I’ve been accused, in the past, of political bias because around the time of the Iraq War (2003) I joined the Liberal Democrats. I went on to become a town councillor for a short while. I resigned from the party in 2010. However, anyone who has read The Needle regularly will know that these suggestions of bias are completely without foundation. I’ve been equally critical of individuals regardless of their politics and I’ll support anyone who is genuine about supporting survivors of child sexual abuse and better future child safeguarding.
Today I’m going to explain why I do not support the Liberal Democrat candidate for Birmingham Yardley John Hemming who has represented that constituency as MP since 2005. I’d particularly like Liberal Democrat supporters in Yardley to take note.
As you can see from the letterhead above John Hemming was a patron of the Association of McKenzie Friends a position he did not resign until 22nd January this year and only then because he felt that the McKenzie Friends might be confused with other groups he was working with and not because of the inappropriate behaviour of that group. Austin Mitchell who is also listed as a patron is not standing in the upcoming general election and therefore his poor judgement with regard to this is not now a consideration for the electorate.
There is no doubt in my mind that the apparent credibility that John Hemming bestowed on The Association of McKenzie Friends through his patronage allowed that group to cause far more damage to child safeguarding generally and specifically in the case of two young children referred to in this judgement HERE, than they might otherwise have done.
While John Hemming was patron of the Association of McKenzie Friends that group enabled the online dissemination of videos of the two children aged 8 and 9 years old. The children had been violently coerced by the mother’s boyfriend, Abraham Christie, into making false statements alleging that scores of innocent people in Hampstead had been involved in a Satanic paedophile ring. The Association of McKenzie Friends were supporting the mother and her boyfriend, both are currently wanted for questioning by the Metropolitan Police.
John Hemming did nothing.
Later, a few months back, while Mr Hemming was still patron, the Association of McKenzie Friends enabled the online dissemination of highly confidential court documents which included police video evidence of the interviews with the two children and even more disturbingly official reports of medical examinations done on the two children.
To date, John Hemming has made no public comment regarding his involvement with this group. He has not condemned their behaviour and he has not himself apologised.
Sabine McNeill, pictured with John Hemming above is also wanted for questioning by UK police
I have noted on The Needle before, HERE, that the Association of McKenzie Friends have offered to sell CSA victim’s details and that at least one has past associations with convicted paedophiles. Sadly, it is not unheard of for those with an unhealthy sexual interest in children to seek to become involved with campaigns to protect children. We’ve seen this before and no doubt we’ll see it again.
I note also Graham Wilmer’s recent tweets referring to John Hemming. It would appear that he feels he is also unable to support him.
I’ve stated before that I no longer vote but that does not change the certainty that someone will be elected on May 7th as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Yardley. I hope any natural Liberal Democrat supporters living in that constituency who read this will take note.
I know nothing about the other candidates standing in Yardley but I’ve no doubt that some will demonstrate better judgement than John Hemming has in the past
Here is a list of the other candidates standing in the Birmingham Yardley constituency..
37 responses to “Why I Do Not Support John Hemming”
Pingback: Why do I worry about John Hemming? | Child Protection Resource
Reblogged this on adeybob's Blog and commented:
This perfectly illustrates, for me, that there is great danger with letting passion for a debate allowing the debater – good or bad – to ‘crank up’ said debate with backing from influential people, and by backing duff horses.
The Holly affair showed us, anyone with eyes, that a big deal can be manufactured by a bit of snow starting a massive avalanche. Why didn’t McKenzie et al see that too?
I personally put a lot of faith in Sabine and Mr Hemming, as I have an interest in the forced adoption debate; Sabine particularly, because she was an ‘enemy of my enemy’ – and showed a great deal of passion for the safety of kids in front of a european-wide panel; chillingly ironic though that may be in light of recent accounts.
Now, not only do I realise that the forced adoption debate is ‘rigged’ and riddled with too many angry, rather than heartbroken, parents – I also know now that a couple of my former heroes have shown themselves to be foolish in some of their assertions…if not blind when it came to watching out for very obvious and advertised pit-falls presented by the circling sharks and the truth-seekers alike.
Were they ignorant? I would say on the whole, no.
Does this discredit them? I would say, on the whole, yes.
Does this mean they are ‘bad people’? That is a question for those who believe that there is no excuse to hurt, or watch the hurt, of some kids while trying to ‘save’ kids.
Sorry but this whole business is leaving a nasty taste in the mouth. Regardless of politics I don’t think this man can be held responsible for any wrongdoing or perceived wrongdoing of an organisation which he used to patronise.
If, as you say, you are concerned about the welfare of the children involved then it seems incumbent upon you to stop blogging about it.
I didn’t get any of that.
