The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

HOLLIE GREIG: Leading pro-Hollie campaigner Belinda McKenzie and her sidekick Sabine McNeil under investigation for fraud - both flee the U.K.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

HOLLIE GREIG: Leading pro-Hollie campaigner Belinda McKenzie and her sidekick Sabine McNeil under investigation for fraud - both flee the U.K.

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.08.15 22:33

This report was brought to my attention in July. Sabine McNeil is a close associate of Belinda McKenzie, who for some time has replaced Robert Green as the leading campaigner for 'Hollie Demanfs Justice'.

Prior to this latest saga concerning con-artist Belinda McKenzie, she had:

* Been investigated by the Charity Commission concening an Iranian charity she ran which purported to be for welfare purposes but was used to fund a proscribed Irania terrorist group
* Took over the running of the Hollie Demands Justice group, arranging for all the many donations to be paid in through her private PayPal account. The claims that Hollie Greig was serially sexualy abused by up to 31 Scottish paedophiles over a period of 14 years have been exposed as a fraud - see elsewhereon this forum.

Last year, the parents of two children made a series of lurid allegations of sexual abuse and murders of children by professional in the Hampstead and Highgate areas. As has since been established via various court proceedings, this couple fabricated these claims o cover up their own abuse of their children. Typically, Belinda McKenzie got in on the act, supported this vile couple, set up The Knight Foundation to collect donations rom gullible people, and then repeated what she and Robert Green and others had done in the Holle Greig case by 'naming and shaming' a list of wholly innocent people in the area.

MORE DETAILS HERE:

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime-court/highgate_company_investigated_for_posing_as_child_abuse_charity_and_sending_donations_to_uk_fugitive_1_4165612

Highgate company investigated for posing as child abuse charity and sending donations to UK fugitive
07:00 24 July 2015

The Charity Commission is investigating claims that a Highgate-based organisation has been masquerading as a charity – including revelations that it sent almost all its donations to a fugitive wanted for questioning by police.

An investigation by the Ham&High has discovered that a company claiming to raise money to help “protect children from sexual abuse” had been misleading potential donors as part of a drive to raise £1million.

The Knight Foundation, set up in February 2014, said the money would go towards helping fight “cruelty against children” and “Satanic ritual abuse”.

But the Ham&High has discovered that the organisation is not registered with the government watchdog the Charity Commission and that almost all the donations received are being sent to Sabine McNeill – a fugitive wanted for questioning by UK police.

Her colleague Belinda McKenzie, one of the directors of The Knight Foundation, has been leading the donation drive from her home in Priory Gardens, Highgate.

The 69-year-old told the Ham&High: “We are aiming to become a charity and are at the early stages of the organisation.

“I see our work as charitable as it’s helping others, including my friend Sabine who had to leave the UK or face arrest. She needs financial support for her work, speaking to MEPs about child abuse in the UK. But I will consider amending the wording on our website.”

Ms McNeill, 70, fled from her home in Swiss Cottage earlier this year following her involvement in a case which saw now discredited allegations spread over the internet that a Satanic paedophile ring was operating out of a school and church in Hampstead.

In March, a judge found the claims to be “baseless” and said they had led to many innocent Hampstead families suffering death threats and abuse.

Ms McNeill, who is acting secretary of The Knight Foundation, is thought to have absconded to Germany amidst fears of being arrested on contempt of court charges relating to the case – an allegation she denies.

The Knight Foundation recently ramped up fundraising efforts, with Ms McKenzie posting messages on the organisation’s website every day for the past three weeks urging those wanting to fight “the very worst kind of child abuse” to donate to the “charity”.

After this newspaper’s findings were passed to the Charity Commission, the regulatory authority confirmed the organisation was not registered and said it had been “misleading” potential donors.

Describing its work as “not wholly charitable”, the Commission added it would also be looking further into the company “to assess if there are any other regulatory concerns”.

 +++++++++++++++

SINCE THEN,


A report in the Hampstead and Highgate Gazette last week reported that Belinda McKenzie had also, like her sidekick Sabina McNeil, done a runner. She has since posted a video saying that she was leaving the country, 'possibly for good'. 

Belinda McKenzie is also under investigation in relation to suspected fraud in her capacity as the recipient of donations for the Hollie Demands Justice Campaign, which has no constitution, no officers, no committee, no Treasurer, no membership, and has never issued financial statements.

