but a pussy has just one. (Hey, that’s not bad, that – I must remember that one.)

      Of course, lest we forget the one group of people that will probably carry on regardless – those living abroad. Abe, Ella, Angela, Kachina, Aaron Dumber, Droopert the Quaint, Kristie Sue Plonka, Kane Slagheap…But at least we can console ourselves in the fact that they can ONLY post their shit from abroad and can never step foot in Blighty without being arrested.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Does this mean that any of us that have read about this Hoax are not allowed anywhere in the vicinity of the Church etc.?

      No, the restraining orders apply only to Sabine and Belinda. However, if someone like Angie, just as an example, could be shown to be acting on instructions from either Sabine or Belinda, and this could be proven in court, then it would be considered that Angie was acting ‘as an agent’ of that person (S or N), and that person would be considered to have breached the order.

      This isn’t going to stop the random loonies who spout off about the case, but it will severely cut into the distribution of false allegations against the people named in the restraining orders. As well, it could very well serve as an example for future court actions against others.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Could you clarify why the parents of the pupils aren’t included in the order? Seems an odd omission, or am I missing something here?

        Liked by 1 person

        • You’re right, it’s strange–but the defence barristers argued that a separate order for the parents would be better done by another court on another day, and the judge agreed.

          Like

  2. The police and CPS must have worked very hard over the weekend to craft the orders.

    But maybe the judge started thinking about their use as soon as the court started with the request that he dismiss himself or some such.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think it was clear to all concerned from the outset that this would not be a ‘normal’ criminal trial. I believe the CPS were asked to consider over the weekend what they would like to see included, and their recommendations were used.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Could someone clarify this for me…

    What if people known to be associated with these two mad people, BM, mother, boyfriend, Krista woman, Jake guy, Fag Ash Lil (agents) etc, etc

    And they post material online, would NB and SM be found guilty with this order?

    Liked by 1 person

    • If it could be shown in a court of law that those you mention were acting on instruction from Sabine or Neelu, then Sabine or Neelu would be considered guilty of breaching the order.

      Like

    • No, just being associated as friends and posting something will not be affected by the Restraining Order. It would have to be proven to be on the instruction from Neelu or Sabine.

      Liked by 1 person

      • But they will be guilty of breaching the original High Court order which applies to everyone and if they mention names then either the sexual offenses act and harassment laws come into play.

        This is not over by a long shot.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Dear All,

    I am sorry to pass on sad news but your interpretation of the restraining order is wrong.

    An order can only bound those who it is named against, in this case Ms McNeill and Berry. It can not be used against others for the simple reason they are not subject to it.

    Either named party will only be in breach of the order if their agent publishes something on their behalf. In other words; the crown would have to prove to the criminal standard that they instructed that person/agent to publish on their behalf.

    I do hope that gives you some clarity on what the order actually means. You are welcome to confirm as such with the Officer who was in court.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, I’m sorry if we did not spell this out properly from the start. Thanks for clarifying. I’ve tried to be more clear in the post about the issue of ‘acting as an agent’; I hope this helps.

      Like

    • This is pretty much what the Paralegal, two Police Officers and a former media law lecturer who are among our group have all said. 😦 The consensus up here is that the whole thing was a complete bloody shambles, reflects very badly on the CPS and, like the Robert Green case before it, leaves much open to question with respect to the hoaxing activities of ‘McKenzie & Co’ – Teflon coated hoaxers to the elite it seems! >:-(

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Contacting directly or indirectly, by her self or by any person acting as her agent or by any means..”
      So The orders tates clearly that even if someone else post anything in relation to Christchurch and of course it has to be proven that they have acted as Agents of the Named person.

      Like

  5. Although this ill founded ship of fools was always going to maroon itself into a rocky outcrop it must be said that Mr Taj put on a virtuoso performance when he grabbed the tiller and led the whole shebang careering over the nearest waterfall.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Please STOP hoaxers. Plz stop it. RD wants to sleep without getting harassed. The children want to relax with their foster parents.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I just hope the children are not surfing the net.. the amount of videos still out there about Mr Dearman and his children is absolutely atrocious and disgusting.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Me too. I think they should get name changes. That way when they grow up, people will be less likely to bring up the hoax. They are less likely to be tracked up and harassed, if the hoaxers can’t know their current identities. You know cause their identities are full public information due to the hoaxers.

        Like

        • Yes, I’ve thought that for a while. New names. Their faces will change as they grow older, so it would be ideal. They would still see the dreadful videos on the internet though and awful accusations about their Father.

          Like

        • Yes I think with a change of last name and as they become teenagers their looks will change dramatically I doubt they could be identified by the public.
          But everyone should be on the ball: this mob have shown total disregard for the original High Court order which still applies and I don’t think they will respect the new criminal restraining order.

          It is however far more serious now. Just because someone is not an agent of the 2 mentioned does not mean they can be charged under harassment laws if they are in the UK.

          Liked by 2 people

          • That’s right, Sam. I think this case opens the door to further pursuit of justice for others involved in spreading false allegations about the Hampstead families, teachers, clergy, et al.

            Like

          • There have been legal remedies of that type available from the start of this fiasco! – The CPS instead chose to take the convoluted and incompetent route they did! If there is evidence of anything, it’s that the CPS and other authorities are complicit in allowing these hoaxes to ‘fester’. – The laws are there; what agenda is served by failing or refusing to enforce them?

