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.
TelegraphNews
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!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com
Greg LANCE-WATKINS
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
Hi,
Yet more about StolenKids can be found in general at:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com
& in specific at:
http://StolenKids-SADS.blogspot.com
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.
Regards,
Greg L-W.
Greg LANCE-WATKINS
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.
Prejudicial.
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".
Digger09
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.
C.Brooks
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.
Jackthesmilingblack
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.
Caroline
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
ALSO: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.
TelegraphNews
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!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com
Greg LANCE-WATKINS
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
Hi,
Yet more about StolenKids can be found in general at:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com
& in specific at:
http://StolenKids-SADS.blogspot.com
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.
Regards,
Greg L-W.
Greg LANCE-WATKINS
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.
Prejudicial.
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".
Digger09
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.
C.Brooks
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.
Jackthesmilingblack
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.
Caroline
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
Hi,
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!
Regards,
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:
where you can help yourself and others at:
StolenKids-
To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE
