|Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 1063660 members, 1237842 topics. Date: Sunday, 26 May 2013 at 01:12 AM
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Outstrip(f): 7:41pm On Jan 22, 2010|
What organization do I send it to and how do I verify them. Please let us know so that we are not forced to call you silly
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by debosky(m): 1:42am On Jan 23, 2010|
That is the unaddressed issue. The Haiti appeal can easily attract donations due to the ease of donating. There are so many ways to give that you can choose how you want to respond.
Now, considering the Jos crisis, we don't even have clear numbers of who is dead, who is injured, who needs help, the type of help needed or how the help can be rendered.
I find it highly reprehensible to castigate people for helping the ones they can help (due to the channels available to do so) because they cannot help in another case where information and access to the organisations rendering aid is almost non-existent.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Sam Milla(m): 3:19am On Jan 24, 2010|
Call Fashola of Lagos State, He is an expert in Haiti Donations.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Mariory(m): 11:59pm On Jan 25, 2010|
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Outstrip(f): 3:20am On Jan 26, 2010|
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Mariory(m): 7:10pm On Jan 26, 2010|
Yes. UNICEF is present in Nigeria.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Outstrip(f): 12:51am On Jan 27, 2010|
They are not collecting anything for Jos. Their main focus in Nigeria is children and is mainly to fight malaria. Your money will not be going to those affected by the massacre in Jos
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Mariory(m): 7:50pm On Jan 27, 2010|
I see what you mean. Isn't it the same thing though? Children would be suffering as well. Some would have lost their parents.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Outstrip(f): 10:29pm On Jan 27, 2010|
By all means give because there is always a need. It's no difference in giving to the red cross any day any time. This time people gave and had to specify Haiti. Completely different thing here
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by thameamead(f): 1:03pm On Jan 30, 2010|
i'll say, don't give cos 90% of whatever is donated is going to end up in the pockets of corrupt Haiti politician, NGO's and charities so what's the point, the earthquake happened two wks ago and the US army is still not giving clearance for planes carrying aid to land, d charities on the ground are running out of medicines and aid is still not getting thr, The united nonentities oops united nations are not organised at all, its all about logitics and sipping champagne in the hotel while thousands are waiting for food, the reflief effort has bn a disaster and a PR stunt for the likes of d US, A- list celebrities, Bill Clinton, even d lame duck ex- president George Bush, shame on President Obama and the US ARMY for putting military above humanitarian aid, its pointless having US soldiers if aid is not getting to d people, credit where credit is due, am no fan of Isreal but they set up a fleld hospital in 5 hrs while the US Army are doing absolutely nothing.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by thameamead(f): 1:08pm On Jan 30, 2010|
OMG, £490 for that, i can made it for less than that, some people have no shame at all, they will make a huge margin/profit from a disaster. God Help the people of Haiti, reports say the aid is still not getting not get thr.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by thameamead(f): 1:14pm On Jan 30, 2010|
The French rescused a girl and set up a fleld hospital, saw it on Channel 4 News, d Italians as well as the Chinese r all dia but d US seems to be taking all d credit, even d Isreal wasted no time in setting up a fleld hospital,
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Outstrip(f): 7:26pm On Jan 30, 2010|
Why are you so angry. I saw that rescue of the 15 year old girl that had been trapped for almost two weeks and they said she was rescued by the french. The US did not take credit for it.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Chuckdee(m): 12:04pm On Jan 31, 2010|
FOR ALL NIGERIANS THAT WANT TO MAKE A DONATION!!!!
You can actually make a donation to the Victims of Haiti Earthquake SECURELY by using a GLOBALCOM GSM line and sending a text message with the words: HAITI to 33090. N50 (50 Naira will be deducted from your balance) and the money will be sent to the RED CROSS by GLO. You can text as many times as you wish and each time you will get a 'THANK YOU' response txt from GLO
I think this is a nice and foul prove method from GLO.
people, do like I have done, make that donation today!.
Hope this info helps.
NB: Heres a link on the dailies about this, http://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/01/31/haiti-quake-victims-get-glo-sympathy/
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Outstrip(f): 10:00pm On Jan 31, 2010|
Thanks. My uncle just got back from Haiti yesterday and I could even hear the horror in his voice when we spoke. He said it was like the day after the last day in Haiti. I guess the big frustration now is why people are still not getting aid but these things are more complicated than they seem I guess.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Chuckdee(m): 10:44pm On Jan 31, 2010|
You are welcome.
I can imagine his horror, even from mere watching CNN & co, the devastation is unimaginable and nothing one can even wish his worst enemy.
May God save us all.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by thameamead(f): 12:44pm On Feb 05, 2010|
Why are you so angry. I saw that rescue of the 15 year old girl that had been trapped for almost two weeks and they said she was rescued by the french. The US did not take credit for it.
d US seems to be doing absolutely nothing, y won't they allow planes carrying aid land. am so so angry @ d US and United Nonentities oops United Nations.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Outstrip(f): 4:30pm On Feb 05, 2010|
Na wa oh. My uncle just got back. He is a marine engineer for the United States government and they were able to accomplish a lot. The United States Government is not God and things could be organized better but to say they are doing absolutely nothing is totally unfair.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by AjanleKoko: 8:46am On Mar 03, 2010|
I'm wondering why the US and the rest of the world haven't stormed Chile
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Jcob(m): 9:34am On Mar 03, 2010|
They wanted to, but the Chilean Govt said they would only allow foreign troops that meet their stated requirements. The Chileans are better off economically compared to the Haitians, and that's why they are able to curtail the effect without foreign assistance.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by fight4just: 4:21pm On Jun 24, 2010|
ABOLISH FORCED ADOPTION AND CHILD TRAFFICKING IN UNITED KINGDOM!!
My name is IAN JOSEPHS.UK Social services have never hurt me, my family, or my friends, but their wicked abuse of power has simply shocked me into action!"Forced adoption" too often legally deprives healthy,happy,children from all contact with loving parents,brothers,sisters,,grandparents,and other relatives for the rest of their lives! Adoption is a wonderful thing for abandoned and neglected children if it is TRULY VOLUNTARY but is a wicked deed that should be severely punished if forced through the courts against the will and frantic opposition of loving parents.Worse still these parent VICTIMS are ruthlessly gagged !!Yes,here in the UK secret courts jail parents who dare to protest publicly when social workers take their babies at birth and arrange for them to be adopted by strangers.Some "lucky" mothers who discovered where their adopted children were living have been jailed for ringing the doorbell,waving at the children in the street, or sending them a Xmas card on the grounds that they were undermining the forced adoption and committing a breach of the peace !
Many will say that I overstate and exaggerate my case thereby undermining it. I promise you that on the contrary I am understating it as things are now far worse than the public could possibly imagine or accept as credible if I revealed all!Please feel free to use or quote anything you like from my site that you may find useful.Do the "SS" accuse you of being paranoid because you think they are persecuting you?
By all means quote this extract from "The Times" April 13th 2010 !
"Lord Justice Wall (The Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an "unsatisfactory care system" away from their families was "quite shocking".In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the West of England" !
