Hampstead Satanic Hoax: Judge Pauffley Is Wrong !


In Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement HERE, she remarked that those that perpetrated and perpetuated this hoax so damaging to the two young children at centre of it were either “evil” or “foolish”.

She’s wrong.

Any sensible person observing what has been going on since her judgement must conclude that as well as evil and foolish people, a substantial percentage of those who continue to push this fabrication have mental health issues and I say that without humour.

Last weekend 2 ‘activists’ were arrested by police following their ‘protest’ outside of a church two weeks earlier.

Neelu Berry, who apparently was counting the pushchairs in and out of the Sunday church service, has her case heard on 4th August at Tottenham Magistrates court until then she must keep away from Hampstead. While American Christine Sands received a £165 fine and 12 months sentence suspended provided she leaves the country by the 5th May. Christine Sands has said that she was only praying though I doubt that screaming  “Jesus! Jesus! They’re fucking children in the church, Jesus !” will  make ‘The Book of Common Prayer’ next time it is amended.

Some of those still supporting this ludicrous and damaging hoax have now suggested that Christine Sands is a CIA agent who had been sent to infiltrate and discredit this anti-Satanic crusade in Hampstead with her outlandish behaviour though it is extremely difficult for me to imagine how anyone could act in a way that could discredit further the delusional inventions of the cruel and dope addled mind of Abraham Christie, nor why the CIA would bother to do so.

I expect we’ll see more arrests and more deportations in the near future as Sabine McNeill throws more vulnerable people into the fray while she hides away safely in Europe.





Filed under Abuse, News

36 responses to “Hampstead Satanic Hoax: Judge Pauffley Is Wrong !

  1. Pingback: Hampstead Satanic Hoax: Judge Pauffley Is Wrong ! | Alternative News Network

  2. Gary

    Why are you so sure?

    • Because I am. I’m 100% sure.

      • Gary

        You’ll understand why not giving a reason doesn’t change minds of those not directly involved.

      • I’m pretty sure that any reason I gave, or anyone gave, wouldn’t change some minds. So why bother ?

        It is fairly obvious what has gone on and it has nothing to do with a satanic cult and anyone that still maintains that it does is either evil, foolish, or mentally ill.

      • correcting Toejams "truth" disinfo

        we’re sure YOU are mentally ill.100 per cent.

  3. Myers

    A couple of recent interviews at Corbett Report might be of interest. One with cognitive scientist Tjeert Andringa who has a theory about the ‘kakistocracy’:
    ..another with independent researcher Keelan Balderson about online alt media hoaxes and their wider implications:

  4. Gary

    Despite the fact that some less than credible people have attached themselves to this ‘campaign’ and that for various reasons the children’s mother seems somewhat doubtful I try not to come to a conclusion based solely on this.

    Of course I don’t have the facts, such as they might be. What DOES worry me is the absolute certainty the Judge had that either of these children had ever been abused. Its difficult to prove abuse but more difficult to ‘prove’ it did not take place.

    The claims seem so outlandish they just couldn’t be true and coming from children you could easily believe they’ve imagined it, made it up or been coerced. But what if something HAS happened?

    Sorry, but I always feel uncomfortable with absolute certainty. If it were ‘no evidence to suggest..’ I would understand. If they said they had evidence of coercion, likewise.

    • There is evidence of coercion. The kids have said they were coerced and AC admitted coercing them and therefore if what you’ve just said is true that you’d understand if there was evidence of coercion then you should understand and let it go.

      You’re not going to learn more until AC has been arrested and put on trial and discussing it further could end up jeopardising the trial of a child abuser, so drop it.

    • Just in case you do want to be objective:


      • I’ve told you Sabine, I’m not allowing links up to sites with material that identifies the children.

        It’s got nothing to do with being objective and everything to do with not being complicit in criminal activity.

        BTW Sabine, come back to the UK and face the music for what you’ve done to those kids. I might respect you for that,for doing the right thing.

      • Sorry I forgot that condition of yours.

      • You mean the condition of legality ? Yeh, that condition. Shame you don’t apply it to yourself.

  5. Irwell46

    I have watched every video and read almost every word written on this case. I understand the pervasive nature of child abuse and how the most extreme cases will be beyond our comprehension.

