Update: Sabine due in court Monday

Thanks to the sharp-eyed reader who brought this to our attention: Sabine McNeill will be at Southwark Crown Court “not before 11:30 a.m.” on Monday, 26 February:

Sabine in court 2018-02-23Sabine in court 2 2018-02-23

On 8 December, 2017, Sabine was charged with nine further counts of breach of restraining order, in addition to six counts of breach of restraining order and four counts of stalking causing fear of violence or serious alarm or distress with which she’d been charged on 10 November.

The stalking charges fall under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The restraining order in question is the lifetime order which was issued to Sabine and her co-defendant Neelu Berry on 19 July 2016. That order states that she is

  1. …prohibited from contacting directly or indirectly by herself or by any person acting as her agent, or by any means whatsoever:

ANY PERSON WHO TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF SABINE MCNEILL IS OR HAS BEEN CLERGY AT CHRISTCHURCH, HAMPSTEAD SQUARE, LONDON, NW3, OR THE STAFF OR A PUPIL AT CHRISTCHURCH PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHRISTCHURCH HILL, LONDON, NW3. …

3. Not to make public in any way, including on the internet by any blog or otherwise including by re-publication of material already made public before the making of this order;

A) Anything relating to any persons set out in Paragraph 1 above;
B) Any allegations of cannibalism, sexual child abuse or satanism, at any time at or in relation to Christchurch or Christchurch Primary School.

Sabine has pleaded not guilty to all 19 charges.

Readers will recall that Sabine was remanded in custody on 8 December, with a bail bond set at £20,000. Her friend Belinda McKenzie went on a crowd-funding campaign to raise the bond, which was accepted by the court on 15 December.

At that time, Sabine was released from prison to await trial, under increased and more closely defined restrictions. Among other things, she is currently prohibited from using the internet in any way; she must not publish any content, directly or indirectly; and she must not communicate with any media.

At a plea and trial preparation hearing on 11 January, Sabine’s trial date was set for 19 November 2018.

We don’t know the purpose of Monday’s court appearance, but we will be following the case closely, and will report as more information becomes available.


We’d like to take this opportunity to remind readers that once charges have been laid against a suspect, it is against the law to speculate as to the outcome of the case. Thanks for your co-operation!Southwark Crown Court

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “Update: Sabine due in court Monday

    • I distinctly remember my grandfather saying that he put down his banjolele, stuck his hands in the air and stopped talking for over 4 minutes in January 1942 whilst being frisked by the Hun in Kuala Lumpur. I rather think Mr. Cage is guilty of plagiarism here and my grampappy’s estate may be owed a substantial amount in royalties.

      Liked by 1 person

  1. If we can’t discuss Sabine’s case…can we go on laughing about Richie Allen losing his youtube channel?
    HAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Liked by 4 people

      • “I have been informed that OFCOM is going to come after internet broadcasters who stream live content…I’m told that this year, as part of its campaign to target hate speech online, the UK government is going to outline plans to regulate independent media.”

        Ooh, anyone know if there’s any truth in that? I hope so. Long overdue.

        Liked by 1 person

        • “I have been informed that OFCOM is going to come after internet broadcasters who stream live content…I’m told that this year, as part of its campaign to target hate speech online, the UK government is going to outline plans to regulate independent media.”

          Independent media is already highly regulated. I very much doubt if OFCOM are charged with policing webcam licking fuckwits as part of their remit, but its high time the likes of Google/Youtube and Facebook were held fully responsible for the shit they host and make money off!

          Liked by 1 person

      • No prizes for guessing who else is pissed off about it. Maybe he realises his channel’s days are numbered too:

        Liked by 1 person

        • People shouldn’t be censored for hurting people’s feelings and asking uncomfortable questions, says Nathan Stolpman, who…er…blocked many of us for hurting his feelings and asking him uncomfortable questions.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Whenever I see him it just reminds me of the sheer ruthlessness of cats and how they would probably live with Jack the Ripper if it suited them. Note how his puss just lazes in the background ignoring his wild-eyed madness. Larry at No Ten is similar as is mine who is simply staring at me right now like I’m it’s slave.

          Liked by 2 people

          • I can’t criticise your moggy as I treat EC and Scarlet the same way. They know who’s the real boss around here.

            Liked by 3 people

          • Great news. The fact that all the troofers are now switching over to DTube, Steemit, BitChute, etc. is also good. Sites nobody bothers watching, so their conspiranews will never reach a lot of people there. 😀

            Liked by 2 people

        • Ahh yes that’s it. Donuts and all and she’s asking where is St George which is a very reasonable question that deserves an answer. Moo clearly believes that she is the village maiden who is about to be ravished by the dragon. The poor thing.

          Liked by 2 people

  2. Completely unconnected to this but I do know the legal definition of an “agent” due to a case I was involved in some years ago. If for example a person went to a meeting of survivors of church abuse and started rambling on about satanism, passing out posters etc and was accompanied by another like minded confederate, both would be regarded as each other’s “agent”. Nothing special in that except- if one of them was under some sort of court injunction to say, not mention cannibalistic satanism they could find themselves in hot water having encouraged their ‘agent’ to attend that meeting.
    Especially if their ‘agent’ was a dickhead who posted tales on the internet for authorities to read.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Off topic… but this is well worth listening to if anyone is interested. I watched it this afternoon and she mentions some things I wasn’t aware of too.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.