17-Jul-2010 TELEGRAPH - BOOKER - BRING FAMILY LAW TO BOOK

17-Jul-2010 TELEGRAPH - BOOKER - BRING FAMILY LAW TO BOOK

Hi,

another excellent article by our old friend Christopher Booker as ever liasing with our good friend Dr. Richard North.
You will remember the articles about http://stolenkids-sads.blogspot.com/ and the help we had from John Hemmings MP & Charles Hendry MP eventually having questions asked in The House of Commons at PMQs.

We all owe Booker & The Sunday Telegraph our thanks for their help.

Don't hesitate to contact me if you believe we can help you get publicity and Justice for YOUR story but we MUST have sound provenance.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

It's time to bring family law to book

Families are being torn apart by a system veiled in secrecy,
says Christopher Booker


By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:39PM BST 17 Jul 2010

Mother and child are often torn apart by our system of forced adoption Photo: Alamy

I have never, in all my years as a journalist, felt so frustrated as I do over two deeply disturbing stories of apparent injustice that cry out to be reported but which, for legal reasons, I can refer to only in the vaguest terms. To cover them as they deserve, and as the victims so desperately wish, would challenge a part of our legal system shrouded in an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy.


Two weeks ago I recounted four examples of what I described as one of the greatest scandals in Britain today – the seizing of children by social workers from loving families, on what appears to be the flimsiest and most questionable grounds. The children may then be handed on to foster carers, who can receive up to £400 a week for each child, or are put out for adoption, in a way which too often leads to intense distress for both the parents and the children involved.


One case I referred to concerns a north London couple whose five children were seized in April by social workers from Haringey council and sent into foster care. The mother was then pregnant, and her baby was born last month. Shortly afterwards, according to her account, nine police officers and social workers burst into her hospital room at 3am and, as she lay breastfeeding, wrested her baby from her arms with considerable force. Discovering they had nowhere to put the baby, the authorities took it to another part of the hospital, where the mother was escorted four times a day to feed her child, until she was discharged four days later.


Having talked at length to the mother, I found this story so shocking that I put a series of questions to the council, to get their side of the story. The response of Haringey (which, since the national furore over its failure to prevent the battering to death of Baby P, has been somewhat sensitive on these issues) was to ask the High Court to rule that I should not be allowed to write about the case at all. In the end, the court did not go that far, but The Sunday Telegraph was reminded of the comprehensive restrictions on reporting such stories.


After spending several hours with the parents, looking at their neat home, the little beds where their children used to sleep and the cot prepared for the baby, I came away more convinced than ever that something was seriously amiss. I found the wife impressive in her detailed account of the events, clearly a devoted mother who feels herself and her children to have been the victims of an extraordinary error – the nature of which, alas, I cannot reveal.


This week, two days have been set aside for the mother to put her case to a judge. Despite the tragedy that has torn their family apart, the parents have never previously had an opportunity to challenge Haringey council's version of the story. I only hope the court takes particular care to check out the evidence put before it, and that in due course I can fully report a case that sheds a revealing light on a system supposedly devised to protect the interests of the children but which too often seems to result in the very opposite.


Also this week, the fate of another family hangs on another court hearing. This is the story of a couple who last January were rejoicing at the birth of their first child. Some weeks later, concerned that the baby's arm seemed floppy, they took it back to the hospital to seek medical advice. An X-ray confirmed a minor fracture. This proved to be the start of a nightmare, which led to them being arrested, handcuffed and driven off separately to a police station, where the mother was held for nine hours without food. The father was imprisoned overnight.


It emerged that the doctor they saw had reported her suspicion about the child's fracture to Coventry social workers. The couple were put on police bail, ordering them to surrender their passports, forbidding them to be unsupervised in the presence of anyone under 16, and only allowing them to sleep in one of two named houses (the other being the father's family home). But because no charges had been brought, the social workers allowed the baby into the care of its Irish grandmother, a respected primary school headmistress. To avoid the baby being seized, she took it to her family home in Dublin, where it has been supported by a band of relatives.


Determined not to be thwarted, Coventry's social workers then asked the Irish courts to rule – in a case to be heard this week – that the baby must be sent back to them in England. The hospital doctor has meanwhile contacted the Irish medical authorities demanding that in no way must they carry out specific medical tests on the baby which might account for its injury.


On Thursday I spoke again with the mother, who reported that her own bail had been lifted. She was therefore about to join her baby in Ireland. But the child's father has been told that he may face charges for harming his son, a possibility they find incredible. This will be reported to the Irish court, prompting the fear that the child may be taken from his mother and grandmother, neither of them under any suspicion, and deported to England to be placed in foster care.


In the House of Commons last week I met the one politician who has done more than any other – as this kind of story grows disturbingly frequent – to expose what is going on. John Hemming, the Lib Dem MP for Yardley, Birmingham, not only set up the Justice for Families website, which contains details of many similar cases, but recently assembled an official all-party group of concerned MPs to campaign for the radical overhaul of a system which seems so horribly off the rails, and too often to be betraying the very principles it was intended to uphold.


Not the least startling feature of this system is the secrecy with which it has managed to hide away from the world almost all it gets up to. As is confirmed by Ian Josephs, a remarkable businessman who runs the Forced Adoption website and has helped hundreds of families in similar plight, one of its most glaring flaws is the extent to which aggrieved parents are deprived of any right to put their case, not just to the courts but to anyone who might be able to help them.


It is a system hermetically sealed off, in which the fate of parents and children can be decided by an incestuously closed community of social workers, police, lawyers, doctors and other professional "experts", who all too often seem to work together in an alliance which is ruthlessly oblivious to the interests of the families who fall into its clutches. Again and again I have heard of the misery of children torn from their distraught parents, forced to live unhappily in the hands of inadequate foster carers, and whose only wish is to be returned to those they know and love.


The more I learn about this scandal, the more I understand why, in April, an Appeal Court judge, Lord Aikens, savaged the actions of Devon county council social workers in a forced adoption case as having been "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the west of England". The council's lawyers were told to read a judgment by Lord Justice Wall, now head of the High Court's Family Division, which condemned Greenwich social workers as "enthusiastic removers of children".


It is high time the veils of secrecy were ripped from this national outrage; that politicians intervened to call the system to order; and that the press was free to bring properly to light family tragedies such as those I have only been allowed to hint at above.


To view the original article CLICK HERE

'Open the curtains, throw open the windows and permit the light of investigation and fresh air into family courts and sexual, emotional and physical abuse of the vulnerable - expose the abuse & the abuse of authority of those acting in OUR name!

No child asked to be or enjoys abuse, it is for the gratification of the inadequate'.
To understand the Concept & Services of
StolenKids- where you can help yourself and others at:
StolenKids- GO TO http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com/
Or perhaps more suited to YOUR needs:
StolenChildhood- GO TO http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.blogspot.com/
 To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

16-Jul-2010 - Father wrongly accused - The SCOTSMAN - John FORSYTH

16-Jul-2010 - Father wrongly accused - The SCOTSMAN - John FORSYTH

Father wrongly accused in flawed abuse inquiry

Published Date: 16 July 2010
By John Forsyth

THE handling of child abuse investigations in Scotland has been thrown into question after a sheriff found the methods used by police and social workers while interviewing a young girl were so flawed that he recommended they be retrained.

• The little girl was at the centre of an access battle between her estranged parents. Picture, posed by model: Complimentary

In a devastating court judgment - which experts said highlighted "serious systemic problems" of malpractice throughout the child protection service - their conduct was described as worse than in the interviewing of children that led to the Orkney child abuse inquiry in 1991.

The country's leading expert on the forensic interviewing of children said the case exposed a problem at the heart of child protection that was harming youngsters' welfare.

A senior insider at the Faculty of Advocates warned that the elements of the case were "not untypical" and said there was disquiet among lawyers about the consequences of inadequate or poorly understood training in civil and criminal cases.

Related articles

• Coaching by social workers at centre of Orkney scandal

• Anne Houston: Listening openly and expertly is the key to abuse cases

• Echo of Orkney scandal makes this child abuse case of concern

The sheriff's ruling concerned a child custody case in which a man had been denied unsupervised access to his daughter after his wife made claims he had touched their child intimately.

The ruling, which dismissed the abuse claims outright, found a senior social worker and police officers attempted to coerce the five-year-old girl into repeating allegations that she had been sexually abused before subjecting her to an "unjustified" invasive and intimate medical examination.

The court found there was a catalogue of inappropriate direct questioning, including leading and closed questions.

According to the judgment, the interviews broke almost all the rules set out in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Protocol which is regarded as the gold standard of interviewing children.

Sheriff Neil Morrison called for the removal of the social worker, Tracey Black, and two police officers, Detective Constable Colin Johnston and PC Susan Purnell, from child interviewing duties after he ruled their work was "damaging".

The Edinburgh sheriff also recommended that Ms Black, the senior social worker from the city council's child protection team, be relieved of all child protection duties until she had been retrained, after he found she had asked inappropriate and leading questions during the alleged child abuse case and put forward records of interviews he considered to be "disingenuous".
In an article published in the Scots Law Times today, Dr David La Rooy of Abertay University and advocate John Halley said they wished to "highlight a serious systemic problem which is harming the welfare of children".

They wrote: "The failures in this case are not dissimilar to the kinds of malpractice (we] regularly encounter in our respective practices in other cases of joint investigative interviewing of children in Scotland."

The senior advocate said: "There is a problem that the social worker allocated to a case controls the narrative and I see frequently in child contact cases and child referrals, that they find themselves seeking to prove an allegation - often in a haphazard way - and that isn't in the interests of justice or of the child."

Yesterday, Lothian and Borders Police confirmed it had acted on the report by the sheriff, relieving the officers of child interviewing duties and committing itself to implementing "all necessary improvements" in this area.

But Edinburgh City Council insisted, despite having removed Ms Black from the case in question, it retained full confidence in the social worker and she remained on child protection duty.

A council spokesman said: "We are satisfied that our social worker was acting in the best interests of the child and they continue to work in child protection. We have made some changes to the worker's responsibilities as the fact that there was a court case makes it difficult for her to continue with this particular family."

The concerns arose during an application by the father for contact with his two children. The application had been resisted by his estranged partner who left their home in 2008 with the children after making an allegation that he had sexually abused their daughter.

A full investigation, including joint interviews with police and social workers, led to an intimate examination of the girl, a move the child psychologist said was "unjustified"; had been a "significant event" for a girl of that age; and one she was uncomfortable with.

The picture was complicated by the discovery of e-mail correspondence between the mother and a lawyer who advised her of "dirty tricks" that she might use to secure residence with the children and cut off contact with the father completely.

Sheriff Morrison ruled there was no evidence any such abuse had taken place and the daughter had repeatedly indicated that the alleged abuse had not happened. He allowed unsupervised contact with the father and urged the parents to work out arrangements for themselves. He also ruled there was no case for the daughter or her brother to be on the at-risk register.

The judge listed problems with the way the two interviews were conducted, led by a senior social worker but with a police officer present.

He described the second interview as "one of the worst I have seen".

He continued: "Dr R (a child psychologist] considered the interviewing of (the girl] to be worse that the interviewing of children that led to the Orkney inquiry because here it
ADVERTISEMENT was so deliberate.

It alarmed them that all these years later there was direct questioning of the child because she was not saying what the interviewers wanted to hear. (The witness] was concerned at the driven nature of the interviews in drawing things out of the child and putting things in the child's mind." The sheriff was shocked the interviews were not recorded but written up later based on handwritten notes.

The notes were never transcribed and the police and social work witnesses could barely read them themselves in court. In transcribing the notes, Sheriff Morrison said the social worker had been "disingenuous" in her interpretation of what the girl had said.

Furthermore, the social worker still appeared to be "tragically unaware of the dangers of mixing investigative and therapeutic or 'direct work'."

A Lothian and Borders police spokesman said the force was aware of the judgment made by Sheriff Morrison.

