What really happened at Belinda McKenzie’s trial?

On Friday we reported that Belinda McKenzie had been convicted of contempt of court for having publicly identified a protected witness in Sabine McNeill’s recent trial. One of our readers attended Belinda’s trial, and was kind enough to write up this report of the proceedings:

We entered Courtroom 3 a few minutes before the start time of 10:15, and as there was no sign of McKenzie or any of her supporters, we did wonder if it was going to be another no-show.

However, word filtered through that she was indeed in the building and had asked for a few minutes with her defence counsel, Mr Davidson. They retreated to the privacy of a meeting room and court was held up for a few minutes while they consulted. Dave Conaghan arrived, and was initially her only supporter, but later another man arrived who we hadn’t seen before, and who left the building with her. Though we were not sure, we suspected that he could have been her son.  

Courtroom 3 was distinctly different from Courts 11 and 2, in that the dock had opaque glass to one side, which prevented those in the public gallery for seeing those in the dock. Once McKenzie disappeared through the dock door, this was the last we would see of her until the trial was completed.

This made me realise how important it is to see the reaction of the defendant, something we were denied, but I can only assume that given her absence yesterday, the court allocation system meant that Courtroom 2 was booked, and this was the substitute venue.

So it was put to McKenzie that on 8–9 December 2018 she made a Facebook post which identified a witness in the trial of Sabine McNeill, which breached the reporting restrictions as imposed by HHJ Beddoe on 15 December 2017, and read out by HHJ Sally Cahill QC at the start of the trial.

Though we could not see McKenzie, we could just about hear her admit her guilt as she spoke those few words meekly. To those who did not know her it was hard to imagine that this was the very same woman who has spent years, often outside the Royal Courts of Justice, bellowing out with cast iron lungs through her trademark megaphone. 

Defence counsel Davidson, in mitigation made reference to a ”Letter of regret” dated 10 December 2018, where McKenzie apologised for her conduct. In further mitigation she claimed in the letter that because she lacked technical skill in computing, she did not know how to delete a post, but she has since learnt how, and made assurances that if it did happen again, she now had the skills to remove any post immediately, and this would never happen again.

Davidson also said that McKenzie had carried out volunteer work for himself. This seemed a little odd—why would a barrister think it appropriate that he would need a volunteer worker, especially one who claimed she had a disabled daughter and only a pension to live on? Clearly he thought this would win some credit, even though he gave no indication as to why he needed a volunteer to do unpaid work for him.

I can only think that at this point Mr Davidson thought he was doing rather well…until, that is, prosecutor Philip Stott whipped the floor from beneath him, ably assisted, it would appear, by Belinda McKenzie herself.

Stott stated that it had come to his attention that in the past few days, McKenzie had committed a further breach of the reporting restrictions.  He advised the court that on 8 January 2019, McKenzie was trying to rally supporters to attend Sabine McNeill’s sentencing phase of her trial via her Facebook page, and clearly wanted as many to attend court as possible. In the comments section, a poster mentioned a witness by name, and suggested that others should google the name.

It transpired that the author of the post knew very well who the witness was, as he had made references to the witness before the trial started. McKenzie’s response to the post was to write, ”Sorry can’t say”, rather than deleting it as she promised to do in her ”Letter of regret”.

So we had a situation that seemed to render her ”Letter of regret” null and void. If anything, it had morphed into  ”A letter of no regret”. Having stated specifically that she had learnt how to delete posts, and in the future would do so immediately, within a month she had gone against her word and made a second breach of the reporting restrictions. The only solace one could take from this was that at least she lasted longer than the eight days managed by her best buddy Sabine McNeill. 

This caused a conundrum for Davidson. Having just been ambushed by his own client, he metaphorically dusted himself down and like any good prizefighter, came back for more, albeit with a stutter. Belinda was feeling “stressed and unwell” at the time of the postings, he claimed.

Judge Cahill pointed out that she wasn’t too stressed to make subsequent comments in the very same thread.

Another round lost, so Davidson, not to be deterred, tried a new tack. I don’t know if he was frustrated or stumped, or both, but following a very brief consultation with McKenzie, he claimed that McKenzie thought that the poster who named the witness ”just wanted to get her into trouble.”

