To understand the Concept & Services of

Stolen????- where you can help yourself and others:

StolenKids- 4 Those losing kids due to 'authorities' ie Forced Adoption & Care!

GO TO http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.com/ Or perhaps more suited to YOUR needs:

StolenChildhood- 4 those facing abuse past or present sexual or other!

GO TO http://stolenchildhood-bloggers.blogspot.com/ or

StolenTrust- 4 those where or have suffered abuse within a relationship!

GO TO http://StolenTrust-bloggers.blogspot.com/
StolenOyster- 4 those who have been abused or raped by a stranger or stalker

GO TO http://StolenOyster-bloggers.blogspot.com/


Monday, 7 December 2009

07-Dec-2009 - FAMILY COURTS - Bob GELDOF

‘Barbaric’ family courts behind ‘state sponsored kidnap’

Bob Geldof has launched an outspoken attack on the family courts system accusing it of routinely allowing “state sponsored kidnap” of vulnerable children.

By John Bingham
Published: 4:56PM GMT 07 Dec 2009
Bob Geldof Photo: Stephen Lock

The singer and anti-poverty campaigner described the current child custody laws as “barbaric and abusive” and dismissed the system as a “disgraceful mess”.

He claimed that children’s futures are being decided on the basis of “mumbo jumbo” and “social engineering” with devastating long-term consequences for society.

Mr Geldof, who fought for custody of his three daughters from his former wife Paula Yates, also alleged that British courts “consistently” show bias against men by handing custody to mothers.

His comments come in the foreword to a new report which draws together a clutch of recent research on the psychological effects of break-up on children.

The paper, published by The Custody Minefield, an internet legal advice service, and supported by Families Need fathers, the campaign group, calls for a change in the law on relocation cases in which separated parents apply for permission to move elsewhere.

It calls for the current guidelines to be changed to include an explicit ban on decisions favouring mothers on grounds of gender.

The report lists a raft of academic research which it says shows that children with no paternal influence are more likely to have behavioural problems, lower exam results, mental health problems, and even lower IQs.

It follows a recent study which found that up to a third of children whose parents separate lost touch with their father permanently.

“In the near future the family law under which we endure will be seen as barbaric, criminally damaging, abusive, neglectful, harmful to society, the family, the parents and the children in whose name it purports to act,” wrote Mr Geldof.

“It is beyond scrutiny or criticism and like a secret society its members – the judges, lawyers, social and child ‘care’ agencies behave like any closed vested interest and protect each others’ backs.”

He described the system as: "A farrago of cod professionalism and faux concern largely predicated on nonsensical social guff, mumbo-jumbo and psychobabble.

“Dangling at the other end of this are the lives of thousands of British children and their families.”

In a reference to the famed wisdom of the Biblical King Solomon, he added: “Rather than Solomon-like resolving our tragically human disputes with understanding, compassion and logical pragmatism, the courts have consistently acted against society’s interest through the application of prejudice, gender bias and awful impartial cruelty.”

Presented with two women who both claimed to be the mother of a baby, Solomon is said to have suggested cutting the child in half. One of them immediately begged him to give the baby to her rival, demonstrating that she was the true mother.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: "We are creating a family court system that is transparent, accountable, and inspires public confidence in its good work, whilst still protecting the privacy of children and families involved.

"That is why we have allowed greater media access to family courts which will lead to greater trust. We have also increased access to out of court family mediation by putting information about divorce, relationship breakdown and the family courts, and a link to the Family Mediation Helpline website, on the DirectGov website.

"It is for the court to consider the evidence put before them in each individual case. However, the child's welfare will always be the court's paramount consideration."

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
To See The Links Page

Thursday, 3 December 2009

03-Dec-09 - Daily Mail - SS FORCE JUNK FOOD ON BABY

03-Dec-09 - Daily Mail - SS FORCE JUNK FOOD ON BABY

Boy, two, is snatched by social workers after mother refused doctor's advice to feed him junk food

By Chris Brooke

Last updated at 10:47 AM on 03rd December 2009

Like many toddlers, Zak Hessey was a fussy eater who refused his mother's healthy home cooking.

Concerned about his falling weight, his parents sought the advice of doctors. That simple act triggered a shocking chain of events that led to the youngster being put into foster care for four months.

Paul and Lisa Hessey believe in the long-term benefits of healthy eating and rejected advice to feed their two-year-old son high-calorie snack food such as chocolate, crisps and cakes.
Taken into care: Zak Hessey was placed in a foster home for four months because his parents refused advice to feed him junk food

To their horror, social workers put Zak into foster care 'to assess his needs' and allegedly threatened the couple with the loss of their parental rights if they fought the decision in court.

'I was absolutely devastated, I broke down in tears,' recalled Mrs Hessey, 48. 'I was scared out of my wits. I phoned Paul to tell him and he just broke down on the phone.'
But they went to court and, after four months, Zak returned home with the blessing of social services, who accepted he had good and caring parents.

Zak is now putting on some weight, but his eating problems were not cured by his time in the care of 'experts' and, much to the annoyance of his parents, he has acquired a taste for junk food.

Mrs Hessey, of Bolsover, near Chesterfield, said: 'I thought I was doing the right thing going to the best people for advice when Zak began to lose weight.

Heartbroken: Lisa Hessey was told she would have her parental rights taken away in court if she opposed a decision to place Zak in care
'Instead they basically accused me of neglecting him and implied it was all my fault. I have four other children and they are perfectly healthy, it was just that Zak was refusing food for some reason. They said I should just feed Zak chocolate, cakes and junk food just to get calories into him. But I objected, saying that was only a short-term answer and not a proper solution.

'The Government and doctors are always drumming into parents the importance of healthy eating - yet they were telling us to feed Zak all the wrong things.

'That is obviously what they were doing when he was in foster care so now it is hard to get him to eat anything else.'

Mrs Hessey and her 48-year-old husband, a lorry driver, took Zak to see a paediatrician at Chesterfield Royal Hospital in July. He was 20 months old and weighed 1st 3lb.

Mrs Hessey, whose four other children are under ten, said she was happy for Zak to be admitted for a two-week hospital assessment and was hit by a thunderbolt when she went to collect him on July 24.

She was taken into a room with a nurse and social worker who apparently told her: 'We would like Zak to go into foster care to assess how he feeds. You have legal rights but be warned if you oppose this we will go straight to court and have all your parental rights taken away.'

