Secret evidence for secret courts

"Over the years the UK Column News has highlighted the problem of secret courts. One example is that of Melanie Shaw, who was subjected to a secret court in the sense that the hearing was not listed publicly. On top of that Melanie has had hearings...where her attendance was by video link and that video link disconnected at critical moments leaving her excluded from her own hearings which proceeded without her..."

"That`s correct, " says Brian Gerrish.

"Well, there`s another even more insidious version of secret justice in Britain, if that`s possible, because while Mel`s problems are a breach of the regulations... there is a possibility that they can be dealt with - there`s a largely unknown issue of special advocates and this one - well it`s carrying on openly and largely unchallenged. So the role of the special advocate according to the government has developed in proceedings before a wide variety of forums, both statutory and non-statutory in origin - these are the government`s words - where a party with the permission of the forum seeks to rely upon closed evidence. Closed evidence may raise issues concerning national security. Individuals and their legal representatives are excluded from hearings where closed evidence is used..."

"Special advocates perform an important role - the government`s words again - by representing the interests of the excluded party in those hearings and subjecting the sensitive material to scrutiny thereby promoting fairness in the proceedings. So let`s just understand this. People who are subject to a court proceeding where there`s a decision to include closed evidence; those defendants are not entitled to see the nature of the evidence; they`re not entitled to rebut the evidence. A third party who may or may not know anything about their case goes in and represents them - I guess somebody who`s been security vetted."

"Isn`t this the old Soviet system Mike?"

"Now `Justice`, the pressure group - I say mostly unchallenged - but `Justice` produced this 2009 report on secret evidence and they said:

"Special advocates, however, are not the cause of unfairness in proceedings. Rather, they are merely the most common and most visible symptom of the unfairness caused by the decision to allow evidence to be withheld from the defendant."

"So people have been commenting on this. It hasn`t had a huge amount of media coverage and in 2012 50 special advocates, either serving or former special advocates, submitted this memorandum on the Justice and Security Bill to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and they said :

"`We remain of the view we expressed in our response to the consultation (and endorsed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights): that [closed proceedings] are inherently unfair and contrary to the common law tradition` ... So this is the position of various people discussing this subject."

"And significant that the expression common law has appeared in that. Very significant."

"Absolutely. So why am I mentioning this today? Well because the Attorney General is seeking to appoint new members of his panel of special advocates ... So just to explain what he`s saying:  The special advocate competition is open to both self-employed barristers and solicitor advocates with at least five years advocacy experience. But he wishes to recruit advocates at the junior level; in particular those with expertise in family and employment tribunal work; and completed applications must be submitted by noon on 18 September."

"Now I can see Brian in the case of a terrorist trial some people may take the view that there`s national security issues at stake; and therefore perhaps some evidence needs to be heard in a closed court. I for the life of me cannot work out how this is appropriate to the family law division. It can`t possibly be about divorce. So this must be about the taking of children."

Brian Gerrish: "Well this is absolutely it and I come back to ... a case that is taking place in Sheffield. We`re not able to give details of the case but what we can say is that where there has been video and audio evidence of a child being abused that evidence is simply being shut out of court; so therefore there`s no case. And the other thing I`m going to say is that evidence from around the country - it doesn`t matter whether it`s Scotland, Wales, Oxford, Cornwall - of the use of the psychiatric system to silence people who`ve got evidence of child abuse; that is being used as a template. So use of the psychiatric system, preventing people seeing evidence against them in court ... this is the Soviet style system and this cannot be an accident. This must be deliberate policy that is being brought in... "

"Where evidence of the abuse of children is coming to the surface, particularly where that evidence relates to establishment figures or politicians, then the tactic first of all is the attempt to brand the witness, the person coming forward with that evidence, as having some form of mental health issue. And we know of several cases where people, with the connivance of local authorities, local mental health teams, and of course the police, have simply been put into psychiatric units on the basis of accusations that they`re somehow mentally ill. This is very very dark and sinister activity but it is happening in Britain today, I believe, to protect the government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmOo90KCVNY

An open letter to the Justice Minister, Republic of Ireland

Last Friday, referring to the Docherty case, David Scott said: "Things are moving at quite a pace now...We`re getting a lot of support and I want to thank people out there who are writing letters and asking questions...and providing us with information."