The Needle team! Oh how I’ve missed this site, great to see you’re all still keeping up the great work, and not losing the way. (don’t ask where I’ve been).
:D let me make a psychic prediction… a few psychic predictions!
– Allison Saunders to resign as Director of Prosecutions of CPS this week.
– A complete U-turn on the Lord Janner decision by CPS within a fortnight. Not exactly a complete U-turn, but a ‘trial of facts’ will be established, where Janner is still considered to ill to actually stand trial, but survivors have their chance to give their accounts/evidence in court.
– Possibly a court hearing to determine whether Janner should face third party ‘dementia test’… but Janners possibly dead within two months… but the ‘trial of facts’ should (WILL) still continue in the event of his dearly departed absence.
If anyone can see any ‘positives’ in this sad state of affairs… lessons are/to be learnt, precedents are/to be set, and it has really hit home (this and last few months) to the public and mainstream media just how desperate ‘The Establishment are to bury all this ‘Westminster child abuse’ stuff. All respect to Leicestershire Police past and present (most of them)
Sunday night track! Nas feat Olu Dara – Bridging the Gap
oh and the Kincora scandal to be added to Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry… ‘IF’ a Labour Government gets into power… no-one can predict the next general election (not even Murdoch!). I would think a Labour Govt would be better to handle The Inquiry… we’ll see
well quite..Gobjam does sing far too loudly doesn’t he?Have you chewed part of his ear off,yet?
You see,Mr Gobjam just loves dishing out insults too,you know,without any foundation.So we just dish them back,dont we Gobjam?
Sounds fair to us.
Hey,Gobnob Sawyer,have you heard yet,about what Michael Mansfield is up to,hmm?Or are you waiting for a Daily Fail exclusive,so that you can then write about it to your 3 fans as an explosive but disagreeable scoop?lol.
Hi Shirlz welcome back.
hey gobbo,not heard what Michael Mansfield QC has been up to,then?Too busy making party political broadcasts,are you?What “an” totally clueless uninformed dickhead you really are.Keep on reading the Daily Fail for your exclusive info,sad little copshop mouthpiece.
Great to be back thankyou Needle team… I was just catching up on the past seven months of posts from yourselves (I did like the ‘Crufts murder mystery’ ;D it did make me laugh, which I needed!)
… If there’s one thing prison taught me… the ones who sing the loudest are usually the weakest! (only reinforced what I already knew from past employment!)
The last person who spoke to me like that regarding such topics (face to face though… not over a blog) lost a piece of his ear… And this ‘copshop mouthpiece’ ended up serving 7 months in prison for it. I admit I did once make a successful application to The Metropolitan Police many moons ago… but fate stepped in…
and Im a ‘Guardianista’ and proud of it thankyou very bloody much!
I will writ a private email in sine if the specifics because it involves a third party but will make a couple of observations.
You should always be cautions about what politicians and most people say they will do and concentrate on what they have done., If you employ someone you look at their previous employment record in detail with attention any period when they were not employed plus whether they have the qualifications, training and experience to undertake the task proposed task.
Secondly politicians are human beings having the same failings
Political parties are hierarchical, competitive and tribal and you don’t get to leading without being tougher and you have to be tougher to stay where you are.
to publicly announce a change of opinion and renounce mistaken beliefs based on becoming aware of further data is the basis of peer reviewed research.
the hampstead fable has been shown to have no internal or external logic and the actions of those who created and promoted it are such that they have done harm to both the individuals involved and to the quest for truth and justice.
as far as those who were mistaken in matters of fact,logic or bone fides failing to say “i was mistaken”is as wrong as continuing to say”this is correct”once one knows of ones mistakes .
as a personal observation with regard to these matters i would be pleased to be wrong more often.
Why I Do Not Support John
Hemming’s astonishing silence on his previous support for those carnival freaks & sideshow grifters can, perhaps, be better understood by referring to the fabled “Protocols Of The Elders Of Aguja”.
Long held to be a twisted fabrication designed to blusterily mangle the umbrella of respect beneath which an allegedly downtrodden group shelter, new information now coming to light suggests that the “Protocols” did, in fact, exist all along. And their study leads us to a new & chilling understanding of how societal norms of behaviour were – and are – cast aside by the Agujas…
Taking Hemming as an example, let us see where the Protocols lead. We will use the most flattering possible explanation for his mindblowing allegiance with the crackpot clowns: that he genuinely believed them to be honest, decent fellows in possession of explosive, bombshell information to begin with… but at point X he came to his senses and realised he’d been the dopiest of dufi.
Those of us NOT belonging to the Tribe of Aguja would be in no doubt as to the honourable course of action – an instant & sincere apology, frankly made. As all amongst us make mistakes, we oughtn’t to begrudge the return into the fold of that black-sheep boy who, having once lost his way, blinded by the gimcrak glitter of brummagem tat, realises his error, falling down on his knees at our door.
Yes, OUR pathway to redemption is brightly lit & easily followed. But not so that of the Aguja!
Those pernicious protocols are a shyster’s saviour, a snaking trail of drawn-out dissembling through an overgrown weed-ridden bog, where those who nobly try to follow disappear, dragged to the depths… A solitary shoe sadly sinking – did you see it?
Yes, it is so. For the Protocols are plain & cold:
‘When presented with irrefutable proof that the load of old pony you’ve been pushing is, indeed, ‘complete crap’, simply shrug your shoulders, clam up for a year or two, cross your fingers & wait. Most importantly, do NOT apologise! Never!!! Then, when an inordinate length of time has passed, admit it with a nonchalent excuse for the tardiness: “It didn’t seem necessary before.” And trust in the gullibility of the non-Aguja.’
And this is why…
John did nothing.
English translation, please.
Hello again, Owen.
If you click on my name & “join the dots” all will become, well, at least a bit clearer.
Speaking of “Johns”, though – do you remember our last encounter over at Hencke’s drop-in centre? And how he started drinking from the same well as the patients there? Well, the card whose honour Hencke felt so obliged to defend that he resorted to implying that I was somehow involved with an ancient religious order or summat was recently spotted by myself on one of the more well known but totally scurrilous sites that – guess what? – is promoting the rubbish discussed in the article above, complete with photographs & videos. Great stuff! What a gent!
And not only that, he has once again got some top-secret info on yet another “ring”… but Official Secrets Act (or whatever) is stopping him from spilling those beans. This is at least the fourth he has claimed to know about! Ah, those investigative journos certainly seem to have trouble in the old arse-from-elbow department…
On a slightly related point to your request for a translation, you might also remember Hencke’s blood-from-a-stone attitude when it came to correcting his misleading rubbish about myself, and how it only happened because I keep my records in order. An attitude shared by some others, too, it would seem. So be it!
Your point up above about having “Hemmings out of the new Parliament”: don’t you think that focusing on a single-issue is a really rubbish way of choosing a democratic representative? I’m not of the mind that every member of every party is an evil, useless shit whose sole desire is to tuck-in to the trough of the public-purse with vampiric gusto; some of them genuinely labour away for years on spectacularly uninteresting points of legislation that, even so, may have a real impact on many people’s lives. And they do so knowing full well that their long battle for reform/justice will never likely even make it into ANY newspaper, let alone a garish front-page spread in the bloody ‘People’.
So, I would hope that the electorate take those tunnel-vision specs off before casting their vote.
But, having said all that, Hemmings giving his name/support to that bunch of crooks is really hard to fathom; long, looong before this current madness took off I had cause to check-out the players and it was a five-minute task to see what nutters they were. Really, five minutes.
The only explanation I can think of is that the horrendous Belinda McKenzie’s fortuitous discovery that she could hoodwink people into confusing her ‘Friends of Belinda McKenzie’ group of bogus shamsters with the totally legitimate idea – though I’d prefer a real lawyer! – of ‘McKenzie Friends’ also pulled the wool over Hemmings’ eyes. (She really lucked-out with her surname!)
Oh, and I’ll pop this in too, although I’m not sure the guv’nor permits such links (there be truth ahead, you see!).
If you remember we disagreed about Danczuk. And you thought I was exaggerating. I wasn’t. He is a liar, and a compulsive one at that. Scroll up, scroll down, the result is the same. Still, at least he’s leading a valiant charge against the problem of the pre-pubescent primary school padeos, eh?!? Strewth… Come to your senses, Rochdale!!!
Thanks you for the directions, Bandini. I clicked on your name as instructed but unfortunately got lost again somewhere around the underwear in the boil-wash programme. Plain cooking tends to be more digestible than over-egged cake. ( Seems I can’t Reply to your Reply, so posting here. )
Christ, Owen! Do you take your martinis extra, EXTRA dry by any chance?
You can leave your tie on, but open a button at least, eh?!?
I don’t share your fondness for ration-age recipes; suet puddings, pound cake, a rainbow of beige – no thanks! But my request for Gojam to justify his claim was as plain as flour. So roll up sleeves, pull your pinny on & sift the silence.
…and this little piggy went wee wee wee all the way home.
I’m sure that I can find lots of reasons to attack Hemmings and Mitchell, on the face of it they do seem to have associated themselves with an outfit that Gojam rightly condemns given the Association’s conduct.