    One courageous child sexual abuse survivor opened the door for Operation Midland (child murders at Dolphin Square/Elm Guest House) so we have to be prepared to listen to the unthinkable.

    I will never be 100% sure as GoJam is. I simply do not have that 100% faith in my own judgement because I am human, and could get it wrong. But the whole thing has been bizzarre from the time the children’s videos hit the internet via The Tap Blog. (And Sabine McNeill tried to say she had accidentally copied in a blogger). Well, if she is that careless when handling confidential family court information, I wouldn’t trust her to water my plants when I go on holiday! In my opinion, the email to the Home Secretary which the Tap Blog was copied into was done deliberately.

    So, when the premise of how this story came to be shared via the internet is the subject of a lie, how can anyone believe in (and trust) the protagonists?

    Christine Ann Sands shouted vile words at the top of her voice whilst small children were trying to leave the church and go home. That was child abuse IMO. And nobody thought she should be stopped? Neelu Berry also suggests that she wasn’t intrusive with her challenges to the patrons of the church. I suggest she should review her own video footage.

    And where was Belinda McKenzie? Standing on the side lines! Refusing to be noted as the leader of the pack when the police liaison officers wanted someone to discuss with during the week.

    As for AC – both he and the children’s mother have admitted to physical assaults on the children. Nobody should be allowed to hit children with a metal spaghetti spoon without facing charges for assault. And Belinda McKenzie should be ashamed of herself for dismissing it (outside of the RCoJ) as ‘tapping with a spoon’. Children should NOT be hit with a metal spoon ever!

    This case has attracted some sad individuals who appear to have lost their values regarding child care.

    I only hope that the two children come through this bizarre turn of events with the least emotional and psychiatric damage as is possible now.

    • Mark

      The shouting on the first week at Hampstead CC (as recorded) happened after attendees in the main had left. During the proceeding two hours there was a stong (unchallenged) concencus that this kind of behaviour was inappropriate and counterproductive – unacceptable. I shared my concerns with Belinda at the beginning of the gathering and she stated she’d withdraw if it became disruptive. I said I’d stand with those being attacked and address those who couldn’t or wouldn’t control themselves in the face of what was clearly intimated to the particularly considerate police (liaison) officers.

    • Becky

      “As for AC – both he and the children’s mother have admitted to physical assaults on the children. Nobody should be allowed to hit children with a metal spaghetti spoon without facing charges for assault. And Belinda McKenzie should be ashamed of herself for dismissing it (outside of the RCoJ) as ‘tapping with a spoon’. Children should NOT be hit with a metal spoon ever!”

      When I was at school, both primary and secondary school children (we’re talking 9 to 16 year olds here) were regularly physically hit fully in public view by adults called teachers. One particular man used to pull up nine year old kids by the hair as a punishment for talking in class or doing things that he felt were disruptive. I remember one particular boy being pulled up by the hair so hard that the (male) teacher pulled some of his hair out, simply discarding the clumps of hair in the bin.

      Children were also routinely punched by teachers – whether proven guilty of anything, or not – and, of course, it was still legal until 1985 to whack a kid on the backside or hand with a cane or a shoe. Back in the early ’80s when I went to school, it was commonplace for a teacher to flirt with a 12 year old pupil that they found physically attractive – very openly in class – and, conversely, to ridicule a kid whom they felt was ugly that they didn’t fancy.

      This isn’t ancient history. Similar to the Third Reich in 1970s post-war Germany, this is well within living memory amongst the majority of people in Britain. This is the ‘normal’ upbringing that most people now in their early to late middle age had in Britain. Does this now mean that technically all these teachers who behaved in the above way are now guilty of child abuse?

      • IWTT

        I am the product of a Catholic Church education – and was frequently hit on the knuckles with a 12 inch ruler, and hit on the back of my legs. And I was a child who wanted to please and behave ‘correctly’.

        In Junior 4 (now Yr 10) I was smacked on my bare bottom by a male teacher – in front of 45 other children – when I didn’t remember the ‘inverse and multiply’ rule in mathematics. So I was inverted physically (to the laughter of the class), my brown knickers were pulled up (don’t forget I was inverted) and I was smacked several times on my bare bottom whilst I faced the floor.

