43 EU Directive 2011/92 vs UK Family Court Law

Discrepancies between
EU Directive 2011/92 and UK Family Court Law

Combating the Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation of Children
and Child Pornography
vs
Systemic Patterns of Child Snatching and Forced Adoptions in the UK

Contents

Executive Summary

This report appeals to EU Parliament and the EU Commission on behalf of UK and non-UK families. It covers:

  1. Petition 1707/20131 submitted by the Association of McKenzie Friends and presented for the first time on 19.03.14: to Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent2, but with emphasis on the Systemic Patterns of Child Snatching and Forced Adoptions in the UK3.
  2. EU Directive 2011/924 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography adopted in Strasbourg on 13.12.11.
  3. UK Infringement Notice5 of EU Directive issued on 27.01.14
  4. Exceptional Emergency Petition submitted on 07.03.15 about the ‘Whistleblower Kids’ also known as the ‘Hampstead Case’
  5. The ‘Hampstead Case’ as the worst of all cases experienced by McKenzie Friends: 20 child victims, 70+ abusers, cover-up by Police, secret Family Courts, internet corporations and mainstream media.
  6. Victims in Exile7: the Russian mother Ella Draper, her UK partner Abraham Christie and I Sabine Kurjo McNeill as German McKenzie Friend had to flee UK jurisdiction to avoid imprisonment, threatened by this Penal Notice8 of a secret High Court: on and around 11 February 2015.
  7. The Secrecy of UK Family Courts as the core issue common to all problems experienced:
    • Child Snatching by Police without warrants or paper work – ‘legitimised’ in Family Courts;
    • Adoptions without Parental Consent – 4% of 1,000 children a month – the tip of an iceberg;
    • Molestation and abuse in private foster care and care homes – crimes covered up;
    • Organised child sexual abuse not only in historic but also current cases;
    • Satanic Ritual Abuse – reported by child victims – the worst of all child sexual abuse forms;
    • Cover-Up of crimes by Police, Courts, internet corporations and mainstream media.

The Directive9

The Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography was adopted in Strasbourg on 13.12.11 with 52 paragraphs followed by 30 Articles.

Key Paragraphs

(26)

Investigating offences and bringing charges in criminal proceedings should be facilitated, to take into account the difficulty for child victims of denouncing sexual abuse and the anonymity of offenders in cyberspace. To ensure successful investigations and prosecutions of the offences referred to in this Directive, their initiation should not depend, in principle, on a report or accusation made by the victim or by his or her representative. The length of the sufficient period of time for prosecution should be determined in accordance with national law.

(27)

Effective investigatory tools should be made available to those responsible for the investigation and prosecutions of the offences referred to in this Directive. Those tools could include interception of communications, covert surveillance including electronic surveillance, monitoring of bank accounts or other financial investigations, taking into account, inter alia, the principle of proportionality and the nature and seriousness of the offences under investigation. Where appropriate, and in accordance with national law, such tools should also include the possibility for law enforcement authorities to use a concealed identity on the Internet.

(28)

Member States should encourage any person who has knowledge or suspicion of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child to report to the competent services. It is the responsibility of each Member State to determine the competent authorities to which such suspicions may be reported. Those competent authorities should not be limited to child protection services or relevant social services. The requirement of suspicion ‘in good faith’ should be aimed at preventing the provision being invoked to authorise the denunciation of purely imaginary or untrue facts carried out with malicious intent.

 Key Articles

1: This Directive establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes. It also introduces provisions to strengthen the prevention of those crimes and the protection of the victims thereof.

3: Offences concerning sexual abuse

4: Offences concerning sexual exploitation

5: Offences concerning child pornography

9: Aggravating circumstances

15: Investigation and prosecution

16: Reporting suspicion of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the confidentiality rules imposed by national law on certain professionals whose main duty is to work with children do not constitute an obstacle to the possibility, for those professionals, of their reporting to the services responsible for child protection any situation where they have reasonable grounds for believing that a child is the victim of offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7.

2. Member States shall take the necessary measures to encourage any person who knows about or suspects, in good faith that any of the offences referred to in Articles 3 to 7 have been committed, to report this to the competent services.

18: General provisions on assistance, support and protection measures for child victims

19: Assistance and support to victims

1. Member States shall, in particular, take the necessary steps to ensure protection for children who report cases of abuse within their family.

20: Protection of child victims in criminal investigations and proceedings

1.   Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal investigations and proceedings, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice system, competent authorities appoint a special representative for the child victim where, under national law, the holders of parental responsibility are precluded from representing the child as a result of a conflict of interest between them and the child victim, or where the child is unaccompanied or separated from the family.

