A Notice of Determination released on the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse website 10 days ago reveals that while Sabine McNeill applied for “core participant status” in the IICSA in early September 2017, her application has been rejected by Inquiry chair Alexis Jay. Thanks to commenter “tdf” for pointing this out to us.
In explaining her rationale for excluding Sabine from the Inquiry, Ms Jay cited Rule 5 of the Inquiry Rules 2006:
She further states,
I am not satisfied that Ms McNeill fulfils the criteria in Rule 5(2) or that there are other good reasons to designate her as a core participant. The application is put on the basis that Ms McNeill has received information from others relevant to alleged child sexual abuse and the alleged existence of a cult in Hampstead said to be connected with Hampstead Christchurch (sic), and that she can provide information about the actions of a number of agencies, including councils and the police, in relation to these allegations. Ms McNeill expressly states that she is not aware of evidence relating to child sexual abuse by ‘Westminster personalities’ but says that the harassment which she has experienced can only be explained by orders ‘from “high up”‘.
We think it is safe to infer from this last statement—”the harassment which she has experienced can only be explained by orders ‘from “high up”‘”—that Sabine continues to believe that this blog’s continuing scrutiny of her actions is only explicable if one believes that we are under orders from some covert person or persons. We hate to burst her bubble, but we’re quite certain that her activities are of no particular interest to anyone “on high”.
Of course there’s no point trying to explain this to her or any of her wacky friends and followers, but what ho. It’ll all come out in the wash, as they say.
Back to Ms Jay’s brush-off:
The Westminster investigation is, as set out in the Definition of Scope, concerned with allegations of child sexual abuse involving current and/or former Members of Parliament, senior civil servants, government advisers and/or members of the intelligence agencies (collectively ‘people of public prominence associated with Westminster’). The allegations to which Ms McNeill refers do not concern allegations involving ‘people of public prominence associated with Westminster’ and accordingly do not fall within the scope of the Westminster investigation.
I am accordingly not satisfied that Ms McNeill fulfills the criteria in Rule 5.2 as a person who played, or may have played, a direct and significant role in relation to the matters to which the Westminster investigation relates, or that she has a significant interest in an important aspect of such matters or may be subject to explicit or significant criticism during the inquiry proceedings or in the report, or in any interim report. I do not therefore designate her as a core participant in this investigation.
I will keep the scope of the investigation and the designation of core participants under review and further invitations to apply for core participant status may be made as the investigation proceeds. I should add that I shall consider any application which Ms McNeill may make in future to be designated as a core participant in any other investigation.
Sabine’s reaction to this rejection is not on record, of course, as her current bail conditions prohibit her from using the internet.
However, we’ve heard reports of sturm und drang, including phrases such as “how dare she?!” and “doesn’t she know who I am? I didn’t survive the firebombing of Dresden just to have some hopped up academic tell me I’m irrelevant!” emanating from the vicinity of Sabine’s flat.