Sabine’s appeal prospects uncertain, says Belinda

Long-time readers might recall that following Rupert Quaintance’s 2017 conviction for harassment, he appealed both the sentence and the conviction (and lost, but that’s another story). We’ve had a number of queries about whether Sabine McNeill plans to do the same, and we’ve had to say that we don’t know.

While the deadline has passed for appealing the 14 December conviction, we’ve heard nothing about any plans to appeal the 12-year sentence, which was reduced to nine years on account of Sabine’s age.

However, in her latest email newsletter, posted yesterday, Belinda offers a few clues.

What sort of “new facts” could come to light which might somehow exonerate Sabine? The only possibility we can think of would be some sort of evidence that a child-raping, baby-murdering, blood-drinking cult actually did exist in Hampstead. Likelihood: 0.

As for the “beleaguered supporters” of child abusers Abraham Christie and Ella Draper…well, there’s always the option of accepting the truth, we suppose, however difficult some might find it.

It was quite clear in court that Sabine’s barristers did not accept Ella and Abraham’s nonsensical story. It is much less clear that Tana Adkin QC was “swayed by the prosecution QC and the judge”.

In fact, anybody who was present for the duration of the trial will recall that Adkin was diligent and clever in her defence strategy. Rather than trying to force the jury to accept the ludicrous child-raping/baby-murdering/blood-drinking palaver, which would also have meant challenging Mrs Justice Pauffley’s 2015 High Court judgment, Adkin focused on her client’s “different way of thinking”, maintained that she had been duped by Ella and Abraham, and said she had engaged in her relentless campaign out of a misguided but sincere sense of duty.

It didn’t work, but it was a good try.

As for Sabine’s Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO), yes, it is very stringent. However, prior to being placed on remand in prison, Sabine demonstrated over and over again that she had no intention of abandoning her campaign. Any CBO worth its salt must therefore place sufficiently clear restrictions that Sabine will be aware that she must not breach it, or she will wind up straight back in prison, do not pass Go, do not collect £200.

Hmm. Neither Sabine nor Belinda could just stand by in the face of “the most horrible cruelty and injustice imaginable”?

Isn’t it strange, then, that Sabine seemed perfectly willing to sacrifice all of those hundreds or even thousands of poor suffering infants and children, if only the court would accede to her demands that they return the two children in question to their mother, Sabine’s client?

As Miranda Moore QC pointed out during the trial, Sabine’s actions were not those of a woman driven to save children from torture, rape, and murder. They were the actions of a person who hadn’t got her own way, and was therefore attempting to blackmail a High Court judge by threatening “high level embarrassment” and the release of illegally obtained videos.

First: we think this is the first time we’ve ever seen Belinda openly refer to the Hollie Greig hoax for what it was—did we really just read her saying “Hollie Hoax days”?

(Full disclosure here: EC is so used to thinking of it as the Hollie Hoax that she had to have this Freudian slip pointed out to her by Agent J….)

Second: Belinda is an intelligent, educated woman. We find it difficult to reconcile this reality with her seemingly flustered and incompetent state regarding the undertaking she signed in court on 11 January as a condition of her suspended sentence.

It’s probably to Belinda’s advantage to paint herself as the poor, put-upon victim of an unreasonable request, but she ought to know perfectly well that her undertaking is perfectly do-able. While a few of her more credulous friends might believe otherwise, we do not.

For heaven’s sake, Belinda—while you are responsible for the material you posted online, no court in the land would expect you to somehow remove all the shared copies which other people made of your online posts. To claim otherwise seems either uncharacteristically dim, or disingenuous.

As for alleged claims on our part that Belinda has been “peddling confidential client files to 3rd parties for cash”, we have no recollection of having said any such thing. Those are Belinda’s words, not ours..

We did point out last week that it seems inappropriate that she work in a barrister’s chambers which handles family law cases. We said this because of Belinda’s long history of peddling hoaxes, not to mention her habit of preying on the desperation of certain litigants in person in order to use their unwinnable cases as “evidence” of her own loopy views about the child welfare system.

