Today in the morning at Southwark Crown Court, the jury heard the remainder of DC Steve Martin’s testimony, the defence’s cross-examination, and a list of “agreed facts”—basically, the facts of the case upon which both prosecution and defence were in agreement.
In the afternoon, the defence opened with Sabine in the witness box…but first, let’s take a look at the morning’s events.
Witness 7: DC Steve Martin, continued
Miranda Moore QC, prosecuting, asked DC Martin whether Sabine had claimed that she attended the Church of England Synod in February 2018 in order to gain core participant status with the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Martin agreed that this was the case.
However, he said, Sabine had already been denied core participant status. This notification was sent by email, but Sabine did not receive it because at the time, her bail conditions forbade her from using the internet.
Asked when the videos of P and Q had first appeared in Sabine’s Google Drive, Martin said that the earliest date, upon which four videos had been uploaded, was 4 January 2015.
Tana Adkin QC asked Martin about a the document, titled “London Baby-Eaters of Hampstead”, found on HampsteadChristChurch, the blog belonging to Christine Sands. On Friday, Adkin said, Martin had referred to two links at the bottom of that page; she asked about the source of those links.
Martin agreed that the links had been to Tap NewsWire, not to Whistleblower Kids.
Tana noted that Sands’ blog had approximately 19,000 views. Did Martin know the number of views on the Whistleblower Kids site? He replied that he did not know this, and that the site is now defunct in any event.
“‘Page views’ counts all the pages viewed, not just those from people who believe the hoax, is that correct?” Adkin asked. Martin said that this is correct. Adkin noted that by contrast with Sands’ page, Hoaxtead Researchhas had 1.6 million views. [1,673,000 and a bit, but who’s counting?—Ed.]
Regarding Martin’s testimony that Sabine’s email to Theresa May had not contained a bcc, Adkin asked, “What you were doing was looking at Sabine’s computer for this evidence?”
“I went through her email folder line by line, and this was identified in the course of that,” Martin replied.
Asked whether a bcc line would necessarily show up on a printout of the email, Martin stated that he did not know.
Turning to the issue of the red nail-varnish-covered dolls, Adkin asked whether any had actually turned up in any Hampstead businesses.
“None were reported to my knowledge”, Martin said. Similarly, he said that while witnesses had received multiple threats, no one ever went to their homes as threatened.
Asked whether the witnesses had reported receiving threatening emails and phone calls, Martin said he was unable to comment, as he had not been involved in that aspect of the case until 2016. He stated that to his knowledge, one email had been followed up: a female who was bed-ridden and mentally ill had been visited and warned about her behaviour.
Referring to Rupert Quaintance, Adkin asked Martin to clarify that Quaintance had only been convicted of two of the five offences with which he’d been charged, and had been acquitted on the other three. Martin agreed that this was the case.
Turning to the issue of “good character”, Martin confirmed that prior to the Hampstead matter, Sabine had no previous convictions; nor had she had any face-to-face confrontations with the witnesses.
Adkin noted that for her part, Sabine had made police complaints about a brick which had been thrown through her window. On another occasion, her telephone lines had been cut. Martin said that he would not have been involved in those cases, as they were criminal damage complaints.
Noting that a previous witness had said that Sabine stopped posting online when she was imprisoned on remand, Adkin said that in December 2017, Sabine’s bail conditions prohibited her from having access to the internet, and that from that point on she had made no further posts. Martin agreed that this was so.
During re-examination, Moore asked Martin to clarify whether Hoaxtead Research is a blog which supports belief in the Hampstead hoax. “No, they debunk the allegations”, Martin said.
Regarding threats received, either by Sabine or by the complainants, Moore asked whether these represented the entirety of the threats in this case.
“No, they are ongoing and much wider than this inquiry”, Martin said.
Statement of agreed facts
HHJ Sally Cahill QC told the jury that the statement of agreed facts is another form of evidence which should be considered along with the oral and written material they have already received. This statement represents the matters of the case upon which the Crown and defence agree.
Moore read out the statement. The jury heard that Sabine first opened her Twitter account in 2008, using an email registered to 3D Metrics. The domain for Whistleblower Kids was registered on 15 March 2015.
The 19 March 2015 Pauffley judgment was read into the record, including the following:
I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything Ms Draper, her partner Abraham Christie and the children said about those matters was fabricated. The claims are baseless. Those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish.
All the indications are that over a period of some weeks last summer, P and Q were forced by Mr Christie and Ms Draper, working in partnership, to provide concocted accounts of horrific events. The stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is a strong word but it is the most accurate way to describe what was done to the children by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper.
The children were made to take part in filmed mobile ‘phone recordings in which they relayed a series of fabricated satanic practices. Subsequently, at the instigation of Abraham Christie and Ella Draper, the children repeated their false stories to Jean-Clement Yaohirou, Mr Christie’s brother in law, in a late night discussion. It lasted for about three hours; Mr Christie and Ms Draper did most of the talking.
P and Q were ABE (Achieving Best Evidence) interviewed on 5, 11 and 17 September 2014. On the first two occasions, they supplied information about events they claimed had occurred, similar in their overall content to the mobile ‘phone video clips and audio recording. On 17 September, in ABE interview, both children withdrew their allegations. Each stated they had been made to say things by Abraham Christie, the mother’s partner, which were not true; and they gave very full details of the way in which he had secured their compliance.
This is a summary of my salient findings –
• Neither child has been sexually abused by any of the following – [their father], teachers at Christchurch Primary School Hampstead, the parents of students at that school, the priest at the adjacent church, teachers at any of the Hampstead or Highgate schools, members of the Metropolitan Police, social workers employed by the London Borough of Camden, officers of Cafcass or anyone else mentioned by Ms Draper or Mr Christie.
• The children’s half brother, his father and stepmother…are likewise exonerated of any illicit or abusive acts involving the children.
• There was no satanic or other cult at which babies were murdered and children were sexually abused.
• All of the material promulgated by Ms Draper now published on the internet is nothing other than utter nonsense.
• The children’s false stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is the most accurate way to describe what was done by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper.
• Both children were assaulted by Mr Christie by being hit with a metal spoon on multiple occasions over their head and legs, by being pushed into walls, punched, pinched and kicked. Water was poured over them as they knelt semi-clothed.
