John Hemming and Vicky Haigh

In April this year I took a bit of risk and published a limited amount of information about an ongoing legal matter, a rather unpleasant child custody case, despite being aware that some of the information I posted was likely to have been covered by reporting restrictions and this could, at least hypothetically, leave me wide open to a charge of contempt of court.

The article I put together and published on 27 April 2011 can be viewed in full here and I’m now pleased to be able to say that my decision to place this information into the public domain, and the reasoning behind it, has been fully vindicated:

In April, Hemming raised Haigh’s case in the Commons on a point of order. “Vicky Haigh, a horse trainer and former jockey, was the subject of an attempt by Doncaster council to imprison her for speaking at a meeting in parliament,” he told John Bercow, the Speaker.

Hemming said that because Haigh had not been jailed, he assumed the case was not sub judice. But Bercow said that it was his duty to stop MPs discussing matters that were sub judice in the Commons, and that Hemming should raise the matter with him in private.

Haigh has been involved in a bitter custody battle with her former partner, David Tune, which has involved court proceedings taking place in private.

But on Monday, in an unusual move, Sir Nicholas Wall, the president of the family division of the high court, took the decision to name all the adults in the case because Haigh had manufactured “scandalous” allegations about Tune abusing their daughter, referred to in court as X.

“Allegations of sexual abuse were first made by the mother and not by X,” he said: “These were false and the mother knew them to be false.” Wall said that he was lifting the ban on the adults being named so that Tune could “tell the world” he was not a paedophile.

One thing I didn’t do at the time I posted my own commentary was name any of the adult parties involved in this case – I’ll happily take a risk or two in the interests of justice but not stupid risks – but with this latest ruling by Sir Nicholas Wall I can now state for the record that that commentary does indeed relate to Vicky Haigh who, over a period of three and half years or so, made a series of false allegations of child sexual abuse against her former partner, David Tune, in an effort to prevent his having any access to their daughter. Back in April, I provided the following summary of the court’s findings in relation to these allegations, which I extracted from a supposed chronology of the case put together by one of Haigh’s supporters, Elizabeth Watson:

1. [The child] has not been sexually abused by the father, or at all.

2. The allegations of sexual abuse were made first by the mother, not by [the child], they were false and the mother knew them to be false.

3. As a result of inappropriate pressure and prompting, [the child] came to make and believe the allegations.

4. Once [the child] adopted the allegations, the mother may have deluded herself that they were true.

5. [The child] suffered actual and significant emotional harm.

Watson has now been jailed for nine months for contempt of court:

Meanwhile, the investigator, Elizabeth Watson, was found to have breached an order preventing reporting of the case and was given a nine-month jail term after being found to be in contempt.

Watson, of Bournemouth, Dorset, sent “aggressive, intimidating” e-mails to council staff involved in the case which also found their way on to websites, and “compromised the well-being” of a child, said Sir Nicholas.

Watson defaced copies of court orders with “childish scribblings” but “knew precisely what she was doing” and “thought herself above the law”.

He jailed Watson – who gave her name as “Elizabeth of the Watson Family” and claimed to be an “investigator” and a “Montessori-trained teacher” with a background in “child psychology” – after disclosing details of the custody battle.

The court heard that Watson – who told the court yesterday that she was “most sorry” and suggested that she had been “badly advised” and “misguided” – was asked to help with the custody case by the child’s mother, Victoria Haigh.

Watson had sent emails which identified parties in the case and criticised social workers and police.

She had referred to “social disservices” and “abductees” who “snatched children” and “tortured innocent parents” and written about “nationwide child snatching reaching epidemic proportions”.

Watson’s online CV,  a copy of which I’ve stored here using Freezepage, makes no mention whatsoever of any background in child psychology or training as a Montessori teacher, indeed her recent interests amount to not much more than quackery and get-rich-quick schemes, a combination which suggest that she is best avoided at all costs even without noting her apparent reliance on the old ‘freeman on the land’ delusion:

The ‘investigator’ and ‘child psychologist’ Elizabeth Watson apparently referred to herself as ‘Elizabeth of the Watson family’ – an indicator that she may adhere to the delusion of the ‘freeman on the land’ brigade, who decline to accept jurisdiction of the law courts on anything other than their own terms, which are needless to say, entirely at odds with centuries of public jurisprudence and based on rather peculiar interpretations.

Getting back to Haigh, the salient points of this case are:

1. For fully three and half year she sought prevent her daughter’s father from seeing the child by means of a series of false allegations of child sexual abuse which the courts have found have no basis in fact. The so-called chronology of the case put together by Watson appears to suggest that for at least part of that period, the child’s father, David Tune, was subject to a police investigation relating to these allegations.

2. Haigh coached her daughter into making these false allegations to the extent that the child began to spontaneously repeat the allegations. At the time that Watson’s ‘chronology’ was published, in April this year, the document indicates that the child was 7 years old at the time, putting the child’s age at a little over 2 years old when the ‘coaching’ started.

3. Haigh and her supporters have persisted with these false allegations despite their being flatly rejected by the courts with the result that, in September/October 2010, the child was placed into the care of the local authority. The child now lives with her father under a care plan put together by the local authority.

As Sir Nicholas Wall noted during this week’s proceedings:

Two judges examined the case at previous High Court hearings and both found that Tune was not a paedophile and had not sexually abused his daughter, he said, adding: “The first judge found that allegations of sexual abuse made against the father of a young child were not just untrue but manufactured by the child’s mother, who then caused her daughter to repeat them.

“Because the mother was wholly incapable of fostering a relationship between her daughter and the child’s father, refused to accept the judge’s findings and continued to assert that the father was a paedophile, a second judge found that her mother had caused the child significant harm.”

He added: “The child’s mother is wholly unable to accept the court’s verdict and, with the misguided assistance of Elizabeth Watson has unlawfully and in breach of court orders put into the public domain via e-mail and the internet a series of unwarranted and scandalous allegations about the father and others.

