Video share: Sabine McNeill, Hoax Promoter

Just when you think there’s nothing more to be said about Sabine McNeill…

In today’s video we take a look at Sabine’s involvement in one of the important antecedents to the Hampstead SRA hoax, and we talk about how the police and courts failed the families of Hampstead, leaving them vulnerable to harassment by Sabine and her followers.

On the Hoaxtead Research YouTube channel, we’re building a library of videos that answer your questions about the Hampstead SRA hoax. Subscribe to our channel for the evidence the hoax supporters don’t want you to know.

44 thoughts on “Video share: Sabine McNeill, Hoax Promoter

  1. Thanks for this, EC 🙂

    Incidentally, one thing you’ll recall came out of the McNeill trial was the court order permanently prohibiting the naming of the father who was mercilessly victimised by Sabine and others. And I see that a number of hoaxer fruitloops are still denying its existence. Their evidence? The fact that said person was named in documents and press articles… in 2015 – four years before said court order was issued! Really thought that one through, haven’t they 😆

    Liked by 2 people

      • Sighs, I see Yolander (thankfully there is ‘only one’) has been posting her usual garbage…
        See and Neelu would make a great pair, put them in the same room and the universe would collapse in a black hole of insanity…

        Liked by 2 people

    • Well, we were informed quite clearly by the prosecution barrister at the trial that the names of ALL the witnesses whose children attended the school must not be named, during the trial or afterwards. This was not a matter of influencing the jury, but of attempting to give the children as much privacy as could be salvaged in the wake of the hoax.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Incidentally, I didn’t just make this up: I also reported it on 12 December, the day the jury retired to consider their verdict:

        Reporting restrictions are permanent

        While the jury are deliberating, we’d like to raise an important element of this case which will have lasting repercussions for Hoaxtead Research.

        Readers will now be aware that in December 2017, Judge Beddoe imposed reporting restrictions on the trial of Regina v Sabine McNeill, under Section 46 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

        This restriction means that in order to protect the privacy of witnesses and their children, none of the “parent witnesses” in this trial must be named. This restriction extends beyond the duration of the trial, until such time as the court may decide to dis-apply it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • How does that apply to existing material EC???
          (I was thinking of the FAQ etc)

          And also, it obviously applies to new postings etc, but how far is acceptable, obviously the full names are right out, but ID’ng who we are speaking about with their initials or relationship is OK or not??
          (eg we have always I think just used the kids first initials anyway) but the parents etc… and does that apply to A&E too?

          ie where are the actual boundaries?

          Liked by 1 person

          • Excellent questions, Steve. It’s a sticky area, and one to which I’ve had to give a lot of thought.

            I was informed that since the reporting restriction was prospective, not retrospective, the blog could remain as it was (i.e. previous posts didn’t have to be amended), but in future we would be in breach of the order if we identified the witnesses with children in connection with the trial.

            Taking our cue from the paid journalists who’ve covered the trial and its aftermath, we have dealt with this by referring to “protected witnesses” or “parents” in a general, non-identifying way. We’ve also had to be cautious about accepting comments which could be seen to identify any of the protected witnesses (see what I did there?).

            Doing otherwise could land us in a similar situation to Belinda, who identified a witness by initials only. Even so, she was found in contempt of court.

            Oddly, even though they are easily identifiable, since Abraham and Ella didn’t testify at the trial, they are not covered by the reporting restriction, which was specific to Sabine’s trial. I don’t know how the courts will choose to deal with this when the time comes that those two face justice, but it should be interesting.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Just in case readers here missed this stuff

    An old video, Paedo Britain, from the Daily Brexit youtube channel, here;

    12.45 minutes in there is an introduction to an interview with Jon Wedger however the interviewer rants on about how Nigel Farage is oppressed, how stupid it is that people claim that the Russian state influenced Brexit [I mean as if? lol) and how he (the interviewer) is not as right wing as people claim he is. Or something.

    Jon Weger gets a word in at about 21 minutes in.