• The long term emotional and psychological harm of what was done to the children is incalculable. The impact of the internet campaign is likely to have the most devastating consequences for P and Q.
Agreed facts include various statements by Sabine, extracted from her Skype chat account. These include the statement on 20 February 2015 that she planned to upload the police videos next.
While being questioned following her arrest in August 2015 at the Royal Courts of Justice, Sabine made a number of statements during her police interview:
- “I have never uploaded the videos”.
- “I have uploaded the videos to a private Google account”.
- “I have removed the videos from my Google Drive”.
Following Sabine’s trial with Neelu Berry at Blackfriars Crown Court in July 2016, she received and signed a restraining order, which sought to prevent further publication of material concerning Hampstead. At that time, Sabine’s counsel informed her that the terms of the restraining order prevented her from republishing older material as well; the judge in the case confirmed that this was correct.
In October 2016, when Sabine pleaded guilty to breaching her restraining order, Judge Shetty noted that he would describe her breach as more technical in nature. Sabine should assume that the order would be in place all her life.
“If you commit any further breaches”, Shetty said, “I doubt the court would be merciful”. He stated that it was “about time to put all this nonsense behind you, and go on with the rest of your life”, adding that any further breach of the restraining order could result in her being sentenced.
The statement of agreed facts included a chronology of Sabine’s arrests, as well as a list of three videos: one in which Sabine is interviewed with Alfred Lambremont-Webre; one entitled “Hampstead confidential”; and one entitled “Strategising with Sabine”.
This concluded the prosecution’s case. Court adjourned to 2:00 p.m., at which time the defence would present its case.
Witness: Sabine McNeill
Seated in the witness box and sounding quite subdued, Sabine told the jury something of her personal history.
Born in 1944 in Silesia, Sabine described her mother having to flee the Dresden firestorm. Sabine achieved a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and computing, and took a job at CERN in 1964, where she diagnosed software used by scientists. She worked at CERN on the payroll until 1979, and left in 1981. In 1973, she went to Berkeley in California, and during a trip with a physicist friend, was in a car crash during which Sabine’s hip was dislocated.
Doctors suggested that her chronic pain was psychological, which led her to an interest in psychology, which in turn led her to organise four psychological conferences in Europe. She described meeting her future husband, Ian McNeill, at a conference in Wales; they were married several years later.
When her marriage broke up several years later, Sabine remained in the UK, as “there was no reason not to”. Following the end of her marriage, Sabine worked as an event organiser.
She described her early work on computers, prior to the advent of the internet, and her involvement in the first internet café in London. She met Lord Sudeley, and helped him to set up the Forum for Stable Currencies, which Sabine described as an outgrowth of her interest in fighting inequality and poverty.
Sabine described meeting people who had been made bankrupt fraudulently, noting that one of her projects had been to assemble a list of the “worst of all cases”.
Through this, she said she learned about McKenzie friends—lay legal advisors who “hold a person’s hand” in court. Asked whether she became a McKenzie friend, Sabine said her main contribution was to write one-page legal summaries and put them on a website. This site became her Victims Unite! blog.
Referring to the “secrecy of the family courts”, Sabine said that she expected such rules were put in place to protect the identity of the children involved. However, she said, her concern was around parents who wanted to get their children back. This is how she met Ella Draper, she said.
Ella phoned Sabine in 2014, Sabine said. Adkin noted that by November 2014, Sabine was already involved in Ella’s case, and that Ella had already reported her ex-partner to the police.
“She emailed me a document to disclose what the children had told her”, Sabine said, though she said she could not remember whether it was the same document which Adkin showed the jury.
Sabine said she invited Ella to come and see her, as Ella had said she wanted her children back, and had sacked her lawyers.
“She was saying she had been in Morocco with her partner because they were on holiday, and that the children had decided to break their deal with their father”, Sabine said. “She couldn’t believe it herself, she was so shocked. She described to me what they had told her”. Ella gave her the videos later.
Asked whether she had ever questioned Ella’s story, Sabine said she had had “no reason not to believe the children”, and that she had not investigated their claims. “Over Christmas, she left the videos with me” on CDs or DVDs”, she said.
Sabine said she first looked at the videos in January, and that she “vaguely remembered the impact they had on her. She said she was shocked, especially because the alleged abuse was taking place “right around the corner” from her own home.
“I didn’t have any reason not to believe”, Sabine said. “I was too trusting. In hindsight, things look different”.
She said that while she was in touch with Ella daily, she fell out with Abraham Christie quite quickly.
Adkin asked Sabine whether her Google Drive had had something happen to it around this time. Sabine said she’d written to the Barnet councillors, and had uploaded links to the videos as the “most convincing evidence”.
“Barnet Council, then, was the first agency to receive all the videos?” Adkin asked.
“I think so”, Sabine said. She stated they had not been copied to anybody else.
Sabine described “putting a lot of time and effort” into helping Ella. They wanted the police to reinvestigate the case, and to that end Sabine had prepared other legal documents for her: an affidavit, and a judicial review against the police.
“The police had closed the investigation after 12 days”, she said, “so I found an expert who critiqued the police report”. She helped Ella file the papers at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Sabine said her first introduction to Abraham Christie was “strange”: “He came pretty close to me, and said, “I. AM. ABRAHAM”. She said she had asked Ella whether it was “true love” with Abraham, and Ella had replied, “Support”.
Sabine said she knew Abraham had had an influence with P and Q: “He got the children to talk”, she said.
However, after a few meetings with Abraham, Sabine said that they had fallen out. While she could not recall the exact issue, she said she found him “appalling” in his way of talking and thinking.
When Abraham rejoined Ella in London, Sabine said her relationship with Ella changed.
Adkin asked, “Did you suspect in January at that stage that the children might have been lying?”
Sabine said she had not. “For me, the consistency of the story, and the way Ella put it together, was convincing”. She said Ella had told her stories about how P and Q were really nasty to Abraham and Ella.
Adkin asked, “Having met Abraham, did you think he’d been the cause” of the children’s stories?
“He had an influence”, Sabine said, adding that she had not known that “licks” had meant “hitting the children on the side of the head with a spoon”. Ella and Abe’s “big connection was hemp”, which Abraham touted as a recipe for eternal life.