Petition 1707/2013 by the Association of McKenzie Friends

The Commission is aware of this Petition since the first oral presentation on 19 March 2014 which included the following general submissions:

  1. Systemic Patterns of Child Snatching and Forced Adoptions10

  2. Dossier of Online Evidence11

  3. Online Petitions

      1. Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent12 5,000 signatures
      2. Stop Forced Adoptions in the UK!13 1,680 signatures
      3. Stop Secret Family Courts encouraging Forced Adoptions in the UK!14 210 signatures
      4. The Secrecy of the Family Courts should be lifted Now!15 1,980 signatures

Total: over 8,880 signatures

Due to the backlog in the Petitions Committee, the Commission may not be aware of

  1. Victimisation due to Brussels Attendance16

or the Emergency Petition submitted on 07 March 2015:

  1. Using the Secrecy of UK Family Courts to Cover-Up Criminal Activities17.

This report is a request for urgent action following three oral presentations to the Petitions Committee on 19.03.14, 11.11.14 and 27.01.15 and our meeting with Commission Staff on 05.12.14.

I Sabine Kurjo McNeill have been acting as ‘McKenzie Friend18’ (lay legal advisor) in the case example presented here and am representative of other McKenzie Friends. In the context of EU Directive 2011/92, I am also representative of the UK/EU Public which is now a legally-recognised ‘competent authority’ in this case.

We formally request that the EU Commission dedicate their time and attention toward addressing and resolving the many issues around child protection as are presented in this report. To spare on paperwork and length, a variety of links are provided, both embedded and as footnotes, as well as a list at the end of the report, all of which, strongly substantiate and validate our grave concerns and grievances.

We urge the Commission to thoroughly examine all information accompanying this case example: for many children remain at serious risk.

Example: The ‘Hampstead Case’

In essence, this is a report on criminal negligence committed by British authorities including the Police, Social Services, CAFCASS and the Family Courts in terms of their collective failure to abide by the EU Child Protection Directive. We consider the neglect of these bodies as ‘criminal’ in that in failing to adhere to EU Law they have rendered it possible and probable that an alleged ring of some 70 child-trafficking, cannibal paedophiles has been able to continue its nefarious activity, including profiting from the production and sale of child pornography, and to escape police investigation.

Lack of Police action on point of contact with two child victim-witnesses, a boy and girl aged 8 and 9 respectively, has permitted time enough for all the accused in this case to cover their tracks and eliminate evidence (see Links; 1. Online Investigations). Because of police and Family Court negligence, it is likely the accused will continue to avoid arrest and will carry on with their crimes.

In the meantime, the said children have been left in care, with contact likely to be continuing with all suspect parties in this case, members of a ‘Satanic Cult’ aka baby trafficking and cannibalising paedophile ring of which their father is the ‘head’ and which includes Social Workers, Police, CAFCASS/Family Court Officers, Christian Clergy, Teachers and Head Teacher, Health Care professionals, and professional-status parents of 20 ‘special’ children, singled out for abuse during school hours and weekends (see Links; 2. Children’s Allegations).

Mother Ella Draper reported the aforementioned crimes to police in early September 2014 via her two children as victim-witnesses after they had disclosed details of horrific abuse while on holiday in Morocco in August 2014. Medical examination confirmed that both children had suffered repeated sexual abuse (see Links; 3. Medical Evidence).

While we do not deny and certainly, both children confirm in their original allegations, that some force was used by Mr Abraham Christie as mother’s partner and with her consent and in her presence, as a means of encouraging and confirming the facts of the allegations, we contend that Mr Christie and Ella Draper’s actions were more probably influenced by and reflective of shock and horror on hearing the children’s disclosures than employed as a means of ‘coaching’ the children.

We strongly suspect that Mr Christie’s actions have been blown up out of all proportion in order to distract attention from other more important facts, such as that the children’s father had threatened to kill them.

Ms Draper, who prior to the allegations was estranged from the father due to his severe mental health problems and resultant violence and aggression, has since been accused of “failing to protect her children” and most recently, as “abusively coaching” them to make “false allegations” in order to incriminate their father and thereby deny him contact with them (see Links: 4. Ricky Dearman).

Ms Draper lost custody of her children who were placed under an Emergency Protection Order via the Family Courts, as soon as allegations were reported. Once in the hands of CAFCASS (alleged abusers), the children retract their allegations (see Links; 5. Retractions).

The children’s retractions in fact introduce new allegations against Mother and her partner as having used excessive force in coaching them to memorise and repeat acts of murder, cannibalism and sexual depravity and forcing them to draw images of adult genitalia or else, forcing them via threat of physical punishment, to ‘make up’ all such details and repeat them to police and thereby, suffer unnecessarily, the inevitable, intimate medical examinations.

Though medical evidence contradicts the retractions, nevertheless the case was closed by Police in under three weeks. The Family Court is now using mainstream media to pave the way for handing custody to the father.

As a result of the medical evidence, the Family Court decided Ms Draper had failed to protect her children and her full Residence Order was annulled. Mother was given twice monthly contact with her children while father’s was increased from twice monthly, to weekly.

Once in Foster Care, with three different Carers since September 2014, the children are reported to have retracted their retractions in the sense of repeating their original allegations to Foster Carers. Mother and her McKenzie Friend (myself) filed a Judicial Review (see Links; 6. Judicial Review) against the Metropolitan Police to re-open the case. Justice Pauffley as High Court Judge offered for “the Met to take their cue from High Court judges” but refused to look at the Review and a barrister from another local Council which had been alerted by the Met, requested that all evidence relating to this case be destroyed.