I’ll try not to make an habit of this but we have all condemned Westminster wholesale, a couple of honourable exceptions notwithstanding, Hemmings and Mitchell appear to have lined themselves up with what initially looked like a “Public Interest Advocacy” campaigning on behalf of abused children and against “Cover ups”, perhaps they should have either defended their positions or baled out earlier but they do seem to have started with honourable intentions on a course we all want. We can’t have it both ways.
I have checked my email and I said to you (on 24th February):
“I have advised Sabine McNeill that I think she is wrong about this case. (also a while ago, but this year)”
I also said to you (on 23rd February):
“I do think they have got the wrong end of the stick on the case you refer to (my request to be removed as a patron preceded this, but their actions in respect of this case would have been good cause for me to ask to be removed had I not already – to my knowledge – been removed).”
Please stop misrepresenting the situation.
I’ve not misrepresented the situation.
Those were private correspondence which I’m happy for you to post but which would have been inappropriate for myself to publish.
I’ve specifically said that you have not made any public comment regarding your association with the group whose members have been involved in questionable endeavours previous to the Hampstead Hoax. That is NOT a misrepresentation.
I’m entitled to my view and my view is that Birmingham Yardley would be better served by a new MP.
You asked for comments for publication. You decided to not publish part of my comments. You then complain that I have made no statement (although any statement would be essentially covered by the comments I made to you).
You cannot claim that my email was confidential because you have published part of the comment. Your email was the only one asking for any comment about this. Most people understand that if I have withdrawn as a patron (and as I said the way the Hampstead case was handled would have caused me to withdraw as patron if I had not already done so for another reason) then there is nothing more I can do.
Sabine has done good work on raising issues with the petitions committee of the European Union and that is not the only good thing she has done. On this occasion in my view she got it wrong.
I’m not suggesting the emails were confidential only that I felt it was inappropriate to post them under the circumstances.
“Sabine has done good work on raising issues with the petitions committee of the European Union and that is not the only good thing she has done. On this occasion in my view she got it wrong.”
But it isn’t just this issue she and that group of people have got it wrong. They have past form. It’s a conspiracy cottage industry founded on false child abuse stories which implicate innocent people. Stories that undermine genuine survivors.
Right now she is promoting and supporting individuals that admit that they view child sexual abuse images.
Are you still in contact with Sabine ? Have you advised her to return to the UK and talk to the police who are eager to talk to her ?
Ignore him,John,sad little attentiion-seeking disinfo mouth Gobjam is ALWAYS misrepresenting situations.
Try arguing your case, you can’t be seen as a serious threat he lets you post at will.
Frankly this seems pretty perverse. Setting aside the issue of party politics, Hemmings is one of the MPs who has worked harder than anyone to get the CSA Inquiry as high up the Parliamentary agenda as it is now. He’s also stuck his neck out over Goodman and Jersey.
You don’t know for sure why he might have taken his eye off the ball over MacKenzie Friends, but it doesn’t matter, you want Hemmings out of the new Parliament just when it’s important the Inquiry becomes a live issue again? I’m afraid the logic escapes me.
I stand by my recommendation that voters in Yardley elect a different MP.
As a former Liberal Democrat member I’d be happy to agree with you but this isn’t about party politics and I wouldn’t have written and posted this if I didn’t think it was important.
I certainly didn’t imagine party politics was involved, clearly it’s a matter of principle, but I can’t help but think your justifiable concern over the Friends of MacKenzie has got in the way of your appreciation of the wider CSA picture.
I promise you that it hasn’t.
“I’ve been accused, in the past, of political bias because just before the Iraq War (2003) I joined the Liberal Democrats. I went on to become a town councillor for a short while. I resigned from the party in 2010.”
Are you now committed to revolution in this country?
I personally believe that only once the system no longer has a democratic mandate will there be real and necessary change.
Becky, sell this revolution to me. Follow most revolutions backwards and you end up bumping into a mischievous Foreign State a cabal of Banksters or both. Plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose !
I’ve disagreed with you more than once, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you have disagreed with me a lot more than that.
I have never detected any political bias from you, you appear to tolerate all shades of opinion (it would be impossible to agree with them all !).
The name ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ at first sight would appear to be an admirable candidate for patronage, for those that don’t know a ‘McKenzie Friend’ is an assistant (without the right of audience) to a litigant in person or a defendant in a court case.
Could the Patrons have misunderstood given the title of the group?
Is the ‘Association of McKenzie Friends’ associated with just this one issue (Hampstead) ?
I make these comments in the interests of fairness despite having to fight intensely against my innate dislike of politicos generally.
I hold no brief for either Hemming or Mitchell.
Remember that the same people were involved in the Holly Greig Hoax. Hemming must have been aware.
Pingback: Why I Do Not Support John Hemming | Alternative News Network