Am I just some lunatic eccentric ?Well if I am, so are the two most senior family judges above, and so are the distinguished editors and columnists who write for the Times and the Telegraph and who evidently share my views as you will see if you read on !
A WORD OF WARNING
from Lord Denning, rated (by some) as the finest judge of the 20th century.
"Every court should be open to every subject of the Queen. I think it is one of the essentials of justice being done in the community. Every judge, in a sense, is on trial to see that he does his job properly. Reporters are there, representing the public, to see that magistrates and judges behave themselves. Children's courts should also be open. Names should be kept out but the public should know what happens to the child and proceedings should never be conducted behind closed doors, "
After all can anyone answer this question?
HOW CAN SOCIAL SERVICES JUSTIFY THE REMOVAL OF HUNDREDS OF BABIES AT BIRTH FOR "RISK OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE", AND AFTER HEARINGS IN SECRET COURTS, THEIR FORCED ADOPTION BY STRANGERS?
You don't believe this happens? Just read this SUNDAY TELEGRAPH LEADING ARTICLE!!
The unnatural justice of secret family courts
The Sunday Telegraph, 26/08/2007
The Sunday Telegraph highlights today yet another case in which a mother has been threatened with losing her baby to local authority care. The mother had not shown any sign at all of harming her child, for her baby has not yet been born.
The local authority, however, is convinced that there is a possibility that she might harm the child.
To most people, it will seem grotesquely unjust that any child could be removed on such a basis. Northumberland County Council is, however, far from unusual in acting in this way.The courts have endorsed the removal of hundreds of children from their natural parents on the basis that there is a possibility that they might "abuse their child emotionally".
Some of those forcible adoptions are appalling acts of injustice. How can such things happen in Britain? The answer is simple: the courts that enforce the taking away of children from parents on local authority say-so operate in secret. It is illegal to reveal their proceedings, or even their judgments.
The above extract from the Sunday Telegraph is from but one of many articles from respected journalists confirming what I myself have alleged concerning the "SS" and "forced adoptions";
Why do the "SS" act like they do?Well like most "public servants" social workers NEVER admit to the public that they have made a specific mistake!.
Once they have decided to take a baby or young child away from its parents and into "care", no matter what new evidence comes out in favour of the parents, they still stick to their original decision . When possible they pursue their instructions from the government to increase the number of adoptions(in order to avoid the expense of paying thousands of foster parents an average of £400/week per child !).Their prime interest then, is NOT the welfare of the baby or child but WINNING their case in court against parents who dispute their decisions .The sad sequel is that the judges nearly always back them up regardless of the evidence of parents who more often than not, have never been accused let alone convicted of any crime! !
It is true that accredited journalists can now be admitted at the discretion of the judges ,who however ban them from any cases likely to be controversial. Even when they are admitted they cannot print names of witnesses or word for word details of proceedings.
It is however the gagging of parents not the media that is so unjust. Protest can only be effective when like molestation victims parents (and teenage children who wish to express their views) can shed anonymity and campaign under their own names The new rules (just like the previous rules) state that parties to a case can give information in confidence to individuals who can offer them advice OR support Despite this judges still regularly warn parents whose children have been removed by their courts NOT to discuss their cases with anybody! They pretend to protect the privacy of parents and children by gagging them both ! You couldn't make it up !
Yes,they gag parents to "protect their privacy" but allow local authorities to advertise their precious children for adoption in the Daily Mirror,and other periodicals, with first names ,colour photographs,birth dates and ethnic origins rather like pedigree dogs ,who of course do not need privacy !
MARCH 2009 - SECOND EDITION NOW AVAILABLE.
My book (430 pages) is available at cost price: £11.30 + postage, or DOWNLOAD FREE OF CHARGE! by clicking here: www.lulu.com
If you don't have a credit card you can buy a copy directly from the author by sending a cheque or a postal order payable to Ian Josephs for £14.00 (this includes postage) to:
20 Avenue de Fontvieille
MC 98000 Monaco
April 2009 - A SHORT EDITION of my book (166 pages) is now also available at cost price: £5.74 + postage (or download for free) by clicking here. Again, you can also buy this directly from the author by sending a cheque or a postal order for £8.50 to the Monaco address above. You can access the actual texts of the new rules as passed by parliament as follows;-
The Family Proceedings (Amendment) (No.2) Rules 2009 - Final (para,11.4)
The Family Proceedings Courts (Miscellaneous Amendments) Rules 2009 - Final (para 21.T)
Despite the new rules the judges simply exclude the media from controversial cases as the very typical example below shows !
Before DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE HILLIER
Tuesday, 26 May, 2009
At 10 o'clock
Applications/Summonses in Court as in Chambers
At half past 10
At 11 o'clock
FD08D04833(NOT OPEN TO THE MEDIA) !!
At 12 o'clock
At 2 o'clock
FD08D04757(NOT OPEN TO THE MEDIA) !!
At 3 o'clock
In these courts happy loving families are ruthlessly split up to feed the adoption "juggernaut" .An adult teenager was recently told by a judge in the family court ,"Your baby sister is no longer your sister because she has been adopted so you will never see her again !"
Parents are not only gagged to prevent them protesting publicly ,they are also gagged when speaking to their own children in fostercare during limited contact periods! Parents are regularly told that they are forbidden(under pain of having contact stopped altogether) to tell them the truth ,that their parents love them and are fighting in court to get them back.If they dare tell them even "the half" of the true situation the "SS"do stop contact altogether so that the unfortunate children only hear the "SS" version that their mother is too ill to look after them any more,or does not love them any more, or worse still that "mummy has a new baby now and does not need you any more ,so we will find you a lovely forever mummy and daddy."How wicked can they get? And what happened to parents human right to "free speech"?
Forced adoption is doubly wicked because it is a "life sentence" where the adopted children are permanently deprived of contact not only with their parents but also with their adult siblings, grandparents,aunts, and uncles . The parents are ruthlessly jailed by secret courts (more than 200 per year) if they dare to protest publicly or reveal identities of any witnesses.
Worse still blameless brothers and sisters are more often than not adopted separately and are forced to lose all contact with each other as well as with the rest of their families(grandparents etc) at least until they are 18 and usually for the rest of their lives.The damage done to these children by heartless judges is simply horrendous,
"What about Baby P? " I hear you cry !Well, physically injured children like baby P,Victoria Climbé,and others are not good adoption material .They are in any case avoided like the plague if there is a brutal and often drunken boyfriend or stepfather on the premises to intimidate the social workers. Such children are more often than not, callously left to die !Meanwhile social workers move on to easier targets and accuse respectable and more compliant parents (especially single mothers)of posing a "risk of emotional abuse" to their children, and even to their unborn babies !That is how the "SS" work now .
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, May 10th 2010
Christopher Booker writes,
Mother in court over a birthday card
Next Wednesday, Maureen Spalek, a spirited and loving mother, will be in Runcorn magistrates’ court to face a criminal charge of having sent a birthday card to her eight-year-old son – having already been arrested and held in a prison cell for 24 hours for the same offence.
