According to Sabine McNeill’s Victims Unite! blog, the police have “invited” her to yet another interview, the first since she pleaded guilty to violating her lifetime restraining order last October. At that time, she was given a conditional discharge for 12 months. Should she re-offend within that period, she can be re-sentenced for the original offence.
She’s due at Holborn Police Station on Thursday, 13 July, and to say she’s unhappy about it would be a gross understatement.
Without even the slightest hint of irony, she headed yesterday’s post, in which she bitterly complains about her persecution by “corrupt” authorities, “Oh! What a Tangled Web we Weave when First we Practice to Deceive!” Yet within the first few lines, she manages to breach her restraining order twice over:
Click the link marked “social life and meaning” and you’ll find yourself here:
Surprise! She’s posted a link to her Whistleblower Kids blog, which contains a plethora of details which she is forbidden to discuss.
The second link, “politics and passion”, leads here: Ta-da! Back to the Hampstead SRA hoax! We wonder: exactly what part of the following does Sabine not understand?
“Not to make public in any way, including on the internet by any blog or otherwise including by re-publication of material already made public before making of this Order: A) Anything relating to any persons set out in Paragraph 1 above; B) Any allegations of cannibalism, sexual child abuse or satanism, at any time or in relation to Christchurch or Christchurch Primary School” (emphasis ours)
In a stunning display of self-pity, Sabine somehow turns reality on its head. Rather than accepting that she has continued to breach the restraining order, she says, “I shall have a new opportunity of tearing down that web in which innocent people are criminalised and named abusers are left free to libel, slander and defame supporters of children’s rights”:
Sabine seems to inhabit some alternate universe, in which her own illegal actions constitute a “lawful course of action of ‘preventing or detecting crime'”, while those of us who keep an eagle eye on her activities are somehow “named abusers” and “criminals ‘suspects'”:Here are a couple of home truths which Sabine might like to consider:
- When a restraining order is issued, one does not have the option of accepting or refusing it. The restraining order in question was issued following the collapse of Sabine and Neelu’s case last summer—that does not make it somehow “less valid”.
- Sabine had the opportunity to speak out against the restraining order when she went to court last October for having breached it. Instead, she chose to plead guilty and accept a 12-month conditional discharge. This implies that she accepted the validity of the order at that time; why does she now seem to think that it’s invalid?
We’re interested in Sabine’s statement that the police also want to “see her” on 14 October—what’s that date about? So far as we’re aware, no charges have been laid yet, but a date three months in the future seems a bit strange to us. We’ll continue to track that.
Continuing her self-pitying rant, Sabine states:
I’m told I’ll meet a new Officer. What questions will he ask me? Will they be worth answering or should I continue the ‘no comment’ routine to leave yet more room for manipulation, inference and mind games?
In any case I shall be armed with a bundle of documents as if I could demonstrate to a jury the difference between the innocence of children and the deviousness of malicious and deceptive adults who have only one interest at heart: to keep their job and their career, especially if it includes protecting their brethren, at no matter what cost…
All supposed breaches of that Restraining Order so far have been due to software following its rules beyond my control. But The Law does not know how to ‘think digital’. And the Police? They plant ‘evidence’ not acknowledging that this can be done as ‘fake evidence’!
Well, there’s a defence we’ve not heard before: “I didn’t do it, guv’nor! It were that software, I swear! It follows its own rules, see, and I couldn’t control it!”
We’d suggest that a woman who runs as many blogs as Sabine does (upwards of 45 at last count) might know a thing or two about how to prevent certain material from being re-published online. Here’s a hint: she could start by removing the offending material. Amazing but true.
We’ll keep our ears to the ground regarding the upcoming police interview, so stay tuned….