Well, it’s about time. Last week we reported that Sabine McNeill’s colleague Maurice Kirk had been found guilty in Cardiff Crown Court of breaching a restraining order, and for the last few days we’ve scoured the internet in vain for any sort of response from Mr Kirk’s friends and allies.
Yesterday it finally happened. In a blog post which studiously avoids the words “guilty”, “sentencing”, or “prison”, Sabine nevertheless manages to convey her feelings about the outcome of Mr Kirk’s trial:Mr Kirk, like Sabine herself, has been “using his website as (a) last resort”—in other words, knowing he hasn’t a legal leg to stand on, he’s chosen to fight his battles in the “court of public opinion”, as Sabine would say. Sadly for them both, the “court of public opinion” lacks the clout of a real court…and with good reason.
Leaving the determination and disposition of justice to the public at large has historically had some very nasty outcomes: think “the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror” or “the Rwandan genocide”, for example. That’s why the UK makes use of a system of police plus courts, which enforce laws which are agreed upon by Parliament, which in turn consists of MPs elected by the people. It’s an imperfect system, but it’s head and shoulders above mob rule, which Sabine seems to favour.
The fact that Mr Kirk has “won more cases than anybody else I know” doesn’t mean that in this instance he was innocent; it could simply mean that he has instigated a great many cases, and won some of them. Surely as a mathematician, Sabine must be familiar with the law of averages—the principle that supposes most future events are likely to balance any past deviation from a presumed average. Ultimately, we hear, it catches up with one.
And surely she must also be aware that IQ is no guarantee of good judgement. Indeed, a quick scan over Mr Kirk’s OASys evaluation indicates that his judgement has been very much in question over the years:Whether his IQ is high, low, or fair-to-middlin’, we think it’s accurate to say he poses a threat to the well-being of the general public, his own family, and himself.
The ‘gulag or Kalashnikov of the 21st century’…
Sabine was going a little heavy on the Soviet-inspired imagery in this post. While we understand (and don’t necessarily agree with) her comparison between mental health facilities and the infamous gulag, we’re really stumped when it comes to the Kalashnikov, which we have always understood to be a type of automatic rifle, also known as the AK-47. How this relates to a mental health unit we really could not say. Anyone?
The meat of the matter
Having explained (sort of) why she thinks last week’s judgment was wrong (without actually saying that there was a judgment), Sabine moves on to what’s really bothering her:
“Meanwhile”, she says, “the cowboys, trolls, shills and other criminals hide behind false names and Anonymous”.
Hmm. Do you think she means us? We’re thinking not, as we took a poll here recently and determined that none of us had ever been a cowboy, a shill, or a criminal of any sort. Neither does anyone here claim to represent Anonymous. Sabine might be confusing us with Christine Ann Sands, Kevin “Big Man” Weaver, or Weaselly Hall, all of whom have hidden behind their made-in-China plastic masks from time to time.
Trolls? Well, we believe some of our readers might have indulged in a bit of light trolling from time to time, and we do admit to using false names to protect ourselves from those who habitually send us death threats…but by and large, we think Sabine might be barking up the wrong tree.
Is that a threat or a promise?
Sabine ends her rant with this:
The McKenzie battle advocating the Public Interest is full on, and the internet is a much more promising battlefield than court rooms, it seems…
Setting aside the fact that in no way can Sabine and Belinda’s Association of McKenzie Friends claim to be representative of the larger community of legitimate McKenzie friends who offer their clients quiet advice and support, rather than using their cases (and their children) as political footballs, we note the last words of Sabine’s post with some concern.
Back in late 2014–early 2015, Sabine kicked off the Hampstead SRA hoax with a flurry of bulk emails, blog posts, and YouTube interviews, all designed to get a jump on the legal system. The plan at that time was to push Hoaxtead hard on the internet, before the inevitably slower and more ponderous legal system could react, and to some extent, it worked.
The old saying that “a lie can be halfway round the world while the truth is still lacing up its shoes” is an accurate one here, and there is absolutely no doubt that this was Sabine and Belinda’s goal: get the lies out there before the truth could catch up.
The fact that she’s now reiterating the idea that the internet is a “more promising battlefield” than the courts seems to indicate that she intends to continue spreading lies and disinformation online, knowing full well that the courts’ response will be slower.
As we mentioned last week, however, Mr Kirk’s latest conviction ought to serve as a warning to Sabine and her cronies: in this excerpt from a “WITNESS STATEMENT as RECIPIENT of a RESTRAINING ORDER”, published on Mr Kirk’s blog a week ago, Sabine stated:It’s quite true, Subsection 3a does indeed say that.
However, since Mr Kirk did not commit his harassment in the service of crime prevention or detection, he was found guilty of breaching his restraining order.
Sabine, you might recall, is still bound by the sentence she received last autumn, when she pleaded guilty to breaching her restraining order and was given a 12-month suspended sentence. Does she really believe that she’ll be protected by Subsection 3a if she’s charged again? The “crime” that she is claiming to be “preventing or detecting” has already been declared, by a High Court judge no less, to be non-existent. Does Sabine actually think that a judge in a lower court will overturn that ruling in order to allow her to justify her criminal behaviour?
We suppose we’ll have to wait and see, but we’re betting that even Sabine can’t be that out of touch with reality. [A tenner says you’re wrong—Ed.]