Mrs Hessey said: 'They kept saying, "If you love Zak and you want the best for him then you'll agree to this". They said we had been negative about eating. That was because they had been telling us we should feed Zak crisps, chocolate and cakes to get calories into him.

'I was questioning that approach. We eat proper home-made food at our house and just have chocolate and cakes as a treat.'

Fussy eater: Zak Hessey, two, has now acquired a taste for junk food after social workers tried to make him gain weight
She agreed to Zak going into care after hearing to the possible repercussions if she objected. Initially she and her husband couldn't see Zak for six days.

After hiring a solicitor, they were allowed three hours a day with him during the week in the company of a social worker.

The first hearing before the family court in Derby was on September 2 and the case was adjourned for two weeks. Interim care orders were imposed and Zak returned home following a third court hearing on November 18. By this stage social workers had lifted their objections - and he had put on only 1lb.

Mrs Hessey said: 'Social services did a complete about turn. They admitted that in foster care Zak was exactly the same with his food as he was at home.

'They said we were very good parents. I still find it hard to come to terms with how we have been treated.' Derbyshire County Council said: 'We only take a child into our care either with the consent of the parents or following very careful consideration by a court.'
A spokesman for Chesterfield Royal Hospital said: 'While we understand Mr and Mrs Hessey's distress, Zak's welfare was paramount and we believe we acted in his best interest

To view the original article CLICK HERE
To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:


To See The Links Page

Tuesday, 17 November 2009

17-Nov-2009 - TELEGRAPH - Cassandra Jardine -

Family courts prepare to open their doors
As a proposed law aims to bring greater transparency to family courts, Cassandra Jardine examines what happens when personal disputes are exposed to public scrutiny.

By Cassandra Jardine
Published: 6:06PM GMT 17 Nov 2009
Photo: Clare Kendall/Geoff Pugh
Miscarriages of justice: Sally Clark (left) and Angela Cannings were convicted of murdering their children on the basis of flawed expert testimony. Both were released in 2003.

The young mother sitting a few feet away from me in a family court is red-eyed with grief. Last year, her three children were taken from her and placed in foster care because she was deemed incapable of meeting their need for a calm, safe environment. She came to court hoping to get them back now that, she claims, she no longer keeps dangerous company. Her eldest child has begged to return to his mother; she wants him to be allowed to address the judge, who decides this is too stressful for the child. Sensing that the case is going against her, the mother accuses the local authority of gross injustice to her and her children.

Her raw emotions jar with the hushed atmosphere and formality of the proceedings. Wigs and gowns are not worn in the family courts; the judge and the barristers representing the mother, the local authority and the children's guardian ask questions in a gentle manner but there is a sense of a juggernaut ploughing on towards an inevitable conclusion.

The manager of the local authority's child protection team takes the oath. As she gives her opinion on the fate of the children, it is clear that there is very little room for manoeuvre. No one is considering returning these children. The mother hasn't harmed them physically or sexually, but her erratic behaviour, violent associates and emotional incontinence are damaging them. Eloquently, thoughtfully, the social worker gives her opinion that the children must be kept from her if they are to learn boundaries, develop emotional stability and avoid a future of chaos and crime. The only bone of contention, within the courtroom, if not the mother's mind, is whether it would be harmful for the children to see their mother twice a year.

That much I can report without transgressing the current rules on reporting on the family courts, which may soon be extended in a series of clauses in the Safeguarding Children Bill to be announced in the Queen's Speech today. These will continue the contentious move towards opening up the family courts to press scrutiny by making expert witness reports and judgments available, while maintaining the anonymity of the families involved.

As the law stands, I can report a case without identifying the family. No one disagrees with that, but even naming the local authority might be too revealing. Nor am I permitted to see the medical and psychological reports on which the local authority's opinions are based: although the mother's inchoate distress seems to support the diagnosis of a "personality disorder", anyone under such pressure might behave similarly.

Yet I am fortunate – if that is the right word – in being allowed to witness this painful scene because, to promote understanding, all concerned have agreed to my presence.

Until six months ago, I could not have been there, even if the mother had begged the judge to allow access. Unless the case was being heard in a magistrates' court, I could not have reported on it because family cases at county court level and above were conducted in secrecy. That changed at the end of April, after a prolonged campaign by journalists, politicians and parental pressure groups. Many who work in the family courts resisted press access but Jack Straw, the Justice Minister, pushed it through. He had little choice.

For years, the secrecy of these courts had become an increasingly vexed issue. A series of criminal cases had opened eyes to the possibility that experts could sometimes hold pet theories and be wrong. Innocent parents, including Angela Cannings and Sally Clark, were sent to prison for murdering their children when, it later emerged, the evidence of certain experts, including Sir Roy Meadow on Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, was far from conclusive.

If such miscarriages of justice could occur in criminal proceedings, it raised the question of how many more blameless people were being punished in the "secret" family courts. Concern focused on two specific areas: the removal of children into care or adoption on the basis of expert witness reports, and parents (mostly fathers) who were prevented from seeing their children because of vindictive ex-partners.

High hopes, and dark fears, preceded the change but, half a year later, it seems to have been a damp squib. "You're the first journalist we've seen since day one," says the clerk at the Central Registry in London, where many family cases are heard, when I pop along on spec. Her list reveals nothing about the local authorities involved or the nature of the cases, only those that are closed to the press because they involve adoption. Moving from one court to another, I find an aggrieved father arguing over school fees, a happy mother whose daughter has been returned from foster care and a deserted courtroom where a judge in a Garrick Club bow-tie reads out "pronouncements" of finalised divorces. Without a steer towards an interesting case, it's a pointless exercise.

"We have conned you," says Toby Hales, a family law specialist with solicitors Hodge, Jones and Allen. "Most cases are boring. You were only interested in coming because of the mystique of secrecy. Journalists said they wanted to report on processes but, after the first day, I only saw reporters when there was a sensational divorce involving a celebrity.

"The sad thing is that there are legitimate public interests to be served. You could be scrutinising local authority actions. Judges criticise social workers daily, mostly for delays in decision-making involving children. This is not due to careful thinking, but inefficiency. Social workers are often on sick leave, they fail to file documents or circulate reports, and do not instruct experts with the prescribed time-scale."

