Skip to main content

Vicky Haigh flees the babysnatchers

Vicky has sensibly decided to leave the UK to avoid the adoption machine. It remains the case that a majority of the children that leave care aged under 5 do so through adotion.

Hence if her baby had been taken the care she would have faced the likelihood that it would have been adopted.

An evil evil system.

The link is to her story in the Sunday Telegraph.

The system is more evil because the treatment of the babies in care causes a large proportion of them to be so psychologically damaged that a large proportion of the adoptions fail as well.

If anyone wants to check this they need to see Michael Rutters research which demonstrates that it is the period of 6-18 months that is key for psychological development. The vast proportion of babies taken into care are taken into care before 6 months. Hence it is the care system that normally does this not the natural mother.

Comments

Smoking Hot said…
Appreciate your work in this. Well done sir.
Jerry said…
John what is more frightening is the fact that the children in care suffer from attachment disorder, made worse by the system that constantly moves the children from pillar to post, the damage to the children becomes unrepairable.

We never treat animals like this, new born puppies et al are with their mother for at least ten weeks, how absurd is it that the UK feels that its still okay to remove new born babies from their mothers as soon as they are born, we are not in the dark ages any more, the system is something out of the Victorian era where children were forced into mills and mines, read the works of Lord Sailsbury 1830-1903, thrice Prime Minster, campaigned like yourself John for years to end the suffering forced upon children by the state.

"Parliament is a potent engine, and its enactments must always do something, but they very seldom do what the originators of these enactments meant"

So true even by today's standards and like the story of Vicky Haigh, Parliament needs a good head wobble and force the changes so desperately needed, Vicky's ordeal will certainly not be the last until the law makers and letter writers remove their heads from up in the clouds.
jheath said…
Well done, Mr Hemming. I worked with John (Jack) Haigh in the 1970's (well after his football days). What would the South Yorkshire make of the treatment of his daughter by one of their own councils? If only they knew.
sandie said…
Mr hemmings PLEASE carry on the fight for these people.. they are monsters taking babies and children away from their parent/s unecessarily. ITs all amount money NOT safety for the children. STOP them IF you can? good luck.
sandie said…
Mr hemmings PLEASE continue the fight.. theres many children being snatched albeit they say ITS legal procedure.This is how for many years they have been able to take so many into care..Its a scam.. It's all about money? In my opinion.When children have been abused by their parents eg Baby P.. where were they? they only appear to take children from parent/s FOR no reason.NOT for the good of the baby/child. there's many behind you on this.good luck. Dont let them take the children They are human beings NOT dangerous animals.BUT they treat animals better than humans dont they?

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

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…