“I cared for the children”, Sabine said. “Ella told me that the reason she took the children to the police was to help the other 20 children”.
“What did you think of this?” Adkin asked.
“I believed it”.
Adkin asked whether Sabine had watched all the videos of P and Q.
“I watched quite a few hours”, Sabine said. “I wasn’t looking for anything; I saw what I saw and I heard what I heard. It was a shocking experience”.
She said that Ella had given her the police videos in late December or early January 2015. She said it took her ages to watch them, and that she believed the police had concealed evidence during their investigation of the children’s claims. While the police had said that the crime was not confirmed, the expert she had brought in had said the investigation was not good enough.
Adkin said, “Ella Draper talked to you, and the videos were given to you—did you have other evidence?”
Sabine said she also had the medical reports, in which anal scarring had been confirmed. “That was another tick”, she said.
Adkin asked, “Were you looking for the negative side of the account?”
“No,” said Sabine. “It was my naïvety, I’d seen so many cases, and this was the worst I’d ever come across”.
Asked whether viewing the interview with P and Q’s father on television had changed her mind, Sabine said, “I’m afraid not”.
“For me”, she said, “Satanic ritual abuse was a new thing. It was the first time children had confirmed what adult survivors had said”. Noting that she had been involved in issues such as forced adoption and child trafficking up to that point, she said her first reaction was, “Is this real? Can this possibly be true?”
Adkin asked whether Sabine had sought information from other sources. Sabine said she’d heard from others who commented on her blog, and that she’d heard about a Canadian therapist’s experience with other survivors of SRA.
“How do you know Angela Power-Disney?” Adkin asked. Sabine said that she’d known her online only, and that she was a sexual abuse survivor, like Becki Percy.
“How do you know they are abuse survivors?”
“They told me”, Sabine said. She said one of the biggest problems she’d had with Angela Power-Disney was her habit of putting people on YouTube without their permission.
Sabine said she had met Belinda McKenzie at a meeting at the Royal Courts of Justice, and that she found her “broad-minded”, though not as interested in monetary issues as Sabine was.
Asked how she met Neelu Berry, Sabine said Neelu had lost her niece, and that this had led to her losing her pharmacist licence. “I don’t remember our initial contact”, she said.
She said she had met “Jacqui Farmer” under a different name—Charlotte Ward—at Belinda’s house. “She had filed another case about the removal of a child”, she recalled. “It was a Belgian guy”.
She stated she had never met Christine Sands in person, but that they had spoken on Skype. “I was aware she had been shouting at the church”, she said.
Asked how all these people had influenced her, Sabine said, “They convinced me that what the children said was true”.
Adkin asked what Sabine had thought when she first saw the Pauffley judgment.
“I was shocked”, Sabine said. “I could not imagine that a judge was so black and white. And ‘evil and/or foolish’? To describe somebody like me?”
“Did you agree with her judgment?”
“No, I’m afraid not”, Sabine said.
“Did the judgment make you question your beliefs?”
“No, it didn’t. Comments were coming in as critical of the judge. I had to take them down because of the trolls….I did take notice, I did write a critique. I did what I did because Pauffley had no intention to return the children to Ella”.
Adkin asked Sabine about trolls.
“They are anyone who uses a non-real avatar”, she said. “They sully others’ sites”. As an example, she cited “a particular guy whose 12-year-old daughter was taken away. He was nasty”.
Asked whether anything had affected her opinion, Sabine said, “Only this court case has begun to open my eyes”.
How did the videos get online?
In response to a question about when the first mention of the children’s allegations had appeared on the internet, Sabine said that during her August 2015 arrest on her return from Berlin, somebody had produced a statement saying that the P and Q videos were online prior to their release in early 2015.
Regarding her email to Theresa May, she said she had sent it to notify May’s office that the petition on Change.org would be sending her a notification every time anybody signed it. She said she had added the bcc to Henry Curteis at Tap NewsWire because his blog was “very wide-ranging” and she felt he needed to be informed.
Adkin suggested that it hadn’t occurred to Sabine that when Curteis received the bcc, he would also receive the emails.
“I wasn’t thinking about that”, Sabine said. She said that she’d sent the email to May out of desperation, as she felt that Barnet Council would not return the children, so “where could I go? They were with foster carers!”
Sabine said that she had not set up her Google Drive for the purpose of sharing the videos of P and Q. She said the settings on the drive varied from file to file. Adkin asked how the Drive was set up, but Sabine responded that she hasn’t been online for a year, so she did not recall how she organised the folders.
However, she said, “I made the big, big mistake of not checking the settings. I had left the top folder open—it was stupid, what else can I say?”
Adkin asked whether, when Sabine sent the videos to May and Curteis, it had occurred to her what was in the videos.
“At that stage, I did not know what I know since this trial”, Sabine said. “I did not realise about the other children they named”. She added that other things P and Q had said, such as their reference to intergenerational patterns of abuse, had helped to convince her that the allegations they were making were true.
“Did it occur to you that this would provide a way of identifying the other children?” Adkin asked.
“That is where I just failed miserably”, Sabine said. “I’m sorry to say that when I saw what I saw and heard what I heard (during this trial), I felt embarrassed and sorry, sorry, sorry”.
Sabine said that during a witness’s testimony about Ella’s list of alleged abusers actually being a class list, the truth had begun to dawn. “When I went through that bundle, I began to question Ella”, she said.
Adkin asked Sabine to describe the “initial document”. Sabine said she’d produced different versions of the 11-page document which Ella wrote, in which the “20 special children” and their parents were named.
“I only know now that it is a big, big question mark”, Sabine said. “I thought it was a list gathered by the children in Morocco”.
“When you saw that list with the names and information about people identified as abusers”, Adkin asked, “did you have any idea what that would mean?”
Sabine said, “Now that I have seen what I saw, why did I not know how people would be affected? Why only today?…For me, it was a story. I could kill myself for not editing the names out. It was unforgivable. I’m really sorry”.
Adkin asked why Sabine had left the details in the Excel spread sheet she’d made.
“I had not woken up”, Sabine said. “I didn’t realise”. She said that she is more interested in numbers, and “this list came up with all these incredible numbers”. She added that she had not numbered the children and parents to be mean—she just wanted the exact figure.
