This quote is the only way to make sense of the articles that have appeared about Vicky and even the subsequent comments about John Hemming MP removing the gag about her.
It is still remarkable that and how The untold story of gagging orders that was published by The Independent on 25 May 2011 remains unquoted. But sensationalism is the carte blanche, it seems.
Who wants to know Truth or truths? It seems easier to ‘believe’ than to ‘know’…
Please do click on About to read how the daughter described her abuse. What does it take for police, social workers and judges to ignore it???
There are two police videos as well as medical and school reports that have been ignored as evidence!
Related articles
- Do super-injunctions equal super PR? (florenceeggins.wordpress.com)
- Doncaster Council trying to gag me by fooling WordPress again (victims-unite.net)
Vicky Haigh: one of many mothers daring to protect her daughter from abuse... 
I feel rather sorry for Elizabeth Watson. I have read a mass of her internet postings, and she seems a good woman with both a rather obsessive passion for chasing red herrings, a misguided interest in legal technicalities (what one might regard as an inability to see a wood for the trees) and a poor understanding of the concept of justice. Lord Wall described her as ‘mentally unstable’. Perhaps his words summed her. But she certainly appears to have been horribly deceived by Victoria Haigh. Lord Wall revealed Haigh to be a vengeful woman intent on ruining David Tune, the father of her daughter Romany, by first coaching Romany into saying the most dreadful things about Tune, and then spreading these revolting allegations across the Internet. One wonders what kind of woman could be so ready both to poison her daughter’s mind – and risk ruining her daughter’s mind for life – merely out of spite. Victoria Haigh is a good-looking woman. But her outwardly pleasing appearance conceals a most cruel and depraved nature.
In fairness to Ms Haigh, family proceedings bring out the worst in people. Normally sane decent people turn into monsters. What is more concerning about this episode is the number of people who have encouraged her on a course of increasingly self destructive behaviour which may have ended any hope of her seeing her daughter again. Some of the people goading her on really should know better.
@nd beaunic…QUOTE – But her outwardly pleasing appearance conceals a most cruel and depraved nature. QUOTE.
Do you have any evidence to back up the above quote you have made?, is so, why don’t you post the evidence here. I doubt that you have any evidence at all, other than what you read in the publicised vicious personal attack, intended to destroy Victoria Haighs reputation which appeared in the Daily Mail by a supposed reporter, who btw has only 8 articles (all time) for the Mail, most of which are character assassinations, one of the articles an attack on Sebastion Coe and his ancestors.
Your personal opinion of Victoria Haigh you are entitled to, but, do you know her?, if you know her then post your evidence…what is most important for you to know is that:
Social Services are NOT bothered about the feelings of Victoria Haigh, or indeed David Tune, they want Romany at all costs, do you know why?, I guess you do…
Romany is worth “MONEY” once she is placed into “SAFE HANDS”, safe hands being “Doncaster Child Traffiking Corporation”…Ray Doherty
I do know Vicky and she has received a lot of jealousy from
people over the years, due to her looks, talent and outgoing personality. The top people in her industry have loads of respect for her and she will restore her good reputation very soon, that is for sure. If she had coached her daughter, would she have admitted it a long time ago, and saved herself all of this stress? David Tune will always have the title of peodophile as we have seen the lengths the judiciary go to to hide and let off peodophiles. Does Lord Wall think the general public are stupid? If Vicky has gone to these lengths at the high cost of losing her daughter like she has, she has belief in her convictions. This story is not going away, not if the Vicky I know (and love) has anything to do with it.
I dont think anyone really believes anything the main stream media print any longer nor anything the members of parliament say .
For the real truth many are seeking alternative media such as The UKColumn http://www.ukcolumn.org/children amongst others, especially when it comes to matters regarding children.
One would hope that families could rely on those in government to expose wrong doing and protect families from injustice , but sadly many find to their peril that this is often just not the case.
” is worth “MONEY” once she is placed into “SAFE HANDS”I have checked with my own local authority, as this allusion to social services making money seemed absurd and a widely held belief. I was told, and accept, that each child in care is a huge drain on social services. YES a foster carer receives payment, but who is paying… social services. There is no extra government money paid to the authority. I would be delighted to see/hear any evidence to the contrary but this is an urban myth and it obscures other facets of child abuse issues.
It is called a “Bonus Grant” Doncaster’s bonus grant was over £500,000. You will find the evidence on the accounts. I have seen the evidence so I know it is there. Hope this helps.
Thank you, I will pursue this tomorrow and let the forum know. ref Bonus Grant.