“She has repeated the untruth that the father is a paedophile and – without a scintilla of evidence – has attacked the good faith of all the professionals who had had any contact with the case.

“I have read all the papers in the case carefully. The father of the child, who may be named, is not a paedophile and he has not sexually abused his daughter. Two judges have so found.”

He added: “I have come to the conclusion that … I should … give a public judgment in which I explain, having read all the papers in the case, that I have reached the same conclusion as the two previous judges.”

Sir Nicholas added: “These proceedings have had a serious effect on the life of the father and have threatened the stability of the child. Her mother’s actions are wholly contrary to her interests.

“The father is entitled to tell the world, and the world is entitled to know, that he is not a paedophile, that he has not sexually abused his daughter and that the allegations made against him are false.”

My own interest in this case stemmed, of course, from the involvement of John Hemming MP who, in April this year, used parliamentary privilege to name Haigh in the House of Commons in breach of an injunction preventing the reporting of the case or the naming of any of the parties involved in it. Hemming’s response to this latest turn of events is, as is ever the case, wholly self-serving and disingenuous given the nature and consequences of his own conduct:

Yesterday’s court hearing brought into the public domain more about the case relating to Vicky Haigh.

It, however, has not brought into the public domain all of the issues relating to this case and the judiciary retain control of those aspects of the case.

I am not making any statement as to the details of the underlying care issue. The Judge who took the hearing yesterday was also the judge in P, C and S v The United Kingdom. The link gives the case report from ECtHR on Bailii. In this case the decision was found to be in contravention of a fair trial on a procedural basis.

The same judge (Sir Nicholas Wall) was also a judge in the case which is now RP v The United Kingdom. I have considerable concerns about the way that particular case was handled by the judges concerned.

It remains that I am making no public comment about the underlying care case in respect of Ms Haigh. However,

1. Even if the court’s decision is 100% accurate – does that warrant the removal at birth of Ms Haigh’s baby. I don’t think so.

2. Is it right to set out to imprison someone on the basis of what they have said to a Member of Parliament. I don’t think so.

We now have someone imprisoned for 6 months for recording a court hearing and someone else imprisoned for 9 months for talking about court secrets. I think these sentences are excessive at least. In terms of the recording of a court hearings this always appears to be more about protecting the revenues of the transcription services than ensuring the fairness of trials. We do need to review the law from the perspective of allowing independent recording of the audio of court hearings.

Hemming’s conduct throughout deserves much greater scrutiny.

To begin with, Hemming telegraphed his intention to breach the injunction several days before he disclosed Haigh’s name on a point of order in the House of Commons and, whether he realised this at the time or not, this allowed Haigh’s supporters time to prepare and publish their so-called chronology of the case, which not only repeats, in considerable detail, the false allegations made against the father together with a stream of equally false allegations of corruption and other misconduct levelled against the local authority and some its employees, medical professionals, court officials and just about anyone else who didn’t take Haigh’s side in the case. This chronology is semi-anonymised, in the sense that all parties are referred to by initials, but the initials used are those of their real names and this makes its very easy to identify most of the individuals named in the document if one knows the name of one of the main parties to the case – Vicky Haigh – and the name of the local authority involved in the case – Doncaster.

This is, of course, the information that Hemming put into the public domain in a point of order raised at 5:26pm on 26th April 2011 – the final pdf version of the ‘chronology’ was, according to its document properties, created at 5:12pm on 26th April 2011 which, for me, raises an interesting question about the possibility of a degree of co-ordination between Hemming and Haigh and her supporters. Hemming may well have been unaware of the fact that Haigh’s supporters intended to publish this document, but the timings do at least suggest that Haigh and her supporters may well have been aware, within a matter of minutes, of precisely when Hemming intended to make his move in the House and raise his point of order. It, therefore, seems to me that there are serious questions to be asked as to whether Hemming was in contact with Haigh or any of her supporters on the day that he made his statement in the House and that this a matter that the House of Commons’ authorities should investigate as, whether he realised it or not at the time, Hemming’s statement appears to have helped to facilitate the actions for which Elizabeth Watson has no been committed to prison for nine months.

It’s also well worth noting that, having named her in the House, Hemming went to some lengths to garner as much publicity for Vicky Haigh as possible, even to the extent of posting her name in comments in a discussion of his actions at Carl Gardner’s blog despite Carl having made it perfectly clear that he did not wish anyone to name any of the partiesin comments,  or link to articles naming the parties.

Hemming’s response to Carl’s refusal to allow publication of Haigh’s name was to have a hissy fit and take his ball home.

By way of a complete contrast, a link to my original article on this case posted at the ReStirred forum, which Hemming frequents, resulted in Hemming using an allegation that my original post was in contempt of court to shut down any discussion of its contents, causing the forum’s owners to incur legal costs in the process – censorship is clearly not quite such a bad thing when it prevents his own conduct being called in question.

Moving back to Hemming’s remarks, he begins by stating that:

It, however, has not brought into the public domain all of the issues relating to this case and the judiciary retain control of those aspects of the case.

Given Hemming’s conduct in prior cases, this can reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to manufacture/sustain the impression of a conspiracy where none exists, from which he moves on to one of his favorite citations:

I am not making any statement as to the details of the underlying care issue. The Judge who took the hearing yesterday was also the judge in P, C and S v The United Kingdom. The link gives the case report from ECtHR on Bailii. In this case the decision was found to be in contravention of a fair trial on a procedural basis.

The plaintiffs in this case were awarded 12,000 Euros in compensation for a procedural breach of article 6.1 of ECHR after they were denied time to secure legal representation for the final stages of an adoption hearing – the plaintiffs were represented up to the point at which the child was placed for adoption, severing their parental rights, at which point their own lawyers withdrew from the case on the ground that the plaintiffs were refusing to proceed in a reasonable manner. Noticeably, ECtHR did not find fault with the proceedings leading up to the placement nor did they challenge the judge’s assessment that delaying the actual adoption proceedings to allow the plaintiffs time to secure legal counsel would not have changed the outcome of the case.