Now clutching at straws when there were none left to clutch, he then claimed that she had got involved with a group of zealots who wanted to undermine the law. Clearly he had not seen her back catalogue of videos, in one of which she is part of a large mob that storms a court in an attempt to “arrest” the judge. If he had, he might have concluded that she was leading the zealots, rather than the other way around.  

The excuses submitted seemed puerile, more akin to what an inexperienced teenager might use, as opposed to a mature, experienced grandmother.  We were expected to believe that this woman, who had spent years on social media, and had certainly learnt how to set up a donation button and a PayPal account, was claiming that she could not delete a post? 

It transpired that Judge Cahill was not having a bar of it either, and she did not accept McKenzie’s ”Letter of regret” because a second breach had occurred within a month of her writing it. McKenzie handed this to the prosecution on a plate with knobs on, leaving her own defence counsel floundering.  

We then moved onto the sentencing phase, and a cordial legal discussion continued between Davidson, Stott, and Cahill as to the limitation of the court in terms of a restraining order.

It is worth noting that a “contempt of court” charge is not a trial in the typical manner, as it relates to the behaviour of an individual in disrespecting the court or ignoring the rules of a particular trial. There is no jury to decide innocence or guilt, but often these offences are witnessed by the judge directly, or breaches and evidence are brought to the judge’s attention via counsel. The maximum sentence is a term of two years imprisonment.

It was thus decided that under these circumstances, a restraining order could not be imposed, but Stott did suggest a compromise via a somewhat novel idea: McKenzie would agree to sign an undertaking as to her future conduct, so rather than have an order imposed upon her, she was agreeing to accept one which would be legally binding. All parties agreed, as did McKenzie, and court was adjourned briefly while the document was drafted by Stott.

When we returned, the undertaking McKenzie was to agree to was read out by Judge Cahill. The official document and the conditions imposed on her will be published shortly, but in effect it meant that McKenzie agreed to take down all reference she had made to the case by the 25th of January 2019, and she was never to refer to them again. In effect, this was a life ban from commenting or publishing anything again about the case or the people involved in it. She had already volunteered to close her Facebook account.

Having read the document to her, Judge Cahill asked her if she would comply to the conditions and sign same. To the surprise of most, if not all, she said she would agree to the terms ”to the best of my ability”.

Those in court were momentarily stunned.

As we could not see her, we can only guess that even she realised that her eel-type behaviour wasn’t going to wash, so she added, ”I’m not technical”, and said she would comply if she were able to. She didn’t seem to grasp the fact that this was all designed to keep her out of prison, because to most it was clear that if she did not agree to the undertaking, then that is where she was going. 

Judge Cahill’s tone suggested that she had had enough, and she directed defence counsel Davidson to “have a word with her”. It seemed Davidson felt the same, as McKenzie had somewhat sabotaged his defence of her.

It was his turn to demonstrate that he, too, had had enough. He walked with urgency to the dock, and in a stern loud voice, audible to all in the public gallery, said tersely, ”Just say yes”, and walked back to his seat. It seemed that he had given up taking instructions from her, and he was taking charge.

McKenzie was asked again by Judge Cahill if she agreed, and she did say, “Yes” this time. The formalities on this part of the case were concluded, which just left sentencing to be carried out.

Judge Cahill made it clear that she did not accept McKenzie’s ”Letter of Regret”, and said that a custodial sentence was appropriate. She reminded McKenzie that on the first day of the trial she had warned all present of the reporting restrictions, had mentioned them to everybody again during the trial, and had had notices posted at the entry doors to the court so nobody could claim they were unaware of them.

She noted that McKenzie had attended most days of the trial, and therefore must have been aware of the restrictions. With this in mind, the sentence she imposed was 6 months imprisonment. However, she said she would suspend that sentence for a period of two years. Then followed a warning that was crystal clear: if McKenzie came back to court again for any more breaches she would go to prison. 

Judge Cahill then made special mention of Davidson, noting that he had been of great help to his client. She might have sensed there were times when he was made to look foolish, through no fault of his own. McKenzie had made him seem like an incompetent buffoon when he was far from it, and had taken the case at short notice.

When one first meets McKenzie, she does come across as intelligent, so how was he to know that he was dealing with a pathological liar?

Time will tell if McKenzie is able to abide by the document she signed. Some think that this is like asking a long-term crackhead to quit drugs overnight and take up Morris dancing the very next morning.

I’m not sure if anybody knows what drives McKenzie to do what she does. It’s really not easy inventing crimes that do not exist, but like Sabine McNeill, she seems to get an orgasmic buzz out of it. One can somewhat understand the fraudster, the gangster, the thief and what motivates them, but inventing crimes that don’t exist is unfathomable.

McKenzie and McNeill are to child abuse victims what Inspector Clouseau was to Interpol: worse than useless. And as for the motley crew that came to the court in “support” of McNeill, based on their appearance not one should be left alone with a child. If any one of them turned up on my doorstep from the child-minding agency to look after my kids, I’d phone the police immediately. 

Here endeth the lesson…or so we thought, until another kind individual pointed out that Cat Scot had just posted the full contents of one of Belinda McKenzie’s mass-emailed encyclicals, which told another tale entirely:

Hmm. Which version rings true to you?

While we’re on the topic of the undertaking (or as Belinda would call it, the “wretched undertaking”), we thought our readers might like to see it:

I, Belinda McKenzie, hereby formally undertake to the Court the following:

By 5 pm on 25 January 2019, I will ensure that any website, blog, social media or any other form of online media (including any online or ‘cloud’ based storage) over which I have sole or joint control contains no information, regardless of when that information was uploaded, posted or published, about the following matters:

(i) Christchurch Primary School, Hampstead,

(ii) The church known as Christ Church, Hampstead

(iii) Any of the complainants, witnesses or their families in the case of R v Sabine McNeill.

(iv) Any of the people previously alleged to be connected to abuse at Christ Church or Christchurch Primary School, or

(v) Allegations of organised sexual and/or physical abuse of children taking place in and around the Hampstead area.

This also includes, but is not limited to, publishing or posting links or hyperlinks to any other website, blog, social media or any other form of online media (including any online or ‘cloud’ based storage) which contains the said material, or itself links, directly or indirectly, to other content containing such material, and includes any ‘comments’, links or other material regarding those matters placed online by others over which I have sufficient control to remove or render inaccessible.

I will not in future post, publish or in any way publicise or disseminate in any way available to the public, or to a section of the public, any information about the matters listed at (i) to (v) above and I will immediately remove as soon as reasonably practicable any ‘comments’, links or other material placed online by others regarding those matters over which I have sufficient control to remove them or render them inaccessible. This will apply for an indefinite period.

I understand that any breach of this undertaking is liable to be punished as a criminal contempt of court.

Now really, how hard can that be?

124 thoughts on “What really happened at Belinda McKenzie’s trial?

  1. So not an iota of contrition and these two hoaxers are so arrogant they thought they were fooling the court. I did have sympathy for Sabine with her 9 year sentence but I now see both of these woman- soul mates- are very malicious.
    Also interesting to read that Sabine -as I expected- is actually faring reasonably well in jail despite her pals claiming she is an ailing cripple underdog.
    Sabine is reasonably intelligent and when you think about it she has all her needs now catered for. She is no doubt very capable of impressing the majority of hapless female prisoners who would not nearly be as ‘worldly’ as Sabine.
    I have no doubt she will successfully build a small fan club as she weaves her special magic among the less intelligent.

    I’ve met plenty of people who have come out of jail and the vast majority are very circumspect in ensuring they never repeat the exercise. Instead, these two carry on as they always have.
    ## Question: do prisoners still receive their pension when in jail or is it reduced or stopped?

    Liked by 2 people

    • I think it’s interesting that when she was arrested in court, Belinda was falling over herself to appear apologetic and contrite. Yet when it comes down to it, she is the one who seems to feel put upon, and objects to being compelled to do what she had promised to do in the first place.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I cannot believe how Stupid or naive or gullible……ok, all of them that I am at times.

        Having read that email from BM above, it is totally and utterly the opposite that happened at court.

        I would in fact use the exact same words the judge used to describe SM that I would to describe BM.

        It’s not often that one uses the word “Evil” to describe someone, however this word fits perfectly.

        And thinking about it, does her email, the one above not actually breach her court order?

        It’s sent out to people to who know what she is referring to! The same topic of that she’s just found herself in front of the judge.

        Any sane person would just….well…..keep quiet.


    • I’m stunned by Bellender, in her missive to her army of fangirls and fanboys, actually minimising Sabine’s sentencing and her own with the claim both events were a minor setback!!

      Liked by 3 people

    • She has actually no pension, rather it is called “pension credit”. Pension credit in other words is income support for those who are over 65 with no other income. Pension that is due from the years one has paid into a pension fund of course nobody can take away. Pension credit on the other hand will stop getting paid for the duration of the incarceration of a pensioner. Once released, pension credit will get paid again. However, in the case here, the person concerned will, most likely, get deported, if Brexit goes ahead. If Brexit will not go ahead, the person concerned may be allowed to stay, but this is not sure either due to the length of the sentence. If the sentence were under 4 years – possibly. Over 4 years – not very likely.

      Prisoners can work while in prison and thus make a modest income.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I think Sabine’s pension was stopped some time ago when she got caught continuing to claim it despite having absconded to Germany. EC. have I got that right?

        Liked by 2 people

      • If Sabine was deported she would probably be better off as welfare is better in Germany. She can still visit the UK and bed down with Bellend or even Neelu who I am convinced has another property.

        Liked by 3 people

        • I’ve always said I am prepared to switch if they abolish pop-up cookie warnings 😃

          It’s an interesting point though. She could be deported by order of the Home Secretary when she is eligible for release on licence, but then English courts would lose the ability to control her behaviour on release as her CRO would be unenforceable in Germany. I’ll need to do more reading on this!

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Is it possible to be in contempt of court, as McKenzie claims, by neglecting to delete a comment on Facebook written by somebody else? If so, I find that proposition worrying.


    • She pleaded guilty, so I’m sure she knows exactly what she was guilty of and how. How she describes the extent of her crime to her followers should probably be disbelieved because the person attending the hearing said that Bellender admitted being in contempt of court for making a post on facebook identifying a witness in Sabine’s trial….so?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Bellend is apparently working for barristers. She’s not unintelligent woman. She’s fibbing about not knowing how to delete. She just seems to have a certain arrogance that overrules common sense.

        Liked by 2 people

        • The thought of Belinda working in a barristers office is a bit worrying as i wonder what info she could have had access to in the office?

          Liked by 1 person

      • I’m wondering whether what actually happened was this: McKenzie reported on Facebook the testimony of a witness who couldn’t legally be named. Somebody else asked, whether she was referring to so-and-so. Instead of deleting that question as soon as she discovered it, she replied to it, saying she could neither confirm nor deny that speculation.


          • Thanks for confirming what happened. And thank you for allowing me to comment on the excellent blog on which you have provided so much interesting hard information.

            In this case, much as though one might be disappointed to see Belinda McKenzie off the hook, I find it worrying that she was nicked for not deleting somebody else’s web content when she could have done so, rather than for posting web content of her own that broke a court order.

            In my own circumstances, a High Court judge put something onto the internet in 2017 that enabled jigsaw identification of a minor that I had until then been careful to prevent. That is, when his 2017 judgment was combined with the publication in 2013 of a certain blog post under the author’s own name. I am not willing to delete that 2013 blog post, even though I could. I’d be willing to go to jail on principle, rather than to comply with an order to change part of the historical record of what was said in 2013, because a judge didn’t think through the “jigsaw identification” consequences of his including the background information he did in a judgment delivered in 2017.

            I think it would be wrong for the judge who posted the final piece of the jigsaw himself, to expect the world to remove other pieces of the jigsaw he finished himself, which serve useful purposes in their own right.

            It is because of these circumstances that my ears pricked up when I read what I thought I’d read had happened, which you have now confirmed is what happened.

            The Contempt of Court Act refers to “publication”. I don’t see that I should be forced in 2017 to delete a post I regard as important, which had been on the internet for four years.


      • The initial offending post was by her, and was removed shortly after her arrest in December. The second one (brought up by Stott) was by someone responding to another post on Beinda’s Facebook page. Belinda responded “Can’t say”, rather than simply deleting it.

