#EU #ArrestWarrant for #Whistleblower of #WhistleblowerKids and Mother

Yesterday I visited Tatjana Zdanoka MEP (right) who is going to join the proceedings of the father who was punished by Medway Council for having taking his petition to Brussels in November. See the Telegraph article Parents fight British Social Services ‘gag’ to petition European Parliament.

Other parents had been punished in March when I presented the petition to Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent for the first time. John Hemming MP tabled this Early Day Motion about this unlawful action.

She actually had a success story to tell: a Latvian baby taken 3 weeks after birth by Northamptonshire Council and kept for 11 months was given £17,000 compensation!

Here’s how I found out about the EU Arrest Warrant. Belinda McKenzie writes: I had a phone-call from the mother’s barrister who has been to see Colindale police to find out what you are being charged with (he has also been in communication with your solicitor) so you should know that there are Section 4 Harassment charges against you and against Ella plus in your case something under the Telecommunications Act as well (malicious communication or something).

So there is an EU arrest warrant out against both of you and it will only be a matter of days before you are arrested.


I had sent this link about the UK infringement of an EU Directive in January 2014, regarding sexual abuse and sexual exploitation. A super supporter writes:

Hi – it was quite late last night when I read your email – so I had a look and sent you a few key points I thought might be useful. Now, I will try and put them into context of your personal case against UK Authorities.

As a person professionally involved in this case and aware of the facts in terms of two child witness testimonies and police medical evidence to support those testimonies, you also had to consider the legality:

Serious criminal offences such as the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography require a comprehensive approach covering the prosecution of offenders, the protection of child victims, and prevention of the phenomenon. The child’s best interests must be a primary consideration when carrying out any measures to combat these offences in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA should be replaced by a new instrument providing such comprehensive legal framework to achieve that purpose.

Member States should encourage any person who has knowledge or suspicion of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child to report to the competent services. It is the responsibility of each Member State to determine the competent authorities to which such suspicions may be reported. Those competent authorities should not be limited to child protection services or relevant social services. The requirement of suspicion ‘in good faith’ should be aimed at preventing the provision being invoked to authorise the denunciation of purely imaginary or untrue facts carried out with malicious intent.

The case includes child pornography i.e. sessions being filmed and photographed, sexual abuse of children, child trafficking and child murder.

What choice did you have except to appeal directly to the Authority of the general public in light of regular Authorities being allegedly complicit and actually, negligent in dealing with this case which required immediate action: Investigations, prosecutions and competencies

Investigations and prosecutions concerning offences must not solely depend on a report or accusation being made by the victim, and criminal proceedings must be able to continue even if that person has withdrawn his or her statement.. Furthermore, for the most serious offences, prosecutions must be possible for a sufficient period of time after the victim has reached the age of majority.

Basically, you acted in ‘good faith’ according to the facts of what you had witnessed from children, police medical report, Mother and Authority ignorance and negligence: Negligence = failure to immediately investigate verifiable facts. Negligence; left other children at possibly, serious risk – a risk which could not be adequately assessed without a thorough investigation of remaining verifiable facts.

Though allegations are later, withdrawn, the tapes recording the children’s “retraction” would NOT be permissable as freely-given evidence in a Court of Law, the children are very clearly, encouraged to say what interviewers wanted them to say and even, with police putting words into the children’s mouths. By comparison, the first tapes reporting the abuse are consistent and clearly, are freely given statements with no leading questions by police interviewers. In respect of the obvious evidence, yourself and others, very strongly felt that the retraction was cohereced and that children remained at risk.

The amount of time now passed has permitted abusers to escape and cover their tracks. Christchurch school now has ALL new staff and who knows what other evidence is now lost? Considering Authorities themselves are accused, it can be construed that their lack of legally, required action was specifically, to AVOID confirming the children’s allegations. It is very reasonable to conclude that the Authorities of Courts & Police are at the very least, negligent in refusing to use their powers to protect children and limit child sexual abuse & child trafficking and at worst, actively complicit as abusers themselves.

In case of Authorities being suspect and when immediate action is required: Human Right of Free Speech – the RIGHT TO CRY FOR HELP!

What yourself, Mother and others involved, needed and still need, is REASSURANCE that other children and babies were NOT at risk, without that reassurance, all of your lives have been hell because; the stories of TWO witness abused children are consistent, freely given, very detailed and include names and addresses of abusers/killers and other child victims, informed beyond what an average child could know and because the medical evidence confirms sexual abuse = enough to arouse suspicion. Is that kind of suspicion of such serious abuse involving so many children and professional people in UK Authority one can just live with daily? Is it NOT exactly, the kind of suspicion the E.U Legislation on Combatting Child Sexual Abuse, Pornography and Trafficking was written to ENSURE would be investigated?

This Directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular the right to the protection of human dignity, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the rights of the child, the right to liberty and security, the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to the protection of personal data, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial and the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties. This Directive seeks to ensure full respect for those rights and principles and must be implemented accordingly.

British authorities involved in this case have acted negligently according to EU Directives and their negligence lends further credence to the children’s allegations which are in turn, supported by the medical evidence. The implications are extremely serious and if the children’s allegations are correct, this would mean that those Authorities cited as participants in child abuse and murder are a deadly threat to possibly thousands of vulnerable, children. The gravity of that possibility weighed against the very flimsy “retractions” – where is the balance between allegation and fact? What is the point of police who refuse to investigate verifiable FACTS provided by TWO witnesses to multiple murder of babies brought into Britain via child traffickers?

This Directive should be fully complementary with Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (8), as some victims of human trafficking have also been child victims of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation.

The negligence is in fact criminal given the trust and responsibility to uphold the law that is the Oath and job of those professionals involved. This case is not simply about child sexual abuse, human trafficking and murder – all of which have yet to be investigated; this case is about a Mother and her children’s and her Counsel’s, Human Rights and their rights of protection under E.U. Law as E.U. Citizens; the children have a right to speak and be heard, they have a right to have their allegations investigated.

According to EU Directives, you behaved lawfully Sabine and UK Authorities have not.

Much Love xxx


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s