“I have a special relationship with numbers”, she said. “I found the numbers in [a witness’s] statement. Now I know it’s a class list, I know how likely it is that they are all innocent parents”.
Turning to the issue of Rupert Quaintance, Sabine said she had met him through Angela Power-Disney. She had contributed to his GoFundMe as a gesture of support, because “anyone willing to put their time and energy into this was okay with me”.
By the time she met Quaintance, she said, “it had all been arranged by other people”. She added, “I thought he would go to pubs and investigate”.
Asked what she thought he might do, Sabine said, “Whatever he wanted, and make videos. There was no special plan. Everybody was self-motivated”. She said she had found Quaintance to be “brash, full of bravado…it’s an American thing”.
Sabine said that while they spoke on Skype, when they did meet she found him “pretty offensive”.
While she admitted to sending Quaintance the Excel spreadsheet, she didn’t think he really took it on board.
“Did you think he might contact them?” Adkin asked.
“No”, Sabine said, adding that she didn’t know what he was going to do in the UK. She called his bragging about urinating on Christ Church Hampstead “horrible…embarrassing”.
Court adjourned at about 4:15 p.m., and Sabine’s testimony will continue tomorrow at 10:30 a.m.
Hampstead SRA archive is here, with interviews with the children’s parents, and more, as recorded at the time:
HAMPSTEAD SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE: “ANATOMY OF A COVERUP” – based on The IPCC Appeal document 01 June + Ella interviews
“This is based on The IPCC Appeal document and we would encourage supporters to contact the IPCC with thoughts or something along those lines.
ANATOMY of a COVER UP
What exactly did the medical reports state?
The police initially attempted to undermine the findings of Dr Hodes and now state that they never received the reports until January 2015 and therefore were not aware of it’s findings. Is it feasible that the findings of a police instructed doctor are not communicated to the police? The police were fully aware of the contents of the medical reports and the conclusive findings. To understand the position of the police, it is important to know what is contained within the reports as that would explain why it is necessary for the police to keep their position of undermining / ignoring the findings and stating that they did not receive the reports until January 2015, as it did not support their “investigation” strategy.
The examinations of the children by Dr Hodes were on 15th and 16th September 2014, after the children were kidnapped /taken into police custody. During the police “investigation”, Dr Hodes prepared 3 reports dated 15th, 16th and 22nd September respectively.
Conclusion of reports dated 15th September 2014, examination date 12th September 2014.
Both the reports dated 15th September 2014 are addressed to a Chantelle Stevens of Family Services and Social work. The fifth and final page of both reports has an address blacked out. This is the address of the police and the name of the person this report was sent to in the police department. The police have claimed that they did not receive this report until January 2015 .
The medical report states;
“(G) In both the general physical examinations of G today, there are physical signs that are consistent with the allegations given by both G and A. The scar in the anus is from a healed fissure, secondary to the application of a blunt penetrating force that he has alleged. In summary, G has physical signs that support his allegations of both physical and sexual abuse”
“In general physical and genital examination of A today, there was evidence of findings consistent with the allegations given by A. These were of inflicted physical injury – physical abuse and insertion of a blunt penetrating instruments into her anus. The scars in her anus are from healed fissures, secondary to the application of a blunt penetrating force that she has alleged”
Report dated 16th September 2014, examination date 16th September 2014.
This report, drafted after Dr Hodes attended strategy meetings on 8th and 15th September 2014, has details of how both children have been repeating their allegations to the foster carers. Upon seeing Vaseline in a shop, G says “is that what they put on my bottom” referring to abuse “from their dad and his friends including Mr. Hollings“
Within the report;
‘A’ described a ‘plastic willy’ to the foster carer and that their ‘dad makes them in his shed’.
‘A’ describes how “’Vaseline original’ in a square container was used on their ‘bottoms and willies’” and sometimes they inserted “plastic willies in her bottom” but sometimes “real willies”. Both children said it hurt less with real willies but that the perpetrators wanted it to hurt them so they used a plastic willy”.
“They also said that they did not want it to hurt so much that it scarred otherwise their mother might discover this when she bathed them” This suggests that the perpetrators took active measures to ensure that the abuse was kept secret and hidden from the mother, Ella Gareeva.
“They both experienced bleeding from their bottoms afterwards…given a wet tissue to wipe it with. They described how they wiped blood or sometimes ‘white stuff’ that came from willies’.
“When asked why they did not tell their mother whilst this was happening, they said they were too scared as their father had told them that he would kill their whole family if they told”
The report describes how the children have nightmares of their “dad killing them” and G said “that he suddenly remembers what happened and his eyes go blurry. He then sees monsters and if he closes his eyes he sees ‘a picture of his dad killing him”. We cannot begin to imagine the amount of pain and fear G must have been going through when he was hoping that the “good policeman” would believe him and his sister.
“G described that when he stayed at his dad’s house for two or three days
his dad did not let him go to sleep at night” by being “scary” and putting a “monster costume so that he could not go to sleep”
Summary of findings
“Evident that his (G) experience of abuse has had a significant impact on his emotional well-being.
Further general examination today confirms the physical findings of a scar in the anus from a healed fissure, consistent with inflicted injury from a blunt penetrating force that he (G) has alleged”.
In respect of A, the report states “Based on today’s assessment, it is clear that G and A’s experience of abuse have had a significant impact on their emotional wellbeing. Physical findings today FURTHER CONFIRM the allegations of inflicted anal injury from insertion of a blunt penetrative force, and ARE CONSISTENT with A’s allegations of Sexual abuse”
Medical report dated 22nd September 2014
This report was drafted after she attended strategy meetings on 8th and 15th September 2014 (the appendices 1-2 attached to the report contained notes of the strategy meetings but the local authority and the police failed to provide us with this), supervised the consultations for both children on 12th and 16th September 2014 and spoke to Camden Social workers who informed her of the ABE interview on the 17th September 2014.
The report concludes in respect of A:
“The physical injuries found on her (A) skin are consistent with her allegations of physical abuse..
In the absence of a history of constipation, medical illness and accidental trauma ACCORDING TO THE GP NOTES, the anogenital findings of the scar and the RAD are consistent with her allegations of the application of a blunt penetrating force to her anus..sexual abuse.”