            Liked by 1 person

      • The question is why the fuck are the CPS not moving against those who are breaching the Sexual Offences Act? – Why in God’s name are they note taking those hypocrites at Google on?

        Liked by 2 people

  7. Q: So how exactly does this prevent Sabine or Neelu anonymously posting material?

    A: It doesn’t.

    Great “win” there, thanks Judge…..

    Like

  8. Not just a surname change, Sassy. They are known by their first names world-wide now, thanks to the bloody hoaxers.
    Change of first name and surname would be the best result for those poor children. Their future is not going to be easy when they access computers.

    Liked by 1 person

    • JB, isn’t it possible – if not probable – that they’ll eventually end up in their father’s legal custody anyway (until reaching college age, at least)? And that a relocation to another country (based on suggestions made in the past, most likely to the U.S.) is also a strong possibility? I’ve always been confused on this custodial point and, as usual, have more questions to pose than points to make. But if they moved to America with him, for example – where nearly 400 million people live, and a far smaller segment of the population is familiar with the case than in the UK – wouldn’t their anonymity be a far safer bet, name change or not?

      Hope that made at least a molecule of sense…

      Like

    • P.S. Over the past year, I’ve asked many friends from a number of states if they’ve heard about the hoax; these are well-educated people who stay on top of things, and only one has answered ‘yes’. She only knew sketchy details, too. It’s a totally different story among friends across the pond, of course, esp. in the U.K…

      Like

  9. What…the…f*ck…is she wearing?!

    By the way, this video comes with a health warning – Angie sings in this one.

    Mercifully, however, the sound quality is so shit that you won’t hear her very clearly anyway.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. That IS just plain fucking weird….. What with the stick man wandering about in his scanties……. Maybe she’s been attending a dogging event up at the local park? Is that not one of those things those strange ‘keys in the rosebowl’ swingers do? – Dress up in bizarre evening wear for the festivites?? Either that or the repulsive old sag-bag is playing the part of ‘mummy dearest’ for Rupiekins.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “HERE, I WANNA SHOW YOU SOMETHING license” ? Yeah, I seem to remember back in the 70s there was a creepy old man who hid up the closes in Easterhouse trying to convince little kids he had one of those…. I hear he was ‘struck off’ with a meat cleaver.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Does her ‘HERE, I WANNA SHOW YOU SOMETHING license’ involve old-lady bondage gear? If she posted that shot of herself on Facebook it’s not surprising she’d get a strike.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Mutton dressed up as er Mutton.
    Maybe Roopervert is looking to bolster his funds and is pimping Angie into swinging her hips in her window under red light Hampsterdam stylie.
    For those currently eating I duly apologize.,

    Liked by 2 people

      • What does Rue’s MUM think of all this?

        MRS. Rupert Quaintence must be of a similar age to Angela.

        Mum needs to rescue him, even if he is nearly 40.

        Rupert she’s your Mum’s age, please have some decency.

        Pretty please…

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yannis I am presuming once again not mincing his words.Personally I am just awaiting the scene where aging dominatrix Angie thrashes Roopy Poopy within an inch of his life with a T square with an orange gaffa taped to his mouth.

        Liked by 1 person

        • He did have that job as a hotel “Sales Administrator”. He even got mentioned in TripAdvisor reviews:

          I have nothing good to say about this hotel and specially its staff and manager. … I have called several times and sent emails to Wilson Quaintance (Sales administrator) and … (General Manager). Neither one has responded to any either by phone or email. I have never encountered such lack of professionalism and dishonesty.

          And before that he had the job as an internet radio host; until he was sacked for being continuously drunk. You can’t say he has never had a job; working would seem to be another matter.

          Liked by 1 person

    • You’ve just reminded me of a hilarious documentary I saw a few years ago called (something like) ‘Meet the Fokkens’ – it follows the lives of twin geriatric (BLONDE) hookers in Amsterdam !

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes there is still just enough time for Angie to eek out a career and earn an honest crust.OMG hope Angie hasnt got a twin sister…brain meltdown territory.

        Liked by 1 person

        • P.S. Let’s not forget: there’s a shitload of cloning going down in MilesjohnstonWorld, a place Ms. P-Disney has been known to frequent for ages. God only knows how many Angies roam the planet ! This could answer head-scratching mysteries surrounding her alleged Dublin Airport appearance while still in Lanzarote and oh, so much more. I’ll close on a particularly chilling thought: perhaps Roop was able to be in Venice, Amsterdam and Angie’s living room simultaneously because (*cue ‘Twilight Zone’ theme music*) THREE ROOPERTS dwell among us, possibly many more, in the form of “sooper-souljas” !

          Like

  12. This ‘verdict’ is ridiculous. Considering the mountain of evidence – especially against McNeill – a ‘restraining order’ is going to make little or no difference to the actions of the idiot hoards who follow them.

    The people of Hampstead who were (and still are) subjected to the actions of these idiots have not seen justice served at all.

    Like

    • That’s the problem. They may be justifiably not guilty of those charges, but it doesn’t seem like justice to me.

      I’m almost hoping they can’t keep their noses clean from now on.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. Pingback: Sabine or Neelu: Who’ll breach first? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  14. Pingback: Sabine’s latest anti-Semitic hate-mongering | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  15. Pingback: The consequences of no consequences | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.