Amongst those who have publicly supported the Hollie Demands Justice campaign, and continue to do so, are David Icke, Brian Gerrish and the UK Column, Bill Maloney and Sonia Poulton. Poulton gave an unchallenged platform to Robert Green to spout his cunnng but untrue tale whilst she was at David Icke's ill-fated 'People's TV' in 2013. Green has been imprisoned twice for repeatedly accusing wholly innocent people of being paedophiles. His sidekick and supporter Tim Rustige was also jailed last year for similar offences.     

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Hollie Greig,absconders of charity

Post by willowthewisp on 21.08.15 18:43

Hi Tony, thanks for the article on Hollie Greig, so called Charity fund raisers,Scam artists.
I wonder if the Police have issued warrants for their arrests for defrauding innocent people of donations being duped of their money for the imposters to have a lavish life style at their expense?
I have read some articles on Robert Green and after the recent revelations of child abuse from not just Scotland, but appears to have been a World wide abuse of innocent children, carried out by different denominations of religion's Elite members of society for decades, there may be some truth in his revelations but that is for the Courts to determine one way or the other?
The UK police really have their hands full with all of the case's they now have to reinvestigate on child abuse,rapes and murders, but if they had not turned such a blind eye to what was being uncovered, they could have caught the perpetrators and justice would have been served on the guilty parties.
The UK Police seem to not to want to investigate how the monies obtained by the fraudsters who ripped off the Find Madeleine McCann Fund  or the parents, custodians of the fund where quite happy to pay this money to them, didn't want the publicity?

willowthewisp

Posts : 1360
Reputation : 516
Join date : 2015-05-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: HOLLIE GREIG: Leading pro-Hollie campaigner Belinda McKenzie and her sidekick Sabine McNeil under investigation for fraud - both flee the U.K.

Post by Tony Bennett on 23.08.15 21:10

@willowthewisp wrote:I have read some articles on Robert Green and after the recent revelations of child abuse from not just Scotland, but appears to have been a World wide abuse of innocent children, carried out by different denominations of religion's Elite members of society for decades, there may be some truth in his revelations but that is for the Courts to determine one way or the other?
I have studied all the available reports on the Hollie Greig case in great detail, as have not a few others. 

Once these are carefully examined, it becomes plain that Anne Greig has made up this story out of revenge against her ex-husband, and that there is absolutely no truth whatsoever in her allegations nor in what Robert Green has said about them. 

The proper procedure for a mother who thinks her child may have been abused is to call in the police. Which Anne Greig has done on several occasions.

On none of those occasions have the police decided that a crime has been committed. There simply is no evidence to support it, and by contrast three is a great deal of evidence to show that Hollie has NOT been abused.

Again, the proper procedure to follow where a parent does not feel the police have acted properly is to make a complaint to the appropriate police complaints body. In this case, it is the Police Compaints Commission Scotland (PCCS). And Anne Greig did indeed make a complaitn to the PCCS.

I have the full 61-page report into her many complaints here on my computer, but to avoid using too much bandwidth, I shall simply say that there is no cover-up here, the PCCS did a thorough job - and here is their summary of their conclusions:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PCCS REPORT ON ANNE GREIG'S COMPLAINTS - CONCLUSIONS


7. Conclusion

Complaint 1 - That the charge against Relative A in 1997 was not proceeded with by police.
It is evident from the information provided to my office that Grampian Police proceeded with the charge against Relative A. In my view the force provided a full and reasonable response to the complainer. As such I do not uphold this complaint.
Complaint 2 - That an allegation of fraud regarding Relative B’s Will did not result in any action or recovery of assets.
From the information available to me it is evident that a full enquiry was conducted into the information held by the force regarding the investigations into the allegations of fraud and a full and reasonable account of the actions taken by the Fraud Squad Officers was communicated to the complainer. As such I do not uphold this complaint.
Complaint A - That Detective Constable H said to a third party that the complainer had shouted at her. The complainer is unhappy that Detective Constable H said this.
The force stated that it was not possible to conclude whether Detective Constable H made this comment. I note that Detective Constable H did not raise this matter in her statement of complaint. Nevertheless in my view the response provided by the force to the complainer was reasonable and as such I do not uphold this complaint.
Complaint 3 - That in May 2000 the complainer reported allegations of domestic abuse to Constable D who failed to instigate proper enquiry or provide further information.The response provided by the force was reasonable and accurate. In the absence of any evidence to support or contradict the view of either party I do not uphold this complaint.
Complaint B - That in 2000 officers failed to follow up the complainer’s allegations of domestic abuse by Relative C.
Due to the passage of time, from the information still remaining it is not possible to conclude whether enquiry was conducted into the complainer’s allegations of domestic abuse. Therefore in the absence of any evidence to support the complainer’s view I do not uphold this complaint. I note that Superintendent J has identified a learning point for the force regarding the recording of information.
Complaint 4 - That in August 2000 the complainer reported allegations to Detective Constable E that X had been the victim of abuse and proper enquiry was not instigated.
From the information available it is evident that the complainer’s account of events differs from that of other police and non-police witnesses. From the evidence available, from both police and non-police witnesses, it is clear that the force did make arrangements with the complainer to have X re-interviewed, but that the complainer did not attend at the meeting. The response provided by the force was robust and accurate and as such I do not uphold this complaint.
Complaint 5 - That Detective Constable E instigated action to have medical authorities ‘section’ the complainer under Mental Health legislation because of the allegations she had brought forward on behalf of X.
The force stated that Detective Constable E held genuine concerns for the complainer’s, and as a result X’s, welfare and that these concerns were based on observed behaviours. From the information available it is evident that the decision to seek a Warrant in terms of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 was made by mental health officers. Furthermore evidence provided by non-police witnesses state that the information supplied by Detective Constable E formed only part of the decision to seek the Warrant. It is also clear that there were concerns for the complainer’s mental health prior to Detective Constable E’s involvement with the complainer. This position was communicated effectively to the complainer in the response from the force. On the basis of the information available there is no evidence to support the complainer’s assertion and as such I do not uphold this complaint.
Complaint 6 - That Detective Sergeant F failed to carry out proper enquiry into allegations of sexual abuse of X.
From the information available it is clear that the force conducted enquiry before making the decision not to interview the list of individuals named by X as her abusers, with the exception of Relative A. The reasoning for not conducting these interviews was documented and evidence available suggests that this explanation was communicated to the complainer by Detective Sergeant F. The force provided a through and reasonable response to the complainer and as such I do not uphold this complaint.
Complaint 7 - That a female officer accompanying Detective Sergeant F when he visited the complainer’s home made an inappropriate comment that the complainer believes demonstrated sympathy towards Relative C.
Detective Constable T denied making an inappropriate comment to the complainer and this was supported by Detective Sergeant F. There is no evidence other than the statement of the complainer to support her view. Enquiry was carried out into this complaint and an appropriate response was provided to the complainer by Deputy Chief Constable Y. As such I do not uphold this complaint.
Complaint 8 - That an apology was apparently made to Relative A after he had been interviewed by police in connection with the alleged abuse of X.
There is no evidence to suggest that Relative A was offered an apology in the way the complainer suggests. Appropriate enquiry was conducted into this complaint and Deputy Chief Constable Y provided a reasonable response to the complainer. As such I do not uphold this complaint.
Complaint 9 - That in March 2005 Mr G, a member of Grampian Police Support Staff, made offensive comments at a Criminal Injuries Compensation Hearing.
The force responded to the complainer stating that it was clear a comment had been made, although Mr G denies that it was in the form that the complainer recalls. From the evidence available there is nothing other than the complainer’s statement to suggest that Mr G made this comment as worded by the complainer and as such I do not uphold this complaint. However, it is clear that Detective Inspector V did provide an account to the CICA confirming that, on the balance of probability, X had been sexually abused. I understand that this account was intended to represent the view of Grampian Police. The evidence that Mr G provided to the CICA hearing appears to have contradicted the account previously provided by Detective Inspector V. That Mr G was a last minute stand in for Detective Constable H is concerning. It is also unclear whether he had the appropriate knowledge to give evidence on this case. That in the course of the enquiry into this complaint Grampian Police focused its enquiries on the words spoken by Mr G and not on the impact of comments is a matter of concern. I now ask the force to satisfy itself that it has appropriate procedures in place to prevent such a situation from arising again.
Other matters raised
10 - That the sudden death of Relative B in 1997 was connected with him allegedly witnessing Relative C abusing X.
11 - That the complainer is concerned about the extent of the enquiry carried out in 2000 into the allegation that Relative C abused X, specifically whether any DNA evidence was obtained.
12 - That the complainer does not know what was done with two psychologist reports provided to the force by her.
Although the force could have provided a more detailed response to the complainer, in my view it conducted a robust enquiry into the concerns.

Jim Martin
Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland
July 2008
PCCS/

 



  n .

c

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13975
Reputation : 2148
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum