Monday, January 17, 2011

Our children are not the property of the state

There is a tendency, developed or made more palpable over the past 50 years, that our children are first and foremost a state acquisition. The belief has perhaps been in greater evidence nowhere more than in the state education system, with its national curriculum designed to inculcate whatever values a passing government stipulates, and teachers trained in accordance with a prescriptive code which none dare abjure and no headteacher dare repudiate, lest they fall foul of the Gestapo at Ofsted. Any parental assertions of ownership, as with homeschooling, are increasingly viewed with suspicion, with such parents made subject to a level of monitoring usually reserved for suspected paedophiles. And the absurd belief that a parent ought to be informed about their child’s acquisition of contraception or their 14-year-old daughter’s application for an abortion is viewed as an unacceptable incursion into the child's 'right' to privacy, of which the state is now the self-appointed guardian.

But even these gross assertions of state orthodoxy are trivial compared to the disturbing rise of the power of the Family Courts.

Christopher Booker told yesterday of a disturbing account of one woman’s harrowing fight for justice against a Soviet system of state kidnapping. It is likeThe Changeling nightmare, and even Erin Brokovich would concede that hexavalent chromium is a walk in the park compared to the state’s determination to avoid another Baby P.

Mr Booker says he is legally barred from identifying the mother at the centre of this case or giving many other details, which in itself is a censorship designed to neuter the victim, who would like nothing more than for her story to be shouted to the four corners of the earth. Her level of desperation is unimaginable.

Essentially, after a difficult pregnancy, she gave birth to a daughter. Two months later, she had an accident which left her paralysed from the neck down. Soon afterwards, a nurse handed her a phone: It was a social worker from the local council, to tell her that her daughter – who was being looked after by her sister – was to be placed in care and put up for adoption within six weeks. “I was so paralysed,” she says, “that I couldn’t wipe the tears from my eyes.”

She passed all psychiatric tests and it was established that posed no risk to her baby or to herself. Yet the social workers proceeded with an application for an interim care order. ‘She was told that this was because her baby was at “potential risk of harm” due to her “suicide attempt”, and that she was in a “violent relationship” – whereas there had been no man in her life for over a year.’ Booker continues:
The interim order was issued, as is routine, but the social workers were told to produce evidence for their case, and the baby was allowed to remain with the mother’s sister’s family. The mother was given a hair-strand test which, she was startled to be told, showed “traces of cocaine” and “chronic excessive drinking”, though she rarely drinks, and a re-test for cocaine was negative.
In March, another hearing was cancelled because the council’s documentation was not yet available. In April, a case management conference was cancelled because the local authority was “not prepared”. Another hearing was adjourned in May because the council’s paperwork was incomplete, and in June it was cancelled, for the same reason.
Any visits the mother made to her baby had to be supervised. Yet the supervisor was not permitted to write the reports by which social services made any determination. Indeed, there was apparent falsification of evidence which the supervisor queried on the mother’s behalf. There was a formal request for the council to examine how the notes had been ‘edited’, as a consequence of which ‘the supervisor was suspended from the case and has subsequently been given little work by the council’.
In August, an order was made that the baby should be put into foster care, and that no family members other than the mother should see her. (The aunt’s young daughter, who had come to look on the baby as her own little sister, was heartbroken.) In September, the baby was placed in a foster home 35 miles away (making regular visits extremely taxing). A new contact supervisor, however, remained positive about the mother-baby relationship.

In October, an Issue Resolution Hearing was cancelled at short notice when the council’s legal team said it had not been supplied with necessary documents. In December another hearing was cancelled for the same reason. The magistrates then said they wanted the case sent to a county court.

It now seems the next hearing will be in May, 18 months after mother and child were parted. Fortunately, the mother is a bright, determined and organised woman, whose child is the centre of her life. Otherwise, subjected to such treatment, like many parents before her she might long since have cracked.
We see here a perfect example of the systematic abuse of state power. If the mother speaks out, she risks prosecution and faces the certainty of losing her child forever to fostering or adoption. Every instinct for natural justice wants to name the woman and assist her, yet the local authority bullies, in partnership with inept social workers and private adoption agencies, would exploit the transgression and submit it as evidence that they and they alone are acting in the best interests of the welfare of the child.

Ultimately, of course, it is the rights of the child which are violated. His or her right to a family life is subsumed to the state’s definition of what that life ought to consist. The social workers are no longer pastoral, caring or compassionate: they have become agents of the state, programmed to implement social legislation in accordance with the demands of the state.

The Marxist-Stalinist ideology persists.

But when will Social Services start protecting young children from the ‘Pakistani rape gangs’ identified by Jack Straw?

When will Social Services clamp down on the systematic child abuse that goes on in the nation’s mosques?

When will Social Services do something about the thousands of girls in the UK who are subjected to genital mutilation or sold by their families into ‘assisted’ marriages (they are no longer ‘forced’) which is barely indistinguishable from what many would term ‘human trafficking’.

It is a topsy-turvy world indeed in which we are obliged to grant prisoners their ‘right’ to vote; in which we may not deport convicted foreign-nationals because of their ‘right’ to a family life or their ‘right’ not to be tortured in their own country. And yet a British mother who has been convicted of nothing has her child forcibly removed by the state and is then denied natural justice and all means of legal redress because of the labyrinthine bureaucracy of an evil system intent on nothing but its own survival.

This outrage is ripe for culling under the provisions of Mr Cameron’s ‘Post-Bureaucratic Age’.

Questions must certainly be asked in Parliament about this crypto-Soviet madness. The Family Courts are out of control and a law unto themselves. It is time for us to reclaim our children from all forms of state oppression.


Blogger Jackart said...

Great Post. I asked similar questions just before christmas.

17 January 2011 at 11:16  
Blogger Captain Ranty said...

Sorry to burst your bubble, Your Grace, but our children are most definitely the property of the state.

If they weren't, how on earth could the state justify snatching 62 children per day? (And if it is a motive ye seek, follow the money. It's a huge revenue generator, is child-snatching).

If you registered your childs birth you handed title to the Registrar (the state). You are merely the keeper. It is your job to keep the child safe, fed, clothed, housed and educated. Try not doing any of those things and the state will be knocking your door down at dawn to take away its' property.

You are also only the keeper of your car. You handed title to the DVLA when you registered it. Transgress any of their rules and they will be along smartly to take it away from you. They may even destroy it. Now how can they do that if it isn't their property?

Got a shotgun? You don't own that either. The local Firearms Officer can come and take it away on a whim. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes.

Anything registered with the state, belongs to the state.

Scary, but absolutely true.


17 January 2011 at 11:24  
Blogger jdennis_99 said...

Your Grace,

I have personal experience of the family law system, although fortunately not to the extent you describe, and I absolutely agree with you. The system is out of control and out of order.

The first step would be to make court hearings public, opening them up to proper scrutiny.

17 January 2011 at 11:38  
Anonymous Andrew Lilico said...

The court's action flows from the wicked principle that the welfare of the child is paramount, as I explored here:

17 January 2011 at 12:07  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

"We see here a perfect example of the systematic abuse of state power."

Very good post Cranmer, and again,good work in publicising yet another abuse of power which is happening at every level.

The assumption on the part of Social Services or any servant of the State that they possess "power" needs to be exposed for the lie that it is. They exist to serve, not to arrogate to themselves control over the lives of others.

17 January 2011 at 12:07  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

I'm glad you've raised this, Crannie. Booker has been writing about it for a few years, and with increased intensity and frequency in recent months. It needs a wider audience and a higher profile.

Social workers are usually hard-working, sincere people, who work within a tight framework of regulation. It must be difficult for them to get things right, as, on the one hand cases such as those of Baby Peter/Victoria Climbie are rightly seen as social workers' failures; but the cases detailed by Booker are are also seen as social workers' failures. Damned if they do; damned if they don't.

The real problems lie in the opacity and secrecy of the system, and of the manifest injustices, such as parents not having the right to select their own legal counsel, protests by parents being interpreted as truculence and symptoms of their unsutability to care for their own children.

We all need to do everything we can to get these systemic abuses moved from its hiding place on the penultimate page of the Sunday Telegraph, to the front pages of national dailies, investigated by Panorama and Channel 4, under the noses of our MPs, and into the face of the government.

17 January 2011 at 12:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The whole system is a monstrosity, from top to bottom. I've acted as counsel for parents in dozens of these cases over the last fifteen years (hence the anonymous post) and I recently refused further involvement because I could do nothing for the people I pretended to act for.

Every 'professional' is part of a left-liberal consensus acting on the presumption that children are the property of the state and the parents are entitled to bring them up only if they obey the state's rules. Transgress and your child is taken away and brought up by people more malleable and willing to do the state's bidding. It has little to do with the 'welfare of the child' which is seen as something that can be promoted separately from its parents.

The judges are probably the worst, closely followed by paediatricians, then CAFCASS (supposedly independent but usually ex-social workers or some other agent of the state). Social workers are just the foot soldiers doing the dirty work.

The system needs shaking up and opening out:

1. Secret family courts should be open to the public and the press - not just in those cases the judiciary allows. There is no need to use real names - they are mostly referred to by initials now anyway;

2. The separate specialised 'family courts' should be abolished and all cases heard by ordinary judges, ideally sitting with a jury, or lay assessors chosen as juries are chosen now, rather than from an approved panel;

3. There is an overwhelming gender bias in the current system in favour of women based on the lefty assumption that in 'sensitive' cases involving children only women know best. This results in the most grotesque toeing of the line because women are unwilling to break ranks with the 'sisterhood'. All cases should be decided by men and women in equal proportions. Apply the gender equality legislation against those who promote it.

4. There should be a presumption in every case that the parents have the right to bring up their child. None one of the people involved in the 'industry' accepts that heredity plays a much larger part in children's development than it is currently given credit for. The lefty belief (against all the odds) that a child will respond to some ideal form of nurture supports the whole edifice. They will never accept that a parent often knows instinctively how to bring up his child and one parent's harsh treatment may be another's necessary discipline;

5. Once a child is pulled through the veil of a 'care order and fostering with a view to adoption' the state will not allow the parents even to know what has happened to it. Many foster placements fail but nobody is allowed to know how many, and even if the care that the child receives from the state turns out to be worse than what got it taken away in the first place, the decision is never reversed.

6. The parents are mostly poor unfortunate, inarticulate people who fall foul of the child 'protection' system and get no help to stand up to it from strong people who have their best interests at heart. Parents should be allowed to choose any solicitor and counsel to act for them, rather than be restricted to someone from a panel approved by the state, which usually is too close by half to the very agents of the state that have taken their child in the first place.

7. If the efforts of the army of people involved were directed into supporting the parent(s) to look after their child at home by people whom the parents could trust and respect, taxpayers' money might be better spent.

This is all I can think of off the cuff, but the system is wickedness incarnate and all involved ought to be ashamed to the depth of their souls. In many cases the only way the parents survive the trauma is to believe that justice will prevail before a higher tribunal, because they do not get it here below.

17 January 2011 at 13:04  
Anonymous JayBee said...

The nanny state has a very dark side indeed.
While it turns a blind eye to the widespread systematic child abuse practiced by some communities in our multicultural paradise, its negligence, incompetence and inflexibility has caused the system to degenerate into state-sponsored kidnapping and bureaucratic child trafficking. How on earth did this become accepted as lawful activity?
It is high time to roll back the frontiers of the State and stop this Stalinist depravity which is being paid for out of our taxes.

17 January 2011 at 13:15  
Blogger Ray P Hewitt said...

A sad if not entirely unsurprising story.

My child was placed on the 'At Risk Register' and efforts were made to remove him from mine and his Mothers care.

My Partner and I fought tooth and nail and were successful in keeping our child, but at a cost. We are no longer a couple.

My crime? I suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of fighting in one of the States many wars, and was considered 'violent'

I have not, nor will I ever raise a hand to my child - but the agents of the state.. The Social Workers... Couldn't promise I'd not get violent with them were we to meet again..

Truly the system is beyond wrong, it must be changed.

17 January 2011 at 13:54  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

Dr Cranmer - Captain Ranty has ably and succinctly highlighted the root of the issue, which is the act of surrendering the child over to the state through registration. It's also worthy of note that the children of gypsies and other traveller groups aren't subject to the seizure of their children by the courts, simply because they haven't registered them. Once they do so, they're also sucked into the vortex of state control. This underline a very basic and well-worn issue - the right of the state over the individual.

17 January 2011 at 15:54  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

There is nothing wrong with the legislation or the overall structures.

The Children Act provides only one basis for the removal of a child and that is that the child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm. Few would quibble with that.

The Courts have good Judges and a lot a sound Magistrates.

The 1989 legislation was skilfully drawn by Baroness Hale so that it drew upon English jurisprudence but with one eye on the likelihood of the ECHR convention being incorporated into British Law. It was made "Human Rights Act"- proof. There has never been a single successful challenge to its drafting or principles.

There is nothing wrong with the principles not even the idea that the "Child's Welfare is paramount". That
provision has to be reached in the light of the Welfare Checklist which requires the Court to consider and balance-

The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in light of his age and understanding);

His physical, emotional and/or educational needs;

The likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;

His age, sex, background and any characteristics of his, which the court considers relevant;

Any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering.

How capable each of his parents and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;

The range of powers available to the court (under the Children Act of 1989) in the proceedings in question.

Few could argue that a proper application of such a framework should be able to balance child protection with the interests of preserving family life from State intrusion.

Your communicant who talks of secrecy is behind the times. The press now has access.

The reason we have the dreadful stories you describe ( and I do not doubt Christopher Booker's account) is operational.

Once we had good Legal Aid Practices and Children's Guardians who had a degree of freedom to defend Family and Children's rights.

Children's Guardians were once genuinely independent self employed highly experienced Social Workers ( 20 years experience+) who took time to read the papers instruct a good lawyer and listen to the family with a view to offering the Court a really independent perspective.

They are now 3 years qualified, employed, and controlled by managers who can and do limit their investigations and re-write their recommendations
( though the managers are not qualified to make such judgements).

The Lawyers have been made to work on low fixed fees so often experienced lawyers cannot be allocated to cases. The Legal Services Commission has deliberately de-skilled Child Protection law so that it is mainly a managed process to be run on tick box lines with the work done on a semi skilled basis by unqualified or newly qualified people on a timed basis.

The Local Authorities do their work in a hurried and stressed fashion, as the example indicates and the Courts are clogged up with cases that are often double/ triple booked 6 months ahead. They are increasingly filled with unrepresented people whose cases take much longer. This accounts for much of the delay and huge costs wastage.

There is nothing wrong with the legislation. The problem lies with the politicians who have made easy capital by bashing lawyers whilst systematically starving the system. Legal Aid lawyers ( many earning less than the average teacher) went 12 years without a pay review. Can you name any other part of the public sector that was thus neglected?

It will not get better with lazy Ken Clark at the helm. He was destined for Business Secretary but had to be given the Lord Chancellorship. He may have been a QC but is 25 years out of date and has accepted the disastrous Labour Party approach which he accepted without any intellectual effort of his own.

17 January 2011 at 16:00  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

PS For those seriously interested in the issue I provide a link to an interview of the last Head of the Family Division Sir Mark Potter.

He was not a good choice for the position: he was a close friend of Tony Blair and his career was as a Commercial Lawyer. I told him to his face at a public meeting that I did not consider him up to the job and he continued to support the Labour line which Ken Clark continues.

However I have to give credit where it is die and as he left office he confirmed in this interviews the truth of what most of us in the system had been saying for years.

17 January 2011 at 16:17  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Well done for this post crannie and well said captain ranty.

17 January 2011 at 17:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said Martin. Poor show Your Grace. As a Family Law Barrister I concede that not everything is rosy in the garden but the fundamentals are strong. Sadly CAFCASS has sacked its experienced Guardians en masse and the need for Expert Psychologists, Psychiatrists and other Experts has to a large extent de-skilled Social Workers. Cases, however, are now determined by independent experts rather than 'Lefties'. I assume we are happy with this. Your Grace, after all, would only want his children removed from his care on the basis of expert recommendation and proven Threshold facts.

17 January 2011 at 18:50  
Anonymous Andy Baxter said...

Capt Ranty is most definitely on the money with this one your Grace and other readers who are as incensed as I am about the whole issue of State control.

good post by the way but it misses teh point that we habe no control the State does because we consent to them doing so!

I am involved with considerable research on this issue of liberty and personal freedoms prompted by the ever growing weight of statute and regulations imposed on us all over many years because we unwittingly consent and agree to their (the detached ruling elite) rules and statutes...

registering your child is the same as registering your CR says

as a parent you unwittingly and unknowingly create the legal fiction of 'a person' a legalese term, for profit entity that can be bullied cajoled controlled taxed and penned as cattle are for profit by the endlees exponential statutes they (the ruling elite) impose on us to satisfy their voracious avaricious appetite for control and profit (taxation)

people need to be angry people need to be strong and people need to take back control of their liberty

17 January 2011 at 19:17  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Thank you for another outstanding article, Your Grace. I'd note that, from time to time, we also touch on the parallel status of the elderly. As we know, the state kills them wherever possible.

Excellent post, anonymous @ 1304 - and one understands your anonymity!
I have a couple of responses:

I'm curious as to the difference between "lay assessors" and real juries. Who chooses them?

I was thinking also about the nature/nurture 'rule' that our masters have asserted, and then you mentioned it. "The lefty belief (against all the odds) that a child will respond to some ideal form of nurture supports the whole edifice." I recently got shouted down about this by a professor. I cannot believe that a child inherits no characteristics (other than a nose) that predisposes it to be part of a family; or, indeed, that love plays no natural part in parent-child relationship.
I call another "re-inscription" of science - or why, from time immemorial, have we bred animals for specific characteristics?

17 January 2011 at 20:25  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Sorry more haste less accuracy - - That should have been 'predispose.' Also: I call this another "re-inscription" ...

17 January 2011 at 20:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear martin sewell, you give off the whiff of complacency that pervades the whole damned system. [I'm the anonymous who posted at 13.04]

Brenda Hoggett (as Lady Hale was when she drafted the children act) is as lefty as they come. There was nothing wrong with the system that preceded it, but she just had to change the nomenclature to make her mark, rather like the pointless and regressive changes to the White Book a decade ago.

One example: 'significant harm' is not significant as a layman would know it, but it is all too often 'psychological harm' that is based on the opinion of a lefty psychologist, predicated on the presumption that a child is the property of the state and if the parents don't promote the state's agenda in the way they bring him up then they have forfeited the right to do so.
There is no comparison drawn between the harm he is said to suffer at home with the untested and unknown harm he would suffer from being taken from his parents and placed with complete strangers. The court assumes, without looking into it at all, that the state's provision is necessarily going to be better than what the court believes to be the harm his parents are doing him.

How many of us know children of feckless selfish parents who have grown up to be sensible responsible adults? Ad Fab being a good fictional example.

17 January 2011 at 21:11  
Anonymous len said...

We seem to be living in a World where the system of Justice(legal or natural) seems to be deteriorating.
Perhaps this is because of the blurring of boundaries by the philosophy of 'no moral absolutes'so beloved of Atheists.
This was a problem prevalent even in the days of Isaiah;
9 So justice is far from us,
and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10 Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
among the strong, we are like the dead.
11 We all growl like bears;
we moan mournfully like doves.
We look for justice, but find none;
for deliverance, but it is far away.

12 For our offenses are many in your sight,
and our sins testify against us.
Our offenses are ever with us,
and we acknowledge our iniquities:
13 rebellion and treachery against the LORD,
turning our backs on our God,
inciting revolt and oppression,
uttering lies our hearts have conceived.
14 So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.
15 Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.

17 January 2011 at 21:21  
Anonymous non-mouse said...

Apt quotation, Len. Thank you - even though it's shiver-inducing...

17 January 2011 at 22:05  
Anonymous Simon said...

Whenever someone talks about the interests of any group being paramount, one can be pretty sure one is being addressed by a humbug. But to move to the more particular ...

Recently the family courts became a little less secret, with some degree of press access and limited reporting rights. However, they are a long way from being open.

But it is not just in the area of care orders that there is this extreme idea that a child should not, indeed should almost never, be identified. One of the reasons for Miss Birbalsingh departing her job was the charge of identifying pupils. Children have in many aspects of life become unpersons.

Where there should be a question of discretion in identifying children we have instead some obligation of confidentiality. The trouble with any general system of confidentiality is that it is open to abuse by those who are damaging children behind that shield of confidentiality : some wilfully and some simply misguidedly, but it is notable for being used most obviously in areas where there is general concern about the treatment of children, whether in the matter of care orders or in the matter of state schooling.

The welfare of children is better served by much greater openness. At the moment, too many are trapped in secrecy. Maybe there are not as many as we fear, but until we know otherwise we can only presume against those whose actions are being concealed.

17 January 2011 at 22:13  
Anonymous Martin Sewell said...


You could not be more wrong when you describe me as complacent.

When the legal aid changes arrived two years ago I judged that I could no longer provide a proper service to clients and withdrew from the system to retire. I might have continued, and working form home as a specialist, rather than having a High Street Practice with high overheads, I could have lived with the reduced fee scheme at that stage in my career . I left because I was not prepared to be part of providing what I described as a fig leaf of justice, masking a systems deficiencies so that it could say the poor were legally represented when I knew that it had become a system stacked against them. Does that sound "complacent" to you?

Baroness Hale may or may not have been a 'lefty" I care not. the Act she drafted is sound in principle and was actually enacted by a Conservative Government with David Mellor as Home Secretary under Margaret Thatcher.

You are not sufficiently discriminating in your criticism. Many cases - such as physical brutality or sexual abuse may be technical and turn on expert opinion, but politics do not enter them.

Many of the other cases are about drug addicts or alcoholics whose physical neglect and prioritisations are partly about physical neglect but also touch on the more contentious area of 'emotional neglect". If you saw the evidence in many of these you might understand why a child's future health and emotional welfare may require a removal from parents. The Psychologists I used ( and the lawyers and guardians have to agree on them ordinarily) are not political and usually make fair and balanced judgements.

There are some cases where people with learning disability are involved or where there are other such factors where the emotional abuse aspect is difficult.
Those are the cases where you need experienced lawyers to choose the right expert, and ask the right questions. This is where the expertise is leaking from the system fast.

Many inexperienced social workers will prefer to target such weak families rather than confronting the evasive and the truly threatening.That was why you need good lawyers but if you degrade the experience status and resources of those who work the system properly they leave as I have done.

Tonight another poor little soul is in the news as killed by a brute because the lessons of the last 30 years - that doctors social workers health visitors have to communicate has again been overlooked.

We keep having enquiries saying the same thing but if the social services is filled with newly qualified minions who is there to remember the lessons of the last child death?

The truth is we consider the deaths of a handful of underclass children is not worth the cost of protecting them by properly resourcing the services needed to save them. It is our continuing National scandal.

17 January 2011 at 22:14  
Anonymous Simon said...

PS It is not just Christopher Booker who has been writing about this. Camilla Cavendish, for example, wrote extensively in The Times on the subject.

17 January 2011 at 22:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not being funny here, Your Grace, but what colour are these children? And what culture are they from? I bet they aren't muslim, asian, or black. But predominantly white.

Just saying, Your Grace.

17 January 2011 at 22:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous at 22.44,

They are overwhelmingly white in the north and black and white in the south. But there aren't many muslims, or hindus, not because they are left alone, but because they generally take more family responsibility for their children. It remains to be seen whether that will last in to the next generation as secular materialism tears their family bonds apart as it's done to ours since the 1960s.

And to answer martin sewell on the secrecy point, a sop has been thrown to those who campaigned for openness. A judge decides which cases can be reported and in what depth. The family courts are not open to the public as criminal courts usually are. They are very far from being public courts, and I would say that they will not be open until the press can report what the judge doesn't want them report rather than the other way round.

17 January 2011 at 23:13  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Topsy-turvy, for certian, one might even call it upside-down.

However it is one thing to observe the problem, and then describe it, it is quite another to indentify why this has happened, and is clearly getting worse.

Why, in spite of us having a Conservative governement we in fact have yet another wholly Fascist/Fabian socialist one?

Could the reason be that we have never been run by our elected representatives, but have been so by an establishment conspiracy since well before any of us were born?

A conspiracy that strongly involves the institution of The RCC, working in close co-operation with the richest and most powerful families on Planet Earth. In other words, the Temporal and Spiritual powers of the world.

I wonder why so many find the above proposition so hard to understand, when ideed has it not been so? It would seem to me at least, that the existence of this conspiracy is most self-evident, to say the least.

As a case in point; I do not remember any protest marches in the streets demanding paternity leave for fathers, or Family Courts created for the sole purpose of destroying families.

Attacking the likes of Brown, or Cameron for creating a society/system that they have absolutely no say over, is like shooting the organ grinders monkey's, pet monkey's rubber doll, and then seriously expecting the tune to change.

It will not, it really is that simple, in fact it will get worse every day, and will continue to do so, even when the ordinary citizen can no longer see how it could possibly get any worse.

For you can not fight an enemy if you do not know who it is, where it is, or why it is doing what it is doing.

However fighting this enemy is not any kind of an option, even if the great unwashed finally did wake up from their BBC induced slumbers. For this enemy controls just about everything that could help the common people to fight it, including most of their mind, all of their MSM, education and banking system, largest corporations, in fact you name it, if it is important, THEY either own it, or control it.

All the ordinary people can do is wise up enough, so as to make it much harder for the establishment to take the utter piss quite so much, or so often.

Understand, and understand ASAP, that party political democracy only exists to create the illusion of choice, and to divert the publics attention from the people doing the REAL governing.

With the added advantage, for our owners, of making the people believe that the utter chaos that daily surrounds them, is in someways the fault of themselves or their fellow citizens.

When the real TRUTH is:

ALL of the important, and almost all of the seemingly not so important decisions are made not by political parties, but by our VERY REAL OWNERS.

I am very sorry to have repeated myself yet again, but somethings can never be said enough times.

18 January 2011 at 02:53  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Setting targets for Social Workers on Adoption tied to bonuses is suggestive.

The Lawyers broke out of The Church and created their own Religion of Man Made Law. It now has its own Holy of Holies and rituals and vestments.

The triumph of Soviet Ideology in 1945 and the adoration of Joe Stalin left an open door for State Power to expand ready for the Marcuseans and Neo-Hegelians of the 1960s to take up position.

Lord Goldsmith reveals the disdain and contempt Lawyer Blair has for legality and that is common among Judges and Lawyers.

THis country has grown LAZY. Professions are lazy. The nation is tired and wants to die, it is simply too much effort to go on, and there is no vigour or sense of dynamic in the old beast.

Actually, the system is increasingly provocative inviting reaction, but so dead are the British, that they do not react, merely acquiesce like a beaten wife. This society is so feminised

18 January 2011 at 07:44  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Bleating about this travesty, which stands in a long line of freedom snatching travesties, will do little. The Tunisians finally had enough. When will we?

18 January 2011 at 08:23  
Anonymous martin sewell said...


Far from being complacent I withdrew from this kind of work early when the Legal Services Commission stopped permitting me to commission Residential Assessments of the poor and the weak. Local Authorities can, but do not pay for such work which enable parents' care to be observed assisted and assessed in a safe environment.

Publicity sounds a good idea until you remember that celebrities and rape victims have their rights to privacy protected- why not vulnerable children? In a local community most neighbours know whose children have been removed.

Far from intruding politics into the system the Children Act of 1989 replaced earlier legislation which enabled Local Authorities to vote to remove children via a "parental rights resolution" - an administrative Act. Baroness Hale may or may not be "leftist"; I don't care. Her drafting and structure was sound.

On the experts point, many are experts on physical mechanisms - how/when fractures occur, whether a given treatment can account for certain symptoms etc. The more nebulous opinions come from psychiatrists, psychologists and independent Social Workers. Their engagement have to be approved by the Court and the families' lawyers are part of the selection process. if you are experienced ( and this is the problem of de-skilling the professionals) you have a good bush telegraph amongst colleagues to warn you which experts have become flabby in their thinking. Solicitors can and do veto experts they do not trust. But this only can happen if you have people who have been around long enough not to respect received wisdoms and confident enough to challenge. Filling the professions with newly qualifieds running to budgets and bullied by target driven managers is the opposite of vigorous scrutiny.

It also means that the lessons learnt over 30 Public Enquiries into children's deaths are constantly being forgotten as new people do not have the experience and it is easier to go for the ineffectual rather than the truly evil and evasive.

I repeat you do not have to change the legislation or the structures but to resource them with the right levels of expertise and experience. Unfortunately it is only the families and children of the underclass that usually suffer. If this was hitting the middle classes there would be hell to pay.

18 January 2011 at 10:40  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Complacency? I walked away from undertaking this work when financial changes denied the opportunity to commission independent safe residential assessments of weak but benign parents. I refused to offer a fig leaf of respectability to a system that was becoming increasingly stacked against the poor.

I will criticise but from knowledge and experience.

Experts have to be agreed by the Court and lawyers. If you are experienced you know, or hear, who is sound, and who has an axe to grind politically or otherwise and you veto them.

Leftist or not, Baroness Hale drew the legislation for Margaret Thatcher's Government. Far from intruding the State unfairly into families, it replaced earlier legislation where Councils could remove children via an Administrative "parental rights resolution".

Publicity? Communities know who children have been removed. If celebrities, and rape victims have the right to privacy why should vulnerable children have their sexual abuse, IQ levels, or psychological difficulties published for all and sundry in the playground to know about.

This stuff is more subtle and complex than most realise.

Sadly yesterday there was news of another child victim of a brute; the same mistakes, the same lessons not learnt, non communication between people who had the information but did not share it.
It is easier to target the ineffectual than the truly evil and evasive. We do not keep the expertise and experience in the system and are constantly having public enquiries saying the same things which are lost when a new range of new people come into the system because we drive out expertise.

18 January 2011 at 11:09  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Trouble is, the Tunisians might not have got much further than us. Despite their effort, coagulation government seems to be the order of their day, too.

Long tentacles, that euSSR has.

18 January 2011 at 11:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having as a former councillor and at 2nd hand come across the leftish ethos of Council Social Services, I know that one day a parent will kill a Socia worker who tries to snatch their child that parent will have my full and sbsolute support

19 January 2011 at 21:30  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older