If she handed in her resignation and turned over the office keys before Christmas, we’re glad to hear it. She showed unusual prescience, given that we only discovered and raised the alarm about her “volunteer employment” as Chambers Manager last week, but we won’t complain.

54 thoughts on “Sabine’s appeal prospects uncertain, says Belinda

  1. She says “new facts” that may come about?

    This yet another example of her manipulating others to continue this false hoax. She is basically trying to keep the light shining on this and is wrong in doing so.

    It’s a play on vulnerable people or other crazies to keep pushing it.

    Pure Evil.

    Also, I think BM has just shot herself in her own foot by admitting to pushing this hoax.

    It’s there in her own words.

    I think it’s time someone to take her to court and see where this goes.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Four words come to mind: “…or was she pushed?”

    Nice little bit of twisting and turning like a twisty-turny thing from her there. The proposition made here was: X has done Y; X may do Y again NOT X has done Y; X is going to do Z. But I guess if it makes her feel better about her deluded fantasies who are we to deny her her comfort.

    Just one more observance. The courts usually look favourably on a good faith enacting of a court order. The way she has written it up is as though she is leaving herself wiggle room to deliberately leave some of her posts up and claim “nothing i can do Guv’.” I hope her words are the result of a clumsy attempt by her to describe her attempts to remove posts rather than a nude nudge wink wink to others to create further facsimiles.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Again, they show that they just ‘have’ to lie don’t they- it seems to be ingrained into them…
    Belinda (IF she handed in her keys as she said, before Christmas), that had nothing to do with anything posted here…
    Maybe she did, but did it out of a sense of guilt? (OY you lot, stop laughing)
    Or maybe she didn’t hand in her keys at all?

    With this lot, you never can tell what is true, what is a lie, what is fact and what is fantasy- unless it can be confirmed independently

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Great post ! I’m relieved and hope it’s true that Belinda is no longer able to access personal information regarding families and especially vulnerable children. ‘Hollie HOAX days’ ! Yes Belinda, thanks for finally admitting that. I hope you will also take down all of your vile disinfo regarding that case too, or be made to. Failing that expect more exposure of your planned move into the arena of child protection with your disgusting nefarious motives being made even clearer.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. How many times has Belinda rebranded her ‘charities’ ? ….. Her content is scattered but I think that was a strategy employed by her and copied and spread by others following her as a ‘leader’ in the cause of child protection, which she stepped into in 2009/10………with help from others, bandwaggoning.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. anybody who was present for the duration of the trial will recall that Adkin was diligent and clever in her defence strategy.

    Just imagining BM’s preferred alternative. “Your honour, the Hampstead Satanists are still sacrificing and torturing children, and they will continue to do so unless my client resumes her activism upon her release, and by the way she has promised not to do that, so you can safely release her.”

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Her legal people tried their best, but quite frankly, they didn’t have a lot to work with (and from the reporting Sabine herself didn’t exactly make it any easier for them with her incourt behaviour either)

    Liked by 2 people

  8. So she’s working on the basis that “I will not in future post, publish or in any way publicise or disseminate in any way…” does include email, interesting.

    Does this provision only kick in after Jan 25, or as soon as she signed the undertaking?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. If Belinda doesn’t watch herself she’ll end up in the next cell to Sabine. Eddie can stand outside shouting encouragement – ‘I got your backs princesses, queens, girlfriends, sweethearts, little soldiers!’ Mind you, if he doesn’t watch himself he’ll peeling spuds in Wandsworth before long and I hope he doesn’t call anyone ‘princess’ in there. I believe Big Gert the Guard might take exception.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. In my opinion BM’s email is a clear breach of her undertaking given to the court: section (iii) of the ‘matters’ =
    “(iii) Any of the complainants, witnesses or their families in the case of R v Sabine McNeill.”

    Second last paragraph =
    “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.”

