Tracey Morris claims Sabine’s legal team ‘threatened’

Thanks to the kind reader who pointed out this gem to us: Tracey “Gob of the North” Morris is continuing her one-woman campaign to convince the world that Sabine McNeill’s defence team was somehow not up to scratch, and that she was stitched up like the proverbial kipper.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is tracey-morris-2019-02-03-facebook-1.png

Tracey leads with a startling statement: “Her legal team was told to sit down and shut the fk up and do as they were ordered. They were threatened not to even attempt to appeal….If any legal team attempt to put in an appeal their careers are over….”

As always, Tracey’s information came from an impeccable but anonymous source, who made a few calls to some equally impeccable but anonymous barristers. The London kind, you know, not just any old sort of barristers. These are Barristers in the Know.

Sadly, Tracey seems to be a bit less in the know than she believes. She claims that “from Day 1, [Sabine’s] legal team were never to be trusted”, but seems blissfully unaware that Sabine changed legal teams in midstream, acquiring her barrister only two months before the trial.

Sabine’s problem was not the quality of her legal representation—her barrister did a stellar job, considering—but the fact that her behaviour was essentially indefensible.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, Tracey also knows “exactly how Sabine ended up where she is” (News flash! So do we! And so, we dare say, does Sabine…now).

Tracey also knows “exactly all who was involved in making sure Sabine did NOT have any witnesses for her defence so she could be sent down to die in that shit hole”.

Leaving aside the “sent down to die” hyperbole, let us pause briefly on the question of witnesses for the defence. We’ve tried and tried, but for the life of us we cannot imagine which of Sabine’s various friends and cohorts might have been an appropriate choice as a defence witness.

Belinda McKenzie? Angela Power-Disney? Neelu Berry? Tracy herself? While it’s entertaining to imagine how each of them might have comported themselves in the witness box, it’s a bit difficult to see how they could have helped Sabine’s case in any way.

As for Tracey’s contention that Belinda is aware of the plot to imprison Sabine, but has “likely been threatened herself”, apparently Tracey missed the part of the saga where Belinda was tried and convicted of contempt of court. It’s quite possible that she’s had it up to the gills with Sabine’s trial and the fallout therefrom, and has decided to maintain a discreetly low profile. Belinda is many things, but stupid is not one of them.

And while Tracey berates others for not doing enough to help Sabine, she gives herself a pass:

I won’t get into see her due to them still trying to find a way to gag me in which they are wasting their time anyway.

Translation: two people have already been convicted of contempt of court in this thing, and despite her gobbyness bravado, Tracey is well aware that she was issued with an injunction in August 2015 which prevents her from saying anything about the Hampstead matter or one of the protected witnesses from Sabine’s trial. While she repeatedly claims that the injunction “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”, we note that her appearances in London courts have been, shall we say, fleeting.

It’s surprising that Tracey has any time or attention left to worry herself about Sabine’s trial in any case, given that she has her own legal matters to attend to.

According to gharris’ comment on this blog last week,

Noticed on Friday that our recently very quiet hoaxer Tracey Morris is in court this week—again—for driving without a licence while disqualified and taking and driving away a car without the owner’s permission, this was after already being convicted of similar charges last year. Must be tough being a leading campaigner for social justice and all that, while having to take the bus everywhere.

(Pardon our ignorance, but is “taking and driving away a car without the owner’s permission” not the same thing as, well, car theft? Or is there some nuance we’re missing?)

We’ll be interested to know how Tracey fared in court; if it didn’t go well for her, will she claim that the fix was in? Place your bets…

21 thoughts on “Tracey Morris claims Sabine’s legal team ‘threatened’

  1. A reliable source I know phoned a bIg strong barrister in London who told us that the offence is ‘Taking Without Owners Consent’ – known as TWOC in the courts. It is indeed car theft.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think the important legal distinction is that the accused did not intend to permanently deprive the owner of the car rather took it without permission.
      Still I’m sure Tracey’s Legal Team will sort the matter out.
      # Perhaps said Legal Team are not aware that the time for a Sabine appeal has come and gone. Unless they come up with some compelling new evidence such as catching 200 North London residents bang to rights in the upstairs of a local McDonald’s feasting on a new DHL delivery of fresh young bubs.(ref: Neelu Berry)


    • TWOC is usually the car of someone they know personally.
      It basically comes down to the owner has to say they let them borrow it (usually a bad idea for the owner- especially if the owner knows they didn’t have a valid drivers licence), aware that in doing so they themselves can be charged, plus their insurance will skyrocket, or deny they ‘allowed’ them to do so.
      They know where the keys are, so they can ‘borrow’ it easily and the owner is 99% of the time well aware that the person is driving it, but when it comes down to the crunch, when the other person gets caught or has a crash, decides that they don’t want to take the blame for allowing their friend/ relative/ whatever access to the car…

      So TWOC is literally ‘borrowing’ the car with the intent to return it

      As opposed to your usual car theft, which is outright theft without the intent to return it ever

      Liked by 1 person

      • TWOCing doesn’t necessarily mean having a connection to the car and owner. It exists as a crime because it is very difficult to prove the intention to permanently deprive element of theft. e.g. I find your car keys and take your car. I drive it a few miles and leave it in a car park. I haven’t touched the number plates or VIN so the car is still readily identifiable; anyone spotting it can trace it back to you and get it returned. Where is the intention to permanently deprive?