Mrs Spalek is charged with breaking a court order forbidding her to have any contact with her three children, even though she has an order from another judge explicitly permitting her to send them birthday and Christmas cards. Yet a few days after she sent her younger son the card, on April 15, she was visited by two police officers who threatened to beat down her door unless she gave them entry. She was then taken to one of Runcorn’s 30 police cells where she was held in very unpleasant conditions for 24 hours.
Mrs Spalek, the former wife of a naval officer, lost her children some years ago after one of her sons was taken to hospital with a broken leg from a bicycle accident. When she complained about the attitude of a doctor who was treating her son, social workers were called in. When she then, in turn, complained about the “hostile” attitude they had shown to her, the affair escalated to the point where her three children were taken away, on the grounds that she had “problems working with professionals” – even though it was agreed in court that she was an “excellent mother”, that the children were well-behaved and well-looked-after and that they had suffered no physical or emotional abuse. Two were adopted, one lives with their father.
One of the many serious issues not raised in the recent election campaign, because all three parties have agreed not to discuss it, is the growing scandal of the abduction by social workers of children from responsible and loving parents. In too many instances, this gives the impression of a tightly closed system, in which the social workers, who have in the recent past been set “adoption targets” by central government, are aided and abetted by the police, by certain family court judges and even by those lawyers supposedly acting on behalf of the parents. I shall return to this very disturbing issue after Mrs Spalek's case this week.
This case illustrates a colossal loophole in the family court "secrecy and gagging system" !Any parent that like Maureen commits a minor criminal offence (usually breaking an injunction thus committing contempt of court !) If that parent pleads not guilty and represents him/herself the whole lot can come out in court with no reporting resrictions and can be debated openly !It takes guts to do this but look at the publicity and public outrage that Maureen garnered to help her get contact with her state stolen children !
Are there any "quick fix" solutions that could stop these injustices?There are at least 10 vital reforms needed that are discussed later(see my reform section) but for now I will name the two most important,
1:- Any parent who is threatened by a care order or adoption for their child should have the right to a hearing by a jury.Any burglar facing a possible 6 months or more in prison can demand a trial by jury but mothers who risk losing their babies or young children for LIFE to forced adoption are denied this right.No jury would take a newborn baby from a mother for "risk of emotional abuse". At present juries in civil courts decide complicated cases of libel,slander and even city fraud.They would be more than competent to decide whether or not a child should be removed from its parents and they would not be so ready as "establishment" judges to side in nearly every case with social services against parents desperate to keep their beloved children. In 2007 the "SS" applied for 8173 care orders and only 21 were refused !Rubberstamping by "establishment judges"!Time to bring on 12 men (or women)good and true!
2:- Parents and their teenage children are ruthlessly gagged to prevent them revealing their own names, or names of witnesses in the family courts.It is indeed wicked that mothers whose babies are snatched at birth by social services for "risk of emotional abuse " are jailed if they protest publicly and the press are restricted in the same way. Surely parents who have had their children removed should, like molestation victims be free to waive anonymity and go public if they so choose?It is outrageous that in our "democracy" hundreds of babies are taken from their mothers at birth and if these mothers identify themselves by public protest they are jailed by secret courts.(Harriet Harman admitted in parliament to at least 200 parents per year imprisoned by judges at secret family courts. )The UK is the only EU member to allow "forced adoption", and the only EU country to gag parents and jail them if they protest publicly.Both "forced adoption" and "the gag" must go !
The right to hearings by jury and the removal of the gag would not need complicated legislation and would prevent at least 90% of the present injustices.
Adoption Targets still exist ! Local authorities are still urged by Ofsted to arrange as many adoptions as possible so as to hit their targets ! See "Early Day Motion" 958 by John Hemmng MP.
That this House notes that the Government abolished the adoption target BV163 in April 2008; considers that the Government should have abolished PAF C23 at the same time, a performance indicator that has the same definition; is concerned that Ofsted continues to put pressure on local authorities to increase the number of adoptions; recognises that the only significant way in which this can be done is to increase the adoptions of babies and toddlers; notes that the disparity between Scotland and England in respect of this issue is blatant; and calls on the Department for Children, Schools and Families to stop pressurising local authorities through Ofsted to increase adoptions and to abolish the performance indicator PAF C23.
Adoption system is UK's shameful secret
Britain is the only country in Europe where children are routinely removed from their parents without consent, says Christopher Booker
By Christopher Booker
Sunday Telegraph 10 Oct 2009
This week I return to one of the most disturbing stories this column has ever reported. It began on a morning in April 2007 when the home of a respectable middle-class family in Sussex was overrun by 18 policemen and two RSPCA officials, supposedly looking for guns. When the father, a professional dog breeder, volubly protested, he and his pregnant wife were arrested and handcuffed, to the horror of their watching five-year old daughter (whom I call, for legal reasons, "Jenny".
East Sussex social workers were then called to remove the little girl. Her mother had a miscarriage while in custody and returned to an empty home, left in chaos. Jenny has remained in foster care ever since, and despite her parents pleading for her return through 74 legal hearings, the ruling by a family court judge last March that she be put out for adoption was upheld in July by the Appeal Court.
Having now seen further documents relating to this saga, I can understand why the family's GP wrote that in 33 years as a doctor he had never come across "such an appalling case of injustice". The first document was her parents' careful chronology of every step in the story, including transcriptions of many of their telephone conversations and meetings with Jenny, invariably under strict surveillance by social workers or the foster carer.
The dominant impression from these recordings is of Jenny's desperation to be reunited with her parents, and of an increasingly distraught child who cannot understand what has been done to her. The parents claim that pressure was put on her constantly to say that she didn't want to see them again. Why did the family court judge not allow this evidence to be heard in court, although she did admit accounts of these "contacts" by the social workers?
A second document is the judgment by Mr Justice Bodey in the Appeal Court confirming that Jenny must be put out for adoption. No evidence had been produced that her parents ever caused Jenny physical or mental harm. His ruling centred on two points. One was evidence that her home was a mess on the day of the raid, although those who knew the house well testify that it was normally clean and tidy. The other was that, when the family's home was invaded by 18 policemen (a figure confirmed by one policeman in evidence), the father verbally abused them in colourful fashion (but didn't attack them physically). Are these really adequate grounds for tearing a child and her parents permanently apart?
A third document is the book Forced Adoption by Ian Josephs, a businessman who has taken an active interest in the removal of children from their parents by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s. He acted in part of the Jenny case as a "Mackenzie friend", that is, an informal assistant and adviser.
Mr Josephs shows that Britain is almost the only country in Europe which routinely allows children to be separated from parents without their consent. Indeed, he reproduces a press release put out in 2003 by Hammersmith & Fulham Council boasting how, under a Local Public Service Agreement, it had received a reward of £500,000 from central government for hitting its target of 101 adoptions in the year. This particular, highly controversial scheme of cash bonuses has, thankfully, since been abandoned.