He cites the case of a four-month-old baby whose mother has mild mental health problems. In the spring it was decided to put the child in temporary foster care while arranging to send mother and baby to an assessment centre. "Three months later the referral had not been made, and the mother and child had missed out on the crucial bond-forming time. It's a disgrace."

Another case which Hales believes "places the whole system in disrepute" concerns a good father denied access to his children by their mother. Court proceedings have cost him £15,000 and led nowhere because the judge has repeatedly refused to use his powers to force the mother to comply. "The law says parents should have access, but that man has been given every incentive to give up."

Local authorities might emerge as the villains, but they are under intense pressure. The Baby P case has resulted in a sharp rise in child protection cases, and yet more work for social workers who were already over-burdened. Coupled with a 3,000 per cent drastic rise in the cost of bringing such cases (from £150 to £5,025), there has been an almost equally steep drop in guardians available to safeguard them as the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service has stopped paying freelances and capped legal aid fees, which encourage solicitors to do the bare minimum. There is much to report on from the family courts.

But there is no agreement on whether the proposals to extend openness are desirable. John Hemming, a Lib Dem MP who hears from 700 aggrieved parents through Justice for Families, wants experts named "so we can compare cases"; Julia Brophy, a sociologist at Oxford University, believes "assessment by media is very dangerous."

Campaigner Penny Mellor says: "You can't let outsiders see reports of sexual abuse but, where social workers and doctors have done a bad job, they should be named and shamed and, where they have done a good one, they should be praised."

Blame could create still further problems in bringing child protection cases. "I don't think doctors would want to do the work," says Judge Nicholas Crichton, who works at the Family Proceedings Court in central London. "As for publishing judgments, there are logistical problems. I am here from 6.30 am most days, and don't leave till 7 pm. Anonymising judgments takes time."

Yet clinging to secrecy inevitably fuels rumours of injustice. "I don't accept the word 'secrecy': we are protective," says Crichton. "These cases all relate to troubled people and damaged children. I rarely see a case that shouldn't have been brought. Often, I think, 'Why not sooner?' If a case doesn't go a parent's way, many say it was unfair but I hope you have seen that we conduct these cases with great care."

I have, but more transparency lies ahead. We must all – journalists, researchers and pressure groups – make sure we use it, and use it responsibly.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
To See The Links Page

Sunday, 11 October 2009

S. Tel. - 11-Oct-2009 - Christopher BOOKER

S. Tel. - 11-Oct-2009 - Christopher BOOKER

The SUNDAY TELEGRAPH by: Christopher BOOKER 11-Oct-09

Adoption system is UK's shameful secret
Britain is the only country in Europe where children are routinely removed from their parents without consent, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:08PM BST 10 Oct 2009

This week I return to one of the most disturbing stories this column has ever reported. It began on a morning in April 2007 when the home of a respectable middle-class family in Sussex was overrun by 18 policemen and two RSPCA officials, supposedly looking for guns. When the father, a professional dog breeder, volubly protested, he and his pregnant wife were arrested and handcuffed, to the horror of their watching five-year old daughter (whom I call, for legal reasons, "Jenny").

East Sussex social workers were then called to remove the little girl. Her mother had a miscarriage while in custody and returned to an empty home, left in chaos. Jenny has remained in foster care ever since, and despite her parents pleading for her return through 74 legal hearings, the ruling by a family court judge last March that she be put out for adoption was upheld in July by the Appeal Court.

Having now seen further documents relating to this saga, I can understand why the family's GP wrote that in 33 years as a doctor he had never come across "such an appalling case of injustice". The first document was her parents' careful chronology of every step in the story, including transcriptions of many of their telephone conversations and meetings with Jenny, invariably under strict surveillance by social workers or the foster carer.

The dominant impression from these recordings is of Jenny's desperation to be reunited with her parents, and of an increasingly distraught child who cannot understand what has been done to her. The parents claim that pressure was put on her constantly to say that she didn't want to see them again. Why did the family court judge not allow this evidence to be heard in court, although she did admit accounts of these "contacts" by the social workers?

A second document is the judgment by Mr Justice Bodey in the Appeal Court confirming that Jenny must be put out for adoption. No evidence had been produced that her parents ever caused Jenny physical or mental harm. His ruling centred on two points. One was evidence that her home was a mess on the day of the raid, although those who knew the house well testify that it was normally clean and tidy. The other was that, when the family's home was invaded by 18 policemen (a figure confirmed by one policeman in evidence), the father verbally abused them in colourful fashion (but didn't attack them physically). Are these really adequate grounds for tearing a child and her parents permanently apart?

A third document is the book Forced Abduction by Ian Josephs, a businessman who has taken an active interest in the removal of children from their parents by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s. He acted in part of the Jenny case as a "Mackenzie friend", that is, an informal assistant and adviser.

Mr Josephs shows that Britain is almost the only country in Europe which routinely allows children to be separated from parents without their consent. Indeed, he reproduces a press release put out in 2003 by Hammersmith & Fulham Council boasting how, under a Local Public Service Agreement, it had received a reward of £500,000 from central government for hitting its target of 101 adoptions in the year. This particular, highly controversial scheme of cash bonuses has, thankfully, since been abandoned.

The impression given by these documents supports the GP's view that this is an "appalling case of injustice". Social workers, lawyers and judges seem enmeshed in a system heavily skewed towards putting children out for adoption – by a process so shrouded in secrecy that it seems designed more to protect the system itself than the interests of the child. Most alarming of all is that there seems no one with the authority to intervene in cases such as Jenny's, where that system appears to have left both a loving family and justice horribly betrayed.


Comments: 19

Gladiatrix - with respect is it not OUR duty to take these actions and thank Reporters for Reporting?

Caroline - you are quite right, in a communist country, or you will note from The Lisbon Constitution in Britain also secrecy is the cloak behind which state crime is conducted and the State machine takes control of our lives.

Your summary is bunkum - it is ONLY with exposure that such criminal State activities are overturned.

With your duplicitous advice Thalidomide victims would never have gained compensation, or do you not remember Harold Evans. Was it not the reporters of The Washington Post who exposed the criminality of Richard Nixon?

The more light and fresh air Booker can let in the better - I have known him for many years & respect his lack of personal ambition at the expense of innocent victims.

As for the family concerned I have tried to support them since their daughter was first seized and there has NEVER been any claim EVER that was in any way sustainable that they have or ever would do anything other than spoil their daughter and both love and care for her.