1. “Lord Wall described her as ‘mentally unstable’. I can believe that she appeared this way after months of late night work on V. Haigh’s behalf and continuous legal pressure from Doncaster MBC as to why she should go to jail, when she considered herself innocent of any wrongdoing. In addition, she had “evidence” that the proceedings instigated by Doncaster against her were fake and not authorised by a Court as the seals were not actually applied by the Court, or documents signed by a judge. Watson did not think she was “above the law” but thought that the law had not been applied correctly and was thus invalid. Perhaps a solicitor would like to comment whether such administrative behaviour is common practice within the family court system.
2. E Watson did not actually post details on the internet, and if she became unstable then the legal pressure was to blame.She was hired by V Haigh to investigate what happened and how a hearing to diqualify the husband from access resulted in the wife, V Haigh, being denied access. I was not at the court on monday , but perhaps someone who was there can add to the report about what was actually said by the judge. A newspaper article is only a sensational synopsis. Perhaps the reporter can post the complete finding of the judge.
It seems very harsh to give her 9 months if she is mentally unstable. Many prominent public figures are excused of standing trial for major crimes when their lawyer pleads illness. In this case the judge declared her “ill” but locked her up.
3. Don’t forget that Doncaster MBC Social service department has presided over 7 child deaths in recent years and been castigated by OfSTED, Whatever the truth about the father, the judge had to find in favour of Doncaster and the family court system. The alternative, would lead to complete breakdown in the perception of this secretive system, of which he is a major stakeholder. .Trashing the reputation of the distraught mother and her investigator has achieved that goal, and frightened away anyone who would seek to challenge the system.
4. I am delighted that the father is innocent. If that is the case, why was a secrecy order granted initially when the whole allegation was proven to be a non event. Nothing happened to the child, no offence was committed, a secret hearing discovered these facts, end of story.You would only make it a secret if there was something to hide, something to be ashamed of, something not right. I accept that a child’s name and address is a secret but that would be enough.
5. I still don’t understand why ( I think it was reported as Nottingham council) wanted to take away the new baby of V. Haigh. Perhaps they would explain. This story led to her fleeing to Ireland to protect the baby and then resulting publicity, from which I developed an interest in this bizarre case
From the Telegraph on SOPOS
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8713203/Judges-weaken-rules-on-paedophiles.html
The judges said in their ruling: “Care must be taken in considering whether prohibitions on contact with children are really necessary.
“It is not legitimate to impose multiple prohibitions on a defendant just in case he commits a different kind of offence.”
Restricting a paedophile’s access to his or her own children would be a breach of human rights, said the appeal judges.
“The defendant may have children of his own, or within his extended family,” the ruling went on.
“If his offences are within the family, or there is a risk that offences of that kind may be committed, then those children may need protection.
“But if they are not, and there is no sign of a risk that he may abuse his own family, it is both unnecessary and an infringement of the children’s entitlement to family life to impose restrictions which extend to them.”
——————————————–
Based on this appeal court ruling above, V Haigh should be able to ask the judge for access to her daughter, without the restriction of supervision by a social worker.
The whole world has gone mad. If I want to commit a crime that I am sure to escape prosecution I would become a peodophile, not a looter or granny basher! Seems totally bizarre doesn’t it?
I agree why trust three High Court judges, the Telelgraph, the Independent, the Mail, the Mirror and the Yorkshire post when you can take the word of some random nutter on the internet.
Sandy, remember the Scotland Yard investifgation into phone hacking, no change, no further evidence, no one had actually gone down to the bin bags of evidence and trawled through them, until Operation Weeting. The first judge presided over a finding of fact where V Haigh was badly represented and broke down in distress over two days of intense pressure in the witness box. I was not there, but read it somewhere, probably on Sabine’s site. Her ex husband had about an hour of questioning when he was the alleged abuser. The second judge did not re examine the evidence of the first judge/ fact find but accepted it. The third judge was heavily influenced by a proper legal team from Doncaster, Watson relied on her misunderstandings of her position. The Doncaster team rubbished Watson and I don’t know what the third judge saw re taped evidence or what he thought of Watson’s points. He was unlikely to reverse the findings of the first judge without spending 2 days hearing the evidence again. I am sure the papers correctly reported his comments, but I think he has relied on the first judgement.
So only one, the first judge has decided based on evidence in front of him, not three..
Watson had called for a public enquiry to get to the bottom of it all. The state cannot afford to make Doncaster look like the bad guys.
“I was not there, but read it somewhere, probably on Sabine’s site.”
I think I may have spotted the flaw in this argument.
Pingback: On the Public Persecution of John Hemming MP « Vicky Haigh: requesting her daughter to return
Pingback: Judge Wall, the secrecy rules, and another stinging attack « Vicky Haigh: requesting her daughter to return
“Whether it’s good press or bad press don’t believe it”. This is a PR “manager” whose life skills are based around the press versus ego What a cop out of ultimate mind blowing confusion when “good is bad” and “bad is good”.
Twisted truth is what we are being lied to believe. Work that one out! Don’t bother. Just stop reading this rubbish.