It’s been a bad month for at least two of Sabine and Belinda’s friends, both of whom have been found guilty of violating restraining orders. Last week we heard that Maurice Kirk, the “flying vet”, had been sentenced to two years in prison; and yesterday we learned that the trial which Belinda had been attending since 4 December had ended in a guilty verdict for Brian Pead.
Maurice Kirk sentenced
Maurice Kirk’s trial for what he referred to as “4th Alleged Breach of Unserved Restraining Orders” ended in a guilty verdict on 15 September, and had originally been listed for sentencing on 17 November. However, it seems more time was required to perform a psychiatric assessment prior to sentencing.
Details are still sketchy concerning Mr Kirk’s sentence, but we understand from John “Butlincat” Graham that by the time he’d arrived at Cardiff Crown Court on 14 December to support his friend, Mr Kirk had already been sentenced and was in the cells:
A friend of Mr Kirk’s brother chipped in at this point:
The nub of Mr Kirk’s argument, if we’re reading Butlincat correctly, is that since the restraining order was never served “correctly”—”they tried to stuff the original order in his sock when he’s prone on the ground”—Mr Kirk was not obligated to accept its restrictions.
We’re no lawyers, but we’re not aware that the subject of a restraining order must “accept” it in order for it to be valid.
This reminds us of Sabine’s complaint that the restraining order placed on her in July 2016 was not valid because it was delivered following a verdict of “not guilty” at her and Neelu’s trial. This fallacy has been repeated by almost every Hoaxtead mobster at one time or another, but the fact is that it’s perfectly legal:
Following the implementation of section 12 of the DVCVA 2004, restraining orders may be made on conviction or acquittal for any criminal offence. These orders are intended to be preventative and protective. The guiding principle is that there must be a need for the order to protect a person or persons. A restraining order is therefore preventative, not punitive. …
Brian Pead found guilty
Meanwhile, at Woolwich Crown Court yesterday Brian Pead was found guilty on all three counts of breaching a restraining order. He is currently on bail pending sentencing on 26 January. He has been tagged and remains under curfew from 9:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. daily, with very strict bail conditions.
The trial, originally scheduled to last three days, went on for 12. Mr Pead’s McKenzie friend Michael Bird bailed out halfway through proceedings.
Belinda McKenzie attended Mr Pead’s trial daily, and reported, “A propos, in the past two weeks I have been at the trial of one of my other whistle-blower friends, Brian Pead; known as the ‘Lambeth whistle-blower’ for exposing child-abuse in that London borough, he has been already been through 5 trials on trumped-up charges plus prison-sentences to go with and this one is his 6th! He is a very eloquent man in the dock and last week began to get the judge very hot under the collar (but with proceedings still underway I can’t say any more than that and it is of course only my opinion!)”.
Contrary to Belinda’s assessment, we have heard that the judge was very accommodating, indulging several of Mr Pead’s long, rambling speeches, which held up proceedings but did not change the ultimate verdict.
Like Mr Kirk, Mr Pead denied the validity of the restraining order against him, claiming that he was being set up by the state for having been a “whistleblower”.
According to Mr Pead’s blog, Lambeth Child Abuse and Coverup,
The charge is three alleged breaches of a Harassment Order initially created unlawfully on 1st November 2011 and then re-issued in a further trial at the Inner London Crown Court in July and August 2015 where a detective constable committed perjury. …
According to the history books, there was such a thing as Magna Carta in 1215. I deeply regret to inform those members of the British public who are not mindless sheep that it is a worthless document and about as much use as Neville Chamberlain’s signed document from Hitler commonly known as “Peace for our Time”. Less than a year later, Britain and Germany were at war. So much for signed documents, purporting to be legal instruments. The same is so in this trial. There is nothing lawful about it at all.
A common theme
Denying the validity of restraining orders seems to be quite de rigeur these days.
Either the restraining order was made following a verdict of not guilty, or it was “created unlawfully” for unspeciified reasons, or it was stuffed down the sock of the unwilling, indeed unconscious recipient—in all cases, it seems, the subject of the order didn’t want it, and therefore considers it invalid, unlawful, and not worthy of their time or attention.
The problem, of course, is that the courts don’t see things that way, which can lead to disastrous consequences for the scoff-laws amongst us.