The list of parties interested in this case includes 3 MEPs with whom I had contact about the problem of forced adoptions in the UK. I also wrote to the UK Home Office appealing directly to Theresa May for assistance and was ignored. Left with such serious suspicions as to her own and many other children’s safety, Ms Draper and I took the decision to make a public appeal for help. Our decision to do this was and is courageous because in making this case public, we were directly contravening UK Family Court Secrecy Rules for which there is mandatory punishment of imprisonment of between 3 months and 7 years, demonstrated by the ‘Penal Notice’ we received on 11 February 2015. (See Links; 7. Penal Notice).

Here we highlight the serious discrepancy between the EU Directive and UK Family Courts because according to the EU Directive, adults have a DUTY to report all reasonable suspicion of crimes against children and when one ‘competent authority’ has failed, every avenue for assistance must be sought via other ‘competent authorities’ which, as the EU Directive very clearly states, are not limited to regular competent authorities (see Links; 8. EU Child Protection Directive).

Considering the collective powers of the alleged abusers, the British public and the international community have been left at risk and need to be alerted to that risk.

Since the EU Directive also fully supports and upholds every EU citizen’s Human rights, which include ‘freedom of expression and speech’, it is a very serious discrepancy to find UK Family Court rules not only deny that Human Right, they have issued the threat of imprisonment against a Mother and her McKenzie Friend for utilising their right to publicly cry for help, when after being blocked and denied by every other ‘competent authority’, the public as the democratic electorate were their ONLY and last hope.

Furthermore, the Police have visited both our homes without arrest warrants. Nine officers in plain clothes were prevented from entering the mother’s house by her Counsel. (see Links; 9. Police Raid). The visit at my home took place after I had left.

Mother and myself as her McKenzie Friend were both forced to flee Britain, and, after a raid on his flat, her partner Mr Christie likewise. As a result of threats of arrest and imprisonment, neither myself as McKenzie Friend nor Ms Draper were able to attend the High Court Hearings on this case heard by Justice Pauffley which have concluded with all suspects found ‘innocent’ and with mother and her partner now facing further charges for arrest and immediate imprisonment (see Links; 10. High Court Judgement).

The recent High Court Hearings ’12 Day Fact Finding Mission’ had been scheduled to take place in secret and the mother’s McKenzie Friend in Court, Belinda McKenzie had been asked to give an undertaking to keep the proceedings confidential, on behalf also of all members of the Association of McKenzie Friends. This is clearly not acceptable in a case of very serious CRIMINAL allegations made by two highly intelligent children who, instead of having been heard, have been punished by being separated from their mother and familiar residence.

Furthermore, Ms McKenzie was denied Court presence, after the mother had fled. Hence we don’t know what evidence was presented to substantiate Justice Pauffley’s Judgment as all of it was heard in secret. In this sense, the High Court Hearing was a pointless exercise. Suspicions continue to abound and indeed have increased as the public now have every reason to suspect a cover-up in light of the facts, evidence, probabilities, possibilities, motive and intent. (see Links; 11. Witness Statement B)

The secret evidence presented to the High Court was and remains unavailable to myself or Ms Draper. This in itself is a travesty of justice according to both EU and UK Law (see Links; 12. House of Lords Fair Trial).

The High Court judgment is proven negligent and ignorant of evidence and facts relating to this case and to such a degree, it is difficult not to suspect further authority complicity in the alleged crimes via a conspiratorial ‘cover-up’. As a result of this later evidence, Justice Pauffley herself is now a suspect in this case (see Links; 13. Crime Report).

This case referred to here as the ‘Hampstead Case’, though an extreme scenario and the worst we have ever assisted in, is, however, generally typical in terms of UK Family Courts and of police response to reports of child abuse:

  • Commonly, children are removed from the non-abusive parent’s custody, with contact increased with the abusive parent;

  • Commonly, allegations and abusers are hidden behind the fundamental secrecy of the UK Family Courts. It is claimed this secrecy is to ‘protect the child and its identity’ when in practice the evidence is clear: The secrecy is more often shown to be protecting privacy for child abusers;

  • Commonly, allegations are not investigated, most especially where directed at British professionals involved in paedophile rings. These ‘unions’ of child abusers are known to and have been proven (see Links; 14. Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) to be operating within virtually every UK authority i.e. police, councils and government. Their collective interest in child sexual abuse transcends all regular cultural/ethnic and social boundaries.

UN: Combating International Child Trafficking & Child Sexual Abuse

International child trafficking is a very serious issue (see Links; 15. UN Report).

London UK is a recognised ‘hub’ of destination with many thousands reported to be arriving in London UK each year and with estimated ‘hundreds’ of children and babies being murdered in ritual sacrifice which often includes cannibalism (see Links; 15. UN Report).

Arrests for such crimes are virtually non-existent when compared to the scale of the problem and certainly all criminals engaged in this sphere operate in secret and obviously, rely heavily on complicit authorities and businesses to aid and assist them in maintaining secrecy and silence.

