Oh dear. Why do we do these things to ourselves? Deborah Mahmoudieh put out a second video yesterday—an ‘addendum’ to the one from Monday in which she tried to claim that because a group of paedophiles had been arrested and found guilty in Wales several years ago, this ‘validated’ the Hampstead hoax. (Hint: No it didn’t.)
And because we are
masochistic idiots devoted to bringing our readers the latest news from the Land of the Hoaxtead Pushers, we sat and listened to it, so you wouldn’t have to.
Of course, if you’re truly determined, you can listen here:
Deborah has never been one to trouble herself with hard things like ‘research’ or ‘knowledge of the law’, so it was no surprise that she started with this mash-up of half-truths:
Neelu and Sabine have both been on trial…they’ve been through multiple court cases….it’s all been related to their involvement in trying to get justice for the Hampstead children, and the lack of justice…they’ve been requesting that lawful suspects subject themselves to investigation to prove their innocence.
What in hell is a “lawful suspect” when it’s at home? Is that even a thing? The only suspects we’re aware of in the context of Neelu and Sabine’s trial are…well, Neelu and Sabine.
And since when must any suspects, “lawful” or otherwise, do anything at all to “prove their innocence”?
Hint for Deborah: It is a basic tenet of British law that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Not content with mangling the concept of burden of proof, Debs tries to claim that Neelu’s first charge, “vexing a priest”, was thrown out of court because there was “no such crime”.
Wrong again. There is such a crime (though we’d agree that it was an odd choice under the circumstances), and it was not thrown out of court. The judge decided that there was no case to answer because the prosecution had been unable to assemble the witnesses…because they were all afraid of the consequences should they turn up in court.
Hint for Deborah: The witnesses felt intimidated by the fact that their personal information had been published online by the defendant prior to the trial. Try to remember this; you’ll be seeing those words again.
Deborah’s next claim: “The charge was changed to witness intimidation, so [Neelu] was back up in court again.”
No. Neelu and Sabine were each charged with witness intimidation because Neelu had provided Sabine with her arrest documents, which included full witness statements from a total of six witnesses. Sabine published these on one of her blogs.
Hint for Deborah: Remember those special words we asked you to remember? Bet you didn’t think they’d turn up again so quickly, right? See if you can find them in the above paragraph.
Here’s one that actually brought tears to our eyes: “Since no crime was committed, how could the suspects be witnesses to anything?”
How to even begin to unravel this? All right, deep breaths everyone. Deep breaths. We can do this.
When Neelu’s case was dismissed, it was not because no crime was committed, but because the witnesses were terrified to turn up in court. If by “suspects” Debs meant “the original witnesses” (and that’s by no means clear, but we’re going to assume it is for the good of our own mental health), then they were indeed witnesses to the original crime, which was Neelu’s chasing and terrifying the priest during a service at Christ Church in Hampstead in 2015.
Hint for Deborah: Please try to use your head for something other than a hat rack. And do try to keep your friends’ crimes straight.
“All I’m saying is can we have child protection protocols please? Can we have justice?…This is the way the law works because we haven’t got a written law, we’ve only got case precedents”.
The notion that we don’t have child protection protocols would surprise a great many people who work in the field of child protection; in fact, here’s a copy of Child Protection Procedures from York, just as one example. Similar protocols are used in every jurisdiction in the country.
As for written law, Debs is partially right. Britain does not have a codified constitution, but does have an unwritten one, formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgements and conventions. If anyone would like to understand this more fully, here’s a good link about it. Deborah’s claim that “we haven’t got a written law” but only case precedents, however, is just plain silly.
Hint for Deborah: Before opening mouth, engage brain.
The rest of the video consists of Debs asserting that because Colin Batley owned a camcorder, he was clearly involved in making and distributing commercial child sex abuse images, which proves that this was also happening in Hampstead. Or something.
To be honest, she was getting pretty hard to follow by this time, and a great deal of incoherent spluttering was involved.
She did veer off at one point into a side rant about a woman who lost all her children to social services, and somehow linked this back to children being abused in care, which again ‘proves’ her claims about Hoaxtead. Her stunning conclusion: “This is why the people of Wales need to start really seriously asking questions because who are they really living next door to?”
Cue a quick side-swipe at Jimmy Page, who once quoted Aleister Crowley, and that’s it: “What can I say? I can’t say any more.”
And for that we are all profoundly thankful.