The report concludes in respect of G:
“The physical injuries found on his (G) skin are consistent with his allegations of physical abuse..
In the absence of a history of constipation, medical illness and accidental trauma ACCORDING TO THE GP NOTES, the anogenital findings of the scar and the RAD are consistent with his allegations of the application of a blunt penetrating force to his anus..sexual abuse. “
Police interpretation of Dr Hodes findings by choice of words
Please note the medical report’s use of the words that physical injuries “confirm”, “are consistent” and “evidence of findings consistent with” the allegations of sexual abuse as opposed to the police manipulation of the words to describe and deliberately attempt to undermine the findings of Dr Hodes, such as;
1. CRIS report entry by DS Fernandez 13th September “can be the result of a large solid poo”
2. Police initial response dated 8th July 2015 “could be consistent with allegations of sexual abuse” and
3. Current response dated 24th March 2016“may have been caused by physical abuse in the absence of a medical explanation. The discussion DS Fernandez had with Dr Hodes were such that she verbally reported inconclusive results on the 12th September 2014”
It is clear, that the police have attempted to undermine the findings of Dr Hodes on several occasions by misrepresenting her findings. This is a tactic we are now familiar with as they have endeavoured to do the same throughout the attempted cover up.
Even IF the medical reports had stated or used the phrase “could be consistent“ with allegations of sexual abuse, ( which they do not ) this does not negate the duty for the police to investigate further. In fact, it still provides support to the allegations of sexual abuse, as it does not rule it out and therefore is evidence that should be acted upon during the police investigation.
It is a note of interest that the police report dated 24th March refers to “absence of a medical explanation”. In the medical report of 22nd September Dr Hodes reviewed all GP notes and noted that there was no past history of constipation or other medical condition that could explain the injuries to the anus area of both children. Therefore, Dr Hodes had reviewed the children’s medical history and confirmed there is no other explanation, other than what the children alleged, as to how the injuries to the anus could have been caused.
In fact, the GP notes attached to Dr Hodes report of 22nd September 2014 confirm that that their Mother was concerned about A’s behaviour on 17 January 2011 as the notes state;
“Mother concerned re A’s behaviour. Father given visitation rights last 3 weeks, sees them weekly. Since then A acting strangely, wakes mid sleep at night in hysterics, cries uncontrollably, clinging to mother, sometimes wakes and throws all bedding off the bed”
FREE THE HAMPSTEAD 2
The race is not for the swift.”
See the official site: http://www.hampsteadcoverup.com
HAMPSTEAD SRA UPDATE 29 FEB. + LEAKED MEDICAL REPORT + ELLA WITNESS INTERVIEWS including ALFRED WEBRE + IPCC REPORT
“Whilst Americans and some Europeans deal with the challenges faced by survivors and the families of Ritual Abuse and Trauma Based Mind Control.
The U.K. and other European Governments engaged in Mind Control programs (involving the ritual sacrifice of countless infants) of their citizens,and children within schools and churches persist in denial. The HAMPSTEAD COVER UP is their Black Swan. The captured lame stream media keep the public sedated, distracted and deceived.
The State and their minions have been caught red handed covering up a case of State sponsored mind control program involving Satanic Ritual Abuse. All the guilty concerned are attempting to ignore the problem whilst hoping that it will eventually go away, yet like a cancerous cyst the problem grows daily with the story now reaching a critical mass of concerned citizens world wide. The lost souls have embarked on yet another offensive, due to the increasing public awareness of the case, particularly by Americans who have their own documented history of SRA/TBMC, The Franklin Cover up, The McMartin Pre School scandal etc. Numerous blogs/websites with information from psychotherapists and survivors who far from remaining in denial, are organising regular conferences where they exchange research information regarding solutions and ways to help survivors and their families. The Sun yesterday put out a 3 page hit piece on SRA siting the Hampstead Cover up and a young Nurse named Carol Felstead ?
Regarding the DA Notice. Ella has been in contact with a researcher from Australia who shared that information with us, and apart from the usual suspects’ smear campaign reflecting Pauffley’s fraudulent judgement in March last year this is the first lame stream media coverage of the case in the Sun yesterday. The site the False Memory Syndrome disinfo.
Regarding the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, Columbia Journalism Review stated:
“Rarely has such a strange and little-understood organization had such a profound effect on media coverage of such a controversial matter. The [False Memory Syndrome] foundation is an aggressive, well-financed PR machine adept at manipulating the press, harassing its critics, and mobilizing a diverse army of psychiatrists, outspoken academics, expert defense witnesses, litigious lawyers, Freud bashers, critics of psychotherapy, and devastated parents.”493
The FMSF has repeatedly cited a study presented at a Harvard conference where researchers were repeatedly able to implant the false memory of mundane tasks like grocery shopping, into their subjects using techniques such as hypnosis.494 It has been championed as proof that memories are easily manipulated. However, research has shown that memories of abuse function very differently than average memories.
“However, leading memory researchers such as Dr. Bessel van der Kolk of Harvard Medical School maintain that traumatic memories, which typically are engraved in the sensorimotor processes, are not subject to the same kinds of contamination that can affect normal memory. Traumatic amnesia, described in the DSM-III-R as psychogenic amnesia, is a phenomenon which has been known to mental health professionals for more than 100 years. The clinically observed characteristics of traumatic memory formation and retrieval match precisely the patterns of memory recovery exhibited by SRA [Satanic Ritual Abuse] survivors, and strongly confirm the reality of their cult abuse.”495
Denial serves no one. Neither victims nor perpetrators.
This is not a war. This is an awakening.”
IPCC Upholds Ella Draper’s Appeal [for a 2nd time too – in Jan 2017!]
Posted on February 5, 2016
HAMPSTEAD COVER UP: 22 Dec. ’15 ELLA DRAPER / ABRAHAM CHRISTIE – ED OPPERMAN REPORT
After that interview, this from Ella + Abraham:
“We have been aware of David Shurter as a cointel disinfo shill for a while.http://www.dysgenics.com/tag/lying-fraud/ This was confirmed when he lied about knowing Tavitrained Charlotte Ward/Jaqui Farmer, & then staged a fake public falling out with her in a “secret” Facebook group in order to ingratiate himself with us . They worked together on a video in January 2013.