The impression given by these documents supports the GP's view that this is an "appalling case of injustice". Social workers, lawyers and judges seem enmeshed in a system heavily skewed towards putting children out for adoption – by a process so shrouded in secrecy that it seems designed more to protect the system itself than the interests of the child. Most alarming of all is that there seems no one with the authority to intervene in cases such as Jenny's, where that system appears to have left both a loving family and justice horribly betrayed.
And if THREE articles from the Sunday Telegraph are not enough read two from the Times !
Family Courts are the B-side of the Law
Camilla Cavendish, The Times December 26 2006
What a strange, fumbling kind of justice system it is that condemns a woman as an unfit mother for the heinous crime of trusting her husband. Yet this is what seems to have happened in a recent case that I feel compelled to write about, even though legal restrictions force me to leave out much of the detail.
The nub of the case is this. A woman, let us call her Janie, gave birth to her first and only child a year ago. That baby was taken away from her and subsequently put up for adoption. Not because of her own failure to care for the baby — her own love and care never seem to have been in question. No. She has lost her baby because of a suspicion that her husband John may have injured another child in his previous marriage almost ten years ago.
The suspicion was no more than that. John was never charged with anything, let alone convicted. Social workers were never sufficiently worried to take that first child into care. Since his divorce John has shared custody of that child perfectly amicably with his ex-wife. Yet the same local authority which left the first child with him has forbidden him to see this new baby. And his new wife, despite having nothing to do with the first case, may never see her baby again.
Unless this case is overruled in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, where it is now heading, it will set a peculiar precedent. For it implies that any British mother could be penalised for choosing a partner to whom the State has taken a dislike: penalised with the loss of the thing that is most precious to her in the world.
It cannot be this simple, you are thinking. Well, not quite. The child of the first marriage is disabled, and did seem to have suffered an injury — I am not permitted to say more. But no one knows how. Both John and his first wife have always protested their innocence. They had a second child who came to no harm. No court will ever truly know whether John was innocent. But the fact is that he was never found guilty. For the local authority to leave him alone with a child that it thought he had harmed, and to take away another that had not been harmed, is utterly hypocritical. No court should be able to punish you for a crime you may commit, when there is no evidence.
It should, surely, be a crime to remove a newborn baby from a mother who has never harmed it.
For that in itself is a form of abuse. Yet the secret State often chooses to abuse the children itself, rather than let them run the risk of staying put. They are at least alive, it calculates, even if it is a diminished kind of alive, deprived of the mother bond. And too often, it strikes the wrong balance. In 2002, the ECHR ruled against the British Government for removing a new baby from its mother in hospital and refusing even to let her cuddle it under supervision, when there was no evidence that the baby faced a serious risk at that time. The judgment came too late, though. The baby had already been adopted.
This is what Janie fears. The ECHR has agreed to hear her appeal and to consider whether the English court ruling breached Janie and John’s right to family life, to freedom of opinion and to freedom of expression. That is quite a ticket. But even if the ECHR finds in Janie’s favour, it may be too late. The local authority is already seeking families to adopt her baby. Her only hope is that prospective adopters will be put off by knowing of her appeal.
Any lawyer will tell you that family courts are the B-side of the legal system. The majority of judgments will never be read outside the courtroom. Perhaps judges fear the consequences if they do not support social services and social services are later proved right. They seem to start from the assumption that children are de facto wards of court who need protection from their parents.
Even then, Janie’s case seems extraordinary. Certainly the parents are not the brightest people in the world. They are not perfect. But the more I learn about it, the more I believe that Janie and John’s biggest mistakes were emotional. Janie seems to have been very co-operative. However, John has been irritable, even aggressive, which would support the view that he has a violent nature. But can you really convict on that basis? Which of us could control our temper if faced with losing a child to a bunch of hypocrites? In a Hollywood movie, anger is a natural reaction to injustice. In an English suburb, defiance makes you guilty. The legal system wants “remorse”. But how can you show remorse for something you haven’t done?
Until this case I had tended to be sceptical about the claims that the Government’s targets for adoption were leading to miscarriages of justice. I still feel that ministers were right to want to speed up adoption and to release more children more quickly from the hell of care. But I have now started to take more seriously the argument that these targets have created a perverse incentive for local authorities to take more babies into care. Babies are, after all, more attractive to prospective adopters than older children and therefore an easy way to reach those targets. In Janie and John’s case, you do have to wonder why the authorities have rushed to take away a healthy baby, when they did not take away a disabled one.
Janie’s case seems to me to make a strong argument for introducing juries. Why is a burglar facing six months in jail allowed to ask for a jury trial, but a mother facing the irretrievable loss of her only child is not? Mistakes will always be made when the ordinary, imperfect citizen is judged by the imperfect and powerful. Personally, I would rather face 12 men good and true.
The parents asked judge Munby to stop any adoption of their daughter until the European court at Strasbourg until a verdict had been given by the European Court in Strasbourg.Exceptionally Judge Munby published his refusal for all to see !
As Camilla Cavendish writes in the Times article above,a burglar facing the possibility of 6 months or more in prison can demand a trial by jury ,and quite right too !On the other hand, a mother whose baby has been snatched at birth by social services for "risk of future emotional abuse" can lose that baby for the rest of her life to FORCED ADOPTION but cannot demand that her case be heard by a jury.Judges in family courts nearly always side with social services in such cases ,probably out of caution as just one mistake could mean severe public criticism. This however is no justification for refusing a hearing by jury in which the mother would at least have equal chances with the social services.Juries already pass verdicts in civil courts in complicated cases of city fraud and also libel cases so would have no difficulty in deciding whether mother and child should be separated.
Nearly all the injustices that are reported every day by parents whose children are confiscated in the "family courts" would be eliminated and Britain would be a fairer place !
Camilla Cavendish, of the Times replied to judge Munby as follows:- !
May 24, 2007
The Rank Hypocrisy of Family Court Judges
by Camilla Cavendish I was gratified this week to find that an article I wrote in December has been quoted in full by the Court of Appeal. (I only hope there were no typos.) It is flattering that Mr Justice Munby takes The Times seriously. It is of more import that he decided to publish his judgment on the case that I wrote about six months ago. For it is only when judges make their reasoning public that we can start to debate the grounds on which children should be taken into care.
A few long-suffering readers may remember that this peculiar case concerns a woman whose baby was removed by social workers, not because the child came to any harm but because there was a suspicion that her father might have injured a child from his previous marriage. That suspicion was never proven, no charges were ever brought and the child of the earlier marriage was never removed. But a woman who everyone agrees is blameless has lost her only child – for ever – because she is deemed to be besotted with a man who may pose a danger.
As so often in these situations, there are complex allegations and flawed characters. In my view it is questionable whether the father’s inability to conceal his loathing of social workers makes him unsuitable for parenthood. Mr Justice Munby has decided on several grounds not to grant an appeal. The case may still go to Strasbourg, but it will be too late: the child will have been adopted.