The same judge (Sir Nicholas Wall) was also a judge in the case which is now RP v The United Kingdom. I have considerable concerns about the way that particular case was handled by the judges concerned.

This is, of course, the case in which Hemming acted personally as a McKenzie friend to RP only to be torn off several strips by Wall:

88. I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming’s position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them.

125. Mr. Hemming’s allegation that HJ is part of an “evil” system only warrants comment because it comes from a Member of Parliament, and thus from a person in a responsible public position whom one ought to be able to trust only to make serious accusations when they are based on evidence. I am astonished that somebody in Mr. Hemming’s position should have seen fit to put such a disgraceful allegation into the public domain. I reject it unreservedly.

127. In my judgment, the arguments advanced by Mr Hemming in this case are ill-informed and tendentious. They are contradicted by the evidence, and must be rejected. I think this most unfortunate. Nobody who works in the Family Justice System regards it as perfect: most of us see it as under-resourced and struggling to deal with the work loads thrust upon it. Constructive criticism, particularly from those in a position to bring about change, is to be welcomed. I am myself in no doubt that the system must change and adapt, and I have spoken many times in public in support of my belief that there needs to be greater transparency in order to combat the partial, tendentious and inaccurate criticisms made against the system. I therefore welcome the opportunity provided by this case to demonstrate that the system has operated properly, and that the criticisms made are unfounded.

168. As to Mr. Hemming, my judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged, and speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence.

Wall’s most damning assessment of Hemming’s conduct is, however, to be found in paragraph 164 of the ruling:

164. The only postscript I would wish to add to my substantive judgment on this point is that at the heart of this case, as with so many family cases, lies a human tragedy: the premature and unconsidered birth of a disabled child, and a mother who is plainly incapable of caring for her, however much she may want to. However, the danger of the mother’s approach, reinforced as it has been, in my judgment, by Mr Hemming’s partial and tendentious advice, is that it has been entirely adult focused. Not once in his argument did he mention the welfare of KP. His emphasis, and that of RP was entirely on her rights and the alleged wrongs which had been done to her.

Hemming’s lack of regard for the welfare of children is clearly evident in his next set of remarks:

It remains that I am making no public comment about the underlying care case in respect of Ms Haigh. However,

1. Even if the court’s decision is 100% accurate – does that warrant the removal at birth of Ms Haigh’s baby. I don’t think so.

Is he fucking kidding?

To recap, Haigh not only made a stream of false allegations against her daughter’s father, claiming throughout that he had been sexually abusing the child, but she coached the child – who appears to have been only 2-3 years old when this all started – to repeat those same allegations to the extent that the child began to repeat them spontaneously and, in the opinion of the court, ” [the child] came to make and believe the allegations.”

That is not just coaching – its not even M&S coaching – it amounts to brainwashing her own daughter to the point where it would appear that the child began to believe that she had been abused by her own father. That is serious psychological abuse and demonstrates an utterly callous disregard for the welfare and personal well-being and development of the child and yet Hemming seems to think that this is insufficient grounds for social workers to suspect that a child born to Haigh earlier this year might be at risk of similar abuse, given that Haigh has continued to make false allegations against the father of her first child, allegations that have now been flatly rejected by three High Court judges.

Without sight of Wall’s full ruling from this week, I am unfortunately constrained from commenting further at this point save to note that, based on the’chronology’ produced by Elizabeth Watson, it would be fair to say that the courts did inquire after Haigh’s state of mind and that Watson is/was clearly unhappy with the assessment provided by at least one of medical professionals who provided the courts with an evaluation.

As for Hemming’s second point

2. Is it right to set out to imprison someone on the basis of what they have said to a Member of Parliament. I don’t think so.

Let’s be absolutely clear about the full scope and limitations of parliamentary privilege as it applies to this matter, as Hemming is clearly incapable of providing an honest and accurate account on this point.

What is clearly privileged is:

1. Private consultations and correspondence between a Member of Parliament and a constituent, including privately held meetings.

2. Statements made in the House of Commons and recorded in Hansard.

3. Statements made to Parliamentary Select Committees, orally or in writing, which are published or broadcast as official proceedings of the House.

None of these apply, in any sense, to Vicky Haigh’s actions when visiting parliament to attend a meeting of Hemming’s All-Party Group on Family Law and the Court of Protection, where Hemming is currently the Vice-Chair. To quote the Parliamentary website:

All-Party Groups (APGs) are informal cross-party groups that have no official status within Parliament. They are essentially run by and for Members of the Commons and Lords, although many groups involve individuals and organisations from outside Parliament in their administration and activities.

The proceedings and activities of All-Party Groups have no official status in parliament and do not, therefore, attract parliamentary privilege, a fact of which Hemming, as a member of Parliament since 2005, should be fully aware. Haigh did not just speak to an MP, she addressed a meeting of Hemming’s All-Party Group at which members of the public were present, in breach of reporting restrictions which forbade her from speaking publicly about her case, restriction which were – no doubt – imposed in part to prevent her repeating the false allegations she had repeatedly made over the course of four and half years about her oldest child’s father. That she was subsequently hauled before a court for contempt and could have been jailed – even though she wasn’t – was inevitably given her actions and it entirely dishonest of Hemming to attempt to suggest otherwise by placing his own tendentious interpretation on parliamentary privilege whe he knows, or should know perfectly well, that meetings of All-Party Groups are not subject to privilege, even when held within the precints of Parliament.

We now have someone imprisoned for 6 months for recording a court hearing and someone else imprisoned for 9 months for talking about court secrets. I think these sentences are excessive at least.