David Shurter: Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor , Hampstead Theories – “After my Interview… “
David Shurter: “After My Interview with Ed Opperman on the Hampstead Case in the UK” – see more: http://www.davidshurter.com/?p=5511
Mother Ella Draper Witness Statement 21 March 2015
A.L. Webre: Part I: Ella Draper & Abe Christie’stestimony on Hampstead pedophilia the UK High Court excluded 31 March 2015
“HAMPSTEAD COVERUP” – INTERVIEWS with ELLA DRAPER + ABRAHAM CHRISTIE 14 JUNE 2015
HAMPSTEAD COVER-UP on WorldBeyondBelief w/Ella and Abraham
Witness and Victim G.
March 11th, 2015.
Leaked Medical Reports End All Doubt About Sexual Abuse Claims.
The medical reports end any debate regarding the fact that children A and G were the victims of child sexual abuse in Hampstead and underline the criminal nature of the police interviews of September 17th, 2014. The question now is who is being protected? Who has the influence and power to cause the British police such an obvious and inexplicable mid investigation rethink? Clearly there is much more than a Z grade actor and the reputation of a school at stake here. Neither would logically merit the police choice to destroy this investigation and cover up these heinous crimes.
September 5th 2014.
“A referral was made to the Barnet CAIF by (mother’s partner’s) brother in law who is a special constable. Following a disclosure by A and G that they had been sexually abused by their father and “teachers” and were part of a cult. This disclosure had been made when they were in Morocco over the summer. And the parents stated they were unsure who to inform as many people seemed to be involved, (including allegedly police and social workers.)
Initial police interviews conducted.
8/9/14. Initial strategy meeting held.
10/9/14. Visit to family home ahead of ABE interview.
11/9/14. Emergency Police Protection Order issued after the ABE yesterday evening during which witness A, witness G and witness E (mother) were interviewed separately.
Allegations of physical abuse from the mother’s partner towards both children and sexual abuse against both children by their father and “teachers”. They are now in Emergency Foster Placement.”
Police conduct the retraction interviews in transparent attempt to bury the truth and vandalise justice.
Interviewing officers clearly bully false retractions from the children for unknown reasons that can only be sinister.
22/9/14. Police inform the mother E that they have found that the crimes against the children cannot be confirmed. The investigation is over.
22/9/14. Dr. Hodes writes the second medical report affirming the veracity of the sexual abuse allegations despite the retractions. Dr. Hodes cites a specific research finding that found that 16% of victims will retract the allegations and affirming therefore that the physical evidence of abuse should outweigh the retractions.
Lindsay C Malloy, MA Thomas D Lyon JD, and Joia A Quas
Fillal Dependency and recantation of Child Sex Abuse Allegations.
J.Am Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 46:2, 2007.
These statements were made without reference to the disgraceful performance of the interviewing officer in the retraction interviews, which only strengthen Dr. Hodes’ assertions.
The Medical Reports. Who wrote them and are they authentic?
There are two Medical Reports, one dated September 15th, 2014, the other September 22nd. Written on the stationary of the University College of London in a way that leaves no doubt as to their authenticity. Background checks on the names of the people who signed the documents end any doubt . To illustrate this I will cite the best known of the Doctors who have signed these reports Dr. Deborah Hodes (FRCPCH) Consultant Community Paediatrician. A cursory internet search indicates that Dr. Hodes is employed in that role at the University College London and is an expert in the field of child abuse having more than twenty years experience.
Dr Deborah Hodes
The first report dated September 15th appears to have been written by Dr Harriett Gunn (SHO Senior House Officer)* but is also signed by Dr. Hodes, The second Report of September 22nd appears to have been written entirely by Dr. Hodes, as she is the sole signatory.
The Medical Examiners are highly experienced and well qualified.
This does not mean that they are infallible, of course, but these medical reports have been signed by medical practitioners considered to be authorities in the field with decades of experience.
Dr, Deborah Hodes, part of the examination and assessment team that physically examined the children on several occasions is absolutely unequivocal, even after the retraction interviews that the children have physical injuries, that substantiate their claims of physical abuse at the hands of the mother’s partner and more importantly the sexual abuse at the hands of the father and cohorts.
A Brief Overview of the Facts that Emerge from the Medical Reports.
The counter narrative states that the children’s stories were coached and fed to them by their mother’s partner who was himself guilty of minor physical abuse of the children.
The police retraction interviews tried to construct a narrative that the children had been denying the actions of the mother’s partner whilst making the claims against the father and school, yet the Medical Reports show that the children made the claims concurrently and were concurrently examined for both the injuries related to the minor physical abuse at the hands of the mother’s partner and the extremely serious sexual abuse at the hands of the father and staff at the school.
The male has one scar on his anus consistent with blunt force trauma, the female has several and has actually been physically damaged by the abuse in ways that really do not bear mentioning suffice to say that she has multiple injuries “consistent with the application of a blunt instrument.”
They could not be clearer. Someone has been doing deeply unpleasant things to these children, the more lurid claims relating to this case may be exaggerated, but there is a very simple and unmistakeable truth expressed in those medical reports.
After they were taken into Foster care, the children were heard to discuss the use of Vaseline as a lubricant their abusers used on them. They are no longer in the presence of the mother’s partner, there is no need for any story to be told, yet they were speaking about it in a matter of fact way.
The children independently told their story on multiple occasions to numerous Doctors and other disinterested parties and were consistent in their claims against both parties. There was medical evidence to support the claims that were made against both parties.
Both children were observed to be suffering the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Both children complained at their treatment at the hands of the mothers partner, yet it was absolutely clear to the examiners that it was the father they feared. Each child independently expressed the fear that their father would kill them, one had nightmares about it. Expressions of fear do not get more profound than that.
The details outlined in these reports are deeply unpleasant. Unfortunately it is necessary to do this and I will ensure that only the completely necessary information is included. There is a duty to attempt to spread the truth in a matter of gross injustice such as this case represents and I have sought not to identify anyone by name other than the Doctors whose role appears to have been an honourable one.
Key Excerpts from the Two Medical Reports.
September 15th, 2014.