The British media and public are presently providing ample evidence that these circles of criminal-powers do actually exist (see Links; 16. Rotherham UK & Margaret Thatcher) via their news-reports which are also reflective of present-day convictions (see Links; 17. Patrick Rock & Ben Hodder) along with reports from thousands of historical victims of child abuse who have collectively suffered as a direct result of negligent and complicit authorities which have been shown to include Councillors, BBC, child-care providers & social workers, police, Family Courts, teachers, healthcare professionals, Clergy, Judges and Government ministers, both elected and unelected.

It is evident that within such commonly corrupted authorities, the arena of child and baby trafficking for abuse and even murder of children will remain largely uninvestigated and with victim-witness reports generally silenced and/or ignored.

It is evident that the secrecy of the British Family Courts has greatly contributed to supporting and maintaining the required levels of privacy in which paedophile rings thrive and operate (see Links; 18. Family Courts).

It is evident also from the voluntary support of victims of the Family Courts by the Association of McKenzie Friends that parents are unlawfully being criminalised and imprisoned and their children wrongly kept in care or adopted. In 2006 Harriet Harman MP reported that some 200 parents a year are being imprisoned in the secrecy of Family Courts. (See Links; 18. Family Courts). We have no figures as to how many are being deported without their children but have accompanied one Nigerian couple whose seven children remained in the UK, with two being adopted, and a US mother whose 4-year-old boy was found to be unadoptable, following we suspect molestation in care.

It is evident that British police and Family Courts are presently operating in ignorance of the EU Child Protection Directive and many thousands of children are suffering as a direct result.

Crimes against children remain rife and largely unaddressed as an underlying and endemic social problem which inevitably results in thousands of consequently damaged adult victim-survivors placing strain on health and welfare services of which only a few will find an effective means of help towards addressing their arrested self-development. Many will go on to become child-abusers themselves and in this sense, child sexual abuse operates within the general public consciousness in much the same way as an infectious disease.

Left untreated, that infection spreads, permitting every imaginable depravity to be unleashed into human experience. EU Child protection Law very cleverly and fundamentally strives to confront the issue head-on by placing emphasis on belief in witnesses and most especially, any child victims; uniquely to other aspects of EU Law, the Child Protection Directive essentially considers all suspects as guilty until proven innocent (see paragraphs 26 & 28): Allegations are to be investigated, even if those allegations are retracted.

EU Law takes into account the secrecy and insidious nature of the way paedophile rings operate, with fear and coercion being recognised as key to controlling and silencing both victims and witnesses. Because of this possibility/probability-factor all retractions of allegations are considered secondary, especially if retractions are given while witness-victims are in the care or control of alleged abusers.

EU Law very clearly understands and appreciates that it takes strength and courage for victims and witnesses to overcome their fear of abusers in order to report crimes and suspicions. This is especially the case for small children who are usually directly controlled by and/or in regular close contact with their abusers.

Considering the power imbalance between a ‘union’ of child-abusing adults and their isolated and controlled child-victims, it is not surprising that reports and convictions for child abuse of every kind are minimal compared to the immense scale of such crimes. It is for this precise reason that the EU Directive is designed to welcome all reports of child abuse and to investigate even the slightest suspicions, so long as those suspicions are reported without malicious intent and in good faith of evidence:

  • Evidence is two child victim witnesses;

  • Evidence is medical confirmation of abuse;

  • Evidence is verifiable facts and details of abusers’ genitals.

According to EU Law any of the above warrants immediate investigation. In the case of one and especially TWO child witness victims reporting crimes of sexual abuse against themselves as part of a group of “20 special children” singled out for abuse, the making and selling of child pornography, international child trafficking, ritual murder of babies and cannibalism committed by 70+ professional adults; their testimony in terms of successfully addressing and eradicating all such crimes, is akin to gold dust in the sense, that not only are such reports providing a wealth of detailed information extremely rare, prompt investigation could lead to the arrest and conviction of a huge national and international paedophile and baby-trafficking ring and in that process serve the full purpose of the EU Child Protection Directive by utilising the law to protect children from harm.

UK Authorities: Negligent or Complicit?

In the Hampstead Case (regardless of whether allegations are proven true or false), London police and Family Courts decided that the children’s mother had coached her children so they might maliciously report crimes committed by their father to police.

The father expresses this as his own conclusion too during initial Police interviews in which he presents himself as a long-term victim of Ella Draper’s accusations; ‘accusations’ which led to him receiving a Non Molestation Order (see Links; 19. Non-Molestation Order) via the local County Courts and compulsory attendance at Tavistock Clinic for his mental health problems with involvement of local authorities (see Links; 20. Dearman Police Interview).

Barnet Police (London UK) clearly made a decision to cast doubt on the children’s allegations via what they have possibly viewed as a ‘get-out’ clause in the EU Directive, that lessens the strength of any allegations which can reasonably be suspected as being ‘malicious’ rather than genuine.

However, because allegations are not only against the children’s father but also include many other children and adults, the ‘malice’ clause was NEVER an option, i.e. what evidence of possible ‘malice’ was there that might persuade Ella Draper to engage her children in falsely accusing all the staff of her children’s school, other parents, clergy, police, CAFCASS officers, Social Workers and locals in and around Hampstead?