        • True, but I would suspect that by far the majority of TWOCers (is that a real word lol) would know and be known by the cars owner, and in many cases the cars owner knew that the TWOCer had it- up until the brown smelly stuff hit the fan and the TWOCer got busted…


          • it used to be called T.D.A. (Taking and Driving Away) in the days when I worked with young people, but most of them called it Touching the Dogs Arse

            Liked by 1 person

          • ‘True, but I would suspect that by far the majority of TWOCers (is that a real word lol) would know and be known by the cars owner,…’

            Sorry but disagree. I’ve spent 1000’s of hours in Magistrates Courts and most TWOCers don’t know the person who’s car they take. They know the law though and never admit the intention to take the car permanently, hence the offence of TWOC which is less serious and (if my memory serves me correctly) is always dealt with in the magistrates court. `TWOCers` is how they`re referred to in the halls of the courts and Probation offices.


      • No, No. TWOC is dishonestly taking without consent of the owner. That’s all. You might intend the owner to get it back or not care – just leave it abandoned by the road.

        Car theft is dishonestly taking a car intending to permanently deprive the owner of it (it’s not a specific offence, just a species of theft).

        TWOC replaced take and drive away in 1968. Isn’t Tracy Northern Irish though – their legal system isn’t identical with E&W, though I think the Theft Act has application there, hang on …. no, it’s the same offence under a different Theft Act (1969). The only difference is that it carries a max of 6 months in E&W and 3 years in NI. Well, who knew?

        Liked by 1 person

  2. She has been very quiet, mainly because there’s a court case going ahead for her due to her bucket mouth. Speaking about people she’s not supppsed to, lying about situations. The family concerned sent her court paper last year, injunctions against speaking about their family. She, as usual, knew best and the everyday line she comes up with “not worth the paper they’re written on”. Her fan base has greatly depleted as she has so many charges against her. Including the staff at the hostel where her daughter died. The stories she told about her kids hiding behind hedges when social services came for them, again lies as there are no hedges, trees anywhere near her home. There’s also quite a few pics about of her allegedly taking drugs. She weighs about 7 stone in them. This family have many issues with her and when it comes to court she’s likely to be jailed. Wonder if the “best team in the land” save her! Very doubtful as she’s getting legal aid.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Old Rubber Gums is back then. We can look forward to more geysers of shite erupting to indiscriminately splatter on our screens.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Fear not readers,no more indiscriminate screen splatter of shite from Tracey or her incomprehensible ilk need trouble your screen time ever again.

      Just say “NO” to gobshite without consent.Order now and claim your free sick bucket and mop set.Only £99.99 ᴵᶠ ᵖʳᵒᵈᵘᶜᵗ ᵈᵒᵉˢⁿᵗ ᵃᶜᵗᵘᵃˡˡʸ ᵃʳʳᶦᵛᵉ ᶦᵗ ᵖʳᵒᵇᵃᵇˡʸ ᵍᵒᵗ ˡᵒˢᵗ ᶦⁿ ᵗʰᵉ ᵖᵒˢᵗ ᵒʳ ˢᵒᵐᵉᵗʰᶦⁿᵍ,ˢᵒ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ.

      Liked by 2 people


          A s̶k̶i̶p̶ ̶f̶u̶l̶l̶ rare edition set of Moai affidavits and mandates of Te Tii Marea Waitangi 1835 King William IV commercial bank trade declaration of independance share certificates. 50p each or £9.99 a dozen.

          Large bale of official confederation flags of admiralty constitution also up for grabs,ideal attic filler for the undisearning hoarder. Only £5 or will consider exchanging for a get out of jail free card or a life.


  4. Having had a small run in with Sabine`s Barrister, when all I was doing was minding my own business, I know for a fact that Tracey Morris is a big fat liar. What is it with these people, why do they lie so much? this Sabine thing is done and dusted, she`s in prison now, suck it up just like she`s doing. and that goes for anyone else who is thinking of fantasising and regurgitating any satanic, Hampstead or Finchley Road, or any other Hoax.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. To clarify as some have alluded to. TWOC has nothing at all to do with knowing the car owner. The difference between Theft and TWOC is whether the intention is to permanently deprive the owner of their vehicle or not. Ref Theft Act 1968


  6. Not that I believe her for a moment, but if there was any warning going on it would have been along the lines off: She was found guilty by a jury; she admitted breaking her restraining order; the judge was quite lenient in not giving consecutive sentences. The judge cut 25% off the sentence because of her age; and the real kicker, an appeal court has the right to increase a sentence.

    If Sabine behaves herself, she could be out in 3 years time, but if her “supporters” continue to demonstrate that she is a touchstone for their utter tripe then a parole board might rightly consider that an early release would not be in the public interest.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I think what is more irritating is the fact that all these bull shitters actually believe the crap that comes out of there own mouths, there are so many of them with this disease.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Tracey Morris should wind her neck in & look after her children. Her tall tails get taller over the years & her ‘law team’ are so fantastic it’s a wonder that anyone is sent down in Northern Ireland at all!


  9. I think I can shed some light on the car situation, it was a car belonging to one of the many people she claimed she was going to help, she was up last year on almost identical charges, it seems part of the payment package for TMs help is the keys to the car of whatever unfortunate she’s tricked into believing she’s some sort of legal expert, despite little miss thing being banned from driving. I’ll keep an eye on the case and keep you informed.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.