It comes as absolutely no surprise to us that in the wake of Sabine McNeill’s trial and nine-year sentence, some of the more enthusiastic Hampstead SRA conspiracists have upped their game. We refer in particular to Christine Ann Sands, self-styled “Sheriff” Sands who gave herself a promotion to the rank of “General” Sands some time ago.
Recently Sands attempted to cut a deal: she would remove her foul and largely unread website in exchange for Sabine’s release from prison. Astonishingly, the courts did not accede to her demands. No idea why. [Printer: Insert rolly-eye emoticon here—Editor]
For obvious reasons, we’re not going to link to any of the filth Sands has recently put online. However, some readers will be aware of her recent Facebook dribblings, which include links to a number of new websites whose domain names comprise the names of certain protected witnesses and their children.
GoDaddy drops the ball
Several of the witnesses reacted almost immediately, firing off emails to GoDaddy, the domain name registrar and web-hosting company used by Sands to do her dirty work.
We were given permission to reprint parts of their correspondence, which was addressed to the company’s Child Abuse and Privacy complaints sections:
Dear Sir / Madam,
On Wednesday 9th January a United Kingdom criminal court case concluded in the case of R v Sabine McNeill. The defendant received a landmark nine-year custodial prison sentence. The case dealt with online stalking and harassment due to false allegations of satanic sexual abuse and rape and murder of babies and children. These allegations had been found to be baseless in a previous court case.
Reporting restrictions were in place to protect the identities of the witnesses and their families. This sought to ensure that no adult witnesses were named, in order to prevent possible further identification of our children.
There are multiple additional court orders also in existence concerning this matter. I was both a complainant and a witness in this case. My [child] was alleged to have been sexually abused and has had [their] picture shared 135,000 times on social media. A website with the following url: formed evidential material of the online harassment in this court case: [redacted].
This website is hosted with you and owned by Christine Ann Sands who was also arrested regarding harassment:
Following the court case, Ms Sands has updated her website, specifically to identify me as a witness, along with other protected witnesses. I have attached a copy of the court order, which prevents the naming of any adult witness that would lead to the identification of their children. It specifically prohibits me being named. [Names of witness and child redacted].
I have attached screenshots … illustrating both the naming of myself and my child. The url for these is: [redacted]. This website has identified either myself and/or my [child] in more than one place in connection with claims of child sexual abuse.
In addition to being in breach of a UK court order, it is also in breach of your hosting agreement, which states a website must not: display or advertise pornographic, X-rated, sexually explicit, or otherwise tasteless materials, images, products or services (including, but not limited to: massage, dating, escort or prostitution services); or use pornographic, X-rated, sexually explicit keywords or images in video names, descriptions or listings.
Ms Sands does both in relation to children under the age of 18 and protected witnesses in the UK court system. The nature of her material places our children in danger, as it is attractive content to paedophiles and gives details of my [child’s] home address in full. I have copied into this email, the Police Investigating Officer. For clarity, should you require any further information regarding the criminal court cases and the subsequent court orders, of which this website is in breach, he can be contacted at: …
Attachments to this email included screenshots of pages including the above information, as well as a copy of the reporting restriction from Sabine’s trial.
The Child Abuse complaints section responded quickly:
GoDaddy does not allow illegal content on our customer’s websites. However, as a hosting provider, it is not our place to determine if the site you have mentioned is actually engaging in illegal activities.
GoDaddy regularly works with courts and law enforcement from the local to the international level. If you suspect any of our customers are using their website to engage in any illegal activities, please help us by contacting your local law enforcement agency, and request them to investigate this situation.
Law enforcement can contact us at LEO@godaddy.com if they need the website(s) taken down, or if they need more information pursuant to an investigation. We have a long-standing history of cooperation with law enforcement and the courts.
In other words, piss off. GoDaddy apparently sees nothing wrong with Sands’ online child sex abuse, and claims that it falls within their terms of service. Furthermore, they will only deal directly with the police, not those whose families have been victimised for four years by Sands and her ilk.
The message is clear: without intervention from the police, GoDaddy won’t stop Sands from abusing children online. Realistically, this means that the company is willing to allow its customers to perpetuate the abuse of children. The police are already overburdened, and are unlikely to spend their time trying to negotiate with GoDaddy.
And we suspect that even if the police do contact them with the requisite documentation, GoDaddy will find another excuse—”We only have to obey U.S. laws; your UK court orders mean nothing to us” is popular this year, we hear.
Sadly, this type of response is typical of the larger social media companies—WordPress, YouTube, Google, Twitter, and Facebook all make grandiose claims about their “online safety” processes, but just as GoDaddy has done here, when it comes to actually protecting children from abusers like Sands, their words add up to precisely nothing.