There are clear and unequivocal independent expert medical reports that their daughter HAS been traumatised and harmed by the system.

As an uninformed critic may I suggest the sock is best placed in your opinions, but unlike the parents you have a fundamental human right of freedom of speech!

Greg L-W.
on October 11, 2009
at 12:18 PM

My sisters only child was forcibly removed and adopted "out". Saddest of all he died from leukaemia just before he turned 16 when he might have sought his birth mother out...who created this monster of the UK social services? I wonder who they are servicing.
Alison Miller
on October 11, 2009
at 12:18 PM


Yet more about StolenKids can be found in general at:
& in specific at:

Story after story about children seized by The Social Services. Yes of course they get it right on lots of occasions but due to secrecy of Courts & procedures to protect them they can get away with this obscene behaviour.

StolenKids is for people who have been abused by the Courts & Civil Servants IN OUR NAME; there they can air their own story for help, support or just for catharsis.

By drawing back the curtains to let the light in, and opening the windows to let fresh air in, you can help these unfortunate people to gain Justice.

Help expose the vile behaviour of Courts, Police & Social Services when they occur and also examples where they got it spot on when they occur!

It is up to us to help make sure our society functions and children get the very best.

Greg L-W.
on October 11, 2009
at 11:12 AM

Someone above mentioned the sorry state of our Country, with people like Caroline around is it any surprise. It seems to me there are too many like her in place, a savage cull is urgently required.
Derek Buxton
on October 11, 2009
at 11:12 AM

Well thanks to Caroline who is obviously a social worker, even if she doesn�t have the courage to say so.

I am amazed that she justifies the immense damage that our incompetent social care system does to many children every year, on the basis that it is somehow good for the children.

Our social workers are utterly unaccountable and must be made to face the consequences of their decisions. This should include legal action and imprisonment when they get it wrong.

Tony Nicholls
on October 11, 2009
at 11:12 AM

Thank you Christopher for highlighting the horrors of "forced adoption" and for recommending my book and my website of the same name.A little known statistic produced in Parliament by Tim Loughton MP (then shadow minister for children)was the result of a survey comparing treatments of children taken into care in Denmark where 45% were placed with relatives and the UK where the figure was and still is a derisory 1% contrary to the express provisions of the Children Act 1989 !
Most of the injustices in family courts could be removed by three measures.
1:- Remove the gag on parents who have had their children in their view unjustly taken and allow them to protest publicly givig names to the media without being jailed (more than 200 annually) for their temerity !Allow teenage children to speak out also because they too are gagged to protect their own privacy!
2:- If pemanent separation of parent and child is envisaged as a possibility then the case should be heard by a jury not by an "establishment" judge.Juries hear cases of petty crime,libel,and even complcated city fraud cases. They would never order the removal of hundreds of newborn babies annually simply and solely for "risk of emotional abuse"
Mothers face a life sentence when their children are adopted forcibly so surely they should have the same right as a burglar to demand a hearing by a jury.
3:- Concentrate the limited resources of the "SS" on preventing life threatening physical abuse (baby P etc) instead of wasting them chasing single mums who love their children through countless court actions often in foreign countries because they "cannot work with professionals" or have untidy houses or chaotic lifestyles disapproved of by uniformity bureaucrats !
Lastly it is worth noting that "Jenny" in the above case is now 7 years old ,loves her parents,knows their address,phone numbers,and email address and has said she would never accept any adoption but would keep in touch with "Mummy and Daddy" and go back to them as soon as she could !
No adoption of this seven year old who loves her parents could work so who were the idiot judges who orered it??
ian josephs
on October 11, 2009
at 11:10 AM

Caroline 08:47 PM
Only a social worker could write such illiterate nonsense.

I presume you must be well on the way to meeting your target of forced adoptions for the year. We can't let Mr Booker's expose get in the way of your bureaucrat's dogma.

No doubt you'd have shied away from having to deal with the likes of Baby Peter Connelly's care situation; better to pick on the middle classes as they're an easier target and the more contemptible for you because a) they're middle-class, b) they're married and love and care for their child.

Stable families are a nuisance to modern social workers: they represent the most formidible barrier to the all pervasive state control.
John Mackie
on October 11, 2009
at 11:08 AM

I believe that when the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about this whole perverted system of control freakery is exposed to the British public, it will be become a National scandal, at least as traumatic as the Dreyfus affair in France which still reverberates down the ages.

Cruelty to anyone, but most of all children is wicked and we must do all in our power to expose it and I doubt that too many, who comment here, would wish to disagree with that view.

Mrs Thatcher told us that her main Charity was the NSPCC and I suspect that it was her horror at some of the dire cases that they have to deal with that that inspired much of the legislation which now seems to be abused to meet targets for some ideological concern, far removed from the protection of the child.

Indeed, the legislation as now implimented is as great an abuse of children as the cruelty it seeks to mitigate.

Justice must be based on evidence, not opinion and some of the instances of misuse of the available legislation are enough to make grown men want to cry, first in sorrow, then in anger at what is being done in our name.

I had thought that we had got rid of the Court of Star Chamber when the people rose up and overthrew Charles 1, because of his abuse of the Royal Perogative.

Where are the Cromwells and the Pymms of our age who will call our secret courts by their true name.

Justice has to be seen to be done or it is not justice, it is tyrany.

Paul Botfield
on October 11, 2009
at 11:07 AM

My stomach churned when I read the opening line of this piece because I recalled at once earlier instalments of this appalling story with mounting horror.

Either there is something we are not being told, as an earlier comment implied, or this is a monstrous injustice which is being shrouded in secrecy and stark evidence of an arm of the state out of control: this is the very extreme other end of the same scale which enabled what happened to Baby P.

There is nothing in what Booker has ever said about this case that is remotely as bad in this home as in those in which tens of thousands of children are brought up - which most of us would call dysfunctional, dirty, neglected and bereft of love, intellectual stimulation, and prospects - every one of those homes quite safe from meaningful intervention by Social Services.

Why is this case not more prominent in the media - the scandal of the behaviour of the state (or evidence justifying it) given the anonymity of the child - exposed?

I don�t recognise this Britain - I don�t want to recognise it.
simon coulter
on October 11, 2009
at 11:07 AM
Report this commentThis problem, while unique to Britain in Europe is too out of control in America. There is enormous concern that many of these children will find themselves in the power of paedophiles.