This couple have become a cause célèbre for campaigners who fear that the Government’s drive to get more children adopted is having a perverse effect on some local authorities. For the same local authority to leave a man alone with a child that it thought he had harmed, but to take away another that had not been harmed, does seem bizarre. Until you realise that the child from the first marriage was disabled, and older, and would have been hard to place with an adoptive family. The child from the second marriage was a healthy baby, just the kind of “adoptive commodity” that local authorities find relatively easy to place.
I still believe that ministers were right to want to speed children out of the hell of care. But they have put social services departments in a strange position. We now expect them to combine three contradictory roles: to protect children, to keep families together and to meet adoption targets (which bring financial rewards). Under pressure, in situations that are not clear-cut, those roles are bound to conflict.
What is the evidence? Government figures show a significant jump in the number of babies being taken into care, from 1,600 in 1995 to 2,800 in 2005: a 75 per cent increase in ten years. While there has been an increase across all age groups, it is much, much greater for babies. More 10 to 15-year-olds are removed, but the rate of increase was only 21 per cent.
One possible explanation is that the authorities are now monitoring pregnant women, especially teenagers and substance abusers. But there are also numerous examples of relatives being turned down by local authorities when they offer to take the children of a family member. Some of them may indeed be unsuitable. But the turning-down sometimes seems very peremptory. John Hemming, MP, who follows these issues closely, believes that “the [hard-to-place] children the targets were established to get adopted are not getting adopted; instead a completely new group of children are being taken into care, then adopted”. Ministers should be seriously alarmed if a failure to help difficult candidates find homes were being masked by a zealous pursuit of babies.
This case has also brought something else home to me: our hypocrisy about privacy. It is illegal for me to write about most care cases, or to read court papers, even when the parents involved beg me to. I can generally only write when judges go public. Yet I have discovered that even as I was writing about this case last year, painstakingly omitting much of the detail to ensure that no one could identify the child, her picture, real name and age were being published in a national newspaper. Not by a journalist, who would have been in contempt of court. But by an adoption agency, advertising for adopters.
Agencies have to find good homes for needy children. Many do a great job. But for parents who are routinely told that they will be in contempt if they dare to reveal the legal proceedings to anyone outside the court, or even to talk about the child by name, because his or her privacy is paramount, it is staggering to see their children being advertised like pets.
Contempt of court is a serious matter. Last year Harriet Harman, the Minister for Justice, admitted in Parliament that in 2005 “200 people were sent to prison by the family courts, which happens in complete privacy and secrecy”. Family court judges can send parents to prison for up to six months for contempt. Two hundred people is about four a week. That is far more than the number of suspected terrorists we have locked up without a fair trial. So where are the civil libertarians? One young woman was recently sent to Ashford prison for kidnapping her child back from social workers and trying to flee the country. Others seem to be committed for minor breaches of contact orders. The threat of jail is made time and again, and it is real.
The main justification used for keeping family courts secret is to protect the identities of children. It is the argument used to gag parents and the media. How strange that seems when a little girl, whose family struggled to get the right legal advice to keep her, can be paraded around the country.
Every judge in these adoption cases can decide to make their judgment public. Until they do, the pretence of privacy will be nothing but rank hypocrisy.
CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT REFUSING LEAVE TO APPEAL</>
Read the latest cases!
I repeat my earlier suggestion that in discussions, you quote this extract from "The Times" article above dated Apri13th 2010 !
"Lord Justice Wall (The Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an "unsatisfactory care system" away from their families was "quite shocking".In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the West of England" !
Britain's child snatchers are a scandal
The UK's system of forced adoption requires the Government's urgent attention, says Christopher Booker
By Christopher Booker
Daily Telegraph, 15 May 2010
Is any human instinct more fundamental than the love of a mother for her children? Last week I reported how Maureen Spalek from Liverpool had been arrested and held in a cell for 24 hours for sending a birthday card to her son, one of three children taken away from her by a family court, despite its agreeing that she was "an excellent mother".
In Runcorn magistrates' court on Wednesday Mrs Spalek was told she must return for a pre-trial hearing, before her criminal charge of sending a birthday card goes for trial at a Crown Court. Last month, Mrs Spalek was one of 200 mothers who gathered in Stafford to set up a group known as Child Snatching by the State. They were addressed by Ian Josephs, a businessman based in Monaco, who has championed the cause of parents whose children were unjustly removed by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s.
As Mr Josephs describes on his Forced Adoptions website, he has dealt with hundreds of such harrowing cases (always being careful to check that there was no evidence of physical or emotional harm to the children). One is that of Sarah White, repeatedly arrested for attempting to contact her "stolen children", including an instance when she was jailed for a month for waving to her son when she unexpectedly saw him across the street. Two weeks ago, she was again held in custody for five hours, after her brother posted a YouTube video describing her plight.
Julie Cipriani is another mother arrested for waving to her child in the street and forbidden from further contact after reading out in court her daughter's loving birthday card.
When another mother threatened with having her baby abducted recently fled to Ireland, her family were repeatedly visited by police, demanding to know her whereabouts. She is now receiving much more humane treatment from Irish social services. (Britain is almost the only country in Europe that permits forced adoptions against the wishes of loving parents.)
In the Commons last October, the Tory MP Tim Yeo described a case where Suffolk social workers waited until the father was out of the house to snatch an 11-week-old baby from the arms of its distraught mother, in order to put the child out for adoption. Until recently social workers were set "adoption targets" by the government, as part of a system where it seems they, the courts and the police are too often conspiring to abduct children from loving parents in the name of what amounts to heartless "social engineering". Few scandals call for more urgent attention by our new Parliament than this.
I want you to imagine that after many long years of searching Mrs Kate McCann finally found her daughter Madeleine living with a family in some primitive country that had no extradition treaty with the UK.
I then want you to imagine that the judges in that country ruled that the child had been found in the streets and been subsequently adopted by that well meaning family, so that even if there was an injustice the adoption could never be overturned.They ruled furthermore that Mrs McCann would be put in jail if she destabilised the adoption by trying to contact her daughter,waving at her in the street or even sending her a birthday card !
There you have an exact parallel with the cases of the three mothers named in Christopher Booker's article !
Now listen to a prominent Member of Parliament:
(Help parents trace their forcibly adopted children !) or
MYSELF,MY SITE,and WHY I DO THIS.
I live and work in Monte Carlo where I own and run a language school. I have an Oxford University law degree but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. So. . . Who am I really? And why do I do what I do?
I am NOT repeat NOT another "Mother Teresa" and I rarely give to charity (in case I end up paying for the director's Rolls Royce!) but fighting the often brutal actions of Social Services is a cause very close to my heart. Social Services have never hurt me, my family or anyone close to me so I have no personal axe to grind but I HATE THE ABUSE OF POWER and particularly the way the bullies in social services ruthlessly destroy the very families they are supposed to protect. As a matter of principle I never charge a fee and never accept any money whatever for any expenses.Anything a parent tells me is strictly confidential but if parents do want me to involve the press by way of protest I also solemnly undertake that if ever I get offered a fee by a newspaper for introducing a family or writing about parents whose children have been taken then I promise to give 100% of any money received to the family concerned and keep nothing myself.I have no wish to imitate those disgusting people who make money out of the misery of parents who have had their children snatched by Social Services!!