“Witness G “does not report any history of constipation or diarrhoea . However he does report that it does often hurt and he has often bled when opening his bowels although this had decreased significantly in the past two months which his sister says is because it is two months since they have seen their father. (the children were also removed from the school). He opens his bowels everyday and reports that his stool is soft. “( a detail that is unfortunately necessary due to later events)
“Both G and A report that they have been hit multiple times with a metal spoon by mother’s partner over the head and the legs. They also report they have been pushed into walls. They also allege that mother’s partner holds his hand over their mouth till they “can’t breathe.” On a recent visit to Morocco over the summer witness G explains that he was hit on the ear by the mother’s partner in the left ear which caused his ear to bleed and his left eye to be swollen and bruised. G and A said that G was then not allowed to leave the holiday home until the bruises had disappeared.”
(Note: the details contained here completely destroy the notion that these allegations were made as the result of coaching. Did the mother’s partner also coach the children to make all these detailed and specific allegations against him? Of course he didn’t. The fact that these allegations against the mother’s partner were made at the same time as the allegations of sexual abuse is clearly overwhelming evidence that these children spoke the truth to the best of their ability about both issues and were not under external control of either party to a custody dispute as they made the allegations.)
Sexual abuse allegations.
“ A has explained that at school a teacher named Mr. H calls children over and makes them take off their underwear. A explained that she and other children including G are made to bend over and a “plastic willy” is inserted into the anus. Whilst Mr. H holds onto their hips. A also stated that Mr.H “makes noises” while this is done.
Of note, she says that he gives them a refresher bar to eat as a reward and to chew on while this is happening so they “can’t scream or make a noise” and they are asked to face forwards and not look backwards. G has said that the same thing has happened to him. G says that after this has happened he has bleeding from the anus and subsequently. it is very painful when he opens his bowels.”
Victim G Physical injuries described.
His (G) anus was examined in the left lateral position using gentle buttock separation for 30 seconds. He had one anal fissure scar at 9 o’clock on examination of the anus. There was no reflex anal dilation.”
“In both the general physical examination and the genital examination of G today. There are physical signs consistent with the allegations given by G and A. The scar in the anus is from a healed fissure, secondary to the application of a blunt penetrating force that he (G) has alleged.
In summary, G has physical signs consistent with his allegations of both physical abuse and sexual abuse. “
Dr. Harriett Gunn (SHO) to
Dr. Deborah Hodes.
Medical Report Dated September the 22nd 2014.
The report begins with Dr, Hodes outlining her extensive experience in the field. Twenty four years worth.
Dr.Hodes states that she was present at two strategy meetings and two physical examinations relating to this case. In addition Dr. Hodes has spoken to Camden area social workers and also reviewed the photographic evidence pertaining to the children’s injuries.
Summary of Relevant Evidence Victim A..
“She alleged that lubrication was used prior to the insertion of the penis or plastic penis and identified and discussed this with her foster carer.. She also told me about having had an injection. She alleged that bleeding occurred after the event and then had pain on opening her bowels.”
“She told me that she has difficulty getting to sleep and she has bad dreams including dreaming of her father killing her ”
“Below is a list of injuries found in a physical examination of A shown in body maps and the police photographs.”
1.“3 x 4mm abrasion to the pinna of her left ear and 3mm laceration posterior to her left ear overlying the mastoid, A alleged she was pinched and picked up by her ear on Morocco.”
2. “7mm longtitudinal abrasion (excoriated) on the right lateral aspect of her right ankle. A alleged she had been pushed against an outside wall and “had picked it” when she was in Morocco.”
3. “2.0cm x 0.5cm healing abrasion on the left side of the chin. A alleged that she was hit across the face with a metal spoon while in Morocco.“
Below is a list of injuries found on ano-genital examination of A recorded in the DVDs.
(Warning Note: This is deeply unpleasant and awful and a quick summary is that there are multiple and in my opinion horrific injuries to A’s nether regions)
“1. In the left lateral position with gentle buttock separation there was anal laxity and a brief view of the rectum. In the knee chest position with gentle buttock separation, there was reflex anal dilation (RAD) after 5-10 seconds. The reflex anal dilation continued and there was a view into the rectal ampulla and there was no stool present.
2. There was a healed scar in the ruggae at the 10 -11 o’clock position extending from the anal orifice to the anal verge. It was seen in both the left lateral position and the knee to chest position. The abnormalities in the ruggae at the 4 0′ c;ock and 5 o’clock positions may represent healed scar tissue or variation in the ruggae.configuration.”
There are between two and four injuries, with two undoubted and two speculative.
Conclusions regarding the allegations.
“The physical injuries found on her skin are consistent with the physical abuse she described.
In the absence of a history of constipation, medical illness or accidental trauma according to the GP’s notes, the anogenital findings of the scar and the RAD are consistent with her allegations of the application of a blunt penetrating force to her anus (2); sexual abuse.”
She has described symptoms of post traumatic stress.”
Summary of A and G by Dr. Hodes.
“In my opinion A and G are suffering significant harm as evidenced by the following:-
1.Both children have physical signs of physical abuse that support their allegations.
2.Both children have physical signs of sexual abuse that support their allegations.
3.They have symptoms of post traumatic stress.
4. It is now understood from a 2007 substantiated study of child sexual abuse that retraction occurs far more commonly (16% in this series) than previously thought.
5. In my opinion, the extensive and detailed accounts given by both children that were repeated to different professionals contain details of sexual acts that such young children would need to have direct experience of.” (Note: in order to be able to describe them is the unwritten implication.)
To put it simply, Dr. Hodes is stating that there is physical evidence in support of both sets of allegations which really highlights how farcical the entire “they were coached” counter-narrative really is. Because children who have been coached to make false allegations in order to influence a custody battle we are told, were not even coached to lie about the minor physical injuries they suffered at the hands allegedly of the mother’s partner. What kind of coaching is that?
It really shows the desperation to protect that this preposterous and absurd notion was even floated as the counter-narrative. It is pathetic and insulting. Truly laughable.
Ethical and Legal Issues.
The leaking of these documents may constitute a criminal offense, I honestly do not know, but it is obvious that these records have been released in the broader public interest in order to oppose and expose a clear and outrageous injustice. These are exceptional circumstances in which otherwise unethical or even unlawful actions are necessary and just in my opinion.
Why is this happening?
It beggars belief that this investigation was curtailed and destroyed in order to protect a Z grade actor or even the Staff and Institutional reputation of the school and church involved. Something far more important is being protected here, but it is completely unclear whom or what have managed to engineer the stunning travesty that led to the Investigating Police coaching and bullying retractions from the child victims, Witnesses and Victims A and G.
The real mystery at this point is who is protecting this and why?
The way it is being covered up you would almost get the on it’s face ludicrous idea that this was some type of mad, satanic leadership induction program. The people involved may believe they are doing what is right for their children in some sick parallel universe sense.
We Are Living in a Twilight Zone of Serial Denial.
It is completely possible that elements of the stories the children tell that do not relate to events they actually witnessed may be embellished or even incorrect. There is sadly no doubt that whatever the veracity of the claims the police made a decision, a bizarre and inexplicable decision to destroy the case and conduct a cover up. Unless and until the police have a rethink as is inevitable but may take decades, there is little that can be done to even begin to seek justice for the Hampstead victims beyond trying to expose this to enough people that it causes an uproar that requires an immediate police rethink.
We seem to exist in a bizarre twilight zone where anyone with any connection to power can apparently do what they like to children and expect to suffer only the infamy of the grave. As long as you are not fussed about your reputation when deceased and you are connected you do not even have to be discreet. Once you die it will all emerge of course and your name and reputation will be destroyed but other than that there is no penalty.
While it has become clear again and again that the unthinkable has actually been rather routine, that these unbelievably evil crimes have been happening for decades and yet when confronted with a genuine contemporary cover up, the entire “official” British media have literally not a word to say.
Other than the Hamptead and Highgate Express. The local weekly paper had their say recently, they covered the story from the point of view of the alleged perpetrators, predictably, so the reference to the case was rather incidental, but telling.
Google under fire after leaked personal details of Hampstead residents remain on web – Crime & Court – Hampstead Highgate Express
The real story is instantly dismissed thus “The claims, which the mainstream media is barred by court order from reporting on, are said to have been investigated by police and found to be baseless.” Which I think can be fairly claimed to be a downright lie. Perhaps gratitude is the right response to the total lack of mainstream news coverage. Please note the brazen hypocrisy of the Hampstead and Highgate Express stating that “ which the mainstream media is barred by court order from reporting on” before continuing “are said to have been investigated by police and found to be baseless.” Clearly reporting (and indeed completely mendaciously and inaccurately) without naming or even alluding to a source, let alone any evidence to back up their dishonest claim. I hope they are proud of their work at the Hampstead and Highgate Express. Their efforts in support of evil will be rewarded in the deserved manner eventually I am sure, one way or another. It’s only a matter of time.
Return #WhistleblowerKids and #AbuseSurvivors to their Russian Family!
Sources + Important Links=
14 09 15 Medical report.pdf – Google Drive
14 09 22 Medical report.pdf – Google Drive
Aangirfan: HAMPSTEAD – DOCUMENTS
Aangirfan: FROM HAMPSTEAD TO SAN FRANCISCO
Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead to be investigated over links with Jimmy Savile – Health – Hampstead Highgate Express
PLAYLIST of 45 videos re #Whistleblower and #WhistleblowerKids | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
JUSTICE DENIED: Live Recording as Police raid Pedophile Ring Whistle-blower kids mum’s home
Abusers Online | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest | From Child Snatching and the Secrecy of Family Courts to Forced Adoptions, Child Sexual Exploitation and Satanic Ritual Abuse
JOINING Video Dots with #WhistleblowerKids: Exposing World run by Powerful #Paedophiles | ‘Whistleblower Kids’ in the Court of Public Interest
Dr Deborah Hodes
FORWARD UK on Twitter: “FORWARD Trustee, Dr Deborah Hodes, announces opening of the first specialist #FGM clinic in London
ZeeklyTV – Anonymous’s Channel
Dr Hodes Sources.
Lindsay C Malloy, MA Thomas D Lyon JD, and Joia A Quas
Fillal Dependency and recantation of Child Sex Abuse Allegations.
J.Am Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry. 46:2, 2007.
Bradley Ar, Wood, JM, How Do Children Tell?
The disclosure process in child sexual abuse.
Negl. 20 881-891. 1996
The British Medical Association Confidentiality Guide for Staff.(called the confidentiality toolkit)
Excerpts Relevant to this Case.
1. The duty of confidentiality
Confidentiality is an essential requirement for the preservation of trust between patients and health professionals and is subject to legal and ethical safeguards. Patients should be able to expect that information about their health which they give in confidence will be kept confidential unless there is a compelling reason why it should not. There is also a strong public interest in maintaining confidentiality so that individuals will be encouraged to seek appropriate treatment and share information relevant to it.
Using and disclosing information
3. data should be anonymised wherever possible .
occasionally, when it is not practicable to obtain consent, information may be disclosed where the law requires or where there is an overriding public interest, eg where child abuse is suspected
• disclosures should be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose
Information may be used more freely if the subject of the information is not identifiable in any way.
Usually, data can be considered to be anonymous where clinical or administrative information is separated from details that may permit the individual to be identified such as name, date of birth and postcode. Even where such obvious identifiers are missing, rare diseases, drug treatments or statistical analyses which have very small numbers within a small population may allow individuals to be identified. A combination of items increases the chances of patient identification.
When anonymised data will serve the purpose, health professionals must anonymise data to this
extent and, if necessary, take technical advice about anonymisation before releasing data. Whilst it is not ethically necessary to seek consent for the use of anonymised data, general information about when their data will be anonymised should be available to patients.
*S.H.O Senior House Officer A junior doctor in the pre Modernising Medical Careers era (pre-2007) of training in the UK, in the 2nd post-graduate year–i.e., immediately after the PRHO–pre-registration house officer year, which is now designated Foundation Year 1–FY1. SHOs are now called FY-2. Some SHO posts still exist and are taken as a prelude to certain specialities–e.g., surgery, but are no longer a standard year in training schemes for junior doctors in the UK
FAIR USE NOTICE: This item may contain copyrighted (© ) material. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for analysis, commentary, educational and intellectual purposes. In some cases comedy and parody have been recognized as fair use. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For more information please visit:
NB: Everything posted on this site conforms to the meaning of the word “alleged” as defined under UK and US Laws and Statutes.