Because the allegations were not only against their father, any issues between Ms Draper and Mr Dearman cannot then be transferred to all other alleged abusers and victims unless there exists good reason for doing so. Since no such ‘reasons’ have been presented, there was legally NO reason for UK Police NOT to immediately begin their investigations as soon as allegations were reported.

Reasonably, a professional police-force well versed in the vital and necessary EU Child Protection Directive, would have fully appreciated not only the immense seriousness and implications of the allegations but also the collective powers of all the accused; there was a strong possibility of inside-information concerning the allegations being quickly passed on to suspects via complicit professionals in unique positions of being first to catch wind of the reports from the point of police and witness-victim contact.

The above level of professionalism and diligence is what any lawful public reasonably expects from a lawful Police force; it is a police officer’s JOB to be alert and aware of every probability and possibility related to every reported and/or suspected crime.

In the Hampstead Case, all such probability and possibility of ‘inside connections’ were dismissed. Prime importance was given to Ms Draper’s history of conflict with Mr Draper. 8 days passed before police got round to inspecting Christchurch School & Church, by then finding nothing of interest.

Was this a reasonable police response in light of the need for prompt investigation, given the evidence and gravity of the allegations? Certainly not; in weighing up the evidence and allegations we are left with a very tenuous suspicion of malice against one suspect among many, weighing very heavily against strong medical evidence and equally strong witness-victim testimonies and with NOTHING to substantiate suspicions of malice concerning allegations against other suspects.

Given the details of the children’s original disclosures, it is beyond reasonable possibility that two children would normally be familiar with the details they disclose, therefore, either the children were ‘coached’ or else, they are reporting genuine experience of abuse and murder. Again, prompt investigation to prove the suspects’ innocence would naturally then be focused on the mother and her partner.

Without any police confirmation of suspect innocence and many months after allegations were reported, the mother and her partner are now convicted criminals and found guilty of child abuse via a High Court Judgment delivered in their forced absence and based on secret ‘evidence’.

Extract From Crime Report for UK Police:

Certainly, Ms Draper’s actions AFTER the allegations in that she continues to pursue her demands for a thorough police investigation into her children’s allegations, cast doubt on herself and her partner as allegedly ‘coaching’ the children via “severe abuse and torture” as they have now been found guilty of. Why was neither Ms Draper nor Mr Christie charged with any crime in September 2014?

We are told via Justice Pauffley that Mr Christie received a police Caution for assault against his son – but NOTHING at all in light of very serious allegations in which two children claim he “tortured” and abused them in order to repeat sexual acts and lie to police in order to maliciously incriminate over 70 named professional people?

Again, this is yet MORE evidence of a possible cover-up i.e. was everything simply ‘hushed up’ via the powers of the Secret Family Courts?

It is noticeable and of utmost concern now, that only after the resulting publicity via Ms Draper in her efforts to be sure of her own and other children’s safety and only BECAUSE of regular competent authority inaction, that the more recent High Court Hearing was held and was very possibly and even, probably, used merely as a power-tool to annul all suspicions against suspects and to find both Ms Draper and her partner guilty of “severe abuse” of two children in their care.

WHY no arrest or charges against Mum or her partner last September? Why did Family Courts consider it appropriate to award twice monthly contact with the children to Ms Draper who, as present and consenting of the alleged abuse and coaching at hands of Mr Christie, is therefore, considered a duplicate and complicit in abuse of her children and who knowingly therefore, submitted her children for ‘unnecessary’ intimate, medical examinations and police questioning?

When we consider Ms Draper’s persistence in pursuit of further investigations in comparison with Family Courts and Police repeatedly deciding AGAINST all further investigation, we have very little choice and indeed, would be negligent ourselves were we to ignore the fact that this itself, is further evidence of possible authority conspiracy and complicity in committing and covering up crimes against children:

Did Authorities decide against prosecuting Ms Draper and Mr Christie because in event of such a prosecution, focus of attention would naturally be guided toward focusing on the children’s original allegations and thereby, increase attention on original suspects which include members of Police, Social Services and Family Courts?

We cannot deny, that in event of prosecutions against Ms Draper and Mr Christie failing to find them guilty, in that case, original allegations are immediately and essentially upheld, because if Mr Christie had not ‘coached’ the children then certainly, those children did not and could not have simply fabricated the story themselves.

The possibilities and probabilities of two children colluding to fabricate such a story and then, repeatedly and independently repeat that story to police and others, are really, stepping beyond the legal limits of fair reason and most especially, if that conclusion leads to NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION into a report of very serious crimes against multiple children via multiple professional adults.

In the interim between initial reports of allegations to Police and the later publicity and High Court Judgment, there is no doubt that all suspect parties in this case have had ample time to eliminate all evidence of their crimes. It may be that as a result, very little evidence remains other than original, witness-victim testimonies and supporting medical reports, in which case, negligence or complicity has lost a chance to successfully investigate and eradicate a collective, professional threat to possibly thousands of children both in Britain and abroad.

The points made above reflect a very serious degree of professional negligence and ignorance of the EU Directive. Many children have been possibly/probably left at risk of severe harm and even murder on the strength of police and Family Court ‘suspicions’ that Ella Draper had malicious intent towards ONE of 70+ alleged abusers.