I get two or three new calls from parents nearly every day and advise each one as best I can.Forgive me if I ask you to repeat details and phone numbers each time you telephone or contact me as with around 100 cases going on now, at the same time, and literally thousands of cases since I began giving advice in 2005, I need reminding of the basic facts to avoid confusing one similar case with another! I have businesses to run so can only spare the time to fly over to the UK and go to court for parents as a "Mckenzie friend" in the very worst cases(free of charge) for mothers with no criminal records,drug or alcohol problems who have had their babies snatched at birth by Social Services.This happens more often than you would think !!I will however always find the time to give my advice by email or telephone to ANY parent who contacts me concerning a problem they have with the SS (social services)!
My site is different because it takes the form of a personal message from me to you, the reader and my promise to help you personally if it is within my power to do so! In exceptional cases I have personally refunded the travel expenses to Ireland of pregnant women(not addicted to alcohol or drugs and with no criminal record) who have been told by UK social services that their babies will be taken from them at birth.So far I have helped at least 20 avoid the horrors of forced adoption of their newborn babies.
The public find it hard to believe what is happening to THOUSANDS of parents in the UK.
6 Facts worth noting !
1:-The following extract from a judgement in the House of Lords confirms that alone in THE Council of Europe (except possibly Portugal) the UK CONTINUES to allow and encourage the barbaric practice of taking children from loving and desperate parents and giving them to strangers for closed and secret adoptions without parental consent.
House of Lords - Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust. Baroness Hale of Richmond. Judgement There is, so far as the parties to this case are aware, no European jurisprudence questioning the principle of freeing for adoption, or indeed compulsory adoption generally. The United Kingdom is unusual amongst members of the Council of Europe in permitting the total severance of family ties without parental consent. (Professor Triseliotis thought that only Portugal and perhaps one other European country allowed this.) It is, of course, the most draconian interference with family life possible. 2:-Although the Children Act 1989 specifies that kinship placements(with relatives) are the preferred option in this country, only 1 per cent. of social worker-instigated placements in the UK ended up with kinship carers, compared with 45 per cent. in Denmark, for example(EVIDENCE given in parliament June 16th 2008 by Tim Loughton MP shadow minister for children)
3:-Two children in care die of neglect each week
The People, 22 June 2008
By David Collins
Children placed in care are three times more likely to die than others, a shock report has revealed.
In one year, 16 in 10,000 vulnerable youngsters died in care. The national death rate for children was five in every 10,000.
The study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families showed that 800 youngsters have died in care over the last ten years - an average of two a week.
The "risk" of a baby or young child being emotionally abused by a parent at some future date pales into insignificance when compared with the horrors and terrible risks that await every child taken into care by the State !
4:-Extract from The Times, Aug 23 2007: “Emotional abuse” has no strict definition in British law. Yet it now accounts for an astounding 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection, up from 14 per cent in 1997. Last year 6,700 children were put on the child protection register for emotional abuse. compared with only 2,600 for intimate abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse. Both of the latter two categories have been falling steadily. Meanwhile emotional abuse and “neglect” - which replaced the old notion of “grave concern” in 1989 - have been rising. Both are catch-alls. But emotional abuse is especially vague. It covers children who have not been injured, have not complained, and do not come under “emotional neglect
How can forced adoption by strangers of hundreds of babies said to be "at risk of emotional abuse " be justified? These babies and young children are permanently deprived of their parents and immediate families not for something that their parents have done but for something that a "hired prophet"(expert) thinks they might do in the future !
5:-In answer to a parliamentary question Harriet Harman (then Minister for children) admitted that more than 200 parents every year were jailed in complete secrecy in the family courts (probably for breaking gagging orders ).
Care applications continue to rise at record levels
20th October 2009
Cafcass has today published care statistics for the second quarter of 2009-10 showing that the number of care applications made by local authorities remains at an unprecedented high level.
Compared to quarter 2 last year, care demand is up 47.2% (688 cases). June 2009 (784 cases) was the highest care demand figure ever recorded for a single month since Cafcass began collecting this data.
This mother went on the run across Europe after social workers tried to snatch her son. Her crime? Letting him see her husband shout at her,
By Sue Reid
Daily Mail 16th August 2009
Angela Wileman never thought this day would come. She wraps her arms around her seven-year-old son Lucas, as if she cannot let go. 'I have fought to keep him and I have won. At last we can stop running away,' she says with relief in her voice.
Sitting in the garden of her home, with toys strewn on the lawn, this English mother is still stunned that earlier this week she eventually triumphed against social workers planning to seize her son and hand him to new adoptive parents.
For two years she has played a cat-and-mouse game as the British authorities spent thousands of pounds chasing her around Europe, decrying her as a bad mother and threatening to put her in prison. An MP is now demanding an investigation into the waste of taxpayers' money by Devon social services.
Terrified of losing Lucas, Angela fled first to Spain and then Sweden. She now lives in County Wexford, Southern Ireland. The authorities in each of the countries deemed her a perfectly good mother to her son and let her keep him.
But it had been a very different story back in Britain, where Angela, 33, fell foul of a disturbing new tactic by social workers.
In the past ten years there has been a 50 per cent rise in the number of parents who, just like her, have been accused of 'emotionally harming' their children. A quarter of forced adoptions happen after social workers allege that the child has been the victim of emotional abuse - far more than instances of intimate abuse or cruelty.
Last year, 6,700 'emotionally harmed' children were placed on the protection register. There were 2,600 registrations for intimate abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse.
Parents who social workers say might shout at, or even loudly reprimand, their children in the future have been branded as potential emotional abusers and had their toddlers or newborn babies removed from them.
'Emotional harm' is the latest buzz phrase in the social workers' lexicon - one that can condemn almost any family. Yet it has no strict definition under British law.
This sorry story dates back to the six years 1960-1966 when I was a Kent County Councillor and a mother came to me for help because social workers had taken away her son, Trevor, aged 12 (and of near-genius IQ) because he got bored at school and played truant! She was denied all contact and when I asked where he was and if, as the mother's elected representative, I could at least see him myself I was told to mind my own business! I found him at a special private school (owned by the deputy leader of the Labour Party at the time) that was charging exorbitant fees more than 3 times those charged at ETON or HARROW! Young Trevor informed me that the boys were paid the sum of one shilling (5p) when required to sleep with any of their ‘over affectionate’ teachers at this very ‘special’ children's home! Eventually after acrimonious debates in the Council chamber and a court action he was returned to his mother and I was asked to help many other parents whose children had been removed for absurd reasons.
I applied in court for the discharge of care orders. I called the parents and sometimes the children themselves as witnesses in court against my own Council and I never lost a case so I was not best popular with my colleagues and the social workers! However after 6 years of neglecting my language school (then in Ramsgate) I decided not to stand at the next election as I really had to earn my living and look after my family so I reluctantly gave up the battle for a time.