The first case to which Hemming refers is that of Norman Scarth who was jailed for six months for contempt for attempting to record a court hearing without permission from the judge. On the limited amount of information available, Scarth appears to be one of life’s – cough – eccentrics and was jailed in 2001 for six years, at the age of 75, for attacking a bailiff with a chainsaw, an act with the trial judge believed was motivated by a desire to obtain a platform to air his grievances against the police and judiciary. Six months may seem harsh given his age (85) but as Scarth’s name turns up on Google in conjunction with other known conspiracy nuts, including Maurice Kirk, and there are no independent reports of the case which resulted in him being sent down, its impossible to judge the merits of the sentence as its not clear what the actual hearing he tried to record was about or  what else he might have done to piss the judge off at the time.

What is revealing, however, is Hemming’s comment on Scarth’s case, which is redolent of Hemming’s own brand of conspiraloonacy:

In terms of the recording of a court hearings this always appears to be more about protecting the revenues of the transcription services than ensuring the fairness of trials. We do need to review the law from the perspective of allowing independent recording of the audio of court hearings.

Remember, Hemming also thinks that social services departments are ‘stealing’ babies to put them up for adoption simply for profit.

As for Watson, she wasn’t jailed for talking about ‘court secrets’, she was jailed for repeating false allegations that have repeatedly been rejected by the courts and aggressively smearing the reputations of just about anyone involved in the case who didn’t take Haigh’s side, although it would appear that Sir Nicholas Wall did consider the option of declaring Watson to be mentally-ill, in which I would presume that she would have been sectioned rather than jailed.

The one positive to emerge from this whole sorry mess is that John Mann, the Labour MP for Bassetlaw, appears to be taking up the matter of Hemming’s conduct and, having called for Hemming’s resignation, it is to be hoped that Mann will, at the every least, seek to put forward a formal motion of censure when Parliament returns from its summer recess. I’ve said, on a number of previous occasions, that – in my opinion – Hemming is clearly unfit to hold public office and it to be hoped that, on this occasion, his flagrant and repeated abuses of position and privilege will be thoroughly investigated and met with an appropriately severe sanction.

48 thoughts on “John Hemming and Vicky Haigh

  1. “my decision to place this information into the public domain, and the reasoning behind it, has been fully vindicated:”

    I couldn’t agree more.  It’s easy to be dismissive of blogging, but if you’ll forgive the flattery, your original post on this topic was an advert for the craft.

  2. As an alienated father I have the utmost sympathy, unfortunately my ex played the game a lot better that the mother in this case, her lawyer didn’t press any ridiculous claims, but post divorce I found it difficult to get access to my children, just enough time for her to poison their minds. It was the children’s choice not to visit me, as my daughter wrote “It’s been such a long time I’m not sure I would feel comfortable” so having broken the bond my ex feels she doesn’t even need to tell me our son had harmed himself, I found out through social workers!

    The automatic assumption that children should be with the mother is not only sexist, it is government policy, as 9 times out of 10 it is the father who is the main bread winner, and if he has to give up his job to be a full time parent the state will have to pay benefits, and we can’t put children before money can we?

  3. Are you aware of Hemming’s conduct on sites such as Mumsnet and Adoption UK? He posts (sometimes in his own name, sometimes using an alias) extensively on both, in those parts of each forum set aside for adoptive parents. His usual approach is to tell them (at great length, using the most emotive of language and often detailing his pet cases ways that would allow them to be very easily identified) that their own adoptive children were “stolen” from their birth families. On the face of it, this is very much like the conduct you’ve described above, but I find it particularly distasteful that he targets parents devote their lives to dealing constantly with the consequences of the incapable and abusive parents that Hemming champions. These parents and their children have enough to deal with as it is.

  4. Pingback: Ian Robertson
  5. Pingback: INFORRM
  6. Pingback: puddy pad
  7. Pingback: nobby-Lobby
  8. On one particular issue, I have a level of sympathy with John Hemming which is the attempted removal of the 2nd child from Vicky Haigh by Doncaster Social Services.

    Its somewhat ironic that a case which has seen one father have his rights to access to his child undermined by the behaviour of the mother sees a second father potentially experience the same issues but by Doncaster social workers actions instead.

    We cannot assume that because of the circumstances of the 1st relationship which has generated the problems will be repeated with the 2nd relationship. Human psychology is complex and pathology can be generated by particular circumstance. To assume that the pattern will repeat itself undermines the basic principles of fairness (innocence until proven guilty). Close observation of how the parental bonds were developing and the relationship between the parents would have more appropriate in my opinion.

    The case of the first child and their parents is tragic. However, the rush to remove the second child without evidence that the specific pattern would repeat itself is in itself somewhat troubling to me. People and their behaviours don’t fit into neat boxes.

    1. There is easily available evidence of severe disturbance in major areas of life in VH. Young children/babies cannot be resilient to rapid changes in mood and attachment.
      She may be in the group of people whose PDs burn out and lessen in intensity but we just do not know and nor should we. It is none of our business.

  9. First of all, the second case I believe does not involve Doncaster as Ms. Haigh had left the area.  My understanding is that the finding of abuse against her automatically meant future children would be put on the at risk register and monitored.  She was advised by Mr. Hemming to leave the country rather than co-operate with any assessment.  So far as I am aware there has never been any attempt to remove the younger child, simply a desire to keep tabs.

  10. Pingback: Rupert Holderness
  11. Pingback: Adam Wagner
  12. Pingback: Benjamin Gray
  13. Pingback: CwtchCorner
  14. Pingback: Gareth Winchester
  15. The one thing I would add to this excellent post is to note that the online vilification of David Tune, to which he could not respond because of the ongoing court actions and because it would identify his daughter, was a horrific aspect of this case – and is still continuing. I think it would be the understatement of the century to observe that neither John Hemming nor Christopher Booker have behaved in a manner marked by that sense of responsibility and care for children which ought to mark everyone’s actions in child custody cases.

