When children are pawns: Vicky Haigh and Hampstead

Long before Hoaxtead was a knowing glint in Abraham Christie’s beady eye, there was Vicky Haigh.

Vicky had a problem. She had a little girl, whose father was her ex-husband, and she didn’t want the little girl’s father to have contact with her. The problem, you see, is that there was absolutely no legal reason for the father and daughter not to be in contact. And that pissed Vicky off, so she came up with a plan.

The plan was beautiful in its simplicity: she would claim that the father had sexually abused the little girl. Then the judge would be sure to order the father never to see his daughter again. Vicky would have her daughter all to herself. Problem solved!

She began coaching her little girl, telling her to say very bad things about her father. However, it wasn’t long before Vicky’s Brilliant Plan started to go pear-shaped.

The little girl was subjected to 4 medical examinations (none of which showed evidence of abuse), police interviews, and numerous contacts with professionals…all of whom agreed that the abuse was non-existent.

However, as the judge in Vicky’s court case, Rt. Hon. Sir Nicholas Wall, said in his August 2011 judgement, “As a result of inappropriate pressures and prompting, X came to make and believe the allegations. The mother used allegations of sexual abuse manipulatively as part of her irrational and longstanding hostility to contact which she sought to obstruct”.

(Is this starting to sound just a wee bit familiar?)

More from the judge: “…while professing her concern for X’s well-being, the mother consistently prioritise(d) her own needs over those of her daughter”. Unsurprisingly, the court found in favour of the father, and the the little girl was removed from Vicky’s care in 2010.

Despite the court’s findings, though, Vicky was unable to accept any of their judgements:

Ms Haigh, aided and abetted by one Elizabeth Watson, is not only unable to accept the judges’ findings but has put into the public domain the false allegations that she has not had justice and that X, contrary to both judges’ findings, has been sexually abused by her father. Those allegations have been posted on the worldwide web and are in the public domain. In addition, the mother has circulated the allegations to the parents of X’s school and to Mr. Tune’s fellow employees at his place of work. All this, of course, has been done illicitly and in breach of orders of the court.

(Wow. This is so close it’s almost scary! Is it possible that Elizabeth Watson and the Hoaxtead hawkers have read from the same play-book?)

One of the Haigh case’s outcomes should be of interest to those who’ve been avidly promoting Hoaxtead: Elizabeth Watson was found to have sent “aggressive, intimidating” emails to council staff involved in the case, which had found their way on to websites and “compromised the well-being” of a child.

Who could have guessed that the courts would frown upon this sort of thing?

According to a 24 August, 2011 article in The Star:

Sir Nicholas, sitting at a High Court hearing in London, said Watson had defaced copies of court orders with ‘childish scribblings’, ‘knew precisely what she was doing’ and ‘thought herself above the law’.

He jailed Watson – who gave her name as ‘Elizabeth of the Watson Family’ and described herself as an ‘investigator’ who was a ‘Montessori-trained teacher’ with a background in ‘child psychology’ – after revealing details of the custody battle over the child….

We wonder: has Sabine read this? Is she taking notes?

Watson, from Bournemouth, Dorset, told the court that she was ‘most sorry’ and suggested she had been ‘badly advised’ and ‘misguided’ after being asked to help with the custody case by the child’s mother, Victoria Haigh.

Sir Nicholas said Ms Haigh, with Watson’s ‘misguided assistance’, had then breached court orders by putting ‘unwarranted and scandalous’ allegations into the public domain via email and the internet.

Watson had sent emails which identified parties in the case and criticised social workers and police.

She had referred to ‘social disservices’ and ‘abductees’ who ‘snatched children’ and ‘tortured innocent parents’ and written about ‘nationwide child snatching reaching epidemic proportions’.

“You have seriously breached an order and seriously compromised the well-being of a child,” said the judge.

“There is no question of ‘misunderstood’. You knew exactly what you were doing – writing the most aggressive, intimidating emails calling everyone in sight ‘corrupt’. You wrote on the court orders you were sent. That is not someone who misunderstood.”

Indeed.

Obviously, the Haigh case is missing a few of Hoaxtead’s more dramatic elements: the whole ‘satanic baby-killing cannibal’ angle, for example; as far as we know, Elizabeth Watson didn’t do her damage from Parimaribo, Suriname; and Vicky Haigh didn’t bugger off to Spain when she realised the shit was about to hit the fan.

But still, we think the Haigh case is an interesting precedent, in legal terms—and if the clowns who currently shill for Hoaxtead had any brains whatsoever, they’d take it as a cautionary tale.


This article was originally published on 31 October 2015.

learn from history

92 thoughts on “When children are pawns: Vicky Haigh and Hampstead

  1. “Is it possible that Elizabeth Watson and the Hoaxtead hawkers have read from the same play-book?”