I note that Caroline
on October 10, 2009
at 08:47 PM

States that tearing a family to pieces, while invading and terrorising a household under false pretences, by no less than 18 corporate policy enforcers in order to set up a kidnap scenario is necessary to facilitate disclosure. What rot. This was state sanctioned kidnap. Rendition. For the record, it would be enlightening would it not to hear from from our dark and sinister judiciary what the disclosure was that was so bad the kidnap was upheld in a British appeal court. Nothing I would wager.

The recourse of course is prejudicial measures. Statute law has been used against these gangsters. Statute law is corporate law, and cannot have the force of law without the consent of the governed. It is doubtful whether the distraught parents gave any kind of consent to these corporate muggers. Therefore go on to the internet. You will soon find how to present an affidavit of truth to these criminals; which you will use to protest and inform of huge financial retribution for commercial criminality and dishonour. After ten days or so if unrebutted, send in a commercial lien for a massive sum. Sort them out. In this country, there exists a force that is working to designs inimical to most of us. Blair gave the clue to this nulab aganda when he spoke of synthesis. This child is one small grain of what is occurring as these forces work to turn everything onto its head. Jack Straw for example. The man that officiates in the Orwellian Ministry of Justics. We have all seen how he performs. Most of the criminals are never punished. One road to synthesis. Sufficient to say that every man and woman of good conscience has to fight back at what is evil in our society. Prejudicial is the only way. The courts of this land are commercial courts and a sum of money called the penal sum is worked out before you ever attend. The courts are a con. There is only justice in the heart of a good man or woman. Do not expect the government to help: They are the cause. It is time now, if ever there was one to wake up as the Americans say, and smell the coffee.

Remember Prejudicial. Lawyers and solicitors owe allegiance to society (the law society) not you.

harry fredericks
on October 11, 2009
at 11:07 AM

What is the difference between a Rottweiler and a social worker?
You will get your child back from a Rottweiler.
The Hitler's Nazis had the brown shirts and the SS to do their dirty works. Brittan and Australia now have the RSPCA. No government would do this as it would be political suicide so they get a "well respected" "caring charity" to do it for them. The World is becomming fascist. Hitler is alive and well in England and Australia. It is now pet lovers, not the Jews, that must be prepared to emigrate to a safe haven. The new Israel will be the first country that allows people to OWN their pets and, not just be their "carers" managed and supervised by a private "charity".
on October 11, 2009
at 10:00 AM

Well said Caroline.
Sadly, there are a great number of British parents that need to be removed from their children.
More sadly is that we have to do it the other way around for the sake of the children.
The trouble is the body in charge of doing these unpleasant things does not always get it right and that is the nub of the problem.
Britain carries far too many Jobsworths for it's own good. British people seem to have a need to look up to somebody or other and will follow blindly. The Blair years are demonstrable proof of far down a Country can go in a relatively short space of time. We need real leadership with people at the top setting the right example.
The Mps expenses scandal has blown the lid off leadership, may be for ever. I wish Cameron luck but he should beware that NOT identifying with being British may well be his downfall.
However, this probably does not sit well with the NuLabour/EU friendlies out there.
on October 11, 2009
at 09:54 AM

I left Britain 12 years ago, thoroughly disillusioned after my Asian wife and I were turned down for adoption because we were 'racially naive' (ie we said we had experienced no racial problems in our home county of Norfolk). The case received a lot of publicity, and I was left with two over-riding impresssions of The System: 1) That Social Services are out of control; 2) That there are many more sinister cases which never see the light of day, often hidden by the 'respect for confidentially' - so convenient for the power-mad social engineers who run The System. The politicians made all kinds of promises to reign them in, but as we see, as usual this has come to naught.
To emigrate was the best decision I ever made. If anyone wants to join me in lovely central Portugal, contact me to find out how.
James Lawrence
on October 11, 2009
at 09:47 AM

"Caroline" are you by any chance carrying Stalin's brain?
dominic lennon
on October 10, 2009
at 11:07 PM
Report this commentI tend to agree with Jackthesmilingblack. I left UK 10 years ago because I could not face living in a country so bereft of its own sense of identity. The intervening years have only reinforced the correctness of my decision. Britain is now an open sewer of political correctness, small minded bureaucracy, and an obsession with race. Any right minded person would just have to leave. I have renounced my British citizenship and insist to everyone who asks that I am not British, even though I sound like it. I truly hope David Cameron can make a difference, but I fear the problem is now with the Brits themselves. They are a shallow people, the great heroes of the past must be looking on with contempt.
Kev Cooper
on October 10, 2009
at 10:56 PM

Why doesn't a national newspaper mount a campaign ? How is it that social workers can kidnap children ?

Why doesn't the Misister for Children or Harriet Harman intervene and show she cares about humanity?

This country is as bad as any communist state and nothing ever gets done to stop it. That is why extremist parties will gain votes.
Darren Himmler , Brentwood Essex
on October 10, 2009
at 10:19 PM

This is state-sponsored kidnap. Any populace with a notion of civil liberties would have taken it to the street by now, burning local government offices and police stations to the ground. But not those "take it in the ass" losers in UK. Truly Britisher pals, your best, indeed only option is to hate it and leave it. While you still can.

on October 10, 2009
at 10:00 PM

Well Booker
If you make proceedings
public what you will "achieve " is that children will not be able to disclose. They will not disclose out of love and they will not disclose out of fear. Well done super. Lots of children will end up remaining with abusive and or neglectful parents. We have much too high a tolerance for neglect in this country. Other countries may leave children nominally in their parents care ,but not in their homes. They end up long term fostered. This is good for the foster parents who get paid, but offers no emotional security for the child. They are forever obliged to take notice of the emotional needs of inadequate parents.
These are not matters for your personal ambition Booker. Put a journalistic sock in it.
on October 10, 2009
at 08:47 PM

Christopher, have you sent this to the President of the Family Division? If not you should, along with an ultimatum that he hold a no-holds barred investigation into this case or you will ask the UN Commissioner for Children to investigate. The resulting report would no doubt be hideously embarrassing.

You should also send these documents to the local police force, and ask them to investigate whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the social workers with child abduction.

To View The Original Article CLICK HERE


the question is asked why this case is not more high profile - sadly because the Star Chamber Courts, for which Charles I was beheaded, still function it seems under the aegis of the Family Courts.