    BM’s email makes clear reference to “the 4 mothers who between them managed to secure 8 …”
    I cannot imagine how that would not constitute “information about the matters listed at (i) to (v) above”.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Delusion personified. The Font Of All Knowledge and The Chipmonk in full flow. Reported to UK Border Force. Lets get ” King John ” refused entry to the UK.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Clutching at straws I think and desperate to rally the ever-dwindling troop of losers and dimwits. From your most excellent reporting on the trial EC, it was pretty clear that Sabine’s barrister did her very best. I was impressed at her efforts, particularly given the intransigence of her client. I’m pretty confident that we’ll hear no more about appeals after the next few weeks. For one thing… who would take the case? And who would pay for it? Though if a fundraiser was started, run by someone with a long history of fundraising…

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Belinda McKenzie is malicious beyond belief.

    You don’t have to be Einstein to read between the lines: she fully believes this hoax and has no intention of ever admitting she is wrong. If it was in her power to continue she would.

    As for the internet still carrying her lies and harassment of innocent people. She put it out there- she should do her best to ensure it is removed. While she cannot make people remove stuff ( God only knows how we have attempted to get videos removed from Youtube or Facebook) McKenzie needs to demonstrate at least she requested their removal. I doubt she will. I hope she gets a spell in jail eventually.

    She continues to mock the victims and basically makes a malicious claim they somehow got Sabine jailed. The law & the courts jailed McNeil. The victims gave evidence after complaints. The police & CPS followed a course that they could only do if the law had been broken

    This woman shows no remorse. Her arrogance that she did no wrong is unbelievable as she still sends out a weasel worded circular basically promoting the hoax whilst falsely appearing to show regret.

    As for the Chambers that employed her: I suggest they be watched closely if they are “young” as their hiring of her without checking her credentials (even worse if they did) does not show due diligence. They’ll need to demonstrate greater professionalism in the future but knowing the legal profession I guarantee they have been gossiped about from one end of town to another.

    Just like Rupert Quaintance & Sabine: not a hint of remorse or contrition.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. I believe it is.
    Her claim that it was the victims who got Sabine jailed is malicious and a covert attack upon them that could encourage more stupid hoaxers to continue to attack them.

    Liked by 4 people

  15. This idiotic civilian woman Sands (I’ve had her stripes removed and she’s been Dishonorably Discharged) still believes Hampstead is peopled by bankers & the super rich only (probably Jewish ones).
    The 1000s of words written about Hampstead by the Hoax Mob (patent pending) demonstrated to me how the UK can still be very parochial for such a small country with so many falsely think that Hampstead is somehow a bastion of the upper classes.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. I don’t why Andy is so worried. King Wanoa is on his way to seize control of the courts.
    I bet Andy is angling for the Ambassadorship to Greece for the Court of King Wanoa of Great Britain & all Her Dominions (once that pesky Queen Victoria of Australia is dethroned).

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Belinda must know that her emails will probably be published. She’s basically said it in that email by referring to how others have disseminated the Hampstead material.
    I think claims of her super intelligence are greatly exaggerated.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. A year from now Sabine McNeill will still be rotting in prison, and everyone will have forgotten about her, having moved on to the next exciting bullshit campaign. Silly Sabine erased five years of her life for jail time over a fiction, and nobody gives a shit about her and her cause. Someone might remember Sabine whilst munching a chocolate hobnob, but then forgets because they have to rush to the toilet to have a shit, then they will forget about Sabine for another two years. After five years in jail, old age will catch up with Sabine fast, and she won’t be much threat to anyone afterwards.

    Belinda McKenzie is getting on a bit too.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. A lot of Satan Hunters who hate British laws and institutions have passports with citizenship to more than one nation, they wage war upon our children from other nations. Okay, so lets cancel their British citizenship, they can f&JJK off and live in another nation and cease enjoying the privillges of being British. Examples: Angela Power Disney (UK-Eire); Sabine McNeill (UK-Austria); Ella Draper (UK-Russia); Abraham Christie (UK-Morocco): Belinda McKenzie (UK-??). If all these people want to be outlaws running away from UK justice, then let them cease to be UK citizens.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Belinda has always been economical with the truth, at the same time insisting it is the truth, Belinda please, no more fake campaigns, your time is spent.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. It reads to me as if Bellender is telling her followers to search for proof that abrella’s lies were true in order to save Sabine from this ‘awful miscarraige of justice’ which surely must be a breach of her sworn undertaking in a court of law in the presence of a judge and numerous other witnesses.