"The information is extremely interesting and has got a lot more interesting in the last 48 hours. We`ll see how it develops ...."

In the meantime, he wanted to highlight this car and this numberplate.

"This is ... an Edinburgh registered car, a 4 x 4 Amg Mercedes in silver ... It was behaving very suspiciously ... following the Dochertys around the very remote island of Achill on the West coast of Ireland and they thought it was very strange, so they noted down the numberplate. Now we don`t know what was going on here . We don`t know if it was anything nefarious. But if anyone knows ... who owned it in 2014, 2015, or who owns it now, please let us know."

http://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-29th-july-2016

The subject of the Dochertys was mentioned again on Tuesday`s UK Column News [2 August 2016] where Brian Gerrish was accompanied by Justin Walker and via video link by Alex Thomson. He looked at the response from the BBC, Nicola Sturgeon and others to the Brain family case compared to that of the Dochertys.

"The BBC are muddying the waters in order to protect the abusers of children They`ve had an internal investigation. They`ve cleared themselves and now they`re working extremely hard to clear other people who`ve been accused of the abuse of children."

http://www.ukcolumn.org/the-docherty-files

"This remarkable couple - I`m going to bring them up on screen - Janice and Brian Docherty - literally in fear for their lives. They`re living in Ireland at the moment. They`ve had to leave Scotland because of the threats and intimidation; their children taken at gunpoint. Why? Simply because they reported a man who they believed was a paedophile. They haven`t abused their children, harmed them, neglected them. They are now living in fear and nobody will talk about this case in Scotland; but the First Minister will support the Brain case."

================

"And let`s have a look at a letter that has been written [to] the Irish Justice Minister, Frances Fitzgerald ... I`ll try and read out the key parts of this letter."

"Now Mr Colgan is her secretary. So it`s an open letter. The Justice Minister`s apparent endorsement of the lawless persecution of the Docherty family:"

It says: "Thank you for your email on behalf of Ms Fitzgerald..."

"1. Early in 2015 a judge in an Irish court dismissed allegations against Janice and Brian Docherty, and ordered all persecution of this law-abiding couple to cease forthwith. In addition, this same judge ruled that the notes from Police Scotland on which allegations against the Dochertys were based were without merit, and should not be used to renew actions against the family either immediately or at some future date. This judgement, which has not been superseded by any other, continues to be utterly disregarded. In direct defiance of the judge`s decision, the Docherty children were once more taken from their loving home and put into care on 17 December, 2015, while their parents continue to be hounded on the basis of notes which have been declared in an Irish court of law to be fraudulent and worthless."

"Bearing in mind Ms Fitzgerald`s remit, which is to uphold the rule of law in the Republic, why is she permitting the decision of an Irish court to be held in open derision. Why are those who are so clearly defying an Irish judge`s ruling not being charged with contempt of court?"

"2. The Docherts have petitioned for Habeas Corpus in respect of their children, under Article 40 of the Irish Constitution, and their petition has been granted by the High Court. Yet this petition is being ignored."

"Bearing in mind Ms Fitzgerald`s remit, which is to uphold the rule of law in the Republic, why is she not ensuring that this fundamental provision of Irish law, and the independent decision of the High Court in the Dochertys` favour, is respected ?"

"Please note: Ms Fitzgerald is not being asked to arrest members of the Garda, or to intervene in an individual case: she is simply being requested to uphold judgements which have already been lawfully made by those appointed to do so."

"As things stand, a reasonable person can only conclude that the Justice Minister is uninterested in fulfilling her primary duty, which is to ensure that the rule of law is impartially maintained."

=============

"Now... just a quick comment Justin."

"Where is the jury in all of this?"

"No jury because it`s a family court hearing . So we simply have a closed court; a star chamber, in fact... And now we can see where that leads us and as UK Column has been warning and warning for many years we are now ... literally in the state where government can say: `We`re going to take your children. You can complain if you like.`  But then all doors are simply shut in your face."