    Good question, EC – Watson was quite vocal about the Hampstead thing when it first went viral, wasn’t she (or did I dream that)?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Neelu’s really pushing her luck now in my opinion and she’s gonna get arrested for harassment and intimidation if she’s not careful:

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Interesting stuff in the news today about how fake news on social media is a danger to democracy and they’re looking at cracking down. Or to put it another way, the government is finally saying what the regulars on this fine blog have been saying for over three years.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Conspiraloonies on the internet
      Conspiraloonies on facebook
      They all spout a lot of batshit crazy
      And they all sound just the same
      There’s a mad one and a bad one
      There’s a foolish one and an evil one
      and they spout lots of batshit crazy
      and they all sound just the same

      Lots of families down in Hampstead
      Were all anxious, scared and terrified
      Rupert roaming round the playground
      With his biscuit in his hand
      There’s Belinda and there’s Deborah
      and there’s Hoax Girls grifter family
      Then there’s Wesley, Paedogivly
      And those who must not be named

      And they claim they are super soldiers
      MK-Ultra survivors
      Chased through forests by aliens
      Westminster paedophiles and the Queen
      And they make harassing phone calls
      And make death threats on the internet
      We tick all the “report” boxes
      But they carry on just the same

      Any they hold their scammy conferences
      Like the Fresh Start Foundation
      Antisemites, full of hatred
      And all playing a grifter game
      And they bully survivors
      And appropriate survivor rallies
      But we can see right through them
      And we know their little games

      Conspiraloonies on the internet
      Conspiraloonies on facebook
      They all spout a lot of batshit crazy
      And they all sound just the same
      There’s a mad one and a bad one
      There’s a foolish one and an evil one
      and they spout lots of batshit crazy
      and they all sound just the same

      Liked by 2 people

  4. OK, I get that the conspiraloons have reached ‘S’ in their A-to-Z of made-up celebrity paedo allegations campaign, but shouldn’t Spielberg have come before Streep?

    Liked by 1 person

    • In February 1988 she died at the age of 12 of cardiac arrest and septic shock caused by a misdiagnosed intestinal stenosis. (Wikipedia)
      You ghastly old cow Power-Disney. Sadly people and kids die all the time so respect the parents you vile old shit. No different than that vile Alex Jones.

      Liked by 4 people

    • She’s obviously seen the screenshot on here of a comment someone made on YT about Spielberg wearing shoes made from the girl’s skin. It was sick.

      They’re ramping up their conspiracy crap about celebrities since Sarah Ruth Ashcraft’s tweets were shared all over YT.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. So there I was on Stolpman’s slime video, thinking my God, Terri Steward must be the biggest idiot I’ve ever encountered on YouTube, when up pops this chap, just to prove me wrong…

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Pardon my ignorance but does anyone get this baby wipe reference? Or why innocent people being poisoned by a deadly nerve agent is funny? Am I missing something?

    Liked by 1 person

    • She’s tastelessly making fun of UK Health’s advice to wipe down phones and door handles with baby wipes.

      Thunderf00t does go off the rails sometimes, but his debunking videos are good. It’s a bit long at 20 minutes, but this does explain things well.

      Like

      • Thanks, Owly

        So the troofers are claiming that nerve gas isn’t dangerous, then? Then I’m sure they’ll be willing to demonstrate that for us 🙂

        Like

        • Well, Angela certainly would. She’d be saved by faith and prayer:

          POISONGATE

          Actually, thinking about it that wouldn’t be a fair test, as being saved by God doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. Cat knows it for a fact. No, don’t laugh – it could happen.

    By the way, in case you’re wondering she doesn’t bother explaining how she knows any of that for a fact. But before you judge bear in mind that Malcolm Ogilvy and I are the only two people who ever read her page; he’ll work it out using witchcraft and astrology and I don’t give a fuck, so there’s nothing really to explain.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Satan Hunters are parasites, the children, child abuse victims, and injustices are pawns, a means to an end. These parasites care nothing for injustice, rights, truth and liberty, a conclusion anyone here who has been around long enough have learnt.

    A little victory for me, a follower of Becki Percy posted a phone number of a celebrity encouraging followers to harrass them by ringing it, Becki retweeted it, I reported it to Twitter, and it was removed by Twitter. It seems doxing might get a faster response than most others forms of referral to Twitter.

    Liked by 4 people

    • She’s changed her story on that. Her original version at the time was it was refused because she still had the vexatious litigant order against her. This is correct. Check the date she claims she filled it in. 20th July – the last day of the order!

      And note, she has referred to two documents. The £10,000 Fee Exemption Certificate and her £50m “appeal claim”. It is the appeal claim, she has posted the image of.

      The fee exemption certificate is a form for the impecunious to be able to still access justice by having filling fees and certain costs refunded. It is not demand for relief.

      The Claim Form is like a super-small claims court application but instead heard in a county court for claims up to £100,000.

      I suspect these have both been politely stamped and filed under “Beware of the leopard”.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Speaking of documents, any idea what these are, Owly? i didn’t quite get what they were for:

        Like

        • If I’m not mistaken those are the ruling from the 23rd when she appeared as an Applicant With No Notice. The judge threw them out.

          I know there are some here who like me also frequent Quatloos, but for those who don’t, Neelu appears to be having some form of breakdown.

          http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10482&start=1600#p266838

          TL;DR
          My husband’s family were bastards and are members of The Powers That Be. Actually, she appears to be right about that. Her nephew is an MP and his father-in-law is an extremely wealthy Indian businessman.

          Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.