    This seems to be a long interview and I thought that some brave soul might be willing to hold their nose, dive deep into the conspiraloon madness and report back.

    I have half listened while working on something else and my ears started to prick at about 30 minutes in where Wedger starts making very specific claims about being disciplined and charged with gross misconduct by his employers, the Met Police. 31.45 onwards is fascinating and could possibly be clarified via Freedom of Information requests.

    At 38.40 Wedger claims that Mike Penning MP was helping him in his mission. Barth’s Notes blog has covered Wedger’s association with Penning previously.

    I lost the will to carry on after this, especially whilst multi-tasking

    Liked by 1 person

    • Paedo Britain: Wishful thinking?.
      Wedger is unhealthily obsessed with this stuff.
      As for the Daily Brexit channel..bit of a dismal failure among those other 17 million plus Brexiters.
      More entertainment today from Britain’s Most Abusive Activist -Based Amy as she takes on a hapless MP.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. I discovered the video via a trail from Yolande Kernwood’s facebook page where she “liked” a page called “The Institute of Research knowledge News and Free thinking”

    In these insane post truth times how could I resist checking out such a page?

    On May 13th Yolande shared a post on the facebook page of The Institute of Research knowledge News and Free thinking linking to a video titled PAEDO BRITAIN

    It could be that the video is no longer available or it may be that the video in my earlier post (which has yet to appear) is one also called Paedo Britain

    The blurb on the older Paedo Britain video reads:

    “So how extensive is the culture of child rape, Satanic abuse and child killing in the UK, how far ingrained is it in the echelons of society, to what extent has the police state been covering up this depravity, and are we at last on the verge of seeing BBC bloody News ditching the dodgy uncle for a caring aunty that bothers to try some journalism? Ex-CID whistleblower Jon Wedger, one of the bravest men in the kingdom, blows the lid on the mendacious sham that runs the country, that wrought EU fascism onto us and that continues to pervert our culture, our children and their future as they hold an unjust power.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear God it’s becoming quite depressing how the Black Is White syndrome is seeping into every aspect of life and now in the UK which resisted for so long.

      On the twitter feed of that bizarre US warmonger John Bolton he refers to the Venezuelan government as a “regime” and the president as a “dictator” and the so-called “opposition leader” as the “lawful President”.
      While there are endless problems in Venezuela and Maduro is no saint he was elected twice. Despite the second election being very odd as the main opposition party didn’t participate (but all the others did- ones who fiercely oppose Maduro) he was elected. The very active opposition parties that also participated accepted the result as did the handful of genuine observers (main observers like Jimmy Carter pulled out over worries about the largest opposition party not participating).
      Bolton has waged a campaign against Maduro with repeated claims that ballot boxes were stuffed & ignores that Venezuela has had computer voting for years now & while a receipt is issued the scrutineers only count the computer votes. But the lie of “stuffed ballot boxes” is repeated ad infinitum.

      While I’m not defending Venezuelan politics I worry how not just “fake news” is perpetuated but the real syndrome of reality now being treated as fake while fantasy has become truth is rampant.

      The SRA campaigns are a nasty symptom which seeps into the minds of so many brought home to me just yesterday in a cafe on the other side of the world in Oz when 2 people at the next table – either British tourists or immigrants were discussing Brexit & Remain with very sensible thoughts about either side which heartened me as they discussed the very real pros and cons and pondered on whether their pals, as one said, and the other actually had in Spain, may face financial hardships if they had to move back to the UK for some reason.

      But then after a few moments silence one of them launched into “and now in that child abuse inquiry they are discovering children are being murdered in Devil worshiping cults. They already found children’s bodies buried in the basement of that children’s home in Jersey and all the bastard peediofile MPs have got away scot free”.
      Reality mixed with fantasy. I fled.
      (editor’s note: serves you right for being a busy body and Nosey Parker).

      Liked by 1 person

  4. The child complains that when he was in foster care he experienced another foster child with a learning difficulty repeatedly entering his room to ask how he was. He said there was a baby who was going to be adopted kept on crying and throwing a toy against a wall so it was difficult for him to sleep at night.

    He was eventually returned to his father and had, understandably, been upset by being separated from his father. Criminal charges were dropped against the father.

    So, to conclude, the child was placed in a potentially dangerous situation when the father left him alone (locked in?) at home, which I believe is is illegal. A dangerous situation arose when a fire started in a shed. The child was not physically injured and was fostered while his father was investigated by the authorities. The child was eventually returned to his father but “was not the same child” and had been disturbed by a crying baby and an intrusive female child with Down’s syndrome during the time he was adopted.

    I do not have time to watch the whole video now, but am sharing in case anyone else wants to check this out further.

    I do think it is fascinating that Yolande has a history of working with RT.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It must be disturbing for any child to be suddenly removed from their normal situation even when it’s a bad one. But that simply doesn’t sound normal that he was upset by a baby and a Down’s syndrome kid- sounds like the real upsets were at home and he had no ability to cope with the normal stresses of life.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Just to say that this post was meant to come after the post below, but for some reason my posts weren’t showing for a while and have appeared in the incorrect order.

      The boy is the one referred to in the below RT video Forced Adoption UK

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for the link to the Telegraph piece Fnord

        What a terribly sad situation for the father and his son.

        I did think that the father’s home looked very untidy in the RT video. I also thought that the father appeared unwell and exhausted. I wondered whether the impact of multigenerational trauma following the holocaust (the father is the son of a survivor) may have something to do with the situation?

        From the little we know the courts handled this case well, the father still has access to his son but the lad is living in a home where he has more security and comfort and his basic needs are met.

        According to the Telegraph piece the son should not be identified, which is understandable, and so I would like to request that the RT “stolen adoption” video linked to in my posts is removed as it may be in contempt of court.

        This raises the issue of people using vulnerable children as props in various conspiracy themed videos, regardless of the children’s entitlement to privacy, which of course brings us back to the issues central to the Hampstead hoax.

        So many resonating themes.


  5. Another youtube channel appears to feature the “Paedo Britain” video and appears to be connected to the father (it features his music) is called “human being”

    It features a a video by MP John Hemming that can be viewed here

    The video gives credence to claims by “a UK MP” (Hemming) that white children from Eastern European families have been stolen to order by social services for the purposes of adoption by British families as the demand for white children from white families exceeds supply.

    It is worth noticing the narratives underpinning this conspiracy theory. They are as follows

    1. Russian, Slovak and other Slavic children are at risk of being stolen by British authorities
    2. White children are oppressed and subjected to abuses that non-white chidden are not subjected to
    3. The British authorities are involved in child stealing, corruption, organised child abuse and abuse against Slavic and Eastern European peoples in particular.

    What on earth can it all mean?

    For what it’s worth I do think that human trafficking and child trafficking, including for adoptions, is a serious issue. I have no doubt that these kinds of activities occur on an international basis, including in the UK. I also understand that citizens of Eastern Europe, including children, are less protected from human trafficking than British citizens, who are comparatively well protected and privileged. Men, women and children from Eastern European territories are extremely vulnerable to human trafficking and exploitation. All of this I appreciate and understand.

    I also understand that social services sometimes make mistakes and get things wrong. Some social workers are overworked and stressed. Some are incompetent, a small number may even be corrupt.

    British social services as a front organisation for trafficking under the guise of “adoptions”? This theory seems incredible to me.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Any children whose parents are among that motley bunch in that film are far safer1000 miles from them. All the Usual Suspects are there.
      The notion of “forced adoptions” is a deliberate misnomer used by this crowd who are basically fellow-travelers of those “fathers right’s” groups where dead-beat dads rabbit on about not having custody of their kids because they have to pay maintenance for them.

      The idea that all women are saint like creatures filled with love for their off-string is a fantasy. While it’s always a highly emotional subject the fact is social services must act in the best interests of the child. Endlessly fostering them is not the best way. Allowing them to be adopted even if it upsets parents who see their children as chattels is best for the children.

      This “forced adoption” meme is like saying children who are removed from druggie, abusive, drunken and violent parents is “forced removal”. Of course it is but society has a duty to innocent children that trumps the alleged rights of nutters like that deluded fool calling for the boy to come home- the boy must be about 18 by now but it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t want a bar of Dad. Sad and upsetting for the parent but you know, there’s a lot of parental ego wrapped up in these claims.
      Why Hemming even dipped his toe into the sea of madness is a mystery. He certainly got no thanks and became a victim himself. Remember this crowd are all connected.

      As for me, I’ve always loved the idea of children being right down the other end of the house in separate quarters and being cared for by a strict no-nonsense though lovable Nanny. Perhaps a visit to the parents between 5-6pm after dinner and then send the little buggers to bed.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Not going to dox myself more than is necessary but John Hemming’s reputation as a gullible fool is not undeserved. Same can be said about Tom Watson. That they have both recanted in the light of actual facts should be a warning to all willing to believe unsubstantiated rumours without performing due diligence.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I know about John Hemming and his support of Sabine’s batshit, persecutory enterprises and schemes

          I know about Hemming being accused of non-recent CSA with SRA flavouring (VIP paedophile rings, ritualistic crimes in the standard “evil woods of horror” format to which we are accustomed) by Esther Baker.

          I just find it fascinating that so many of the Hampstead hoaxers and their associates have either been on RT or promote RT’s narratives and propaganda on a range of issues.

          In fact I don’t know whether an earlier post just disappeared or I just made a mistake (the latter probably) but I had meant to post this earlier

          Astute readers will be unsurprised to notice that, on her youtube channel Yolande Kernwood has uploaded a video by the Russian state propaganda channel RT about social services performing “child kidnappings” in the UK.

          I have not watched the entire video but notice with interest that it starts with a father speaking in Russian language pining for his son who he claims was unfairly taken from him by Medway Social Services.

          It is important to notice that aspects of the video are congruent with the narrative of the Hampstead hoax, namely Russian children kidnapped and placed in danger by corrupt British courts and social services.

          The video is here:

          A “human rights activist” called Yolande Lindbridge (Kernwood) appears at approx 12 minutes in.

          according to the text beneath the video

          “Yolande organised a demo for RT to film outside the Royal Courts of Justice in January 2015 for desperate British parents seeking justice for themselves and for their children.
          Yolande worked with an RT producer in Russia and a RT film crew who flew in from Russia to make the documentary “Forced Adoption UK”. First Yolande collected the RT film crew from Maidstone East railway station from where she brought them to her home where desperate parents had travelled from various parts of the UK and in Kent to be interviewed eg Clare Douglas travelled up from Southampton. Then the London demo followed on. The fight for justice for Clare Douglas is still very much on, the decision as to whether or not her daughter, Joanna, 7, should be forcibly adopted via the Southampton County Court is due to be made on 12.6.2017, I will be there asking for Joanna to be returned to her Mum.”

          So Yolande, a promoter of the Hampstead hoax and associate of various hoax promoters actually organised the demo about “forced adoptions” specifically for a film crew from RT to come and film.

          Interesting friends these hoax promoters have

          *raises eyebrow even higher then usual*

          Liked by 1 person

      • Weren’t the social services in the “Baby P” and Victoria Climbie (not the same London Borough as Hampstead) criticised for NOT intervening more?

        However, I recall when I worked in central London (this would be about 12 years ago) a couple approached me and the lady looked heavily pregnant and asked me if I knew “Where is babies for sale?” She sounded eastern European though I couldn’t venture to specify a nationality. I replied “No” and got the heck out of Dodge – and of course it’s possible that the lady had an imperfect grasp of English.

        Not everyone can afford a nanny though Sam (but I do realise you were having a laugh).

        Liked by 2 people

        • Editor’s Note : if only Crotchety: Sam is someone who shops at Poundland and then leaves his own printed fake Harrod’s invoices lying around for visitor’s to see. He even has portraits like this all over his living room and says over drinks..”oh yes that’s Ma & Pater at Royal Ascot in 1949 heading for the Royal Enclosure, but beneath are his real parents. They seem like a lovely couple, working class salt of the Earth etc so why he bothers is a mystery.

          Liked by 2 people

        • I have noticed it seems to have become the ‘stock insult’ in some conspiracy circles, however unlike being accused of being in the Illuminati etc, public accusations of being a pedophile can result in some nasty consequences, both for the accused (who may be investigated by police etc if the accusations ‘spread’ offnet), and could result in extreme public embarrassment and even personal danger ie the pedohunters etc that go around harassing people and other unstable characters that make continual threats of ‘woodchipping’ people…

          The accusers who may find themselves either in jail or facing huge public settlements for damages- many of these people seem unaware of just how dangerous a fine line they are treading here- if [some victims]’ had decided to do things differently, then many of these hoaxers would literally be penniless and possibly in jail…

          That may have even been the more ‘preferable’ end result, but I can understand his reluctance to expose his kids to any more of this insanity than they had already been…

          Liked by 1 person

          • Unfortunately, the victims in this case didn’t have the choice of doing things differently, as the police seemed either unable or unwilling to act on the multitude of complaints they received.

            Actually, I had another post in mind just now, but you’ve inspired me: I think it’s time to address this more fully. Stand by…. 😉


    • The Telegraph piece in Fnord’s link states a UK court has decreed that the child in the above video, J, should not be identified.

      I am not a lawyer, but a) anything in my posts identifying J might be contempt of court and b) J seemed to want to be part of his father’s video on camera, however we all know that kids can be pressurised, by subtle and not so subtle means, to endorse a parent or care-giver’s narrative when such narrative might not be congruent with the child’s own opinions.

      So could my posts please be edited to remove any compromising information that identifies J?

      I would hate to cause the poor lad more problems then he is already having to deal with.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Yay! No work today, so I’ve updated the Hoaxtead Book of Fruitcake Quotes. Recent additions include:

    “We’re all prawns in the game”
    “They know if they do anything to us, if they kill us, it’s only going to prove them right”
    “They haven’t got logical rationing to work out what’s going on”
    “A lot of countries have a lot of corruption and Africa is one of them”
    “Never a truer word spoken in jest”
    “Why are you listening to these idiots? Why are you even giving them an inkling of time?”
    “You arseholes are causing mental health”
    “You keep that truth from not getting out and I’ll keep that truth from getting out”
    “That’s what it says in the Manga Carta”
    “Edward Ellis deserves a noble peace prize”
    “The more fags are flying, the better it’ll be”
    “I want you to Google ‘the swamp Theresa May’. Just those two words”
    “Biffed out his nut on cocaine, what he said about Celtic and Rangers proves he is out to cause discourse”
    “If you wish to expose yourself, be my guest”

    Thank you to all our favourite hoaxer trolls for their contributions. Keep the bollocks coming 😀

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Vicky Haigh case is very relevant as Mrs Haigh coached her child to make false allegations of sexual abuse against a father. She engaged a naive freewoman on the land to assist her, and of course make things worse. The child went to live with the father.

      Said freewoman (Elizabeth Watson) leaked the story to Sabine McNeill, who leaked it to the universe, putting Elizabeth Watson clearly in contempt of court. She begged Mrs McNeill to withdraw the material but she wouldn’t. As a result Elizabeth Watson went to prison:. She was mercifully released after she made an abject apology – how sincere it was can be seen by her glee when the judge killed himself several years later to escape a cruel disease.


    • I didn’t go all through Ta Sa’s video, Steed? Is he UK based. If so you are quite right the burden of proof lies with the accuser. (It may be different in the USA and of course there are different laws on some matters in various of the 50 states. He’s just regurgitating stuff (albeit nasty) that has already been put out by other people but that’s what a lot of “truthers” do.


Comments are closed.