In 2004 there was suddenly a lot of publicity when it was admitted that thousands of children had been wrongly taken from mothers who had been diagnosed with Munchausen’s Syndrome, meaning that mothers who took their children to hospital too often were deliberately hurting them to draw attention to themselves. This was one of the absurd notions of the now discredited Professor Meadows which had no scientific basis that could possibly justify attributing the syndrome to so many unfortunate women. Worse still was his completely unproved theory that two cot deaths in the same family were 70 million to one! Hundreds of women were condemned for murder. Their surviving children and babies born subsequently were taken away and given for adoption by strangers. Only later was it realised that genetic factors made it far more likely for cot deaths to repeat in the same family than elsewhere and odds reduced to about 60 to 1.
These cases were in the Criminal Courts so they got fully reported and this provoked me to write to the Daily Mail detailing some of my experiences on Kent County Council all those years ago. They published my letter and I was surprised subsequently to receive several requests from mothers and parents trying to recover - and in some cases just to contact - children snatched from them by Social Services. I am now comfortably off, my 7 children are adult and I am in my seventies, with the time and still with the energy to once again take up the battle with Social Services!
THE GOLDEN RULES!!
Do PLEASE remember the golden rules: (By all means print this off and keep the copy near at hand if SS approach! Show these rules to your lawyer or social worker to prove that you KNOW your rights!)
REMEMBER THESE EVEN IF YOU FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE I HAVE ADVISED!
1: NEVER contact social services (child protection) for help or advice. Usually you should not report a partner who batters you or even a stranger who sexually assaults your young child, as if you do the SS will as often as not take your children into care (and later for adoption) to "protect them" from risk! If they have your children and you are fighting to get them back, NEVER NEVER tell social workers how you think you are going to defeat them, or what you are going to do next!Remember, without mentioning it to "them", that even if your children are "in care" social workers do not have the legal power to stop your children going to any call box (without any money) to dial 100 and asking the operator to reverse charges and to put the call through to their parent(s) ,or from going to any public library and e-mailing you, or even meeting you for a meal as long as they return "home" to the fosterers afterwards!
Care home girl abused by 25 men in 2 years
Source: Daily Mail Published: 27th August 2006
A 14-year-old girl placed in a council children's home was prostituted to a group of depraved middle-aged men because staff were powerless to stop her going out. The horrific story of 'Becky' is highlighted in a BBC television programme presented by Fiona Bruce this week which reveals how she was sexually abused by 25 men over two years - despite being known to social services and having been placed on the Child Protection Register.
Even when she was put in a children's home - six months after her earliest allegations of abuse -staff allowed her to be used as a prostitute for fear their intervention might infringe her human rights. If the "SS" cannot prevent a young girl in their care from working as a prostitute then surely they cannot prevent other young people they "care for" from spending the day with parents if they so choose!Remember also that children of school age have a break so you can call them and speak to them through the railings without trespassing and nobody can stop you except a judge by serving a court injunction on you that will be too late to stop you reminding your children of their real family !
Remember also that if your children suffer visible damage whilst being fostered TAKE dated and timed PHOTOGRAPHS of black eyes,bruises,cigarette burns or other injuries and give them to the police ,your MP, the NSPCC then ring Childline to make criminal complaints demanding prosecution of the perpetrators ! Don't take "no" for an answer from any of them !!
2: Never believe a word "they" say and always insist they put their promises down in writing. Always be pleasant and polite to social workers,but never forget they are your ENEMIES ! Remember that they may deliberately try to provoke you into shouting or violence that they will exaggerate in court leaving you with a criminal record and no children! When they shout at you forget your "pride" and look very hurt saying "why are you being like this to me?" or "I thought you were so nice until now, please don't bully me!" Be very respectful "tongue in cheek", but remember THEY ARE NOT POLICE so never follow their "helpful advice" especially if they say your only chance of getting your children back is to split from a partner, or parent you love and respect! They will try and turn you against each other as the "divide and rule" principle makes sure you are confused and demoralised when you lose your case and your children too!If you are told to get a different solicitor to your partner I advise you to represent yourself and let your partner keep a solicitor (or vice versa) so that at least one of you will be free in court to tell your own story and to question social workers ! Quite often they arrange deliberately awkward contact times with your children. This can result first in the loss of your job and then as a consequence of that, your accommodation also. Object firmly and forcefully in court to their plans and fight hard to keep your job and your house or appartment. Remember that when they make the threat "do as we say or we shall take your children" they intend to take them anyway no matter how much you do to please them and they just want you to make it easier for them to win their case in court by seeing psychologists and parenting assessors they have chosen themselves and who they know will give you bad reports !
3: NEVER, NEVER, NEVER sign any documents they present to you, even if they say "you have to!" Social Workers rely on BLUFF. In reality they have NO POWER and no right to threaten you or give you orders of any kind! Only a COURT via an order from a judge can give you orders, and you always have the opportunity to contest those orders in court either before or after they are given to you. No matter what threats,or promises they make, you can be 100% sure that if you get intimidated into signing they will break their word and expect you to keep your's! So, DO NOT SIGN! Answer "yes", "no" or "I don't know" to questions WITHOUT further explanations that could be twisted to be used against you! If the "SS" do not have enough evidence against you do not "cooperate" by supplying them with what they need even if they threaten you.If your enemies run out of ammunition ,do NOT send them over a box of bullets to help them out ! Once the SS have applied for a care order remember their main object is NOT the welfare of the child ,it is to WIN their case against you ! Disregard any threats that you must "do as they tell you ". Be polite and even apologetic when you refuse to obey them !
4: Never, never agree to let your children go into foster care (especially if they say it is TEMPORARY OR VOLUNTARY) Never "agree" the thresholds even if you are advised that this will ensure the return of your children, because if you do you will have admitted neglecting or abusing your child and the only question left will be to decide if you have really repented and are capable of "change"! Usually the answer is no! Sometimes your own lawyer may tell you to agree the thresholds and/or agree to an interim care order otherwise "you will never see your children again! "That is a wicked lie designed to save the lawyers work and to help you LOSE your children! Sometimes lawyers will tell you there is no need for you to give evidence as they will speak for you; that way you may find you have lost your children very quickly without being allowed to say a word, so BEWARE!Most of the "legal aid lawyers" in the family courts are rightly known in the trade as "PROFESSIONAL LOSERS"!! Many of them pretend to work for you when in fact they are really on the side of the Local Authority.
www.solicitorsfromhell.co.uk is the site where you can find the very worst solicitors listed by name !!
A very few will say "we will fight social services for you and try our best to get your children back !" Those are the lawyers to keep and to value as they are rare !More often alas you will have to sack your lawyers and represent yourself simply because they will not let you speak in court! Never admit to social workers (who are your ENEMIES) that you have been at fault in even the smallest possible way,(they certainly will never admit to you that they were ever at fault!). You must never lie in court, but you should never never admit to any fault on your part unless forced to do so by a direct "yes or no" type question in court.
