IICSA: Why Wedger but not Sabine?

Private Eye‘s recent coverage of Jon Wedger’s “core participant” status at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has not only cast a harsh glare on the wanna-be whistleblower’s recent prevarications, but may have added a layer of complexity to Sabine McNeill’s 2016 invitation to speak to the IICSA’s Truth Project.

On 2 May, Wedger was granted CP status for the forthcoming investigation into Child Sexual Exploitation by Organised Networks. He claims to have applied many times, but until recently was thwarted—even going so far as to incorrectly claim that the Inquiry had initiated a judicial review to keep him out.

As we reported at the time, and the Eye confirmed in its latest article, “Wedger’s Pitch”:

Last October, IICSA chairwoman Alexis Jay rejected Wedger’s application for CP status in the Accountability and Reparations investigation because she was not satisfied he “played or may have played a direct or significant role”. On 8 March 2019, while IICSA was hearing evidence about an alleged Westminster paedophile ring, Wedger tweeted: “I was accepted as a core participant & my evidence was classed as credible corroborative and compelling yet IICSA sought a judicial review as a core participant stating I was too low ranked to give evidence which seemed to confuse the IICSA solicitor David Enright.”

The Eye asked IICSA for clarification. “Mr Wedger did not apply for core participant status in the Westminster investigation,” a spokesperson replied. “He and others made an unsuccessful application for core participant designation in the Accountability and Reparations Investigation.” What about being too junior to testify? “The Inquiry does not make decisions based on the rank of officers, nor has it been subject to a judicial review in this matter. The Inquiry makes no determinations upon the credibility of evidence until it produces its reports, some months after the public hearings. Also please note that David Enright is not the inquiry solicitor.”

The Eye speculated that IICSA’s previous reluctance to accept Wedger might have been related to his belief in Satanic paedophile networks, and noted,

In one of Wedger’s videos he and “Christian activist” Wilfred Wong discuss Satanic orgies and the ritual sacrifice of babies, children and animals — including the crucifixion of a cat. They repeatedly name the late Sir Edward Heath as a Satanic abuser, saying he was identified in a list going back decades and also during Wiltshire Police’s Operation Conifer (Eyes passim). They omit to add that the £l.5m investigation concluded there was no evidence for the Satanic claims.

We would agree that this makes sense, given the fact that no actual cases of Satanic abuse have been found in the UK since Professor Jean La Fontaine’s 1994 landmark study, which concluded that SRA really is not a thing.

However, this view seems to be contradicted by the recent discovery that Sabine McNeill, who notoriously promoted the Hampstead SRA hoax, had had her application for CP status with the Inquiry rejected…but had been previously invited to speak to the Truth Project at its Cardiff hearing in November 2016.

At that time, Sabine had been mentioned in Mrs Justice Pauffley’s High Court judgment on the hoax; she was under a 2015 mandatory injunction from the High Court and a restraining order issued following her Crown Court trial, and had barely avoided prison for violating the latter.

In other words, her predilection towards promoting belief in Satanic paedophile networks was, if anything, more established and publicly visible than Wedger’s.

Yet Sabine was invited to speak to the Truth Project, whose terms of reference state that

[Participants’] accounts are not tested, challenged, or contradicted. The information supplied is anonymised and will be considered by the Chair and Panel members when reaching their conclusions and making recommendations for the future. As part of the Truth Project, victims and survivors will be given an opportunity to write a message to be published together with the Inquiry’s annual reports.

The Eye article points out that even as a core participant, Wedger

…may not get the chance to air his theories about ‘organised networks’ of Satanists. ‘We will consider whether it will be necessary to ask Mr. Wedger to give evidence, and if so, about what, as the investigation progresses’, a spokesperson tells the Eye.

Presumably, had Sabine achieved her goal of core participant status, she would at least have been subject to the same consideration, and might even have been cross-examined if she’d been called as a witness to one of the public hearings.

Instead, she appears to have been allowed to “speak her truth”—which have been shown in court to be “vile lies”—to a member of the Inquiry who will neither test, challenge, nor contradict what she said.

Truly, ’tis a puzzlement.

12 thoughts on “IICSA: Why Wedger but not Sabine?

    • Yes, and I’m also puzzled about why she would have required an invitation to speak to the Truth Project, when according to their website anybody who wishes to speak to them may contact them independently. I have a feeling there is more to tell about this, and I’ve spent much of the past week trying to work it out. More to follow….

      Like

  1. Could the lack of checking be down to something as mundane as the fact that there has been cutting down on jobs in public service especially since the Tories* came into power again in 2010. I’m not sure how the IICSA is organised and whether or not the head honchos there are paid or unpaid but I would imagine the support/administration staff are paid workers. I will stand corrected if I’m wrong though.

    * No disrespect to anyone who identifies as Tory – the right for the everyday man and woman in the street to vote in this country was hard won by our forebears. However I always thought the “coalition” between the Tories and the Liberals between 2010 and the next election (where the Tories gained an overall majority) was a “coalition” in name only.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lord knows I’m a critic of the way criminal justice is funded in the UK (I have first hand experience of this but I’m not going to dox myself by revealing specifics. Read The Secret Barrister’s Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken if you want to be ghasted!) However, it is too easy an inference to make without any evidence of causation (similar to amateur attempts to link austerity and criminality). I think it is much simpler than that.

      Most legal proceedings assume that the witness on oath is telling the truth. Unlike a criminal case there is relatively little forensic cross examination and almost no sanction for misleading an inquiry which means that “bad actors” will be able to run a coach and horses through them. This is not a new phenomenon.

      Liked by 1 person

      • That’s depressing to hear, Owl. I’ve known of cases where solicitors have ended up on the wrong side of the law (not personally) though I’d still say I think more members of the legal profession are honest than dishonest. Are there any plans afoot to curb the ability of the bad actors to “run a coach and horses” through/lying to those conducting an inquiry?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Just renewed my subscription. It’s one of the few things in this world that remains constant. I still love the format and actually like that it hasn’t gone all internet thingy.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. If Wedger gets a chance to put forward his theory that Britain’s “pedos” have flocked to living on barges on canals he could send their value plummeting.
    I alerted a pal up North who has a small restaurant by a canal and daily gets brage and small boat travelers calling in. He asked me how he could identify one. I replied he’d have to refer to J.Wedger for that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • If you want to get technical about it a ‘barge’ is a boat that is wider than seven feet. Most of the boats on the inland waterways aren’t barges – they’re narrowboats.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yeh Mrs KnowitAll Overall what you don’t understand is that a “brage” is a narrowboat under 7 foot wide. Jeez I love it when people think they know better than an expert.
        (editor: there is no such thing as a “brage”- you made that up. Get out)

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: Who ‘invited’ Sabine to speak at IICSA Truth Project? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

We welcome comments! House rules: no threats, no doxing, no naming protected witnesses, and stay civil to one another.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.