    Meanwhile Norman Scarth’s habeas corpus application judgment is now online at BAILII and gives some background:

  16. On the first reading of this, one would think that it is a very convincing argument and that John Hemming was wrong. However, on a careful reading of what you wrote shows evidently that you hate John Hemming personally and you took this as a chance to attack John Hemming who spoke out when all the cowards kept silent. Most of what you wrote is an absolute rubbish and is directed personally against this brave MP.

  17. Lots of jargon to say nothing much ! Hemming thinks people should be able to consult MPs without being threatened with prison.That seems a good legal principle for which he should be commended not persecuted by shyster lawyers who want to gag anybody who disagrees with them !
    As for Vicky ,well after an hour long interview in July with the little girl and another similar grilling in November, the police decided there was no evidence of coaching the 5 year old,her teachers at school were convinced she had been abused,and so was the psychiatrist who saw her.Nobody except David Tune ever accused Vicky of coaching ,and in the Mail  he admits that even he thought his daughter had been abused ,but not by him ! The judge thought Vicky “evasive” because even she could not bring herself to accuse him directly in court ,hence the judge went along with “coaching” but no evidence to support it ! Wall refused to look at any evidence that Vicky produced ,he just relied on a judge who relied on another judge ! 
    After these disclosures,now be honest, would you leave your kids overnight with David Tune ??

  18. “Hemming thinks people should be able to consult MPs without being threatened with prison.”

    No one has suggested otherwise.  As I suspect you well know.  The attempt to conflate seeking advice from an MP and addressing a public meeting at which an MP happens to be present is characteristic of the dishonesty with which you and your associates have conducted this disgraceful character assassination.

    “he just relied on a judge who relied on another judge ! ”

    You also know perfectly well this is a lie.

    “After these disclosures,now be honest, would you leave your kids overnight with David Tune ??”

    Mr. Tune is not the first father you and Ms. McNeill have attempted to smear in this fashion.  I’ve asked you before and do so again, why do you do this?

  19. I know perfectly well that judge Wall did not care to “examine or comment on any of the evidence that Vicky presented.He was content to rely on the lower court judge.
    I also know that Vicky came to John Hemming for advice about saving her unborn child from the clutches of the rapacious “SS” not to make a speech at a public meeting in parliament.Even if that had been so why should anyone gag a mother whose baby is in danger? Luckily she followed my advice to go to Ireland where she is on excellent terms with the Irish social workers and the baby the UK “SS” had determined to steal is thriving!
    As to a slur on Tune,well I merely repeated his own words when he gave an interview to the Daily Mail ! 

  20. “I know perfectly well that judge Wall did not care to “examine or comment on any of the evidence that Vicky presented.”

    So that’s his word against yours?  Not a difficult call to make.

    You still haven’t addressed your bizarre compulsion to call complete strangers paedophiles on the internet.  As hobbies go, you’ll have to admit it’s one of the more eccentric ones.

  21. I commented before on another Website who attacked Vicky Haigh and John Hemming. I see no difference between both sites. Leaving the main argument as to whether it was right to imprison Vicky Haigh in secret or not. As both sites are mirroring each other, I am again saying that whether
    Vicky Haigh was right or wrong, that is not the point. The point was
    that secret justice is bad, so bad. John Hemming is an opponent of
    secret court hearings. Unfortunately, a small number of mafia-style
    solicitors take advantage of secret court hearings to enforce decisions
    which can never be achieved in open hearings attended by the public and
    watched by the media.We came to a situation where people who have money
    can secure injunctions covering up any wrongdoings. So the point is that
    the Law has to be changed and secret justice and back door lawyers
    should be stopped, once and for all. On the first reading of this, one
    would think that it is a very convincing argument and that John Hemming
    was wrong. However, on a careful reading of what you wrote shows
    evidently that you hate John Hemming personally and you took this as a
    chance to attack John Hemming who spoke out when all the cowards kept
    silent. Most of what you wrote is an absolute rubbish and is directed
    personally against this brave MP. It is simple, Hemming is taking the
    side of the public and the ordinary people who cannot raise their grievances in
    Parliament without people like him. Unfortunately, a small number of
    local representatives have connections and interests with the local
    authorities and cannot afford to upset them. But some MPs like Hemming
    would take the grievance and raise it in Parliament to show that there
    is something wrong in the current secretive court proceedings where the
    more powerful can change the black to white and the white to black. And
    now and hypothetically, if Vicky Haigh launches an appeal and wins it,
    will you still insist. I hoped that you concentrated on the substance of
    the argument rather than shifting everything to pursue a personal
    attack on John Hemming. We do not know whether there will be an appeal or not and it will be interesting to see Vicky Haigh wins her appeal, if she lodges one. People who fell victims to this unfair system of secret proceedings and secret justice can tell you more about this invisible world. Massive Court cases are launched by corrupted solicitors to cover up absolute disasters and nobdoy can attend the hearing and the media cannot publish anything about it and nobody can even see anything inside the court file because the Court File  it is “SEALED” by a Court Order!!!!

  22. I accept that there are probably few MPs to whom conspiracy theorists can go and be taken seriously.  I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing.  I don’t hate John Hemming.  I’ve found him generally responsive and courteous in the face of critical questioning and I give him credit for that.  I do think it would probably be better if he wasn’t an MP any more.

  23. N Scarth, I understand was convicted re the chainsaw, but if you read details from people at the time, the chainsaw was not live, he is frail and hit no one, he was put into hospital by his attackers, it looks like a stitchup to me, and is not relevant to the current crime of contempt.

  24. Well I’ve also heard from someone who says it was one you plugged in and that he knows because he was at the trial and saw it produced.  Another supporter says it didn’t exist at all based on the fact that it was never produced it trial.  He also knows this from attending the trial.  In case anyone feels this is getting off topic, it may be worth noting what an incestuous group this appears to be, as evidenced here:

    If I understand it correctly, the author here is Mr. Jarvis, elsewhere described as Mr. Scarth’s “legal expert” and “lay advocate”.