"Now the BBC of course does not want to talk about the Docherty case. So what are they getting really upset about.? Well, Lord Janner. So we`ve now got their article and it`s going to be followed by interviews with his daughter who says that basically the whole thing against her father is an outrage . It`s attacking a corpse I think she says. The BBC is literally starting to spin to protect the establishment."

"They will not report on Hollie Greig . They won`t report on the Dochertys . They won`t report on Melanie Shaw."

"And ITN is just as bad..." says Justin Walker. "Because they won`t go where the truth is."

"They certainly won`t go where the truth is... We`ve listed some of those cases there... And we have a BBC which is then exposed as having paedophiles in their organisation but they run an investigation ... to their entire satisfaction and then say : `Well, there isn`t a problem`. And the public is supposed to believe this; the same public that`s paying the £3.65 billion to run this operation."

=======================

Finally, a quote from Alex Thomson: "It`s one of the ways we do things to the envy of tyrants all over the world."
 
http://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-2nd-august-2016

The Docherty case: PR spin and Gordon Jeyes

The investigation into the Brian and Janice Docherty case is progressing slowly.

David Scott explains that Police Media in Aberdeen are dedicated to providing information to the media. Before the team plays the audio recording, he says: "It will be interesting to [UK Column] viewers and listeners what that means in practice."
 
As it happens, Catherine is not available but Kate asks if she can help. "I`ve been promised an email response three times and nothing so far has appeared," says David Scott.  "It`s regarding the case of Brian and Janice Docherty. I was asking some questions about that and I was told I would get a response in writing but..."

"No, you`ve had a response," says Kate. "I`ve seen it...That`s all we have to say on the matter; so there`s not really anything else we can provide you."

"Well that wasn`t the response."
"That`s the response that we can give you."
"No, that can`t be the response."
"Why not?"

"Because it doesn`t make any sense... It`s unintelligible...The only response I have had in writing was unintelligible."

"Why was it unintelligible? What is it you don`t understand about it?..."

"I asked some questions and the response I got said: `There`s no substance to the claims made`. I made no claims. It made no sense."

And so the conversation continues, getting nowhere.

"Well David, what a classic piece of fob-off is the right expression. As some of our commentators are saying at the moment... this lady is obviously very well briefed. She knows full well about the case. But this is a case that the Scottish police and Scottish Government simply does not want to talk about."

"No they do not. Now ...the question I was asking there: `Is Alan Low a former police officer?` If the answer is No then that is presumably quite an easy one for Police Scotland to answer..."

Mike Robinson interjects: "But David if they don`t want to say No then the answer must be Yes..."

"As you know.. we`ve got very good evidence backing up that question ... and we would have to conclude that if there`s no formal written denial, then the answer really must be Yes."

"Isn`t it sad that media teams are now used as professionals to help lie for the state?" says Brian Gerrish. "So instead of their job being to actually serve the public and to make sure the truth is given to the public, every department whether it`s Theresa May, as Prime Minister, or the Cabinet Office - wherever it is - we`ve got these teams of very insidious people who simply do as they`re told in order to hide the truth."

David Scott continues: "And the implications here are very serious because that would mean that the previous relationship between the investigating officer and the accused - that would mean that that had been concealed from the Dochertys. They had no idea. It was the UK Column that found this information out. That would mean it has been withheld from all the investigating authorities, police review committees and everything else that the state is meant to be employing to make sure that they do not infringe people`s rights and the interests of justice."

"And we`ve got this gentleman, Luke Boddice - we`ve got audio to go with this in just a second - but who is this man and how have you dealt with him?"

"This is a PR consultant, communications officer, working for Nicola Sturgeon`s private office. Now I contacted Nicola Sturgeon and asked essentially one question. ..What has Nicola done to assist the Dochertys? What is she doing? What does she intend to do? ... And the response we got back was that the Scottish Government is unable to comment on individual cases. The appropriate place to take this enquiry is Police Scotland... That was it. That was the official line from the government spokesperson."

"So I asked a few supplementary questions by email to try and get a little bit more from this department and from Mr Boddice. And those email questions received no reply either. So I then phoned the gentleman. He`s quite a young chap; he graduated in 2007 from St Andrews University with an MA in medieval history; so that will come in handy in the new Scotland,  presumably because we`re all going to be serfs...But the phone call was interesting."