        Mr Curtis asked me “will you now remember?” I would have sworn that black was white at that point as I just needed to get out of the situation!

        Everyone in the class had seen my bare bottom – so I was systematically bullied in Secondary school. Thanks Mr Curtis – NOT!

        This is a point in time that still haunts me 50 years later!

      • Becky

        That’s awful IWTT. I’m sorry to read that you went through that and it’s left such lasting damage x

  6. alice moore

    Why did the judge dismiss the medical evidence that the children had been sexually abused? How could she be so sure? Why was there no proper police investigation?

    This is a very strange case and many people are rightly perplexed. Asking questions is not a matter of mentally illness. On the other hand, being sure, when there is no hard evidence to support ones convictions, could be delusional.

    • The judge didn’t dismiss the medical evidence. Why are you suggesting she did ?

      You read what you want to read, what supports what you already believe. You think the judge dismissed the medical evidence ? You’re wrong. It’s just the alternative explanation, that someone else is responsible doesn’t fit with your pre-existing view.

      And that alternative can’t really be gone into in detail for legal rteasons.

      Wake up !

  7. lovethevoid

    So the whole thing was a hoax? The children made all of those allegations up? Or, we are told, they were coached to say what they said. I wouldn’t have been able to come up with something so graphic, disturbing and imaginative as a child unless I was told exactly what to say – even then I don’t think I would’ve been able to do it so eloquently. That is the official narrative, a man gave those two children a broad, extensive, bizarre storyline to say on camera in order to implicate a long list of people in what was essentially alluded to be a peadophile ring, which utilized a ritualistic element in their sexual abuse of children. We are to believe the state in this regard, who tell us that the children either made it up or were coached. No questions asked, if we ask questions, we are mentally ill. This was a hoax, end of story. What was the motive? I’m not denying it, its just that, as a sceptic, I find this verdict very difficult to comprehend. The thing that baffles me the most is that those who accept the official verdict are the most aggressive in defending their position, more so than any of the sceptics that question the way the case was handled and this makes me wonder why there are people so hell-bent on disregarding any notions of suspicion to the point of calling those that question the official narrative ‘mentally ill’. Very strange indeed.

    • The reason why those that accept this is a hoax are adamant is because we can see what terrible harm the perpetuation of this hoax will do to the children.

      Those that continue to argue this are abusing those children right now.

      I found your comment very cheap, factually inaccurate and typical of the foolish or mentally ill cliques but not the evil clique.

      Wise up!

      • lovethevoid

        I didn’t list any ‘facts’, I gave an overview of the case as officially deemed. I agree that the videos being online will harm the children and I thought that from the very beginning, but to me this doesn’t automatically discredit the allegations themselves which is what you seem to be suggesting. If this was all orchestrated then its more likely that it was done by the security services to divert attention away from the establishment pedophile ring that’s coming to light in the media at the moment, rather than some man forcing the children to say what they said, armed with a spoon! I don’t consider myself to be a fool – I don’t accept either narrative because there seems to be little evidence on either side to suggest a clear-cut answer. I just can’t get my head around WHY someone would make all of this up. It doesn’t serve any agenda that I can conceptualize. Unless the man (AC I believe?) had a severe grudge against all of those people named and was mental enough to potentially see jail time himself just to be able to rumble them, I can’t see why else he would do it. I certainly can see no reason why the children would make up the things they said and I’m definitely certain that the Zorro films were nowhere near as graphic as their statements were. Don’t discredit my scepticism as ‘mental illness’ or ‘foolishness’ – it is actually more indicative of foolishness or mental illness to accept what you are told without question and this is what’s happening on both sides.

      • I’m not going to enter into a debate with you. I’ll let the few sane people on Icke bat away these tedious and stupid objections.

        Go sell crazy somewhere else.

      • arthur davies

        …you really are unpleasant gojam, and anyone who has such conviction in their beliefs is delusional….you know no more or less about this case than anyone else who has studied it online and your views are merely opinions not facts!

  8. lovethevoid

    What am I selling? What objections have I made? I merely asked questions and you don’t have the clout to defend yourself. I have nothing to defend, I’ve merely adopted a neutral, yet sceptical position. You’re the one peddling an answer, not me.

