28
Crime Report
Official Collusion & Cover-Up of a Reported Paedophile Cult?
The ‘Whistleblower Kids’ / ‘Hampstead Scandal’
Contents
Brief Description of the ‘Hampstead Case’
The Secrecy of UK Family Courts vs Suspicions ‘in good faith’ of EU Directive 2011/92
Police Use of the Harassment Act
In the Public Interest: the British Public and Internet Community as ‘Legally Competent Authority’
Grounds for suspicion and concern for the children’s safety
Grounds for guilt and proof of innocence, for children’s safety
A Fair Trial based on General Assertions?
Proving Innocence or Confirming Guilt
Remove the Children from Care and Return them to their Russian Grandparents
Judge Pauffley: Professionally Negligent or Criminally Complicit?
In the spirit of the Directive, the British Public and Internet Community have become the ‘legally competent authority’, since the UK authorities have failed two child victims and witnesses who reported their own and the abuse of 18 other ‘special’ children. In the light of the cover-ups of historic abuse, we are urgently seeking ‘Police against Child Abuse’.
The Report uses the ‘Hampstead Scandal’ that had become ‘internet famous’ before Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgment was published with the headline: Satanic ‘cult’ dismissed by judge. It has come to be the public’s widespread opinion that Mrs Justice Pauffley has become a professionally negligent and/or criminally complicit Suspect for the following reasons:
- According to a former Detective Constable of the Metropolitan Police who analysed the Crime Reporting Information System (CRIS) Report, Barnet Police closed the case without “planning, preparation and the consideration of investigative strategies, actions or reviews.”
- Barnet Police made use of the Harassment Act to incriminate the mother, her partner and her McKenzie Friend (lay legal advisor) so that they fled UK jurisdiction. But none of the alleged 70+ abusers have been investigated, even though the children had described detailed distinguishing marks of their private parts that are easily verifiable.
- Instead, the ethos of secrecy of UK Family Courts was used by Barnet Council and subsequently by the High Court of the Family Division to conceal and cover-up serious crimes and to disadvantage the mother and favour the allegedly abusive father.
- The legal team of the Metropolitan Police colluded in the failure to investigate to Professional Standards by submitting their unacceptable ‘Grounds of Resistance’ in response to the mother’s Judicial Review to re-open the case.
- High Court Judge Pauffley did not make any effort to dissolve all grounds for suspicion and concern for the safety of all the children involved.
- Neither did she affirm appropriate grounds for the guilt of the supposed abuser, namely Mr Abraham Christie, or proof of innocence of any of the alleged 70+ abusers, who were named by the children, independently of each other, and with persuasive consistency across different adults who interview