Deborah Mahmoudieh rides again

We knew it couldn’t last.

Aside from the odd (very odd) video about energy rays causing forest fires and parents having the right to poison their children by feeding them bleach, Deborah Mahmoudieh has been silent about the Hampstead SRA hoax for several weeks now. According to her friend Angela Power-Disney, Debs was arrested a few weeks ago, and this allegation seems to have been borne out by Debs’ removal of all mentions of Hampstead from her YouTube channel and Facebook profile.

But as we all know, Hampstead mobsters have some sort of bizarre compulsion to continue spreading their lies, even when they’ve been told by police not to do it. Deborah, we’re afraid, is no exception.

In a video released yesterday, titled “WHERE IS SAINT GEORGE & SAINT MICHAEL???”, Mad Moo is back, and on form.

See if you can work out which case she might be referring to here:

When children who report a crime to police about sex offences against them, even if that report is made credible with confirming medical evidence, actually their crime report sounds incredible because it includes, say for example, Satanism…somehow their crime report doesn’t sound credible.

So therefore the police have a legal clause by which to ignore that crime, because it doesn’t sound credible.

So you can understand how that empowers people who get together for the explicit purpose of abusing children. All they need to do is include schools in their child sexual abuse, so if the child doesn’t sound credible, their crime report doesn’t sound credible, we’ll take you off your parents, then have a chat with you until you retract your statements. And then we’ll falsify the medical evidence. …

As usual in a MadMoo Production™, the shoutiness levels climb steadily for the first 15 minutes, then escalate dramatically toward the end, when she completely loses her shit and starts ranting at full volume about dragons and people being persecuted by the state.

But first, lest we forget that Madame is an “EU law expert”, we’re treated to the special Mad Moo interpretation of the EU directives which govern child sexual abuse and child trafficking:

… We need to alert the public that children are at risk because these people who have direct access to children, because they work in social services, or the police, or teachers, or whatever group, according to EU directives we have a lawful duty to warn the public that these people are lawful suspects, we now suspect that they’re covering up crimes, abusing their power and authority to persecute and even prosecute people who are exposing the dire levels of negligence, negligence employed specifically to protect lawful suspects from arrest in the investigation.

Now which people “exposing the dire levels of negligence” might those be, Debs? Do tell.

She goes on to reveal her stunning interpretation of the laws regarding confidentiality and anonymity in cases where child sexual abuse is alleged:

Suspects who end up hiding behind the privacy rules of the family court!

Now those privacy rules are for the children, not for the lawful suspects. People suspected of trafficking, even murdering children, they have no rights of protection, of privacy…they aren’t a family, are they, people that get together to abuse children, to traffic children?

It doesn’t belong in family court, it belongs in criminal court, suspects don’t deserve privacy. Their victims have a right to privacy, yes, but not the people who are lawfully suspected and accused of those crimes.

Now, here’s an interesting conundrum: in the hypothetical situation which Debs describes, she claims that people “get together to abuse children, to traffic children” cannot be considered a family (we’re assuming she means “even if they’re related to the children in question”). But how do we know that these people are guilty of the crimes Debs claims they are, unless they’ve already been tried and found guilty?

Of course our Debs has an answer for that: string ’em up first, ask questions later. Once again, she repeats her old and utterly unshakeable delusion that the EU has declared that the onus of proof is on suspects in cases of child abuse.

Now, how is it possible that people who are lawfully suspected in a medically evidenced crime report, for example, how do we know that the people are innocent, when the police just say, ‘Well we didn’t find the children’s crime report credible, even though we had medical evidence and we had all these other details, we didn’t find the crime report credible, so we just ignored it’. …

Because EU child protection directives believe the children, and the onus of proof is on suspects to prove their innocence.

Really, Debs? Really?

Because we read through “DIRECTIVE 2011/92/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 13 December 2011, on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA”, which Debs attached to her video as “evidence” of her preposterous claims.

And guess what?

Nowhere in that entire Directive does it mention that the onus of proof is on the accused. In fact, Article 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states very clearly:

1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
2. Respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.

Nowhere does it say, “except when the case involves child sexual abuse or child trafficking”.

However, in Directive 2011/92/EU we did find this gem, which we think might have some bearing on the case Deborah is trying so hard not to name:

Member States should encourage any person who has knowledge or suspicion of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child to report to the competent services. It is the responsibility of each Member State to determine the competent authorities to which such suspicions may be reported. Those competent authorities should not be limited to child protection services or relevant social services. The requirement of suspicion ‘in good faith’ should be aimed at preventing the provision being invoked to authorise the denunciation of purely imaginary or untrue facts carried out with malicious intent.

So, Deborah, if you can cite chapter and verse of your imaginary reversal of Article 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, please be our guest. It’s long past time to put up or shut up.