Hoaxers spread misinformation about reporting restriction

Since the beginning of Sabine McNeill’s trial in November 2018, the pedlars of conspiracy fantasy have been trying to sow confusion and anger about one aspect of the trial: the reporting restriction which was put in place to protect certain witnesses.

This video from The Tusk Force shows Devine in full voice, howling about this perceived injustice:

It’s in the interest of people like Angela Power-Disney, Andy Devine, and Paul Rodgers/Eddie Isok to claim that the reporting restriction prohibits any and all publication of the details of the trial.

Making this claim enables the Hampstead SRA hoax pushers to falsely claim that this blog is in some way “protected” because we have published detailed reports on the trial and its aftermath with no adverse consequences—unlike, say, Rodgers or Belinda McKenzie, who both breached the reporting restrictions and were convicted of contempt of court for their pains.

In fact, Angela recently claimed that not only were we in breach of the order by publishing details of Sabine’s trial, but we were somehow violating the law by publishing details of Rodgers’ and Belinda’s contempt hearings.

No need to write EC’s name in all-caps, Angela…we already know how you worship her.

To settle the matter once and for all, we’d like to present the actual reporting restriction order, as imposed by HHJ Beddoe and cited by HHJ Sally Cahill QC on multiple occasions throughout Sabine’s trial:

It is pretty plain, we think.

On 15th December 2017, HIS HONOUR JUDGE BEDDOE hereby orders—

(1) Pursuant to Section 46 of the YOUTH JUSTICE & CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1999, that no matter (including the identities of their children) relating to the following witnesses: [names all redacted] be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify them as being witnesses in the proceedings.

This order is made for the purposes of improving the quality of the evidence given by the witnesses.

It’s not bleedin’ rocket science. Write about the trial, but don’t name those five witnesses (whose names, we hasten to add, are not blacked out in the original).

Funnily enough, a large number of mainstream media outlets have managed to publish about the trial and its outcome, with no apparent ill effects. As we have pointed out previously, it’s basically just a matter of apprising themselves of the rules, and then bloody following them. Like, you know, a trained journalist might do. Or somebody who can read a notice posted on the door of a courtroom.

It’s difficult to know whether the conspiranoids truly believe that we (and The Times, and The Telegraph, and The Mirror, and The Ham & High, and The Daily Mail, and probably some others we haven’t seen yet) are really violating the reporting restriction, or whether they are just making their usual baseless false allegations in order to stir up their gullible followers.

We hope, though, that reading the actual order might help clear things up for some. For those who are determined to believe that any and all reporting on the trial is reserved only for this blog and the mainstream media, we can only wonder what their agenda might be.