        Incidentally, the post for which she was arrested was on Facebook, but a couple of days earlier she had sent a mass email in which she had identified protected witnesses. Without directly accusing her, Judge Cahill gave a very pointed warning, which Belinda stated she believed had been directed toward her…and yet shortly after being warned, she went right ahead and posted the name of a protected witness, stating that she knew she was risking arrest by doing so!


    • If you want the simple answer, yes.

      If you want the longer explanation, at that point in time she was aware that any such post naming witnesses on her page would be classed as contempt and whether she posted it herself or not she had an obligation to delete it immediately. This is under the strict liability rule of the Contempt of Court Act (1981).

      Liked by 3 people

      • It is by no means clear to me that the rule and the Act mentioned overcomes the objection that the contempt was not an act, by some accounts, but an omission. The contempt was (it is said) the offender’s omission to delete another person’s web content, rather than a publication of web content of one’s own. If there is content on the internet that I don’t know about, and don’t realise that I have the ability to delete, which prejudices active proceedings, can I be found in contempt of court because of that?


        • Pretty sure the courts know what went on and whether she was in contempt and that’s all that matters. She’s pushed her luck far enough, even in court when she replied she’d try “to the best of her ability” (or words to that effect correctly reported in the post) She’s pushing her luck further with the email that has been sent showing she’s deluded over what happened.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Strict liability contempt does not require proof that the individual or publishing organisation intended to create the risk. The rule applies to all publications, including “any speech, writing, programme included in a programmer service or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large“, so encompasses social media in addition to more formal publications.

          It includes comments published by others. It is why newspapers normally as a matter of policy disable user comments during court cases. There have been several instances in the past year where news organisations have been referred to the Attorney General for contempt for comments made by readers.

          Now you might not like the law, but that is the law as it stands.

          Liked by 2 people

          • From which passage of the Act do you get the doctrine that “it includes comments by others”?

            A law shouldn’t be judged good or bad on the grounds that we are glad that one of those punished under that law happens to be a baddie whom we are chuffed to see nicked. We ought to think through whether we or other innocents could get nicked ourselves under the same law, despite doing nothing wrong ourselves.

            I moderate my blog. I occasionally refuse to publish comments for legal reasons. I accept that I could be in the wrong, if I allowed an unlawful comment to be published on my blog

            In contrast, I don’t moderate my Facebook page. In fact, I hardly ever visit it. I don’t like or understand Facebook. Quite often, I discover content on my Facebook page put there by others months or weeks before I notice it. I haven’t always been aware that I had the ability to delete those comments by other people, from my Facebook page. I am genuinely concerned that if McKenzie’s contempt of court consists only or mainly of not deleting content composed by somebody else, I could already have committed her offence myself, unawares.

            I don’t think that it is implicit in the word “publish” that this includes “allowing” somebody else to publish something, not by actually doing anything oneself, but merely by failing to set one’s page options to prevent others from commenting on one’s page, or by not visiting one’s Facebook page often, in order to delete other people’s comments one suspects might be illegal, or which are illegal even though one doesn’t know this.


          • I’ve had to learn these things because I publish things in print and online. There is no legal distinction between a major media organisation, a “citizen journalist” or a lone twerp in their mother’s basement spouting trash.

            There are many things that people do that are illegal that don’t get pulled up, but someone hit with a contempt of court charge, knowing they’ve been hit with a contempt of court charge and by their own admission working (paid or unpaid makes no difference) in chambers is expected to at least get proper legal advice rather than set themselves up as a bar room lawyer.

            Feel free to interpret the law as you see fit. Just don’t bellyache when others get done for breaching it. 😉

            Liked by 1 person

          • He has a publically accessible CV on his wordpress site/blog.

            Click to access cv_john_allman_201810021.pdf

            I don’t understand why Allman is trying so hard to perpetuate Bellender’s lie to her followers about inadvertently allowing a post written by someone else naming a witness in contempt of court remain under a post she made. She pleaded guilty to contempt of court because she herself named the witness in an fb post on her fb page.

            Liked by 2 people

          • There’s a link to my CV on my blog. The quick answer is that I’m not a lawyer now and that I have had legal education and experience, but not (much, vocational) legal training. There was a time when if asked whether I was a lawyer, I might have answered either “yes”, or “no”, or given a long answer, depending upon who was asking, and why. (In a sense, Sabine was a “lawyer”.)