    • IWTT

      I agree, we cannot just ‘walk away’ without expressing a stance and opinion. I am responding to an article that GoJam put on his blog – so closing down debate isn’t appropriate IMO.

      I welcomed GoJam’s blog as a starting point – I don’t debate on David Icke at all.

      I don’t have the 100% certainty that GoJam has. I am a human being and subject to making mistakes in my judgement. I have read all the AM supporting ED and AC – but I see child abuse that is not recognised – and accepted – by Sabine McNeill and Belinda McKenzie. I also see interviews conducted by ‘Steve’ on behalf of the police which flaunt the rules and regulations of gathering child testimony.

  9. tdf

    I would have my differences of opinion with this blog on some issues, but for heaven’s sakes, folks. It’s an obvious hoax, taking advantage of mentally ill people AND children. Totally agree with Gojam on this one.

    As for the Icke forum, I am banned from it, but I have looked at the thread they have up discussing this matter, and thankfully here have been two or three sensible & sane posters all along.

  10. How many 8/9 year old children has gojam et al listened to every day talking about their day at school? The behaviour of the children in videos especially the police videos is exactly right. At that age articulate middle class children are very matter of fact but bursting to tell you. The corrections feel right, they want to know you’re listening properly and if you tell someone else, you’ll get it right. The only coaching that went on was the retractions. They’d been away from their Mum and everything that was familiar for weeks. But the remark that really didn’t ring true was one of them asking to stay with the carer until they were 16 – no child of that age can conceive of being 16 except as a huge and rather embarrassing joke (they’d have boobs and stuff!)

  11. newspaceman

    Sarah, I “have” a seven, coming on eight, intelligent, inquisitive and, as his school reports highlight, “articulate with a very high vocabulary”, boy child. Given I have been his main day-time carer since he was 14 months, I would say we are pretty close and have a good open, honest, friendly to the main, relationship. Getting information out of him about his day at school is not straightforward though, he certainly is not “bursting to tell me” very much other than what he thinks is important. For example : “Jimmy peed his pants today in class today”.

    Maybe though, “we” are not “middle class”, although I know, for sure, that there are “yum-mums” in the same position in terms of (lack of) info-sharing. Many yum-mums indeed. Ask we retire to the park at 3.30, one oft hears these, surely middle class ladies question their offspring : “How was school ?”.

    Sebastian “O.K.”.

    Blood out a stone and all that.

    I can get info out the boy but certainly it is not proffered up, one has to bide one’s time and strike when the iron is hot, so to speak. When his Mum asks him anything directly he clams up.

    Last term, in my part time role as vetted school trip helper, we went to Holyrood Palace. One of the children, surely of working class stock, had a packed lunch consisiting “only” of some sort of Nutella chocolate biscuit dip tub, a Milky Way and a Kit Kat. “Three bits of chocolate” he proudly announced on opening his box. The other children looked round. What impressed them most was not the three “bits”, but rather that he had an “ADULT” Kit-Kat, the one with four fingers rather than two

    It appeared to me, that the children longed to be adults, to be grown up. One could maybe reinforce that by noting that padded bras and suchlike are available from high street stores, surely targeting very, very young girls as their captive market. Or that the some of the primary 4s (aged 8) in my boy’s class, carry their belongings in handbags which they clutch to their bodies in the manner of celebrities.


    P.S, I can direct you to an image of the children involved in the hoax where the boy clutches a parrot motif mug; to his right is a cannabis plant. It speaks volumes as does the one with Abraham and Ella in the cannabis plantation, half naked. It’s the sort of image one takes when aged 21, trust me on that.

    P.P.S, It has struck me on writing that maybe there is a satanic child abuse ring at my own boy’s school, hence the reluctance for the pupils to discuss their day. Maybe we should get Sabine et al, and start a fund raising campaign ?

  12. Steve

    I don’t mince my words…that judge puffy or whatever either is involved with the cult or she is a lazy bastard.I think the latter.

  13. Pingback: Hoaxtead Blogs | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  14. Pingback: Charlotte gets the wrong end of the Needle | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  15. David El

    Monumental cover-ups from the top down. Madeleine Mcann, Hollie Greig anyone? To expect impartiality, due diligence and proper investigation from crown agent puppets’ (judges, police, ss, etc) is naive at best. Keep those eyes wide shut folks!