"In regard to the police officers present at the interview, both have been removed from the list of joint investigative interview trained officers. One officer does not wish to undertake such duties in the future, and therefore will not be redeployed or retrained.

"The other officer is waiting to be retrained and will not be deployed until retraining has taken place."

A Scottish Government spokesman said it had been working with partners to update best practice guidance on interviewing child witnesses which included encouraging the use of visual recording of interviews.

Few areas of the law require greater sensitivity in their handling than allegations of child sex abuse. Such cases, badly handled, can be devastating. Scotland has a blemished record in this area. Do we have a serious systemic problem?

Every suspicion taken seriously

LOCAL authorities have an obligation to protect children under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.

If a child-protection referral is received by a "core agency" - social services, health bodies or police - a child-protection case conference may then be held.

If the child is found to be at risk, their name will be placed on the Child Protection Register.

A referral must contain details of why concerns have been raised, with procedures dictating that anyone with suspicions must establish some basic facts, without using leading questions such as "Did he..?" or "Did she..?".

Information must be included on the imminent risk to the child and if there is a suspicion that other children may be at risk. The agencies have a duty to treat every referral seriously.

The leading questions

THESE are some of the questions the child was asked:

"Is the place the doctor looked at where your dad tickles you?"

One of the police officers involved admitted this could be a leading question. The child psychologist said it was "extremely leading" and the judge said it should never have been asked.

"You've got a really good memory. Shall we have one more go at remembering what you told mummy? I can take you home so that you can play with Play Doh if you can remember."

One child psychologist described this question as a bribe, and another said it encouraged the girl to remember what she had told her mother - and not necessarily the truth.

"It would be really helpful if you could remember."

Said to the girl after she said she could not remember. A child psychologist said this told the child that what she had said was not good enough and put pressure on the youngster to say what the adults wanted.

"Is anything happening that makes you a bit sore or sad?"

This was criticised by the child psychologist for introducing something that the child had not said. The girl had given no indication she was sore or sad.

Other deficiencies highlighted included:

• The interviewers did not have all the relevant information to hand when they conducted the first interview.

• The official records of the interviews were found to be disingenuous.

• There was no closure phase to the interview, contravening Scottish Government guidance that is intended to stop children feeling like they have not failed or disappointed the interviewers. Cross-examination of the social worker revealed she did not believe this was an essential part of the interview. Later, she claimed there had been a closure phase but it was not recorded.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

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

StolenKids-

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

To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

01-Jul-2010 - YOU ARE YOUR BEST PROTECTION! Gareth HULME Sentenced

01-Jul-2010 - YOU ARE YOUR BEST PROTECTION! Gareth HULME Sentenced





Ringleader of international paedophile gang could spend life behind bars

By Jaya Narain
Last updated at 7:58 AM on 1st July 2010
Add to My Stories Gareth Hulme, 25, was the lynchpin of a sex abuse network that targeted young children across three countries
The ringleader of an international paedophile gang who was branded 'every parent's nightmare' could spend his life behind bars.


Gareth Hulme, 25, was the lynchpin of a sex abuse network that targeted young children across four countries.


He twice raped a young schoolboy and posted a series of online messages arranging the sexual abuse of other children.


The security guard was eventually apprehended after he boasted about raping a nine-year-old boy on an internet chatroom.


His arrest sparked a string of police raids on homes across Europe leading to the arrest of 25 suspected paedophiles.


More than 20 police forces were called in, including Interpol, to crack down on the child sex ring in Spain, Luxembourg and Ireland.


Last night Hulme was beginning an indeterminate sentence after a judge told him he would remain a danger to young boys for many years to come.


Judge Anthony Gee QC said: 'No right-thinking person hearing the facts of this case can feel anything but horror, revulsion and disgust.


He told Hulme: 'I regard yours as an appalling case. You are a sexual predator and a paedophile. I regard you as a real danger to young boys who you regard as your prey to satisfy deviant and perverted sexual urges.'


Referring to a comment made by Hulme about sex with children where he said 'nine is the youngest that I'd go', Judge Gee said: 'Those views will shock every parent and represents every parent's nightmare.'