"We gave you the line earlier on, and we`re sticking to those lines," Mr Boddice says. This is repeated with every question asking him what he knows about the Docherty case, and even when it is pointed out that Nicola Sturgeon had intervened in another case.

"Well David quite remarkable what`s being said there. Well the state is saying to the public: `Go away you horrible people. We have our line. We`re not interested in the truth. We`re not interested in getting to the bottom of why four children have been taken away from mum and dad who are completely innocent of anything untoward`...The complete opposite; they`ve attempted to report potential abuse of children and the state simply does not want to talk about it. They`re prepared to spin lines. This is very very dangerous stuff. One of the things we`ve been trying to get across to people at the moment is, while they`re busy watching the rhetoric against Russia, what we`ve got is a vicious dictatorship, complete with the propaganda installing itself in Scotland and England. .. Have you had any further information since that remarkable exchange?"

"Not a single tweet.  Now that was ... Nicola Sturgeon`s idea of a communications officer. There wasn`t a lot of communication going on but what you could clearly see is there`s a desperation to prevent any discussion of the Docherty case whatsoever."

 

"Let`s take people through a bit more of this remarkable case and one of the things that you`ve pointed out is that there was a family called the Brains family... a huge amount of attention has been given to them because they`re fighting deportation. So they were an Australian family. They`ve got a child who speaks Gaelic but this is some of the stuff that`s happened... the Home Office has given a bit of ground and granted leave for them to remain in Scotland until 1st August 2016. Their local MP Mr Ian Blackford has been fighting the case. They`ve had a personal meeting with Nicola Sturgeon and there`s been major articles in the press and we`re looking at one from the Guardian..."

"What is going on here?" asks Brian Gerrish.

"Well quite. And, of course, I got no answers to any of this...You see the SNP have taken the Brains case to Westminster twice, including on the final PMQ when the Prime Minister was resigning. So this is extremely high profile... and this single family, this single individual case, was deemed worthy of that level of intervention in a single case by the SNP administration. And yet when we ask about the Dochertys we`re told: `We`re unable to intervene in a single case. It would be inappropriate`. Therefore no discussion. It`s completely inconsistent and it`s completely hypocritical."

"We`ll just press this home," says Brian Gerrish. "We`re seeing no press coverage for the Docherty family. It`s almost like standard journalists are scared of the case.  But BBC here ... talking about the Brain family; so they`re very happy with that. We`ve got questions being asked in parliament; and when George Osborne doesn`t produce the right response, the Independent here is saying `shameful and disgusting response to seven year old boy who faces deportation` but when we`re talking about a Scottish family having four children taken from them with no grounds for that action then we don`t report anything in Britain`s mainstream press."

"And of course the smirking face of David Cameron... he can leave his daughter in a pub, presumably when he had a little bit too much of his pint there - social services don`t turn up on his doorstep - but here he is getting involved in the Brain family case. So quite remarkable; something very special about the Dochertys."

 

"And at this point we better bring in this man because Gordon Jeyes is somebody you`ve been having a good look at. This man is now very big in the Irish social work scene and he`s caught a few people`s attention by attacking judges because he says: `Those nasty judges are not actually bothering to read social workers` submissions and indeed they`re not supporting social workers`. So before I hand back to you, just to give people a little bit about this man: He was UK`s first director of Children`s Services. He was chair of the anti-bullying network. He`s been part of the SEED review group on youth crime; national Youth Justice Strategy Steering Group; Critical Incident Response, Dunblane - that`s a very interesting one Mike; it just caught my eye. And, of course, he`s Royal Society of the Arts. If you`re going to be involved with children, apparently, you need to be a cultural person and involved with the arts. So what is it about this man David? He`s suddenly popped up everywhere: England, Scotland and Ireland?"