          • @ Siouxie Zoo

            I’m not trying to “perpetuate” anybody’s “lie”. Regardless or not of whether this is what actually happened in this case, I was struck by the doctrine that somebody would be well-advised to admit contempt of court if all they had actually done was to omit to delete something that somebody else had put onto the internet.

            In my experience, people who comment on news stories on the internet, often rejoice when laws turn out to be able to be used to justify punishing those whom they regard as baddies for their supposedly bad conduct, even though those exact same laws can equally be used to punish goodies for their good conduct, when the shoe is on the other foot.


          • @John….I’m not a person who can stand by when I witness people such as yourself trying to obfuscate what was abundantly clear as per this blog post we’re all commenting on.

            I’m stopping myself from calling you out on your behaviour in my usual colourful language but if I tell you I think you’re full of it, I’m sure you’ll know what I mean to say.


          • Last year a professional headhunter estimated I have read and assessed over 10,000 CVs in the course of my career (what a life). I certainly have a fair bit of experience of such documents. A couple of warning bells go off when reading Allman’s CV: for example his very last line warrants further investigation.

            Either Allman is the sort of person who undervalues some things which matter to other people (true of many of those gifted in computer work) or he is hiding something (no schooling, jail term, that kind of thing). Either way it would be sensible to be wary.


            • You did well to read my seven page-long CV right through to the last sentence, whatever your motive for this might have been. I did not draw attention to my online CV in the hope of an offer of employment. I did it because somebody asked about my lawyering qualifications and experience, and those, modest though they be, are documented on my CV.

              Nevertheless, for the benefit of anybody likely to be influenced to my detriment by your innuendo, the last line of my CV that “sets off” one of the couple of “warning bells” you mentioned, reads:

              “In the unlikely event that any recruiter would like to learn about what I did before 1975, I can provide
              this information on request.”

              I left Exeter School in June 1970 and started at MoD Bath in May 1975. That I spare recruiters in 2018 the tedium of reading about my various jobs and adventures during the five years after I left school, was intended to be merciful to those, who like yourself, are presented with thousands of CVs to read over the course of a lifetime.

              I have often been urged to shorten my “too long” CV, by only listing my most recent jobs. You are the first recruiter ever to complain that my CV is too short, because it only lists my jobs for the last 43 years of my working life, rather than all 48 of the years after I left school.

              What is the second “warning bell” that my CV sets off, please? I’d like the chance to answer that charge too, and therefore to know what the charge is.


      • Bizarrely I don’t think it is. On YouTube it is but I think on Facebook you can’t disable commenting. (You can change your privacy settings so that your comments aren’t on public view to begin with, though.)


  3. Thanks for sharing these, EC.

    In my view, she appears not to have learnt her lesson; and from what I hear, she still believes the Hampstead SRA allegations.. And I have a funny feeling that she will breach her undertaking at some point. The only question for me is how soon.

    Liked by 4 people

    • At first, I thought she would comply fearing prison but having read this post, I’m inclined to agree with you about her breaching it at some point.

      Liked by 4 people

      • I’m not sure, it sounds to me a bit like the lad who tells his girlfriend that prison is a holiday camp while crying himself to sleep in his cell – a message solely for outward consumption. But memory is a painting not a photograph, if she persuades _herself_ that this is how it happened, than she may feel free to go ahead.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. There’s a bit missing from one of Invernessie’s screenshots, I think. This is from her original screenshots – she seems to have sliced off the first part of the sentence/paragraph:

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Belinda has been working as a volunteer at the office of a barrister? If anyone knows the name of the chambers please let me know so I can avoid them like the plague.

    Liked by 4 people

    • He’s telling people to boycott the Catholic church AND to attend services in order to place notes about sacrificial baby murder in the collection plate when it comes round. How does that work? 🤔

      Good to hear that his website’s been banned, btw 🙂

      Liked by 4 people

        • How on earth anyone fell for his made up court and stories of arresting the pope is beyond me. Mel Ve(Fee) fell for his crap which tells me all I need to know about how closely she investigates these people.

          Liked by 1 person

      • No mention today by the parish priest about the end of the Catholic Church before Easter. I mean, if they were thinking of folding you’d have thought they’d tell us. Still as long as we get notice before Ash Wednesday then that will be fine. Wouldn’t want to give up something for Lent I didn’t have too!!!