The British public and Ms Draper have valid grounds and every reason to suspect a cover-up via complicit and/or compromised authorities which we know child abusers have infiltrated both historically and presently.

As McKenzie Friends, we have every reason to appreciate both motive and intent supporting a desire to cover up and deny aforementioned crimes i.e. the very foundations of the UK Family Courts are under threat via exposure of their complicit or unwitting support toward providing secrecy and protection for a possible/probable major paedophile, child-trafficking, child pornography ring which consists of members from all those professionals whom the public are expected to unquestioningly trust.

The resulting loss of public faith and trust in the event of the Hampstead allegations being proven correct, is not something any authority should or could withstand – any such corrupted authority needs to be thoroughly investigated; what is the POINT of the EU Child Protection Directive, if any EU authority can ‘enjoy’ and profit from child abuse without fear of investigation or conviction simply because they are EU ‘professionals’ in positions of public power and authority and who have established their own ‘law’ of secrecy?

What are the chances of any corrupted individuals employed in child welfare authorities being investigated and/or convicted of crimes against children if those same authorities are operating under rules of secrecy and with all reported crimes and victims being delivered into the hands of alleged abusers?

When we look at the sheer numbers of children removed from parents by UK Family Courts, it is very clear that they mostly focus on ‘Future Emotional Risk’ as their prime concern around child welfare.

Regardless as to whether the Hampstead Case allegations are proven true or false, the British public has already lost faith and trust in every authority concerned in this case, only because the EU Directive was NOT followed and so many important facts and evidence were ignored which as a result, has left so many children at possible/probable risk and for sake of very FLIMSY ‘malice’ conclusions based on equally flimsy evidence.

It is directly because of the points made above, that the UK public has every right to suspect all authorities as conspiring and supporting one another in controlling and silencing victims and witnesses in this case; possibility and probability coupled with motive and intent point very strongly toward criminal-complicity: Justice Pauffley is therefore, now a suspect in this case.

Criminal Suspect: High Court Judge Mrs Justice Anna Pauffley

There is no malice concerning suspicions against Justice Pauffley. Our suspicion is founded purely on the degree of professional negligence she has shown in her Judgment and involvement in this case which, considering her professional standing as a senior judge, exceeds anything that could be considered reasonable, in that she has fundamentally not only ignored both UK & EU Law but has ACTIVELY used her power in an attempt to DESTROY TWO CHILDREN’S WITNESS-VICTIM TESTIMONIES and WITHOUT any THOROUGH and PROMPT police investigation either to prove or disprove their extremely serious and dreadful allegations.

The subsequent level of risk to children deriving from Justice Pauffley’s involvement in this case is utterly unacceptable according to the EU Child Protection Directive and at NO point has Justice Pauffley reprimanded the regular competent authorities of police and CAFCASS Officers for their collective failures to abide by the Directive.

Instead, Justice Pauffley has condemned the British public and McKenzie Friends as “evil and foolish” for behaving lawfully and demanding further investigation to either prove or disprove the children’s original allegations. We have every valid reason to suspect malicious intent behind her remarks which we believe are specifically designed to discourage more members of the public from focusing on the pertinent details and facts of this case.

Alarmingly, even the BBC is now supporting the children’s father Mr Dearman as a victim of false allegations. Considering the BBC’s own complicity in covering up paedophile activities among their staff and TV presenters, again, the public authority has very little confidence in the BBC as an ‘impartial’ and ‘unbiased’ media; we have every reason to strongly suspect the opposite. The BBC is clearly supportive of Mr Dearman’s efforts to now gain full custody of his children.

While there remains a possibility that all alleged abusers in this case are in fact, innocent, the pertinent point to remember here is that had Barnet Police PROMPTLY investigated, all the original allegations would have been investigated and all suspects COULD have been instantly proven innocent, especially since many of the details given refer to instantly verifiable evidence i.e. tattoos and birthmarks etc., on the head and other teachers’ genitals.

We cannot help but question WHY a mother and her partner would ‘coach’ two children to lie about details that could be instantly proven false? This question is just one of many such questions that are most unsatisfactory in terms of the remaining and continuing suspicions all such questions support, insofar as they defy all and any common-sense in terms of ‘motive and intent’ and thereby, leave ample room for doubting later retractions: Children remain at risk.

Had the police acted promptly and thoroughly, there would have been NO publicity given to this case. However, considering the amount of professionals and authorities implicated, can it really be considered fair and LAWFUL for crimes against children to be kept secret from the public?

Surely, the public has a RIGHT to know both levels and occurrence of crimes against children so we can be collectively more aware and vigilant and quicker to report suspicions. In an ethos of social secrecy and silence, child abuse is rarely reported and the public remains largely unaware of the true extent of this ever-increasing, shameful and intolerable crime.

The Role of the EU Commission

The question we now need to ask is HOW can the EU Commission call Britain to task on its application of the EU Child Protection Directive as well as other international treaties such as the UN Convention on Child Rights, the EU Convention on Human Rights and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations?

