Skip to main content

Don't protest about Childrens Services or the state will section you and silence you

What I find particularly concerning about the linked article is the way in which the father concerned was silenced as a result of being wrongly sectioned.

Comments

Andrew said…
This is similar to "mental capacity" cases, the story is shocking.

This is all down to snooping gone to far, this country is hardly worth saving, might as well abandon ship.
Jerry said…
John and Andrew,

Like in the related article, I would like to find some way in finding out just how many of these cases have the similar "mental Capacity" hogwash thrown at them.

again in the article is it the same in a sense as our own case, although I have not been sectioned, mind you I am not far off, god it will give them all they need
Just Us said…
John, Re couple who fled to Ireland and had their child abducted by Social Services.

The Irish system is far more corrupt than the U.K. In fact half of the Social Workers in Ireland are U.K. Citizens who fled the U.K when the Standards were changed a few years ago. No longer qualified in the U.K. they were snapped up by the HSE in Ireland.

I'm sorry to say that this couple will likely lose their child by adoption. Look at the recent case in the U.K. with Baby Crystal where a mother lost her child even though she had "never come to the attention of CAFCAS".

These injustices are not limited to the U.K. and Ireland it's a problem in the U.S.A., Canada and Australia. The U.N. Treaty on the Rights of the Child is just nonsence that is ignored by all parties who signed up to it.

The only answer to these Secret Courts or "perjury palaces" is to just scrap the whole system and let the Police and Criminal Courts look after Family issues. Any system that does far more harm than good and only gets it right less than 3% of the time needs to be scrapped.

I applaud your work and I respect your efforts in trying to get Justice for Children but I think you will find, as I did, that Justice for Families doesn't exist. In only 1 of every 184 cases where children are taken into "Care" is a parent even even charged with a criminal offense but all 184 are treated as guilty.

20 Children have died in "Care" in Ireland in the last 6 years, I would imagine the numbers in the U.K. are in the hundreds, 20 is 3 times more than who died at the hands of their parents.

Do me a favour and ask the question in the House, how many died and how many were assaulted, the question came up here last week.

I wish you luck, don't give up, eventually these criminals will be brought to Justice and the Taxpayers will fork out billions to the hundreds of thousands of victims they've created along the way. Regards, J
john said…
I disagree with your comments about Ireland. Ireland's law protects legitimate children from adoption.

I don't know about the numbers of deaths in care in Ireland. There will always be some children that die. The question is why. The figure in England is reported at around 100 a year.
Tania said…
Rest assured you are not alone. What is happening in our countries is the heinous of all crimes unfortunately at the expense of the lives of innocent children and their families. Since President Clinton signed into law the landmark Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 to help thousands of children waiting in foster care move more quickly into safe and permanent homes,more and more families are being unjustly torn part. Financial incentives were put into place subsidizing the state with $4000 to $6000 per child kept in the sysytem and adopted out. This overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation was based in large part on the recommendations of the President's "Adoption 2002" report. The report takes its name from one of the President's central goals -- to at least double the number of children adopted or permanently placed to 54,000 by the year 2002. The Act makes sweeping changes in federal law on adoption and foster care enacted in 1980. While it seems the new law clarifys that the health and safety of children must be the paramount concerns of state child welfare services, you couldn't be further from the truth. The Adoption and Safe Families Act only made an already bad situation, worse. It is a gross violation of our constitutional rights; the department of children and family services and children's courts makes a mockery of our judicial sysytem. There is no due process or equal protection of the law. In Children's courts, social workers and other state employees perjure themselves under oath and are not admonished. They are immune from all liability, furthering their over zealous carriage of power. They arrive at your door from a referal from the child abuse hotline; a call that could have been made from a disgruntled neighbor or a jealous ex. it doesn't matter because they too are granted annonymity. There are no search warrants presented, but they intimidate you into letting them into your homes. This is illegal. But you have nothing to hide because you have done nothing wrong;so you let them in. but if you have dishes in the sink the report will most likely read;
dirty dishes in the sink, growing bacteria and fungus, cock roaches, etc... deeming it unsafe for the child to remain at home. That is what they will do. Then they place your child, who is already terrified and full of separation anxiety at having been removed from their parents, in a "licensed" child care facility usually a foster home where they are often molested, raped, killed or doped with Psychiatric drugs without obtaining your consent.
The social worker begins the family reunification plan which is a bunch of bullshit. The last thing they want is to reunite you with your child. They want to keep your child because it enables them to keep their jobs.
It's nothing less than racketeering for the profit of money. No, not all social workers and judges are unjust, but the majority unfortunately are and nothing will ever change if we as a people unite and fight for the sanction of the family unit, the moral fiber of society.

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…