    Knowing how insane and obsessive Bellender’s followers are, I can’t help but wonder if one of them would do something terrible to prove the hoax real by manufacturing ‘new evidence’. Anyhow, Bellender is being very irresponsible.

    It is fascinating how she referred to the “Hollie Hoax”, it suggests she’s fully cognisant of her wrong-doing that time too.

    I often feel quite defeated by these people’s lack of empathy and remorse despite having had it explained to them how wrong they are and how wrong their behaviour so often…I think slugs have a higher EQ than that lot.

    Liked by 4 people

  22. I hope Belinda has left chambers but some how I don’t believe her as she lies so much. It could be just a ploy to stop people putting in complaints about her working there. and glad she’s finally admitted Hollie Greg was a hoax. stick that in your pipe and smoke it Brenda McNamara and bill moloney Lou Collins Brian Gerrish and all the other ones who promoted this and made huge amounts of money off the back of it.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Just another interesting little observation about Belinda’s recent email…

    She writes about the difficulty of finding “a barrister/QC of the required degree of courage & calibre but above all of CONVICTION…”
    She has been represented by Tom from 160 Fleet Street. Clearly he doesn’t meet her criteria, nor does the only other barrister in those chambers – the guy who is “young and upwardly-mobile and doesn’t need this nuisance at this time in his career”

    So she’s had unlimited access to two barristers and had every opportunity to show all her evidence, but neither of them seems to have found her evidence compelling. To the hoax supporters, does that now mean those barristers must be part of the Satanic baby-eating sect?

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Basically she needs a barrister who 1. Is barking mad 2. Willing to end their career by spouting nonsense about Satan in Court.

    It’s not going to happen.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Here is the full version of the write up from the day’s events here: I agree she seems to have breached the terms: What an idiot you are, Belinda!

    ‘Legally binding” – let’s test that!


    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.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Barking mad people do get drawn to this case:

    Then Neelu’s solicitor Aseem Taj (who co-incidentally also represents Ella Draper) stood up and shouted, “Research the Hampstead coverup! This judge is trying to to shut my client up so she doesn’t expose the satanic cult paedophiles!”

    Judge Worsley shouted at him to shut up, to which Mr Taj responded, “No, you shut up!”

    “They’re all killing babies!” he shouted at one point, adding that the court was responsible for allowing cult members to rape, murder, and eat babies and children.

    Judge Worsley ordered him to sit down, and mention was made of referring Mr Taj to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Mr Taj stormed out of the courtroom, shouting as he left..
    https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/whatever-became-of-neelus-solicitor/

    Liked by 3 people

  27. I was being non-judgemental in my comments. It could be genuine that Belinda has inadvertently given her subscribers completely the wrong impression and since we know she reads this blog, it was a hint that perhaps she ought to tell her followers who may have misread the contents of her email to delete any such items they have “archived” on her behalf, lest she is punished for their behaviour.

    (I should add that my tongue was firmly in cheek when I typed that last paragraph. We all know what she was doing and she knows exactly what she was doing. It was more in the hope that she realises that she still has four days to instruct her mailing list to put it right before it becomes serious).

    Liked by 2 people

  28. “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”.
    And yet she has done so albeit in an email to her supporters but she must know or at least suspect that one of them may publish it.
    Is she stupid or just being cunning?
    It’s a breach of the agreement but it may not be that severe but it indicates a frame of mind especially with the reference to the victims.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. This is far more painful than sitting in a pub and having two World Class Bores nearby attempting to solve the ills of the world because:
    a. they are sober and
    b. I often feel I must watch even if only for a minute or two.
    And there is no climax and it’s mind numbing, dull and stupid. Does anyone of Debs Mamoodieh is still broadcasting?. Her videos were classics.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. I don’t think her supporters need to publish it for a breach to occur. Her supporters ARE a “section of the public” and she has “disseminated it” to them.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Here’s the problem for them. The facts of the original case were determined by Judge Pauffly. This means that any evidence presented to ascertain those facts are not new evidence – which includes interviews. New evidence would be, for example, hidden tunnels discovered; DHL receipts for transporting live babies; Babies and fries on a McD’s menu; unwanted skull necklaces on sale in Camden Market. As these don’t exist and never have existed, apart from in the heads of some seriously demented people, there are no grounds to appeal the verdict. A competent barrister would know that.

    Now, there is a slight window for appealing the sentence (which I’m not going to articulate lest the fruitloops try it, but I think the CPS were cognisant of those grounds and dealt with it) but there is every chance that the sentence could be increased on appeal, given that Judge Cahill was meticulous in her judgement and 3 years have already been deducted from the overall tariff.

    Liked by 4 people

  32. Most of the terms of the undertaking seem to refer to “publishing” but the wording also seems broad enough to include email. Whether this was intentional by the Court or a consequence of technical ignorance (net != web) is unclear.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. @ Adam (Reply to your post was disabled so replying to an earlier post to hopefull have it nested in the right place)

    At the first sentencing hearing Judge Cahill seemed quite appalled by the lax wording of the original retraining order and wasn’t happy with the original CPS draft CRO. She was clear that she would not accept an order that could be weaseled out of. I think publish was quite clearly used here in its legal form and a post to a mailing list would clearly constitute “publish”.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. I’m pretty sure what that horrible bitch wrote could be classed as incitement to continue harassing the innocent people of Hampstead.

    I’d quite like to have a megaphone in hand to blast Bellender with some home truths about herself.

    Liked by 3 people

  35. https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0121/1024630-facebook-sandberg/

    ” The chief operating officer of Facebook has admitted the social network has more work to do to ensure the safety of those using the platform.

    Speaking exclusively to RTÉ News during a visit to Dublin, Sheryl Sandberg said the company was doing everything it could to keep people safe online and the issue was a big priority for it.”

    Facebook needs to take responsibility for allowing hoaxes to continue & perpetuate. I won’t hold my breath though, talk is cheap for them.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. yes Belinda, so now as you have admitted the Hollie Grieg saga was a hoax, are you going to apologize to the twenty two innocent victims, and have you got a message for Anne Greig, Hollie Grieg, and Robert Green? Anne Greig because you your self made several visits to her and Hollie didn`t you Belinda. and didn`t you think it was child abuse at the lowest point when Anne dragged Hollie a disabled downs syndrome vulnerable adult all round the country talking about her private parts to anyone who`d listen? those video`s are still up Belinda. and what have you got to say to Robert Green, who you said called you his right hand woman. oh and while we are at it that absolute lie you told about a certain some one being on the sex offenders list because you alleged you`d seen the print out. Belinda, stop now. stop telling lies and leave the vulnerable alone.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. Angela would be well advised reading something useful given her imminent self imposed plight.

    Its only got 6 pages of large print so a few of her listeners might just make it through to the end without entirely losing the will to live.

    Liked by 3 people

  38. The excitement doesn’t end there either. Here’s Rev Anthony’s latest masterpiece. Oh you lucky lucky people…


    I can’t say I’m thrilled by the prospect of a Walkabout remake starrring Arfur. He’s no Jenny Agutter.

    Mind you, it’s good to know that Satanists, Pagans and Atheists are all the same thing. Thanks for your input, Tone 🙄

    By the way, are you loving the irony of an Andy Devine fan moaning about “monotonous and boring” speakers? 🤭

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Christ, that one was 3 hours, 7 minutes long… and that was just the first half. He’s coming back for part two in 15 minutes! And this guy’s married? 😮

    Liked by 2 people

  40. The judge warned us (including Belinda) that emailing constituted publishing, even if it was only emailing to one person, so I believe she is well aware of what she is doing.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. The strategy of exhiling Andy to the laundry room suggests Mrs Devine is at least attempting to maintain some aesthetic standards within the household.

    Given Andy seems to spend close to 24/7 streaming verbal diarrhea,there is a fair chance we may actually get to see the very moment he is put through the mangle and given the bums rush when the good lady clocks he has frittered away their pension pot on a transparent scam.

    The good news for Andy is that he will have plenty of flags to knock up a makeshift tent from.

    Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.