  25. ‘”I know perfectly well that judge Wall did not care to “examine or comment on any of the evidence that Vicky presented’

    Obviously no evidence as this is the Family Court however there is a pattern here This is not the first time that Judge wall has behaved in this manner nor will it be the last.

  26. I (Elizabeth Watson) have clearly been made the ‘patsy’ in all of this. I’ve apparently been scapegoated and there are huge misconceptions being bandied about which are highly inaccurate and bear little or no resemblance to the hard facts of this matter.  Hopefully the Truth WILL eventually emerge fully, and it would be ideal if a Parliamentary debate and Public enquiry were set up to look at the hard facts of this case: which no one appears to have done, to date.   BUT, it’s surprising how readily people will follow what is said by one leading from the front, even if based on assumptions and untested opinions – but all of it depends on your perspective, and on where you ‘sit’.  If it were their child involved, no doubt they would not be so ready to pass comment or judge on a ‘face value’ basis only.

    My “mistake” was in trying to do what felt right and to help a highly distressed (and pregnant) mother, and in reporting on the facts on the files – for example, the medical reports, hard evidence, the important police video interview transcripts done with the child….but my opinions or mere views do not enter in to this, and bear no relevance to the evidence on the files: which, alas, none of those passing comment seem to have even looked at ! Herein lays a huge problem.  Evidence is apparently often dismissed or rendered irrelevant, where ‘political Law’ prevails.

     But anyone wise would not be so hasty to judge:  and it may surprise many of you to know that I have never published a thing on this case, certainly not on any intentional basis – I am not a publisher nor a campaigner, I’m an investigator – it begins and ends there.  Yet I have been labelled and blamed as “spreading the information” but this was done without my approval, and by others – in particular, Sabine McNeill, a person who has held parliamentary debates for about 14 years and who has admitted in writing that SHE was the publisher of the information – who broadcast it all over the net; she also admits doing this without my knowledge or consent, which leaves me feeling highly challenged by this given the price I have had to pay for her indiscretions. Is this just?  

    I’m disturbed to have heard only in the past week of another Family court victim who is now facing committal proceedings, on account of her case ALSO being publicised by Sabine McNeill…. this has got out of hand. And one can justifiably ask: what is really going on?

    This is generally a well prepared blog given the above constraints (of no access to the case files) but however it contains highly misleading statements within it:  for example, my name is being denigrated as “one interested in get rich quick schemes and to be avoided” but this is untrue and I require a retraction of this inaccurate and throwaway remark, please.  I’m one of 400 people who  have been defrauded by Bank of Scotland in a huge scam they set up 10 years ago where they misappropriated everyone’s money, after “lending” those same moneys against our homes, with a huge cover up from the FSA where the Bank’s chairman became the Deputy chairman also of the FSA, the ‘regulators’ but in Truth they were the enablers of the fraud:  this is why I began doing investigative work, as I found out the Truth as a result of this – and the wrestling continues to get Justice and get our money back, because the nepotism and protectionism wihin the System preserves the status quo of White collar criminals and fails to protect the innocent, more often than not. 

    It is also accurate and correct that I AM, indeed, a Montessori trained teacher, I took the training back in 1991 in Southampton whilst running a company called “Young Discoveries Limited” which made flat pack characterised furniture for pre-school age children.  But I am NOT from the “Freeman of the land brigade” as has been averred.
    Carl Gardner has regrettably written a misleading article and I require a correction and retraction of the false statements contained in it.  Firstly, I HAVE NEVER HAD, NOR LED, ANY ‘INTERNET CAMPAIGN’ ON THIS CASE.    This is a major misconception that is being bandied about in the blogosphere.  Any careful examination of the facts will reveal that the ‘campaigning was done by Sabine mcNeill, who is living most of the time outside of the jurisdiction in Germany, which seems to be shielding her.  This is a gross and unjust situation where I have been blamed for what OTHERS have campaigned – and I and my lawyers pressed Ms McNeill to remove all reference to the case. I had nothing to do with what she had published and campaigned, I can say hand on heart that I played NO PART in it at all, and it was done without my approval – and I intend to get this misconception corrected, and await apology over these false accusations.

    Anyone who has examined the files will recognise that I did NOT spread any “falsehoods” – the fact is that some emails I had written to my PRIVATE network during the course of my investigations, were taken and published involving a breach of copyright, without my consent or knowledge or permission:  I reiterate that I was not the Publisher of the said blogs, particularly the ‘Victims Unite’ blog which I disagreed with when it was first set up, and I pressed Sabine McNeill to remove all the postings on it.  I had NO WEBSITE or blog of my own concerning this case – those who were culpable have not been challenged yet, it would seem, instead I have paid the price for their indiscretions.  

    Things are not as they have been reported, and being real, the Truth can not be threatened by all that is happening in the mainstream Media and the Courts: the two are entirely distinct.  “for now we see through a glass darkly” springs to mind…  The Truth may eventually come out, I trust that it will:  but my work is done, and is complete, and anyone who wants to delve into the hard facts, will maybe come away surprised, dismayed, and shocked, no doubt learning a lot about the power of propaganda and how it distorts Truth, in the process.

     In March this year, I wrote a report for the Doncaster police on facts, all of which were evidenced in the files – I did not depart from those facts.  Yet the report was not mentioned and everyone was too afraid to look at the facts – so instead, spurious litigation followed, and an excellent distraction campaign was waged.  It’s true that there have been allegations that the child’s mother “spread lies and false accusations about her ex”  but who knows what are “lies” and what is “Truth”? when no one has the true picture unless they have studied and scrutinised the entire files, but which one of you has?  

    Mere opinion is rendered meaningless where a strong political agenda prevails, and Truth immaterial, and at the end of the day, facts ought to speak for themselves (though they do not appear to have done so yet, on this case), and it seems a bit  ironic that the ‘Finding of fact’ hearing of January 2010 involved 6 to 8 key witnesses being removed from it just beforehand – why isn’t this being reported?