The judge said: 'It will be a matter for the authorities to decide when you no longer pose a threat to young boys. It may be in many years to come and may be never.'


Manchester Crown Court heard Hulme would use the MSN chatrooms to exchange encrypted messages with like-minded abusers telling them he enjoyed 'raping young lads' and causing them pain.
On a website for gay youths, the former bouncer groomed a 15-year-old boy and the pair eventually met up and had sex.


The following month, he attempted to arrange to have sex with a child after a man sent him a message claiming to have a cousin they could abuse.


Police were tipped off and Hulme was arrested though police found his claims to have raped a nine-year-old were pure fantasy.


Hulme lured a 10-year-old boy away from his parents at a festival in Cheshire.


He raped the young boy twice on consecutive days, took photos of the rape with his mobile phone and then later told his security firm boss: 'I don't know why I did it.'


Police traced the 10-year-old boy who initially denied anything had happened but later admitted that he had been raped.


In an impact statement his parents said: 'There is not a day that goes by that we do not have to think about what happened. We do not know if our son will ever be the same again.'


Police decoded encrypted messages on Hulme's computer and found images of child abuse and video clips which had been sent to other men.


Alaric Bassano, prosecuting, said: 'Amongst the offences discussed and apparently contemplated by Hulme are the force rape of children, sexual activity with boys under 10, gaining access to children to abuse by baby sitting, sharing children to abuse and raping the children of friends and family.'


Last night Hulme from Gorton , Manchester was given an indeterminate sentence for the protection of the public after admitting 24 child sex offences.


They included two rapes of a boy, grooming a child for sexual activity and the making and distribution of graphic video clips of child sex abuse.


Judge Gee QC told Hulme he must serve a minimum of six years before he is eligible for parole but may never be released from prison.


Detective Constable Jordan McGowan of Greater Manchester Police said: 'We are satisfied that Hulme was the ringleader of a loose network of paedophiles who were in contact with each other via encrypted messages on internet chat logs.


'He took people who were thinking that way just that one step further. He is certainly the most dangerous man involved in the network.'


So far three other men, including a former high school maths teacher, have been charged with child sex offences in connection and the investigation continues.

Read more: CLICK HERE

'Open the curtains, throw open the windows and permit the light of investigation and fresh air into family courts and sexual, emotional and physical abuse of the vulnerable - expose the abuse & the abuse of authority of those acting in OUR name! No child asked to be or enjoys abuse, it is for the gratification of the inadequate'.

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/

or StolenOyster-

4 those who have been abused or raped by a stranger or stalker

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

To See The Links Page

CLICK HERE

Related articles

• Paedophile ex-Pc jailed for life (bbc.co.uk)
• Paedophile ring leader Colin Blanchard jailed indefinitely (dailymail.co.uk)
• Paedophile warned he may never be freed (independent.co.uk)
• Paedophile ring 'groomed young girls before abusing them in empty cottage' (dailymail.co.uk)
• Colin Blanchard jailed indefinitely for leading four women into 'sickening' paedophile ring (menmedia.co.uk)
• Rochdale computer expert Colin Blanchard to be jailed for leading four women in 'sickening' paedophile ring (menmedia.co.uk)
• Paedophile policeman Daniel Lishman who preyed on children jailed for life (dailymail.co.uk)
• You: Colin Blanchard may never be freed (guardian.co.uk)
• Paedophile ring leader Colin Blanchard to serve minimum nine years in jail for persuading four women to abuse children (dailymail.co.uk)
• Paedophile ring abused 30 girls (bbc.co.uk)
• Wash. settles lawsuit filed by abused children (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Paedophile ring leader is jailed (bbc.co.uk)
• 'Degenerate' paedophile is jailed (bbc.co.uk)

Aberdeen P&J - Ryan CRIGHTON 18-Mar-2010 re Hollie GREIG

Aberdeen P&J - Ryan CRIGHTON 18-Mar-2010 re Hollie GREIG

Would-be MP banned from making paedophile allegations
Sheriff gets court order to silence abuse claim

By Ryan Crighton

Published: 18/03/2010

An Aberdeen sheriff has obtained a gagging order against a would-be MP who has accused him of abusing a young, disabled girl.