This case is NOT an isolated case I have injunctions protecting the SS & Courts or I could name other cases - the parents are happy to name and shame but are intimidated by the consequences.

Consider the story of Hollie Greig which they are NOT able to keep secret as she is now old enough to publish her own name as she has asked me to.

To prevent her speaking out against her sexual abuse by Officials she was injected with drugs!

Ever fuller details are being put in the public domain by her, naming those who abused her from the age of 6, on http://StolenKids-Hollie.blogspot.com
The cases are numerous - one MP is currently handling around 600!

Increasingly these cases will become public on the Continent as they come before the Human Rights Courts and hopefully SS staff & Judges will once again be seen facing prosecution in The Hague for their crimes.

Several cases are already being prepared for The EU's Courts in Luxemburgh - since the new Supreme Court is all but a joke since it has no final responsibility - it is far from supreme, just another tier of useless parasitic bureaucracy as our laws are now made by our Government which is in Brussels rendering our Courts & Westminster near irrelevant.

One secretive dictatorship to another I guess!

Greg L-W.

Do also view http://StolenKids-SADS.blogspot.com

and also http://StolenKids-Hollie.blogspot.com

In What Way Is It A Supreme Court CLICK HERE

To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
To See The Links Page

Friday, 2 October 2009

Shrops.Star. - 02-Oct-09 Sue AUSTIN - Hollie GREIG

Shrops.Star. - 02-Oct-09 Sue AUSTIN - Hollie GREIG

Investigator makes vow over rape allegations

A friend of the family of Hollie Greig, the young Shropshire Down’s Syndrome woman who says she was raped by a paedophile gang, says he will name and shame those involved, during a trip to Scotland tomorrow.

Robert Green will speak out at a public meeting of the campaign group, Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, in Edinburgh.

He says he will name not only those 28-year-old Hollie says raped her, but those who he says have covered up the crime.

Hollie, who now lives with her mother Anne in Ruyton-XI-Towns, was awarded criminal injuries compensation after she was sexually abused even though nobody has been charged or brought before the courts over it.

Medical evidence showed she was a victim of abuse and had undergone a traumatic experience.

Hollie and her mother say she had been the victim of a paedophile ring since the age of six, for 14 years, before she moved to Shropshire.

Last month Hollie was interviewed by Grampian police officers who travelled to Shrewsbury to re-investigate the allegations.

Mr Green, a 63-year-old investigator from Cheshire, took up the case after being approached by the Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers group.

He says he has been so horrified by the abuse Hollie suffered he will do what he can to see the perpetrators brought to justice.

“I will be speaking at the public meeting in Quaker Hall in Edinburgh where I will be naming and shaming all those involved in this terrible crime against Hollie,” he said.

“She and her mother are so courageous and Hollie has gone through such a lot, I feel I must help them.”

To view the original article CLICK HERE

To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
To See The Links Page

Sunday, 6 September 2009

S.Times - 06-Sep-09 - Daniel FOGGO - Ashleigh CAVE

S.Times - 06-Sep-09 - Daniel FOGGO - Ashleigh CAVE

Question a doctor and lose your child
Ashleigh Cave lost the use of her legs after a vaccination

Ashleigh Cave lost the use of her legs after a vaccination

Daniel Foggo

PARENTS are being threatened with having their children taken into care after questioning doctors’ diagnoses or objecting to their medical care.

John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, who campaigns to stop injustices in the family court, said: “Very often care proceedings are used as retaliation by local authorities against ‘uppity’ people who question the system.”

Cases are emerging across the UK:

The mother of a 13-year-old girl who became partly paralysed after being given a cervical cancer vaccination says social workers have told her the child may be removed if she (the mother) continues to link her condition with the vaccination.

A couple had all six of their children removed from their care after they disputed the necessity of an invasive medical test on their eldest daughter. Doctors, who suspected she might have had a blood disease, called for social services to obtain an emergency protection order, although it was subsequently confirmed that she was not suffering from the condition. The parents were still considered unstable, and all their children were taken from them.

A single mother whose teenage son is terminally ill and confined to a wheelchair has been told he is to become the subject of a care order after she complained that her local authority’s failure to provide bathroom facilities for him has left her struggling to maintain sanitary standards.

In the first of those cases, Ashleigh Cave, 13, from Liverpool, began experiencing severe headaches and dizziness half an hour after being inoculated last October with Cervarix, which guards against girls contracting the human papilloma virus.

The schoolgirl was soon collapsing repeatedly; she lost the use of her legs and was admitted to Alder Hey children’s hospital. Nearly 11 months later she is still in hospital and is unable to stand or walk unaided. Her mother, Cheryl, has now been told that doctors believe her condition must be psychosomatic.

“The hospital brought in social workers from the local authority who have told me they are considering putting Ashleigh on an at-risk register,” Cheryl Cave said. She is convinced her daughter’s paralysis was caused by the vaccination.

Cave said that a social worker from Sefton council said she suspected her of having Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy or factitious illness syndrome — controversial conditions in which mothers are said to attribute illnesses falsely to their children in order to gain attention.

Cave said: “The social worker said I should stop believing the injection has anything to do with Ashleigh’s condition because I am putting my thoughts on to her and stopping her getting well.

“Since Ashleigh was in hospital she has become incontinent and had double kidney infections and chest infections. Have I made all these up?”

In the third of these cases, Melvilina Gavin-Langley’s 16-year-old son Omar is terminally ill with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and restricted to a wheelchair.

His mother is embroiled in a legal dispute with Birmingham city council over a partly completed extension intended to provide Omar with easy access to a bathroom.

Gavin-Langley, 49, who wants the extension rebuilt because she says it was designed in a way that was dangerous and obstructed access to sewers, said: “I have had to carry Omar upstairs to bathe him but it was risking dislocating his shoulders and also I got a hernia from all the lifting.

“I told the council I could no longer lift Omar across my back.

“They then turned that around and said I had said I could no longer care for my son. They say they have to put him into care because his hair has not been washed and he’s not getting a bath. They have just threatened me with this because they don’t like me taking legal action against them.”

A spokesman for Birmingham city council confirmed the council was seeking an interim care order but said social workers wanted Omar to remain with his mother.

Sefton council did not comment on the Ashleigh Cave case.

To view the original CLICK HERE

carol bird wrote:
To Sabina Heywood
Never give up the fight.
I am a Grandmother who fought against
doctors and lost. I do not know whether
I did wrong by not really pressuring his
mother to lie on the bible and admit to
injuries my Grandson did not have (this
was the only way of keeping him and advised by his Guardian "Admit to it and
you will get your baby back" Without the
mother we did finally get back in front
of the second judge involved in the second half of a split case, In that
court he announced he wanted the court
to know he remembered us the family from
appearing before him previously including the mother ***** and we were
the most honest family ever to appear
before him" It was too late to get him
back. I also am very grateful to 'The
Times' for their 'Putting up with me'
and allowing the High Court of Appeal
decision to stay on there Jack Straw
judges 100 2009 Page.
October 9, 2009 10:20 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Sabina Heywood wrote:
I have a database now of 300 mothers whose children were taken away on false grounds and all of them have overwhelming evidence of their cases but with, apparently no redress in the Family Courts. One of the mothers is myself. We want our children back as we are innocent and we will NEVER give up. Thank you from us all to The TIMES and your brave reporters for having the courage and tenacity for many months now and giving us a voice. We are very grateful for this.
October 8, 2009 8:44 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
carol bird wrote:
If I advised any family to fight this system I would be grossly negligent be
subserbient until hopefully your daughter recovers or you will lose everything you will join a gagged army
who have gone before. MSBP is only the tip of the iceberg for wrongful accussations 'been there lost' your family is your priority DO NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THIS
October 2, 2009 12:39 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
karen haack wrote:
My daughter also suffers from leg paralysis after the gardasil shot. She lost peripheral vision in her left eye. She has constant migraine headaches and fainting spells. Her health is in serious decline. She has not been well since November of 2007. However Sami' leg paralysis is temporary it comes and goes She has peripheral neuropathy in both legs, has been referred to a neurologist, She also now has sleep apnea, sees a pulmonary doctor. Last year she could only go to school half day and failed most the classes. She use to be a straight A student. Our childrens health decline after gardasil needs to be taken seriously.
September 12, 2009 4:44 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
dolph hilter wrote:
I win! it took me a while, but I WIN!!!
September 9, 2009 11:37 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Rachel Livermore wrote:
The use of the MSBP/FII false allegation regime against women who dare to question doctors has been pretty much established in the last decade; indeed MSBP is one of the medical professions most favoured devices to be used against "uppity" women.

The governments own research indicates we should be seeing around 65 genuine cases of MSBP a year, but already inside a decade we've "burned through" 360+ years of allegations in England & Wales.

ME and the mothers of autism spectrum disorders have probably been the biggest victims of false MSBP allegations - and indeed MSBP allegations are routinely used to explain common medical conditions understood outside the secret Family Courts.
September 9, 2009 12:07 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Susan Barnes wrote:
My daughter in Y8 was offered the vaccine earlier this year but we refused it (we discussed it and my daughter had the final decision on the matter.) It was already known that all vaccines carry a small risk of serious reaction, which is probably acceptable when it comes to preventing the spread of serious diseases, but it seems that this new vaccine carries a far higher risk than the tried and tested vaccines routinely given to young children (re Julie Jones' comment). I hope to goodness it will be withdrawn so no more such tragedies can occur.

Our reasons for refusing it, however, were as follows:

I would argue there is no need for it anyway, if we consider the fact that the potentially cancer-causing virus can only be transmitted sexually. Should we not try to show more confidence in our young people, their natural idealism and their ability to say 'no' to casual sex - and to the decrepit and destructive paradigm, based on determinism, held by so many people of our generation? Our children are people of free will, with the ability to CHOOSE what is good for them. Do we not do our utmost to educate them in the avoidance of drugs, alcohol, and certain foods? Casual sex is psychologically and sometimes physically devastating, as well as highly addictive. Sex is a beautiful aspect of our being which nature intended to occur within a stable relationship, where children can be properly nurtured instead of having their hearts broken. Our young people are intelligent enough to understand this, especially when they are shown the fallout from all the bad choices made by their elders.
September 9, 2009 10:00 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Max Desorgher wrote:
As a foster carer I saw how social services, education and health departments of local councils work together to take children into care, and once in care to mess up their lives. Decisions are made at a management level behind closed doors, and everyone else - families, social workers, foster carers, teachers, the people who really care find themselves being used, manipulated, lied to, so that social services get their way. I was told by a manager at my foster care agency that to stand up to social services is like biting on as stone. You only end up with broken teeth. They appear to be a law unto themselves and are ruthless in the pursuance of their own agenda.

September 9, 2009 8:17 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Jap Sniper wrote:
Hitler’s plan for a master race did not end with World War II. It is being systematically implemented today at an accelerating pace.
His quest for a global eugenics empire never ended because those who brought him and his sinister movement to power were never condemned and punished. To that end. The leaders of some of America’s largest corporations who not only funded the global eugenics movement but aided Hitler’s attempts to implement it through direct assistance to the Nazi war machine.
There is a hidden agenda behind the importation of thousands of Nazi war criminals to the United States, abortion on demand, human chop shops, euthanasia, bioethics, AIDS, cloning, genetic experiments, and an unending series of unethical medical testing programs conducted by the U.S. government.
Those who ignore history....
Peace and Love to all.
September 9, 2009 7:52 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Clark Paton wrote:
Only an idiot would choose to have the "health care" that the UK has. It is paternalistic, condescending and worthless. Why, O, why is the US actually foolish enough to think about duplicating the UK's idiotic and non-effective health care system? Only an idiot (or Obama) would actually think the UK-type medical care system is actually workable? Please, grow up, UK, and rid yourself of your non-workable medical "care" system.
September 9, 2009 1:21 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk

Rick Locke wrote:
We can end government intervention in our lives-PLEASE study Robert Arthur Menard, Mary Elizabeth Croft and Veronica Croft.

All these abuses CAN stop if we are properly educated.

Visit TPUC as soon as you can and realise that we should be living under NO rules apart from those of the Magna Carta.

September 8, 2009 7:55 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
John Regis wrote:
Wow it's lvoely to see some actual proper journalism taking place and highlighting how disgusting this nanny state has become. There were warnings about this jab all over the "alternative" press, but nothing much reported in the mainstream media.

