Added to The Sunday Telegraph today:
Hi,
thanks again to the Sunday Telegraph and Booker in particular for their valued and well placed tennacity in this case.
It may interest some that despite Mr. Hendre (MP)'s involvement, that the case was brought to The PM's attention in PMQs several weeks ago and that I have known this couple ever since they first contacted me for help some 2 years ago - NO ONE seems able to obtain honest, straight, simple answers as to WHY was the child effectively kidnapped.
Are East Sussex SS and the Family Court, like the police, no longer answerable to either our elected politicians nor even our Prime Minister?
I was asked by another MP involved to take care NOT to upset the Courts and to refrain from drawing attention to the corruption of The EU 'As our best chance of cleaning up our corrupt system was via Europe'.
This an MP who draws a salary at Westminster wishes to use The Human Rights Courts
to 'clean up Britain' - was that not what MPs used to be paid for?
Further there is some bizarre belief that the corrupt and centralised EU might administer some sort of Justice!
Firstly the EU doesn't 'do' Justice - it doesn't even do Democracy - Note Ireland where they democratically voted against Lisbon as did France and Holland but they are being forced to vote again to get it right!
Yet the killings, intimidation, murders and vote rigging in Afghanistan is pronounced acceptable!
Do NOT look to The EU for Justice, save in its abuse!
May I also remind the MP in question that the European Courts of Human Rights are neither under the control of nor any part of the corrupt EU!
It may further horrify the reader that this morning the Mother in question phoned me to tell me that she was being denied her Court approved visitation.
One can only assume as an act of punishment for the publicity!
Told that her 7 year old who had NEVER refused to see them and who had been whispering please could she have their phone number at the last meeting - the little girl stolen from her parents without even trumpped up cause when she was only 5 at the last meeting said she didn't care if she was adopted as she would just run away and find her way home!
ALLEGEDLY so say the SS had declined to see her parents!!
Advised that there was a letter relevant The Father decided to visit the SS offices to collect the letter, only to find there was no letter but The Guardian, the SS, etc. etc. were all in a meeting when he was told they were not in the building - this he ascertained from the car number plates in the car park.
It does look as if East Sussex are only likely not to lie when in their coffins - may I submit it is time to bury this clearly corrupt organisation and release the children they have stolen - read the case of Legoman whom it seems East Sussex swore on a stack of bibles had deliberately broken his own childs leg, leading to all three of his children being taken prisoner by the SS - it transpires now, long after the event that when investigated by an INDEPENDENT DOCTOR his baby has a bone disease!
East Sussex is still hanging onto his children, no doubt having frantic meetings to dream up further cover stories.
The SS and the State would seem to be some of the worst parents and guardians on record - one need only consider the fact that so many seem to consider the buggery and rape of children in their care to be a perk of the job - read Waterhouse 'Lost In Care' The report of 'Kincorra Boys School' the abuses at QVS in Dunblane, New Labour's buddy on Hackney Council Mark trotter, Tony Blair's constituency agent (Trotter as head of children's services is now dead of AIDS having been sent to prison for servicing too many children!) (Blair's agent is in prison for the rape and sodomy of boys and girls in his care) - the list is long!
However consider TODAY - when 80% of the British born who are in prison were at some stage or throughout childhood in the care of Social Services and over 40% of under age prostitutes are currently in care!
Is it that in the gross cases such children with broken limbs, haunted looks, mal nourished and covered in cigarette burns are hard to place for adoption whilst pleasant cared for children are more easily and more profitably fitted in the quota?
Consider the couple in Plymouth who have had 6 cared for children stolen including from the delivery room - and despite some 90 hearings no reason has been clearly given yet the easier ones have been forced into adoption against the parents will and with no clear reason show!
The entire incident stems from asking for a second opinion before bone marrow tests were done on their eldest! It transpired that the Doctor was a regular witness for the SS and he took umbrage and took ALL the children into care and forced the child to have the test!!
She was found NOT to have any bone marrow defect, merely a condition the parents told him before hand which was familial!
They are still fighting for Justice for their children.
We try to provide self help at:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com but for us it is early days - one MP we deal with has almost 600 similar cases, of relatively different strength but it is rare that the SS and the courts acting in shameful secrecy prove the best solution.
It is time not just to draw back the curtain on this secrecy but to throw open the windows to let in fresh air and the light of truth to ALL SS and Family Court cases.
Only two thing outside of marriage require closed doors and secrecy and they are pornography and pederasty and what is happening with the Family Courts particularly as identified in East Sussex is both obscene and an abuse of children!
IF you need help just visit the blog!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
http://GregLanceWatkins.blogspot.com
To see the full article CLICK HERE
Many other excellent comments by Ian Josephs and others.
Showing posts with label Telegraph; Christopher Booker; SADS;. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Telegraph; Christopher Booker; SADS;. Show all posts
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Saturday, 18 July 2009
SADS009 - TELEGRAPH - Christopher BOOKER - 18-Jul-2009
SADS009 - TELEGRAPH - Christopher BOOKER - 18-Jul-2009
'Evil destruction' of a happy family
A system involving social workers, police and courts took a child away from loving parents for no apparent reason, writes Christopher Booker
By Christopher Booker
Published: 5:48PM BST 18 Jul 2009
Comments 57 Comment on this article can be seen if you CLICK HERE
Two weeks ago I reported as shocking a story as this column has ever covered. It described how a loving family was torn apart when the parents were arrested by police on what turned out to be wholly spurious charges, so that their three children could be taken into care by social workers. As reported on another page, it now seems this awful episode has come to a happy ending.
However a new case has lately been surfacing, if anything even more shocking. This also involved the arrest of two parents and the abduction of their child by social workers, in a story so bizarre that, at last week's Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown was asked about it by the family's MP, Charles Hendry, who has long been concerned with the case because the mother is a vice-chairman of his local Conservative Association. The family's horrified GP says that, in 43 years of medical practice, he has never "encountered a case of such appalling injustice".
I first planned to describe this case in April, but was pre-empted by the draconian reporting restrictions on family cases, which, for reasons which will become tragically clear, have now been partly lifted.
The story began in April 2007 when "Mr Smith", as I must call him, had a visit from the RSPCA over the dog-breeding business he ran from the family home. He had docked the tails of five new-born puppies – a procedure that had become illegal two days beforehand. Unaware of this, he promised in future to obey the new law.
Three days later, however, at nine o'clock in the morning, two RSPCA officials returned, accompanied in cars and riot vans by 18 policemen, who had apparently been tipped off, quite wrongly, that Mr Smith had guns in the house.
Armed with pepper spray, they ransacked the house, looking for the nonexistent guns. The dogs, released from their kennels, also rampaged through the house. When Mr Smith and his wife, who was three months pregnant, volubly protested at what was happening, they were forcibly arrested in front of their screaming five-year-old daughter "Jenny" and taken away. Two hours later, with the house in a shambles – the dogs having strewn the rabbit entrails meant for their dinner across the floor – social workers arrived to remove the crying child.
Held for hours in a police cell, Mrs Smith had a miscarriage. When she was finally set free, she returned home that evening to find her daughter gone. It was the beginning of a barely comprehensible nightmare.
Her husband was charged with various offences connected with the dogs, including the tail-docking, but was eventually given a conditional discharge by a judge who accepted that he was "an animal lover" who had not been cruel to his dogs.
Far more serious, however, was that the social workers seemed determined to hang onto the child, now in foster care, on the sole grounds that they had found the house dirty and in a mess (the "animal entrails" played a large part in their evidence). This was despite the testimony of a woman Pc (who had visited the house a month earlier on a different matter) that she found it "clean and tidy". Two hundred horrified neighbours, who knew the couple as doting parents of a happy, well-cared-for child, were about to stage a protest demonstration when they were stopped by the police, on the social workers' instructions that this might identify the child.
For more than two years the couple have been fighting through more than 100 hearings in the courts to win their daughter back. From a mass of evidence, including psychiatric reports and tape recordings made at meetings with her parents (only allowed in the presence of social workers), it is clear she has been desperate to return home. It is equally clear that considerable pressure has been brought on the child to turn her against her parents,
One particularly bizarre psychiatric report was compiled after only an hour-long interview with the little girl. When she said she had once choked on a lollipop, this was interpreted as signifying that she could possibly have "been forced to have oral sex with her father".
After Mrs Smith alone had been subjected to four different psychiatric investigations, which came up with mixed findings, she refused to submit to a fifth, and this apparently weighed heavily with the judge who last December ordered that "Jenny" should be put out to adoption.
In the Appeal Court 11 days ago, Mr Justice Bodey ruled that, because the mother had refused that fifth test, indicating that the parents put their own "emotional wellbeing" in front of that of their child, the adoption order must stand. When this judgment was reported, an independent social worker, who had earlier been an expert witness in the case, wrote to Mr and Mrs Smith to say he was "horrified" to learn that Jenny was "not back in their care", having assumed for over a year that "she must have been returned home".
Their equally horrified GP, saying that he had never "encountered such a case of appalling injustice", wrote "the destruction of this once happy family is in my opinion evil". So shocked was their MP, Mr Hendry ,that he last Wednesday took the highly unusual course of raising the case with the Prime Minister at question time. Numerous others who know the family well have expressed similar dismay. One neighbour, herself a former social worker, whose own daughter often played with "Jenny", said: "I worked with children in social services for 25 years and I have never seen anything like this. It is disgusting."
What is clear in this case, as in so many others, is that a system involving social workers, police and courts in what is an obviously very close alliance should yet again have left a happy, loving family destroyed for no very obvious reason, Almost equally alarming is the way that system manages to shield itself from the world, through reporting restrictions which it claims are designed to protect the children but which too often end up by protecting only the system itself.
To view the original article & comments CLICK HERE
'Evil destruction' of a happy familyA system involving social workers, police and courts took a child away from loving parents for no apparent reason, writes Christopher Booker
By Christopher Booker
Published: 5:48PM BST 18 Jul 2009
Comments 57 Comment on this article can be seen if you CLICK HERE
Two weeks ago I reported as shocking a story as this column has ever covered. It described how a loving family was torn apart when the parents were arrested by police on what turned out to be wholly spurious charges, so that their three children could be taken into care by social workers. As reported on another page, it now seems this awful episode has come to a happy ending.
However a new case has lately been surfacing, if anything even more shocking. This also involved the arrest of two parents and the abduction of their child by social workers, in a story so bizarre that, at last week's Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown was asked about it by the family's MP, Charles Hendry, who has long been concerned with the case because the mother is a vice-chairman of his local Conservative Association. The family's horrified GP says that, in 43 years of medical practice, he has never "encountered a case of such appalling injustice".
I first planned to describe this case in April, but was pre-empted by the draconian reporting restrictions on family cases, which, for reasons which will become tragically clear, have now been partly lifted.
The story began in April 2007 when "Mr Smith", as I must call him, had a visit from the RSPCA over the dog-breeding business he ran from the family home. He had docked the tails of five new-born puppies – a procedure that had become illegal two days beforehand. Unaware of this, he promised in future to obey the new law.
Three days later, however, at nine o'clock in the morning, two RSPCA officials returned, accompanied in cars and riot vans by 18 policemen, who had apparently been tipped off, quite wrongly, that Mr Smith had guns in the house.
Armed with pepper spray, they ransacked the house, looking for the nonexistent guns. The dogs, released from their kennels, also rampaged through the house. When Mr Smith and his wife, who was three months pregnant, volubly protested at what was happening, they were forcibly arrested in front of their screaming five-year-old daughter "Jenny" and taken away. Two hours later, with the house in a shambles – the dogs having strewn the rabbit entrails meant for their dinner across the floor – social workers arrived to remove the crying child.
Held for hours in a police cell, Mrs Smith had a miscarriage. When she was finally set free, she returned home that evening to find her daughter gone. It was the beginning of a barely comprehensible nightmare.
Her husband was charged with various offences connected with the dogs, including the tail-docking, but was eventually given a conditional discharge by a judge who accepted that he was "an animal lover" who had not been cruel to his dogs.
Far more serious, however, was that the social workers seemed determined to hang onto the child, now in foster care, on the sole grounds that they had found the house dirty and in a mess (the "animal entrails" played a large part in their evidence). This was despite the testimony of a woman Pc (who had visited the house a month earlier on a different matter) that she found it "clean and tidy". Two hundred horrified neighbours, who knew the couple as doting parents of a happy, well-cared-for child, were about to stage a protest demonstration when they were stopped by the police, on the social workers' instructions that this might identify the child.
For more than two years the couple have been fighting through more than 100 hearings in the courts to win their daughter back. From a mass of evidence, including psychiatric reports and tape recordings made at meetings with her parents (only allowed in the presence of social workers), it is clear she has been desperate to return home. It is equally clear that considerable pressure has been brought on the child to turn her against her parents,
One particularly bizarre psychiatric report was compiled after only an hour-long interview with the little girl. When she said she had once choked on a lollipop, this was interpreted as signifying that she could possibly have "been forced to have oral sex with her father".
After Mrs Smith alone had been subjected to four different psychiatric investigations, which came up with mixed findings, she refused to submit to a fifth, and this apparently weighed heavily with the judge who last December ordered that "Jenny" should be put out to adoption.
In the Appeal Court 11 days ago, Mr Justice Bodey ruled that, because the mother had refused that fifth test, indicating that the parents put their own "emotional wellbeing" in front of that of their child, the adoption order must stand. When this judgment was reported, an independent social worker, who had earlier been an expert witness in the case, wrote to Mr and Mrs Smith to say he was "horrified" to learn that Jenny was "not back in their care", having assumed for over a year that "she must have been returned home".
Their equally horrified GP, saying that he had never "encountered such a case of appalling injustice", wrote "the destruction of this once happy family is in my opinion evil". So shocked was their MP, Mr Hendry ,that he last Wednesday took the highly unusual course of raising the case with the Prime Minister at question time. Numerous others who know the family well have expressed similar dismay. One neighbour, herself a former social worker, whose own daughter often played with "Jenny", said: "I worked with children in social services for 25 years and I have never seen anything like this. It is disgusting."
What is clear in this case, as in so many others, is that a system involving social workers, police and courts in what is an obviously very close alliance should yet again have left a happy, loving family destroyed for no very obvious reason, Almost equally alarming is the way that system manages to shield itself from the world, through reporting restrictions which it claims are designed to protect the children but which too often end up by protecting only the system itself.
To view the original article & comments CLICK HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)