First, we humbly remind the Commission of its function. The Commission’s main roles are to:

  • propose legislation which is then adopted by the co-legislators, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers;
  • enforce European law (where necessary with the help of the Court of Justice of the EU);
  • set objectives and priorities for action, outlined yearly in the Commission Work Programme and work towards delivering them;
  • manage and implement EU policies and the budget;
  • represent the Union outside Europe (negotiating trade agreements between the EU and other countries, for example).

As previously stated, crimes against children are reaching EPIDEMIC proportions particularly in the UK and to the degree that the UN Council have themselves alerted UK authorities to the large numbers of trafficked babies and children arriving in the UK and most specifically, London.

The UN Report on child trafficking for abuse and ritual murder was widely published throughout the British media in 2014, months before the Hampstead Case. In the light of that report, ALL EU Authorities both national and international need now to be especially vigilant in taking direct action to investigate every possible lead into eradicating the threat and the crimes.

Failures reflected in the Hampstead case have very possibly left thousands of children at risk both in Britain and abroad; the collective powers of all accused amount to what can reasonably be considered a secret, terrorist threat against the most vulnerable members of E.U. society and because of this, the Hampstead case has been reported as a possible terrorist threat to Britain’s MI5 Intelligence.

We ask the Commission to consider specifically, the risks posed to children via a paedophile collective of very powerful adults who work in police, family courts, social services, who operate such business as shipping and storage units, who have international connections with other professionals who have direct contact with the poorest people of the poorest nations; how is it possible for the public to successfully address such corruption via the regular ‘competent authorities’ in such circumstances?

Enforcing Strict Adherence to the EU Child Protection Directive in every Member State

There can be NO denying the FACT that at every point, the Hampstead Case fully reflects the very casual approach presently employed by UK Authorities toward responding to child abuse allegations. There can be no denying the fact either that as a result, far too many children are left either dead or damaged with afflictions ignored and criminals walking free within circles of the ‘socially superior’.

In the light of all evidence and details here presented, we can only suggest that the Commission considers the following actions presented below while remaining hopeful that the Commission may find other appropriate measures:

  • Economic Sanctions against Britain and/or all UK Authorities proven negligent in abiding by EU Child Protection Directives;
  • A thorough EU Commission Investigation into the running and establishment of UK Family Courts with a view to abolishing those Courts or at least, the *secrecy in which they operate.

*Though it is claimed the secrecy is to protect ‘privacy’ it is now an accepted contention that children have a right to be seen and heard and if they have been abused then any compassionate and caring public is not afraid to see those children and/or hear their stories; the common notion that abused children must be hidden for their own safety needs to be utterly condemned because it is an absolute MYTH: Every abuser uses the tool of secrecy as cover for their crimes and it is in fact a continuation of abuse for ANY system of Justice for children, to support all such secrecy; child abuse needs to be an out-in-the-open issue and specifically, for encouraging the necessary public vigilance and readiness to report any suspicions.

As a result of the UK Family Courts’ many and severe failings, thousands of British and EU citizens have lost all contact with their children. The vast majority of those families have NEVER been proven to have harmed ANY child.

It has to be said that considering the amount of money Britain spends (a £2.4 billion ‘Industry’ run by largely privatised services) on placing children into care, often unnecessarily, those funds would be far better employed toward assisting families who are struggling by providing support in the form of therapy, parental education and domestic help (see Links; 21. Child Care Profits).

Briefly, as a yet further example, we refer to a case widely reported in British newspapers, concerning a professional Italian woman who visited Britain whilst pregnant, to attend a training course (see Links; 22. Forced Adoptions). The woman suffered from Bipolar disorder and had forgotten to take her medication and as a result, suffered a ‘panic attack’. No one was hurt or injured but the woman was sectioned into mental health care where her baby was later removed from her womb via Caesarian section and without her knowledge or consent. Her baby, a little girl (whom she never saw) was then given up for adoption. This woman is reported in the British press as saying “I am suffering like an animal.” Even the baby’s father and the wider family circle were refused any rights or involvement in UK Family Courts decision.

In light of the Hampstead case and all resulting suspicions, WHO can be SURE that this Italian lady’s baby has NOT been used in a ritual sacrifice or has not been handed over to paedophile parents?

None of the parents who have suffered forced removal and adoption of their children have ANY idea or clue as to what has become of their children. When we consider this FACT as weighed against evidence and reasonable suspicions of authority involvement in paedophilia and murder, what parent with a child lost to such authorities could in all fair reason, consider their children as ‘safe’?

We therefore, urge the Commission to demand proof and evidence from the UK Authorities and Family Courts that ALL children removed from parents into forced adoption, are actually alive and safe from harm.

All of the above concerns are reasonable and in good faith of accumulated evidence and facts and therefore, demand instant and immediate action according to EU Directive 2011/92. We cannot forget that Britain has already been served with a Notice of Infringement by the EU Commission concerning this very Directive; what has been the response to that Infringement Notice? (See Links: 23. EU Petition)

Since the UK Authorities are proven to be acting in ignorance of this EU Directive and are now implicated and suspected and indeed, found guilty of conspiring to commit and cover-up crimes against children, the Public’s last resort for help has to be with the EU Commission and perhaps the EU Courts.