We now have the swine flu jabs coming soon for school pupils and then the rest of us and there are already dire warnings coming out about the safety of these drugs and drug companies will have immunity from prosecution. Search for "The flu case" in any search engine if you want more information.
September 8, 2009 7:42 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Rick Locke wrote:
PEOPLE!!!- you need to visit the TPUC and The Freeman On The Land websites.
September 8, 2009 6:53 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Anya Brooks wrote:
I am a student who has been studying research about this vaccination.
My sympathies go out to all parents and children who are suffering from the after effects of this vaccination. There have not been enough trials especially on this age group. Turning this into a child protection case against a distraught mother who is fighting for her child is outrageous - it should be the other way around!
Parents - LOCK UP YOUR DAUGHTERS and research this vaccination before you consent
September 8, 2009 6:49 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Matt Eales wrote:
This is absurd. I think people need to question/cross reference the diagnosis of doctors if they can.

I know it's not really in the same league as the illnesses described (and I have no dependents to lose) but I had chronic shin pain that prevented me from running it was so bad. And the first nurse I saw said there was no cure and I was wasting my time trying to find a solution and my GP was of a similar opinion. Thankfully 15 months on and having seen a further 4 people I am well on my way to recovery, but only because I refused to accept the opinion of the original nurse and GP.
September 7, 2009 10:13 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Suzy Chapman wrote:
Accusations of MSbP (FII) against parents of children and young people with ME, the placing of children and young people on the “at risk” register, threats of child protection proceedings and in some cases, forcible removal of a child or young person from the home via court orders into hospital wards (sometimes on locked psychiatric wards or where parents are denied visiting rights) by social services, community paediatricians or paediatric consultants, in cases where a child’s diagnosis has been challenged by the family or where the family has rejected treatments such as CBT/GET or psychosocial management of their child’s illness have, equally disturbingly, been taking place for years within the ME patient community.
September 6, 2009 9:31 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Laurence Swift wrote:
Just to add a brief comment to John Bald's comment. I'm sure that there are many excellent social workers out there, but they tend to be given a bad name by the other 95%.
September 6, 2009 8:43 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
julie jones wrote:
I am absolutley disgusted with what is happening to the Cave family. I also have an 18 year old daughter who has sufferred serious side effects to the Ceravix vaccine. She has had encephalitis and now has epilepsy. She was in hospital for 8 weeks but is now in a brain injury unit in Birmingham. I know that the vaccine cased my daughter's illness because she was perfectly fine until she had them.It has totally devastated my family and i will do everything in my power to get this vaccine investigated further. The vaccine should be suspended until Glaxo can prove otherwise before someone else is injured. I know of at least 8 girls who have had adverse reactions to Ceravix. Two of them have been severe like Ashleigh including my daughter and a 13 year old from Telford.
September 6, 2009 7:57 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Laurence Swift wrote:
It is really scary that a child, or even all the children of a family, can be taken away from their parents (or transferred fron the custody of one parent to the other) at the whim of a set of "social workers" who have no medical, legal, nor ethical training, without a prior and proper Court Order and serious medical investigation, and without the complete involvement of the parents and children concerned. The parents can appeal - only after the removal of the children, when the damage of the trauma of removal from the parents has been done. But they have no right to legal aid as far as I know. This system is obviously too wide open to abuse by these so-called social workers, who are given far too much power. The system needs a drastic overhaul, to include the Courts at the earliest stage, with full rights of defence and appeal and all with Legal Aid for the defendants (for such are the parents, who are being "accused" of Munchausen's by Proxy) but are treated Guilty Until Proven Innocent. The kingpin of all British justice is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law - and there must be no exceptions to this.
September 6, 2009 7:31 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Denise Longman wrote:
Thank you for bringing this into the open.
My heart goes out to the family and I hope that something changes for them.
The psychiatrists and social workers have been embroiled in this kind of thing way before this government took power.
I have been an ME patient for 24 years, in contact with several ME patients who have been forced or coerced into psychiatric wards where they have been abused by those who tried to maintain that the illness was "all in your head". When the psychiatric treatment did not cure them, nothing else was offered and they have been left to struggle on, hidden from the world, looked after by their families if they are lucky, marginalised and always under the shadow of being called work shy or scrounger.
The old boy network has long ruled in our so-called open and democratic society, and some medical consultants wield a power greater than any "closed shop" union ever did. Question their diagnosis, or lack of one, especially in neurological cases, and they try to shift the burden onto the patient, or in the case of children, onto the parents. This is more often the mother, who is often left holding the fort as families collapse under the pressure.
Neurological diseases have always been too much for the system - remember that Parkinson's disease was blamed on the patients own psyche, as was Multiple Sclerosis, until better techniques gave the true picture. Now diseases like ME are denied any kind of treatment - very many patients are only offered cognitive behavioural therapy, and denied any recognition that their illness is real. This leaves them discarded by the benefits system as well as by the medical profession.
Vaccine damage isn't what any of the authorities want to admit to. I would urge this family to have private tests for infections such as Mycoplasma, known to contaminate some vaccines, and to search the Internet for support groups who can offer advice for free.
Check out squalene and adjuvants, and Guillane Barr
September 6, 2009 3:31 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk

John Bald wrote:
One of the key techniques of fascism was to exercise power without interference from the courts. New Labour is extending this technique to local councils, partly over relatively small issues such as parking fines, partly over big issues such as child care, in which justice is not seen to be done. There are many excellent social workers, but they are working within a system that could have been designed to promote abuse of power. The Conservatives need to tackle this in a way that does not lead to more abuse.
September 6, 2009 7:54 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Paul Saigon wrote:
Simple: our children are not ours, they are the property of the state. The supine Tories will not change anything. They are social workers under the skin.
September 6, 2009 5:05 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Cath Morland wrote:
What madness is this when babies and children in danger are left with abusve parents to die at their hands (or, in the Edlington case, to grow up and inflict cruelty on other children) yet other, presumably loved and cared for children are threatened with state care because they have concerned parents? It can't be easy being a social worker in Britain but such cases don't help their image much, do they?
September 6, 2009 1:12 AM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk
User Image
Roger Carter wrote:
These reports are so frightening. What is happening to this once great country. On the one hand licence and permissiveness is rampant but on the other the State and its agencies apply psychological pressures worthy .yes, again I say it....of Orwellian control. These are sad days for this now scary country.
September 5, 2009 11:47 PM BST on community.timesonline.co.uk

To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
To See The Links Page