        Liked by 1 person

      • How does a website get “banned”? I’ve had a temporary problem in the past with a website of mine being misclassified as porn, leading to certain ISPs blocking their customers from it who hadn’t opted into porn. Is that what you mean by “banned”?


        • “How does a website get ‘banned’?”

          That’s a fair question and it may have been a poor choice of word on my part. What Annett actually said was that his website had been “taken down” and I figured that if I put that, it wouldn’t be clear whether it had been by his own choice or it had been removed by the host company. The latter was the case.

          Liked by 2 people

      • And 2015 and 2016!

        I hope it’s not like waiting for a bus and two raptures are gonna come along at once in September this year 😮

        Liked by 3 people

      • If it did happen she would be sure to be left behind. However “The Rapture” was invented about a hundred years ago by evangelical heretics and isn’t part of mainstream Christian belief.

        Liked by 2 people

        • The rapture itself is a biblical doctrine. The doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture (which is what you probably mean) dates back about 200 years rather than only 100. (I didn’t know this. I looked it up, because of your comment.) The false doctrine of being left behind (that the second coming has already occurred and if you’re still here, you have missed it) is refuted in 2 Thess 2, as far as I recall.


  6. A convicted criminal working in a barristers office, voluntary or not, knowing how manipulative and untrustworthy Belinda is, no thank you.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It does raise questions about how efficiently they vetted her, doesn’t it. Even putting aside the contempt charge, she’s been investigated twice for charity fraud and was also raided and arrested in March last year.

      Liked by 2 people

      • “Fortunately I got a barrister with me from the chambers where I’ve been working…”

        And now unfortunately she has a barrister from the chambers where she has been working who now knows that she has a criminal record for contempt of court. I can’t see that going down well with the partners.

        Liked by 3 people

    • While there is nothing illegal about Belinda working in a barrister’s office, if I were the barristers I would be concerned about things like confidentiality of client files and so on, given Belinda’s history.

      Liked by 3 people

      • It doesn’t have to be illegal to be a breach of Core Duty 5 of the Code of Conduct. It is likely to bring the profession into disrepute if someone of this character and previous history is working in a Chambers as its ‘manager’ and appears – according to the website – to be the first point of contact for any would be litigant seeking a direct access family law barrister. Chilling.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I recall Belinda McKenzie once peddling something called the Association of McKenzie friends in the past. That was bad enough. I thought it brought freelance legal helpers of litigants in person (as I have been in the past) into more disrepute than the worst self-interested carping and false analogies with “unqualified surgeons” in the comments in the Law Gazette.

          I am all for co-operation between solicitors and barristers with litigants in person and the freelance paralegals whom they sometimes ask to help them. I’ve enjoyed working with some very clever people in the past as one of the latter. But this particular specimen of the genre? Belinda McKenzie? Let loose in chambers?
          Some mistake surely!

          (Nice to be reminded of you again, by the way.)


          • Yes, the Association of McKenzie Friends alongside Sabine McNeill and which enjoyed patronage from two MPs – John Hemming and Austin Mitchell. Hemming jumped ship in Jan 2015, as I understand it, but not before doing undoubted damage by allowing these two criminals some kind of credibility with an endorsement from a (then) sitting MP. It’s shocking, worrying stuff and I am more grateful than I can say for El Coyote and the Team reporting on this – at no doubt considerable cost to themselves and their own peace of mind as they rile up ever more numbers of insane Internet conspiraloons.

            Liked by 1 person

            • It was a shame to see somebody of the stature of John Hemming taken in, even temporarily. Oh the power of lies that press people’s emotional buttons!


    • Reasons why I detest Neelu Berry…..1,2,3…..

      1. The post above.

      2. She’s a dirty rotten low down stinking liar.

      3. She’s a dirty rotten low down stinking liar who won’t feck off.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Neelu’s alternative-medicine prescriptions worked so well for her sister.
        Someone talked her sister into avoiding real treatment for breast cancer for four years, until it progressed to Stage IV with fungating ulcers. That’s a really nasty way to kill someone.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. I see butt-hurt Devine’s been illegally naming a protected witness.

    He’s also made a very angry video about him (and us) which also includes the names and videos of the Hampstead children and repeated mentions of the protected witness’s name, so I can’t link it.

    Still, he’s hiding out in his Greek hovel, so should be safe from British justice. In fact, he even admits that in the video. Bless


      • What a creep.
        These fanatics like Andy Devine think it’s perfectly OK to accuse people of murder (even children- killing babies and dancing with their skulls) because they see something on Youtube.
        They think it’s perfectly OK to try and wreck innocent people’s lives and post the most defamatory claims despite the lazy sods never leaving the safety of their living room and if anyone dares to contradict them- they are “trolls”.

        They misrepresent facts such as Eddiesok & McKenzie breaching important court orders and demand Hoaxtead be prosecuted for lawfully reporting on the case all the time whilst bloody well doing it themselves as Devine does above.
        And they even have the arrogance to think they are so important, rather than what they really are- the 21st Century version of nasty old fish wives gossiping over the backyard fence repeating harmful untruths and gossip to the detriment of innocent citizens, that intelligence services who must monitor the dreadful threats that we all face, would have the time and resources to attack a complete non-entity and unbelievable bore like this goat rabbiting on from some village in Greece.
        You may be a would be Lord Haw Haw Andy but you are really a non-entity.
        (live camera feed- St Peter’s Square)

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Pingback: Nine Years – part 4 – Spin vs Truth

  9. Wow I can’t believe the judge swallowed her BS that she don’t know how to delete post. She’s been a activist for many years posting and deleting comments even making videos for YouTube. It’s a shame she’s not sharing a cell next door to her mate Sabine. But hey still a result all round with her not having to post her BS indefinitely and to remove her vile crap.👍


  10. Hi everyone, congrats on what was an awesome week against the Satan Hunters. Even Iceland considered it a great week because as part of their January sales they have reduced their boxes of 400grm Jelly babies to just £1.50 for those “sweet moments.” These are the authentic original jelly babies by Maynards Bassetts, none of that cheap alternative rubbish.

    As I munch on a green jelly baby I think of the dark night that is drawing in for Angela Power Disney. Will she handle prison? Hats off to the judge, EC and Scarlet, I think everyone has had enough of the Satan Hunter mind games, and they are all going to get jail time if they continue their Satan Hunting against the innocent.

    I felt so good, that when a Jehovah Witness pushed a Watch Tower in my face today, I did not traumatise them by saying I was a Satanist, only that I was an atheist.

    Liked by 3 people

    • In the spirit of good will you could have at least enquired if they would like to partake in eating one of your babies in exchange for their literature.

      Liked by 1 person

    • If you really want to wind them up, tell them you’re a Catholic- they don’t like Catholics. Then to rub it in tell them you don’t recognise their translation of the Bible because they’ve left out the inconvenient bits! 😉

      When I was younger, I was a bad boy. I’d invite them in for tea and a “chat”, A working knowledge of scripture is a dangerous thing (I have an RE ‘O’ Level! 🤣) Usually took three visits before I got put on the “no call” list!

      They don’t like it up ’em, Mr Mainwaring. They don’t like it up ’em!

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: Hoaxers spread misinformation about reporting restriction | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  12. She is lying again. The undertaking she has signed wasn’t concocted by the prosecution. Her own Barrister Mr Davidson helped form part of the wording along with the judge and the prosecution counsel Mr Stott. She knows this, it was said in open court, but she is trying to save face. Next thing she will be saying is that her ”Letter of regret” was also false,,, now that I do believe.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Now I can’t be absolutely sure that Sean from SGT report was actually a picture of him but he reminded me (some of you may be too young to remember) of Dad Steptoe from the old BBC programme.


    • Yes, the image is of Wilfred Brambell, actor, in his role as daddy Steptoe. I think the comparison being made is between Andy Devine and Steptoe. Devine is extremely maudlin, he’s always moaning and more recently he’s been developing a Messiah complex, causing him to feel even more hard done by and unappreciated.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Pingback: Belinda McKenzie: Chambers Manager? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  15. So to get any Facebook post taken down that she has posted is to simply post the words Hampstead in a reply and she then has to remove the post ? Oh my ….
    how much fun we are going to have 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂


Comments are closed.