  27. “Yet I have been labelled and blamed as “spreading the information” but
    this was done without my approval, and by others – in particular, Sabine

    That’s terrible.  Come back and let us know when you find out how she got hold of it.

     “but who knows what are “lies” and what is “Truth”?”

    I think most of us can spot the difference.

  28. Studying the files and hard facts / evidence is everything. But this cannot be done by anyone, because of privacy laws, – so what you are doing and saying is based on what you have heard, only, and your opinion.  It’s all there.  People like to jump on bandwagons and readily condemn another without knowing the facts, it’s just easier for you to accept what others tell you, that’s clear. You can believe what you wish, but the Truth is unchanging.

     It isn’t about “spotting the difference’ like a magazine wordgame, it’s about going into the hard evidence – but you are welcome to stay with the delusions rather than having a real understanding.

    Don’t forget that this all hinged around a ‘reporting restriction order’ that had was never served until 2 months after it was ‘issued’, where, despite me  being personally named as a party to the Case, I had never been notified nor had attended any hearing to actually join me as a party: so how could I challenge a thing? Where was my ‘fair hearing’?  And where was the originating ‘committal’ Summons that I was never sent and had no hearing for?  Terrible, indeed, Jimmy.

  29. Liz,

    Clearly you’ve learned nothing from this experience other that the fact thst the only sensible thing to do when faced with contempt proceedings is apologise profusely and retain competent legal counsel to hopefully sort out the rest.

    For the record, I have a copy of your so-called evidence and I find it to be no more convincing than did the court, not least because a large part of your report consists of nothing more than a stream of hysterical and wholly unevidence allegations of bias and misconduct.

    In all, the only thing I can suggest here is that you read this Wikipedia article on the Dunning-Kruger effect – – also I suspect that your own case of this is now so severe that you have little or no hope of understand its contents anyway.

    1. The reference of ‘hard evidence’ was made regarding the actual CASE files, not anything I have written in my report, which is merely based on those facts and the case evidence.  

      It seems that maybe not many people have much of an appetite for facts, or so it appears, in that the pattern of human behaviour shows that many would rather jump on the next man’s words, and follow untested hearsay or remarks based on presumptions that have been made…And, perchance,  if you have been able or are ever successful in accessing that hard evidence, by first surmounting the privacy and secrecy rules, it would be really interesting to see what you would THEN be saying. That would be the true test of all these words and opinions being flouted.There is another key issue,: in relation to the falsities that have been bandied about regarding  “mental illness”, carelessly mis-stated by a lawyer from the Press Association and then regurgitated in various Media articles without any consideration to the actual wording of the Judgment:The defamatory and highly inaccurate mis-statement that the judge had supposedly ” considered an option of ruling that Watson was “mentally ill” but had decided against that and concluded that he had “no alternative” but to jail her, he added.”  He did no such thing.
       I require an urgent retraction of this false statement please, wherever it has been reproduced, and a note of correction to be sent out in each and every case.  What the Judge said, was, in fact, this, which has a very different implication and ‘ring’ to it, namely: “There are three choices open to me, it seems.  Either I can say “well, this is so misguided and so bizarre that really Ms Watson must be mentally ill and that it would be wrong to act”.  I do not think that runs at all, looking at the papers.”Please confirm that you will correct this as it has also been wrongly reproduced in other Press publications on account of the construction that has been placed on the Judge’s comment.  This has also been notified to the Press association lawyer who made this error.  I assure you that I am of very ‘sound mind’, which my GP will confirm to you.The mindless smear campaign that is being waged against me is built on sand and a litany of lies, involving nil inspection of the hard evidence on the case files.  Only a small part of the picture has been presented thus far, and that is the truth.  Who knows where this will go, eventually?  I will make it perfectly clear now, once and for all:  I am not the issue, and should never have been made ‘the issue’. This is not about me nor any mindless and sad character assassination that others may enjoy being a part of.  Those who know me look beyond the falsities of the temporary picture.  And no amount of throwing the toys out of the pram by shouting the opposite, will make any difference to the facts and the Truth.To balance your perspective and blinkered view, try checking out the article published in the mainstream media on 7 May this year: “Global paedophile ring smashed” which originated in Doncaster…. which everyone simply ignores, even on the balance of probability.  It is only when each and every one of us stands naked before our Creator, that we will truly realise the error of our ways.

  30. “Jimmy”, are you by any chance an alter-ego for Steve Hamilton in Bournemouth, whose venomous and untruthful remarks you have been engaging with?

    For the record, I have never launched a single smear campaign against any man – nor would I be motivated to do so. That is not who I am. S. Hamilton (who lives near me) is the author of that vindictive post which is popping up in various places and the police have just been to see me today (21 Sept 2011) about him advising me they are going to caution him to stop the harassment he keeps mindlessly waging against me – which is wholly unjustified.
    The Public can be alerted to the fact that he has been waging a ‘hate campaign’ against me for over a year now, for reasons that only he understands.

    Liz Watson

  31. No idea who this Steve is.  Like Unity I’ve read your material and to suggest it was anything other than an unwarranted stream of pure poison is nonsense.  As for your apparent claim that you did not intent McNeill to put this on the internet, you are simply insulting our intelligence.  I accept you took the punishment for something others were largely responsible for, but that is the nature of the people you were dealing with.  They hold your coat while you get beaten up.  It would be nice to think you’d learned from the experience at least.

    1. I do not know what material you claim to have read but I require an immediate retraction of your false statements.  Otherwise I will pass this to my solicitors.  You appear to have little or no clue what you are saying, and appear to enjoy spreading with venom and malice.  Have you any idea at all what I have had to go through concerning this? and now you are seeking to add to that pain and insult me by saying glibly, “it would be nice to think you’d learned from the experience at least”.  Of COURSE I learned from it, but what is that to you?