ESCAPE WHILE YOU HAVE TIME !You must never disobey a court order by taking abroad a child already in care, but if you are pregnant and threatened neither a court nor the "SS" can stop you leaving the country before the baby is born!If the children are already with you ,but you feel menaced by social services try to leave the country BEFORE any notice of care proceedings is served on you. Ireland is easiest and is cheap to get to.( No forced adoption allowed there,and if you take the ferry no passport needed!) www.irishferries.co.uk/ or www.stenaline.co.uk give good information so you can discreetly book on line! .The "SS" rarely work at weekends so a departure on Friday evening is a good way of avoiding altercations and clashes with frustrated social workers ! Even better is North Cyprus where there is a large British colony and NO EXTRADITION even for criminals ! www.northcyprus.com Fly from most UK airports but if you think you might get stopped there then it is 100% safe if you fly there from Ireland.
See Angela Wileman's "survival guide" reproduced a bit later on ( just scroll down).She escaped, beat the ss, and survived even though she had to snatch her child at" contact" to do it !
5: When possible refuse to be assessed by so called "experts, "(psychiatrists, therapists, psychologists, counsellors, professionals, and the like)inevitably selected by those who are hostile to you. You should however agree if you are advised to do so by a judge.If it is only the "SS" who demand an assessment insist that your children are returned first as otherwise the process will take place in an artificial atmosphere with you as parents emotionally distressed because your children have been taken.If for some reason that is not possible request at least that you share in the choice of "expert" so as to avoid the "regulars" who appear in court time after time and always find that parents have "personality disorders" or similar mental issues. Remember that if the "SS" insist on these assessments their sole purpose is to gather sufficient evidence to help them win their case against you in court!If you talk a lot and do not listen to them they will say you have mental problems or "PERSONALITY DISORDERS",so be "quiet and attentive" during assessments. Try not to answer questions with more than 5 or 6 words (they write down anything unhelpful you may let slip). Try indeed to answer "yes" or "no" whenever possible. NEVER COMPLAIN NEVER EXPLAIN! Complaints about individual social workers ,lawyers,or policemen are a waste of time as they investigate themselves and you risk being diverted from the more important task of keeping or recovering your children.Complaints against social workers often result in them taking your children or redoubling their efforts to keep them if they already have them !They are a vindictive lot ! Never explain or elaborate when questioned as this only gives extra material to those who wish to discredit you. Never make angry personal attacks on anybody or threaten to sue the "SS" or police at a later date, as it just makes YOU sound bad.They may even seize on your resentment as an excuse to diagnose you with PARANOIA !
Summary of how to talk with psychologists etc;
To avoid accusations of mental problems act as follows:-
1:- Do NOT speak a lot or go off the subject chosen for discussion by the psy.
2:-NEVER slag off anybody or complain about anybody past or present ;Say only that those who took your children made a terrible mistake ! Do NOTget angry about anything !
3:-Say ONLY that your children have suffered being deprived of a mother NOT that you have suffered !
4:-Listen carefully when ths psy speaks to you and NEVER interrupt when he/she is talking however much you want to !<br
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Blazay(m): 4:51pm On Jul 03, 2010|
Count me out.
For who jah curse, let no man bless.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by MRbrownJAY(m): 6:07pm On Jul 15, 2010|
i was surprised to hear today that: out of all the money that world leaders pledge to give to HAITI relief fund, roughly $5billion), only 10% has been delivered so far. only countries such as Brazil, Norway, Estonia and Australia stood by their donation's word.
|This post has been hidden|
|This post has been hidden|
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by thameamead(f): 12:22pm On Jun 07, 2011|
It is pointless giving any money to Haiti or any other country because it always ends up in the wallets of so-called consultants of both big and small charities, would you believe the British Goverment gave £30M to Malawi to lift some of their people out of poverty but the money was sqaudered - £1M was spent on 10 Bentleys for ministers which was shipped from the uK to Malawi for about £90,000 while £2M was spent on an over- the top wedding of the President.
The British government had given the Nigerian Government over £50M in aid over the past 10 years, God knows how the money was spent but it was definately not spent on education or health for the poor.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Amujale(m): 5:20am On Nov 01, 2011|
Who asked them to give Nigeria aid? What we ask of every country is to get their filthy hands off our resources, FAIR TRADE; fair everything.
The British government had given the Nigerian Government over £50M in aid over the past 10 years and have probably netted £50Trillion in return.
How dare anyone claim to be giving a country aid in the morning and yet stealing 1000 fold at the dead of night.
Does britain have its own oil field? How come they have petroleum on the trade market?
btw most charity organisations in britain pay their top paid staff from the monies they collect from the general public.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Afro_Blue(m): 3:15am On Dec 12, 2011|
December 11, 2011
Farrakhan, Winfrey Visit Haiti on Separate Trips
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP) — Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan started a five-day trip to Haiti on Sunday, arriving just ahead of fellow Chicagoan Oprah Winfrey as they make separate trips to the poor Caribbean country.
Farrakhan told reporters at the airport that he will be exploring ways his organization can help Haiti rebuild from the devastating 2010 earthquake.
He said he intends to "listen, learn and share," and is particularly interested in learning more about Voodoo, the religion widely practiced in the country.
"I have longed throughout my life to set my foot in the sacred soil of Haiti," Farrakhan said.
Haitian Foreign Minister Laurent Lamorthe greeted Farrakhan at the airport, and the Nation of Islam leader was expected to meet later in the week with President Michel Martelly.
Authorities hustled the journalists out of the airport after the news conference so they could not cover Winfrey's arrival.
Winfrey was expected to visit a settlement camp for displaced people run by Hollywood actor Sean Penn and his aid group J/P HRO on Monday. She was also expected to meet with fashion designer Donna Karan, who has celebrated the work of Haiti's artisans through her Urban Zen Foundation since the quake.
Martelly has said he would meet with Winfrey on Monday. He said he hopes she will serve as a goodwill ambassador for Haiti and help bring aid to the country.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Rhodesia: 12:30am On Dec 13, 2011|
Haiti is such a shitip because it is entirely populated by Africans, look at the contrast with the Dominican republic and how they are populated by mulattoes and white people and how they managed to create a thriving prosperous nation.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by igbo2011(m): 10:37pm On Dec 14, 2011|
Rhodesia:That is wrong you if you know anything about history and that Haiti had to pay reparations to France for the first 120 years to France. After that America overthrew all their governments and installed puppets just like they did around the world. Know your history you . Tell the Europeans and Americans to get out of Haiti's affairs.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by thameamead(f): 2:43pm On Dec 15, 2011|
The west have ruined lots of countries, the West are no different to dictators, they want to call the shots all the time, they woe and dine dictators and the next minute they topple them. Gaddaffi and Mubarak spring to mind, the West knew how ruthless and oppressive they were but turned a blind eye for years but suddendly realised they had to go. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Russia are controlled by tyrants but the West are not trying to topple them, the West are pick and mix hypocrites. African leaders need to stop sulking up to the West.
|Re: Support The Relief Efforts In Haiti by Rhodesia: 3:30pm On Dec 15, 2011|
If you hate the west so much why don't you get out of my country?
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health