Given the seriousness of the many crimes and allegations submitted by so many children and adult survivors, the issue of child abuse remains ongoing. Hiding the crime behind a veil of secrecy and myth is merely facilitating an increase of child abuse and to the extent that child trafficking and child pornography is by today, a multi-billion ‘industry’ operating on an international scale.

The law is there but without bodies to enforce it, what power does the EU Child Protection Directives truly hold for an EU child’s reality? Without enforcement, the law is an idle bystander if even the EU Commission itself, is unable to uphold and enforce its EU Child Protection Directive.

When it comes to protecting Europe’s children, we can leave NO STONE UNTURNED. Our children are our collective FUTURE and it is time we invested more time and attention in their welfare. Bereft of adult support and consideration, children are left vulnerable and voiceless.

Links

  1. Online Investigations; transcripts and videos: https://hampsteadresearch.wordpress.com/vid-17-dearman-child-pornographer/

  2. Children’s Allegations; testimonies transcripts & tapes.

Home recordings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMplQR-5ewk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMplQR-5ewk

Police recordings Q. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H21WDONtk78

Police recordings P. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMiYMzREseo

  1. Medical Evidence; https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byzy22cCtwpdbERtNXNhQ0Y5RmM/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byzy22cCtwpdYy0xdVZFcGxscXM/view?usp=sharing

  1. Ricky Dearman Police Interview; https://hampsteadresearch.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/dearman-police-interview-transcript.pdf

  2. Retractions; Professional Linguistic Analysis of Q: https://wordsontrial.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/is-this-a-retraction/ (password sumatra)

  3. Judicial Review; https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Byzy22cCtwpdfm1pcUxfVGIwelJ0VmhHLU5SZFNqNmxnaWVyS3F3Ui1BT05ZcFgxZlFCeUE&usp=sharing

  4. Penal Notice; https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byzy22cCtwpdQ3dLRWdmenBsaXM/view?usp=sharing

  5. EU Child Protection Directive 2011/92; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID=1GM3JtXKgPQLn1H1nb5Nds2dNJyJd11KQZJCRgZqGrYmjk9jS3G0!-1415755211?uri=CELEX:32011L0093

  6. Police Raid; https://hampsteadresearch.wordpress.com/vid-2-police/

  7. High Court Judgement; Justice Pauffley’s Summary http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2015/26.html

  8. Witness Statement B; http://www.meetup.com/whistleblowerkids/about/

  9. House of Lords Fair Trial; https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-hearing

  1. Crime Report;
    https://mckenzies4fairness.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/15-04-28-crime-report.pdf

  2. Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse; https://childsexualabuseinquiry.independent.gov.uk/

  3. UN Report; 08.07.14: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=CRC/C/OPSC/GBR/CO/1
    Daily Mail – 02.08.14: How London became the child abuse capital of the world: Trafficked here by gangs, prey to pimps, paedophiles and murderers… the booming trade in ‘lost’ children that shames us all: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714200/How-London-child-abuse-capital-world-Trafficked-gangs-prey-pimps-paedophiles-murderers-booming-trade-lost-children-shames-all.html

  4. Rotherham Council; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11391314/Rotherham-child-sex-abuse-scandal-council-not-fit-for-purpose.html;
    Margaret Thatcher; http://news.sky.com/story/1440761/thatcher-turned-blind-eye-to-paedophile-mps

  5. Patrick Rock; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10675036/Who-is-Patrick-Rock.html;
    Ben Hodder; http://www.yourthurrock.com/Thurrock-s-cop-Chief-Inspector-Ben-Hodder-pleads/story-26168012-detail/story.html

  6. Family Courts;
    Secrecy Petition:
    http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/the-secrecy-of-the-family-courts-should-be-lifted-now.html
    Hansard, Column 633:
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060613/debtext/60613-0003.htm

  7. Application for Non-Molestation Order against the Father; https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Byzy22cCtwpdN040QnNhM01ucWc&usp=sharing
  8. Ricky Dearman Police Interviews; https://hampsteadresearch.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/dearman-police-interview-transcript.pdf
  9. Child Care Profits; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/is-it-acceptable-to-profit-from-the-social-care-of-vulnerable-children-9034492.html
  10. Forced Adoptions; http://www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/forced-adoption/
  1. EU Petition 1707/2013;
    27.01.14: Infringement Notice of EU Directive 2011/92
    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-is-new/eu-law-and-monitoring/infringements_by_country_united_kingdom_en.htm

19.03.14: First Oral Presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNvQFlFy9Cs

11.11.14: 2nd presentation to new Committee: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLEFMHId9Nw

27.01.15: 3rd time to support Bulgarian adoption https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBkfjcQO8Es

07.03.15: Emergency Submission:
Using the Secrecy of UK Family Courts to Cover-Up Criminal Activities

28.04.15: One-Page Summary and Update:
https://mckenzies4fairness.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/15-04-28-petition-1707-update.pdf

Sabine Kurjo McNeill – in exile in Berlin since 11 February 2015 –
due to ‘Penal Notice’ threatening with imprisonment

1 Response to EU Directive 2011/92 vs UK Family Court Law

  1. Pingback: BEST INTERESTS of #Children. Have they been well Served in #Europe? Round Table in #EUParliament – June 2nd | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *