I met Chiara in December, when she chaired the meeting I had requested with the Commission, accompanied by Tatjana Zdanoka MEP.
EU citizens and children in the UK: protected by UN with EU Law enforced?
Given your responsibility for Child Rights, I would like specific clarification regarding your letter of 08 August 2015, further to my email yesterday, and especially with a view to the MEP’s fact finding mission scheduled for London in September: (1) We have scrutinised a UN report, (2) I have to deal with my situation of being harassed by Police, (3) Barnet Council continue to break all the rules in the Court such that the lawyer left due to Art. 6 violation and (4) the Infringement Notice has major relevance on the (5) judgement of the case that caused my addition to the petition: Using the Secrecy of UK Family Courts to Cover-Up Criminal Activities.
- Regarding the UN Report of the Committee on the Rights of Child of 08.07.14 regarding the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography:
- What is its relevance to EU law?
- Its significance to UK Family Courts?
- Its consideration for UK civil and criminal law?
- My own position:
- As an EU citizen, it is my civil DUTY to report crimes.
- When alerting UK authorities and the internet public about the fate of two whistleblower kids and their 18 child victim friends, I was following a lawful course of conduct concerning the fate of European citizens and their children, as presented in our petition 1707/2013 covering the Systemic Patterns of Child Snatching and Forced Adoptions in the UK.
- Is it lawful to have been harassed to the degree that I need a sick note because I can’t walk any more, let alone attend a Police Station three times a week?
- Why are the alleged abusers assumed to be innocent, when EU Directive 2011/92 says expressly that the assumption of innocence needs to be reversed?
- Barnet Council
- Their legal team recognised me in the court where the mother’s permission to appeal was being heard and alerted the tipstaff to get local Police.
- Barnet Council took not only the two Hampstead children into their ‘care’ but also a US mother whose son was snatched in Spain and put up for adoption, after she was imprisoned and deported. As the Association of McKenzie Friends we have been ordered to pay costs when we assisted pro bono.
- In January 2015 I alerted all councillors with this email to the fate of these children.
- Given the precedent of Rotherham Council being dismissed, it may be time to get Barnet Council investigated by MEPs?
- EU Infringement Notice
- You explain that “disclosure of the document at this point in time would affect the climate of mutual trust between the authorities of the Member State and the Commission, which is required to resolve the case without having to refer it to the Court of Justice”.
- I have now read Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and I understand that ‘The European institutions may refuse to disclose a particular document if this is justified by an overriding public interest.’
- In response to your decision to abide by said Regulation, I need to know that your decision is made in recognition of EU Child Protection Directive 2011/92, specifically Section 28 which requests that all honest suspicions of crimes against children must be reported and investigated and, at which point does the “mutual trust of the Member States and The Commission” give way to the public interest of child protection?
- The Judgement by Mrs Justice Anna Pauffley
- A British High Court Judge has recently set a High Court Precedent that claims serious crimes against children as listed by the UN Child Protection Committee report in 2014, are a “fantasy” [para 116]. In arriving at her judgement which was not supported by any evidence or police investigations, Justice Pauffley reflects a blatant disregard of that EU Child Protection Directive and many children are left at risk of serious harm.
- My involvement in the case is spelled out in this Witness Statement.
- Because of the level of professional negligence in this case (which is an example of many), and even strong suspicions of complicity, this Crime Report has been handed to Barnet Police, Scotland Yard, Metropolitan Police and also, the UK National Child Abuse Inquiry – besides Vice President Timmermans and President Juncker.
- Baby trafficking and ritual murder of babies, making and selling of child pornography, child prostitution; crimes committed behind the facade of a “special religion” by multiple professionals and many of them working in UK Family courts, Police and Social Services: all of these terrible crimes are now judged a “fantasy” by the British High Court.
- Are European children in the UK uniquely denied the benefits of EU Child Protection Directives?
- Is it not directly against the public interests for EU Authorities to participate in denying information that would help the public to address very serious crimes against children? They include murder in which multiple professionals within all UK Authorities related to child protection, are lawfully suspected of being complicit and indeed, are identified as suspects by multiple European children in the UK!
- The legal precedent / judgement threatens to further deny every child-witness’ credibility in Britain. The fact that Authorities were in no way admonished for their negligence in following EU Directives by the UK High Court itself, is a negation of the importance of EU Law.
- Also, the legal validity of the UN Report is negated as a statement-of-fact in terms of its being a lawful recognition and identification of specific crimes against children: the UN Child Protection Report not only identifies all the crimes alleged by two European children, it also identifies the social status of abusers and their London location and yet, it was not taken into account nor mentioned by the Judge.
- It appears the UN Child Protection Committee’s deep concerns about lack of arrests and convictions are to be utterly ignored by British Authorities and that UK child abusers may continue to “operate with impunity” [para 30a].
- Because of all of the above lawful concerns, I urge you to reconsider your present stance on my request due to the reality that suspect authorities cannot lawfully be invested with trust from non-suspect authorities; because the British public – as represented by the McKenzie Friends – are now the lawfully recognised ‘competent authority’ in this case (Section 28 of Directive 2011/92), due directly, to the failure of the UK’s regular competent authorities’ diligence in following EU Law.
- In that spirit, I propose that the Commission’s responsibility of trust is with the competent authority moving to stand up for EU Law and NOT with those who are ignorant of it and who are suspected of abusing children.
- Indeed, to withhold vital information at this point in which we are bringing a legal case against said Authorities, the Commission is suggesting that it values more the trust of negligent and criminal suspects than it does the trust of its law-abiding citizens: in your position of being responsible for Child Rights, please do consider the ongoing risk to children.
Looking forward to hearing from you,