Sheriff Graham Buchanan was forced to resort to legal action after Robert Green continued to spread the allegations against him, despite two separate police investigations finding there was no truth in them.

Mr Green, who describes himself as a lay legal adviser, is representing Hollie Greig, who has Down’s syndrome and who alleges that she was systematically abused by a paedophile ring for 14 years from the age of six.

Mr Green has named a number of men and women, including Sheriff Buchanan and a now-deceased former senior policeman, as having taken part in the abuse.

The sheriff’s lawyers, Edinburgh-based Simpson and Marwick, have now successfully applied to the Court of Session in Edinburgh for an interim interdict preventing Mr Green from continuing his campaign.

The interdict also prevents Mr Green from claiming that the sheriff was involved in the “murder” of Hollie’s uncle, Robert Greig, who died in a car fire in 1997.

Grampian Police investigated the sex-abuse claims in 2000 and again late last year and concluded on both occasions that the accusations were baseless.

The day after the interim interdict was granted, Mr Green was arrested as he left a guesthouse in Aberdeen.

He appeared at Stonehaven Sheriff Court on February 15, following his arrest, charged with a breach of the peace. He made no plea and was released on bail. The case is expected to call again later this year.

Mr Green, 63, claims one of the bail conditions bars him from entering the north-east, which he says will hinder his plans to try to win the Aberdeen South seat at the general election, widely expected to be on May 6.

The Court of Session interdict, granted by Lord Emslie, bans Mr Green, of 4 Birchdale Road, Warrington, Cheshire, from communicating false and defamatory statements about the sheriff at Aberdeen Sheriff Court or anywhere else in Scotland.

The false statements are listed in papers as:

That the sheriff was involved in sexually abusing Hollie Greig.

That the sheriff has been involved in covering up the sexual abuse.

That he was involved in the “murder” of Hollie Greig’s uncle, Robert Greig.

The same restrictions apply to anyone acting on Mr Green’s behalf or on his instructions. The interdict also bars Mr Green from harassing the sheriff by making the claims at all.

Sheriff Buchanan – who has accused Mr Green of mounting a “campaign of harassment” – declined to comment yesterday.

Hollie claims she was abused for 14 years from the age of six and has given police the names of some of the men she says assaulted her.

The 30-year-old and her mother, Anne, have been campaigning for criminal proceedings since 2000.

The abuse is alleged to have taken place in Aberdeen, and Hollie and her mother claim to have made a statement at Bucksburn police station in July that year naming those allegedly involved.

The family moved to Shropshire and two Grampian Police officers travelled to Shrewsbury in September last year to re-interview Hollie at a special facility.

In January, the Crown Office said there was not enough reliable evidence to proceed with the case.

Despite no charges ever being brought, Hollie received £13,500 compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in April last year.

It is understood that followed evidence from a Grampian detective inspector, who described Hollie as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”.

Mrs Greig, 58, claims her daughter has experienced nightmares and panic attacks since she first told her about the alleged abuse.

To view the article CLICK HERE

CAVEAT:
This 'STORY' bears closer scrutiny as to date there would seem to be no corroborative evidence that is substantive and admissible in a Court and thus the allegations are criminally irresponsible regarding innocent men and women.

May I commend a DETAILED study of the many documents at http://stolenkids-hollie.blogspot.com/

'Open the curtains, throw open the windows and permit the light of investigation and fresh air into family courts and sexual, emotional and physical abuse of the vulnerable - expose the abuse & the abuse of authority of those acting in OUR name!

No child asked to be or enjoys abuse,
it is for the gratification of the inadequate'.

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

To See The Links Page

CLICK HERE

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:

StolenKids-

GO TO
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com

To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

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:

StolenKids-

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

To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

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:

StolenKids-

GO TO
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com

To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

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.

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:

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:

StolenKids-

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

To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

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:

StolenKids-

GO TO
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com

To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE