Jake Clarke & Sabine McNeill in hot water again?

Last week we reported that Sabine McNeill and Jake Clarke had attended the Church of England’s Synod meeting in London on Saturday, 10 February.

Witnesses report that they were handing out leaflets, and that Sabine attempted to give her business card to various people who were there representing survivors of sexual abuse within the Anglican Church. Jake also stood up in the public gallery and shouted about Satanism. It was reportedly difficult to hear exactly what he was saying, but witnesses to the event say Bishop Peter Hancock dealt with the interruption well. However, our sources have all stated their concern that legitimate survivors of abuse might be tarred as loonies, based on the behaviour of Jake and Sabine.

It’s all coming home to roost

Sabine and Jake’s activities have not gone unnoticed by police, however.

According to a recent Facebook post in a group called “Abolition of politics in the uk” (sic), Jake seems to have messaged the group’s owner, James Anderson, on Thursday, stating that he and Sabine would be attending a police interview on Friday:

Jake Clarke I have a meeting with steve martin (‘interviewer’ of hampstead whistle blower angels) tomorrow in north london they trying to caution me and sabine for breaking court D (defense) notice. ‘for reasons of national security’ For fucks sake we must rise with our true knowing power brother. They already have sabine on bail and threatening her (74yrs young!) with prison for breaking it by communicating with church officials at synod in london on saturday F**ing sick sh*ts. We going to break this network of evil for good! (all sic)

The myth of the D-Notice

Mr Anderson appears to be adding his own twist to Jake’s message, claiming that the Hampstead SRA hoax has been subject to “D-Notices”—a ridiculous claim, given the media coverage of the story at the time and more recently.

To clarify, a D-Notice (also known as a DSMA-Notice or Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) is an official request for news outlets not to publish certain details of a story for reasons of national security. D-Notices are voluntary for the media, and are issued only when a threat to national security involves grave danger to the State and/or individuals.

D-Notices are issued by the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC), not the Home Office, as some appear to believe. The DPBAC is an independent body, funded by and housed within the Ministry of Defence, but separate from the government.

Why anyone would think that the Hampstead hoax, concocted by a small cadre of conspiracy promoters in concert with a woman who feared she might lose custody of her children and her new boyfriend who wanted to push his cannabis business, should require a D-Notice is anybody’s guess.

Police taking it seriously

Of more interest to our readers, though, is that the police are treating Sabine’s potential breach of bail and/or restraining order with the appropriate degree of seriousness.

As for Jake, was he not recently spoken to by police as well?

It’s difficult to imagine that either of them would deliberately put their own liberty at risk in this way, and frankly we can only think that the judge in Sabine and Neelu’s 2016 witness intimidation trial was right on the money when he described Sabine et al as “delusional, obsessional, irrational, and odd”.

26 thoughts on “Jake Clarke & Sabine McNeill in hot water again?

  1. D notices? What? This case has been reported in the press several times. These people think they’re so important don’t they.

    More likely they’re being brought in to talk about breaches of Orders or bail.

    Let’s wait and see.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Thanks for the update, EC.

    These two clowns never learn, do they?

    I’m still wondering about Matt Saunders, who was there with them, and whether he joined in with the shenanigans too.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. More proof Jake is a First Class Prat. D-Notices as mentioned are only issued on matters of the defence security and while they may be over mentioning certain politicians in some manner, PM Harold Wilson found to his chagrin that the media can ignore them after he took one newspaper who published material after receiving one to court and lost.

    And he brings up the strange case of Don Hale the “newspaper executive” who made the rather dubious claim about Barbara Castle’s “dossier”. Hale is an odd character having once campaigned successfully to get an innocent man out of jail but since he became a freelance journalist ( financially risky these days) he’s jumped on the “VIP Pedo Ring” bandwagon and made highly dubious claims.
    He once published an interview about abuse with a so-called deceased perp & victim but sadly got the man’s date of death wrong so that his “interview” appeared to have been conducted 2 years after he died. Refused to ever explain his mistake.

    As for Barbara Castle- my mother was a friend and constituency helper of hers. The notion that Castle would resort to slipping a “dossier” to a small regional publisher (in which the claims did not relate to the newspaper’s area) is laughable. She had powerful contacts in the media and could have got the front page of The Times if she wanted to. Nor was she shy of ever backing off from a story (after rigorous research and obtaining genuine facts) and if she believed such a “VIP Pedo Ring” operated there would have been no holding Castle back. She was relentless in pursuing a cause.

    Needless to say Hale was never able to produce his “dossier” or even details from it as of course, MI5 agents arrived at his office and removed it. So convenient.
    Hale got an OBE for his superb work on getting an innocent man out of jail but even an OBE does not pay the bills and he has milked the current mania for all it’s worth with the downmarket tabloids although he’s gone very quiet now as numerous claims are shown to be false.

    Meanwhile Jake remains the annoying prat he is.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Like most cases involving children, there is a notice here that suppresses the childrens names (and often any other individual that may identify the children. even the guilty party ‘s name in some cases may be suppressed if they are related to them etc)
    I am assuming that Jake ‘probably’ is thinking of this, I know the Judge in the original case made out an order stopping the naming of the children, which Jake and the rest of them regularly ignore.
    Does the order that suppresses the names of children have an actual name or number in the UK?

    This is what is our version of it, I assume that the UK has similar provisions

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Several people, stirring the V.I.POO pot have said there was a D notice Brian Gerrish and Robert Green and Chris Fay, have used this bullshit before, when there was no such thing issued.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Thank you EC. It occurred to me that a business card usually has an email address, it would be unusual nowadays to have one without & very unprofessional. I can’t see Sabine with her ego being unprofessional. 😂

        Liked by 2 people

        • If Sabine was to reply to an email would she be in trouble? Both Sabine and Jake are too damn stupid to stop with their pushing of the hoax and i can’t wait until the CPS & the police say enough is enough and do their best to send the pair of them to prison.

          Liked by 2 people

  6. It’s as if Sabine is showing her contempt for law and order…what did she think would happen if she went and disturbed people in a christian context about a fake satanic porn story she happens to get off on, seemingly NEEDING to push her theory on others despite a gagging order which presumably covers her every action in real life as well as her online activity re her communicating with others about this case?

    Liked by 3 people

      • Very true EC. I hope Sabine gets sent down for long enough that she ends up losing the flat she rents. I believe rented property only gets paid for a maximum of 13 weeks if you are sent to prison.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, that’s true… Repossessing your property once they’ve defaulted though means going through the whole normal legal process, been there, done that, not fun!

          Liked by 1 person

  7. Ok, I’ve been waiting for a practical example…and here is one:

    “A mentally disturbed man who raped and killed a woman while on home release from prison in the 1990s has absconded from custody again.
    The alarm was raised after killer Keith Whitehouse failed to appear for roll call at Leyhill open prison in South Gloucestershire at 8.15pm on Saturday. He was last seen three-and-a-half hours earlier.
    Whitehouse, now 56, is serving a life term for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility after he battered 21-year-old Suzanne Bromiley over the head with a brick after forcing her to have sex at knife-point in a graveyard in 1991. He also stabbed her in the head”.

    So, here’s my question. Is it really true, that if this man had made a statement while he was incarcerated, claiming that Edward Heath molested him as a child, UK police would not be allowed to name him or describe him in any way (which might reveal his identity) in this alert? That can’t really be true, can it?
    Or would police be allowed to name him and describe him, but UK press be legally bound not to repeat any of that information in a story of this nature?

    Liked by 1 person

      • But is that really the case, (above), or am I just ignorant of the finer points of the relevant legislation?
        I keep thinking that. Because I really can’t bring myself to believe it’s true.
        On the other hand, pigs really can fly apparently…

        Liked by 1 person

    • You would be unable to name him in the context of being a person who is allegedly the victim of a sex crime, and unable to do anything which might lead to ‘jigsaw identification’ of him as such. But he wouldn’t have the right of total anonymity in relation to other matters. Additionally, a court can lift that anonymity is some circumstances.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @anon & y-tracey,
        Thank you. I knew that I must be confused in what I was thinking. So, then, everyone would be free to publicly discuss the crimes of a convicted sex offender – who also claimed to be a sex crime VICTIM – so long as they said nothing which might suggest that person was a victim claimant. That would make a bit more sense, to me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Absolutely right Anonymous. There are a number of ways in which names can’t be named, but a D notice is by far the least likely AND it is not binding, while court-directed orders are.
        So, victims of sexual offences can not be named as such. But they don’t have to go around being anonymous otherwise. And if they’re adults they can waive anonymity.
        Sabine is barred from communicating as she has bail conditions prohibiting it – if she breaches she can be arrested and can be remanded in custody. Her friend Brian Pead is banned from naming his victims in a restraining order, breach of which is an offence carrying up to 5 years.
        Child defendants normally can’t be named until they are 18, and child victims are usually protected likewise (these protections can be lifted and, in the case of witnesses, extended beyond 18).
        It’s usually contempt to name children in family proceedings, which is where Elizabeth Watson came a cropper when she shared the details in the Haigh case with Sabine who posted them ont internet (do we detect a theme here?).
        Courts may make bespoke bans on disclosing names in court proccedings in the interests of justice – usually this is because there are other jury trials downstream. Breach of this is a contempt.
        Criminal courts can make witness anoymity orders if that is the only way evidence will be received.
        A high court injunction could ban anything if there were sufficiently cogent grounds, which is why details of Thompson’d and Venables’ adult identities can not be disclosed.

        Liked by 1 person

    • It is true Justin.

      The press, and people on social media would not be able to identify and name the person as an alleged victim of a sex offence unless the person had waived their anonymity or the court had decided they could be named.

      Courts naming people really only happens in my experience when a person has been convicted of an offence relating to making a totally false allegation to police. Otherwise, naming is a big no-no.

      I can see the logic behind that, though I might not agree with it in every case. Victimisers don’t get a free pass if their victim has been convicted of offences. Where to draw the line?

      There is apparently a very, very bad person who has alleged that they are a victim of some VIP or other.

      Anyway, courts have reporters who report what is going on in court without naming the person. It wouldn’t be a secret court.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. So the meeting was on Friday? Has Jake posted any comments about it over the weekend?


Comments are closed.