      If you deem anything you have read concerning this extraordinary Case as “pure poison” then it ought to be the two police video transcripts when they interviewed the child (and not the facts that were reported but not read by you or anyone else passing judgment in this matter) – or even to question how a ‘finding of fact hearing’ could have been conducted in Jan 2010 when about 8 people and witnesses were removed from the case, prior to its commencement.

      However much intelligence is believed to be involved, or otherwise, perhaps you could study what  Ms McNeill herself published  in this correction statement back in April this year , FYI (note esp. the last section (3) – and I have another more recent one to forward if you provide your email address.

      It may pay you to go below the surface and look a little deeper than you have been doing, to date.

      liz watson

      From: Sabine K McNeill []
      Sent: 12 April 2011 09:48
      To: Lxxxx
      Cc: ‘John Hemming’; ‘Natasha Phillips’;;;;; ‘MCDONNELL, John’; ‘DAKIN, Nic’;;;;;; Siddle, Maureen;;
      Subject: Legal Notice and Rectification of False Accusations

      Dear Ms L
      I am writing to you as an indirect recipient of your “Reporting Restriction Order”. It was forwarded to me and enforced upon my website hosted by, after you apparently served it on WordPress, without serving it on me as the publisher and owner of Victims Unite!
      I am also writing as McKenzie Friend and web publisher for many victims of financial exploitation and legal oppression, advocating that White Collar Criminals comply with the Rule of Law.
      State kidnapping and the State Stealing Children are among the most offensive of white collar crimes, and you cannot possibly abuse your position of employment such that these crimes become more and more institutionalised. You may enjoy writing your own rules, but you must expect them to be challenged by others who respect The Rule of Law.
      We are not here to treat each other as children who need to be ‘punished into obedience’ by whoever thinks has more power over the other. We are here to respect the Rule of Law, as it has grown over the remarkable history of experience on the British Isles.
      In the Public Interest, I maintain a number of websites relating to the defence of basic human rights: the freedom of expression and information, the right to a fair trial and the right to a legal remedy. You can tell the degree of Public Interest from the popularity of the sites, as I always publish visitor statistics that, in the remarkable wisdom of WordPress, do not count my own visits.
      In the Public Interest, this is therefore to put you on Notice

      1.     Regarding your abuse of process with respect to Victims Unite!

      2.     Regarding your Statement of Maureen S , misquoting the fact that I published information originating from Elizabeth Watson

      3.     Regarding your “Notice to Show Good Reason” regarding Elizabeth Watson, misquoting information regarding email communication and web publications.
      I understand you are a solicitor and thus trained in the use of accurate language. Please do therefore note that emails are mailed to a particular group of named individuals. There is no law against communicating with friends and colleagues by emails, about any or all private or public concerns, by blind copy or visible to all recipients.
      Publishing information on websites is what you try to prevent with your “Reporting Restriction Order”, as it can be viewed by “anybody” and not just the particular choice of named individuals, especially the victims and perpetrators of white collar crimes.
      In the Public Interest, I therefore object and ask you to please note:
      1.     Re Abuse of Process with respect to Victims Unite!

      a.     Para G claims that the Court was satisfied with “the media had notice of the application”. However, emailing WordPress in the USA seems like a very shallow level of satisfaction, if the Court was indeed acting in its role of independent adjudicator, with not only the interest of the Plaintiff but also all Defendants concerned.
      b.     The right to a legal remedy implies serving an order with a reasonable deadline. As I had not been served with your “order”, it was not possible to lodge a Notice of Discharge which would have been the normal remedy.
      c.      I shall question the validity of your choice of “Service” in para 6.
      d.     I shall furthermore question why you broke your own rule by publishing the details of a known paedophile in Schedule II of your “Order”.

      2.     Re Statement of Maureen S Seeking Permission of the Court for the Committal of the First and Second Defendants

      a.     “Good service” implies the choice of “good legal instruments”. To choose to commit a pregnant woman whose daughter you have stolen is as inhuman, violent and cruel as the choice of committing Elizabeth Watson who is trying to help her on a pro bono basis.
      b.     Para 6: I presume you refer to the Order, supposedly made on the 25th February, but stamped on the 26th February, that I have obtained from WordPress.
      c.      This Order is deemed not to be legally valid, as it does not contain any signature, let alone from the presiding judge in wet ink.
      d.     I can assure you that Ms Watson has NOT “posted” messages and letters addressed to the Applicant on the internet. She has emailed her colleagues in exactly the same manner as you would communicate with your colleagues, except she acts from empathy and compassion, rather than because she is paid to just do her job.
      e.     Ms Watson does NOT maintain her own website, whereas I am the publisher of her letter to you.
      3.     Re Notice to Show Good Reason

      a.     Please note that in para III Elizabeth Watson did NOT post “the above document”.
      b.     As the recipient of her email, I chose to post it on my website, giving it my title.
      c.      In para X you again claim that Elizabeth Watson was the “poster”. Please read each blog post that always quotes the name of the person who publishes.
      Louise Casey, the Victims Commissioner, said in a public talk at the RSA that we have a hearts and minds job at hand. I do find it very strange that you, as a woman, copy the unconscious behaviour of men, instead of giving a voice to children who are and have been suffering. You may consider watching the video Dear Woman in this respect.
      Given public spending cuts, your application to the High Court is an inadmissible waste of taxpayers’ money.
      In the context of all of the above, I therefore request that you withdraw your Application to the Family Division of the High Court.
      Yours sincerely,
      Sabine K McNeill
      National Co-ordinator, Forum for Stable Currencies

  32. “Otherwise I will pass this to my solicitors.”

    Actually I think that’s probably a good idea.  If I were on a suspended sentence I would want to think very carefully about what I posted on the internet about this case.  I appreciate what you have been through.  Getting banged up in Holloway is not something I would wish on anyone.  You seem unclear as to why you were locked up.  Your solicitors might be able to explain it to you.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.