Skip to main content

Another Social Services Error Corrected

The linked story is to another situation where a medical opinion and rather strange analysis resulted in a family being separated for two years.

I haven't seen the detailed judgement, but at least they have managed to resolve the underlying issue. However, the damage that will have been done by state intervention will be difficult to handle.

Comments

The Damage in most cases is beyond repair, you imagine in many cases where by the ss have supported the wrong party in family proceedings only to distress and undermine the childrens rights to the truth, causing smoke screens for all to avoid justice and then to succeed in damaging children who are innocent in the first instance.
This country is never going to wake up while social services have a platform for child welfare, it has to completely reform to occupy a child protection service that really does care about the welfare of children and not take words from abusers as gospel.
how could this be accompliced when this country is in doubt of it own professionals opinions and lapse attitudes of our own child system.
IT does not take a wise old person like my self to need to show that in many cases the SS get their analises back to front, upside down, in other words they are the Topsy Turvey services of this country that operate in such a way each way they turn they cause injustices to surface....Is it about time they realised this pattern in their behaviour.
This fortunate couple are one of the lucky ones, and good grief they will need all the luck for the future, but there are many out there who have tried to fight this system and got know where because of the corupt way this society stands by the Social Services.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…