"He has a very interesting CV. As the Docherty investigation - which is an open source investigation - has been progressing we`ve had a lot of people sending in information. Everything we`ve got so far has entirely substantiated the information that has been provided directly by the Dochertys. No information at all has conflicted with their accounts of events. We`ve had some things, such as the relationship with the former police officer, that has added to what the Dochertys knew but no conflicts. We`ve also had several people of interest that has come out of this investigation;  one of them is very much Gordon Jeyes. He`s got an interesting CV to put it mildly. He was the person ultimately responsible for the social workers that seized the Docherty children - and remember they cleared an entire department of twenty nine social workers for an entire weekend just to deal with the Docherty family. So that`s a decision that would be made at the highest level. That means Gordon Jeyes personally; so hence we`re keen to gather any information we can on Mr Jeyes and his background. It`s a very interesting background."

"I couldn`t agree more. Let`s give people a taster of what we`re talking about here. Here`s some articles. This one is talking about a massive set up in Ireland that he is chief executive for - I think that`s correct, chief executive?"

"He was until May," interjects David Scott. "He`s just resigned."

"Well a vast organisation: 4,000 staff and a budget of 609 million euros. We just see money poured into child protection... Part of this article says that: `For too long...our flawed approach treated the child and family services like an adjunct to another agency as an afterthought but not anymore...` And what that is getting at is the fact they`re saying that ... we`re setting up this massive organisation which is going to wrap around families and every single child in Ireland. Is that a part of the man`s CV ? You can obviously find this for yourselves online, but he`s been involved in everything. So he starts off in Cambridge and then all of a sudden this man becomes the guru of child protection. But what we don`t see happening in England, Wales, Scotland and indeed Ireland is any improvement in child welfare. And we`ve got to say ...what`s the real objective?..He`s been involved in Dunblane. It probably brings us into some controversy there."

"He`s mentioned in the Cullen Report," says David Scott. "There`s actually two references to him in the Cullen report. He was head of Education in Stirling council. So he was ultimately responsible for Dunblane primary school at the time of the massacre... and he gave evidence at the Cullen inquiry into the Dunblane massacre... They were very unimpressed with him. They were surprised that he was unable to say whether the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act actually applied to schools and they were surprised at his vagueness regarding risk assessment in schools. So they were by no means complimentary to him over his evidence to the inquiry. But he went from there to Cambridgeshire to run what is euphemistically called children`s services in Cambridgeshire. And he again hit the headlines."

"In fact, he hit the headlines in a very big way because he ended up in Panorama. And this was the case that after five or six years of fighting, the family finally got permission to tell their story. And this is the case that has started to unlock the secret family courts in England; and it started to bring some scrutiny into these proceedings; and, again; Gordon Jeyes was the man responsible... He goes on Panorama and says: `Sometimes social workers have to think the unthinkable.` Now this is a case where a family - a loving family - has gone along with their baby son because they were concerned that he was injured in some way... and they kept going back to the medical profession saying there`s definitely something wrong with their child and eventually they found that the child had a broken leg. And, of course, rather than saying: `We`re very glad you persisted and we finally noticed this; let`s get to the bottom of this. No, that`s not what happened. The family was arrested; they were charged with harming their son which was nonsense and they were put through years of hell. And who was it? It was Gordon Jeyes and Gordon Jeyes` department who did this. They were eventually proven to be wrong and then many years later, after a great deal of fighting, this information came out."

http://www.ukcolumn.org/  (15 July 2016)

[To be continued...] 

Ben Butler convicted of killing his six-year-old daughter

 

"No reporter who heard Neal Gray tell the judge she would have “blood on her hands” if she returned his young granddaughter to her birth parents would have been able to publish his anguished warning. It was given as evidence four years ago against Ben Butler at an appeal heard by the family judge Mrs Justice Hogg. Hogg did return Ellie to her birth parents, and yesterday Butler was convicted of killing his six-year-old daughter in 2013."

 

"In contrast to what happens in a criminal trial, which is held in public, journalists may not publish what goes on in front of a family judge. To do so is a contempt; the sanction is a fine and jail.
There is an almost total lack of transparency in family courts: cases are held in private, and witness evidence and judicial decisions are still, to all intents and purposes, secret. The intention is to safeguard individuals’ privacy at what is likely to be at best an acutely embarrassing, and at worst, immensely painful time in their life. But a shocking lack of public scrutiny and accountability has become the result."

"The ban on reporting means decisions made by judges, as well as evidence given and processes followed - sometimes extremely poorly - by local authority social work departments in care cases, are simply not subject to any sort of scrutiny. Had Gray’s warning been reported, together with the overwhelming witness evidence from the council, police and medical experts against Butler’s fitness to be a parent, there would have been opportunities for significant public debate about the judicial decision that was reached."

"As it was, the only version of events – and assessment of the quality of evidence given in court – that was allowed to reach the public domain was the ruling handed down by the judge. Reporting of what went on in court may not have saved Ellie. But grave decisions that affect the future of vulnerable children and entire families should not be allowed to evade public view in the name of privacy. Although there are difficulties, as I have discovered over 18 months of struggling to report on the family courts, it is possible to do so responsibly while including a great deal of detail in the public interest."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/21/ellie-butler-family-courts-opened-public-scrutiny-judges?CMP=share_btn_tw

Everyone in family court case must stay secret

"A judge has decided that the identities of everyone involved in a family court case she oversaw must stay secret - including the lawyers."

"Local authority social services bosses asked Recorder Susan Jacklin to make decisions about the futures of three children at a private family court hearing in Bournemouth, Dorset."

"She has ruled that neither the children, the local authority which launched proceedings, nor the solicitors and barristers involved can be identified."

" `The anonymity of the children and members of his family must be strictly preserved,` she has explained in a preamble to her written ruling on the case. `The names of solicitors and counsel have been excluded in order to protect the anonymity and privacy of the children.`"

"Family court judges normally analyses case involving children a private hearings - although journalists can attend. They almost-always anonymise children in rulings but local authorities are often identified and barristers and law firms involved routinely named."

"A politician who campaigns for improvements in the family justice system said the judge's decision not to name lawyers was `nonsense`."

" `How could anyone possibly identify a child by knowing the name of a barrister? Sherlock Holmes would struggle. If that was the case half the barristers in half the courts in England would have to be A.N...` said former Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming. "`It's secrecy for the sake of secrecy.`"

"Nearly three years ago Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, said there was a 'pressing need' for 'much more transparency' in the family justice system. He said the public had a right to know 'what is being done in their name'."

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/ex-mp-criticises-judge-for-family-court-secrecy-ruling-11364049677633#

Agony Aunt`s views on forced adoption

Agony Aunt, Denise Robertson, talks about her novel Don`t Cry Aloud in the Daily Mail article, and the hundreds of letters and emails she receives from desperate families which prompted her to write the book:

"(L)ast year I received 450 letters and emails from desperate families begging for help after their children or grandchildren had been forcibly taken from them by the family courts. The majority were subject to gagging orders and risked prison sentences by talking to me. Such restrictions imposed by the courts, ostensibly in the interests of the children, effectively silence discussion about questionable adoption procedures."

"However, I believe forced adoption is a national scandal that must be exposed. To this end, I have written a novel, Don’t Cry Aloud, a lightly fictionalised account of the real stories I encounter every day. I dedicate it to Nicky and Mark Webster, a decent and blameless couple who appealed to me for help when their three older children were taken and forcibly adopted in 2005. I’ve written it in the hope that it will provoke a reaction; that it will make people care."

"The Websters’ case, also taken up by this newspaper, proved how innocent people can become helplessly embroiled in an escalating nightmare. It began when Nicky took one of her children to hospital with a viral infection. Doctors discovered a fracture in his ankle and, within two days — on the false assumption that the little boy had been hit — all three of the couple’s children were taken into care."

"When I met the Websters, I knew they were incapable of harming their children. I asked a solicitor who had helped me fight for justice in similar cases to take up theirs. He, too, was powerless. ‘As fast as I amass evidence in their defence, social services push the adoption proceedings forward,’ he told me."

"It took four years for the courts to find the Websters innocent of any wrongdoing. It emerged that their son, after feeding problems, had been put on a soya milk diet, which had led to a rare nutritional deficiency that caused his bones to fracture easily. By then, however, the courts had also decreed that it was too late to overturn the adoption orders imposed on the Websters’ children: they were not returned to their parents."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3098468/Blood-chilling-scandal-thousands-babies-stolen-State-TV-agony-aunt-Denise-Robertson-s-spent-years-investigating-says-s-monstrous-injustice-age.html#ixzz3boFDvVQZ


The British Association of Social Workers received a number of complaints after sharing the Daily Mail article. There was a response from Maggie Mellon, Vice Chair of BASW:

The issue of adoption without parental consent and against their wishes is one that we feel is of professional concern and must be openly and fully debated, not just within social work, but also in the wider world...

There is growing public interest and concern, and it is very important that your professional association shows leadership in responding to this. We cannot deny that there are grounds for concern and inquiry and explanation, and neither should we attack the messengers – the birth families and their spokespeople such as Denise Robertson.

I will always support the open airing of critical comment and believe that we have a responsibility to members to respond to these openly and with an ethical and informed position.

https://www.basw.co.uk/news/article/?id=969#.VWnmeYYi3Lo.twitter

Fathers4Justice campaigner jailed for 6 months

"A Fathers4Justice campaigner has been jailed for six months for defacing a portrait of the Queen with paint in Westminster Abbey."

"Tim Haries, who told jurors he vandalised the picture to highlight the "social justice issue of our time", had denied causing criminal damage of more than £5,000 but was found guilty at London's Southwark crown court last month."

"The judge said the sentence must acknowledge Haries's distress and unhappiness, but have regard to the case's aggravating features, and to a degree deter others."

"I accept that your separation from your daughters for a period of four years caused you real anguish. I also accept that you felt that the legal processes by which you tried to have contact with them had failed you."

"But I do not accept that the means that you chose to adopt to make your protest were in any way justified."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/05/fathers4justice-campaigner-jailed-defacing-queen-portrait-haries

Such is the state of the justice system in the United Kingdom that in contrast many paedophiles, convicted of crimes against children, are let off with suspended sentences or community orders.

See HERE

Adoption targets in Essex

John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley has stated in the Birmingham Post that we must change the way family courts are run: Speaking about the case of the Italian woman who was forced to have a caesarean section before her baby was taken he says:

Family law, particularly when it involves more than one country, is a complex issue involving a number of very sensitive issues. However, the machinery has been hidden away and is only now partially coming to the surface.

I know... that Essex have an adoption target. In their corporate plan of 2012/3 it was 12 per cent of the children in care and they were below target. Previously they were paid £2,469,200 by the Blair government for increasing adoptions.

 photo Guardian October 2010

Hence when it comes to the care plan it is clear that the local authority employees are under a lot of pressure to propose a care plan for adoption.

It is in fact only the younger children that can be adopted. Nationally a very high proportion of the children that leave care under five do so through adoption.

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/legal/john-hemming-must-change-way-6496273?fb_action_ids=10153722842940254&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B448615781905616%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

Some good news

Here are a couple of good news stories to celebrate the new year:

(1) Christopher Booker in the Telegraph discusses the judgment of Sir James Munby, the recently appointed President of the Family Division. A father had posted the names of his children and the social workers involved in their case, all over Facebook.

Before ruling on an application from the council for a complete ban on all this, Munby devoted most of his 26-page judgment to the more general question of whether the secrecy imposed on such cases has gone too far. Since the abolition of the death penalty, he says, the kind of orders a judge has to make on whether children should be removed from their parents "are among the most drastic any judge in any jurisdiction is empowered to make". When a young mother is forced to lose her child, she and the child may have to live with the consequences of that decision for, respectively, 70 or 90 years.

Sir James goes on to consider other issues, such as those raised by the increased readiness of anguished parents to tell their stories on the internet, ruling that these should be subject to the same restrictions as are applied to reporting in the press. But when he finally comes to ruling on the council’s application for a complete ban, he strikes out all the items not referring directly to the identity of children or their parents, allowing the naming of Staffordshire, social workers, "expert witnesses" and pretty well everything else.

This is such a startling challenge to prevailing practice that we will have to watch carefully to see how widely Munby’s principles are now followed. Clearly, this unusually humane and intelligent judge is bent on rolling back that blanket of secrecy that has been used to conceal so many countless horror stories from public view.

(2) Parents in Perth and Kinross Council were not aware of the intrusive questions contained in a survey of school children and their consent was assumed unless they actively opted out. It was pointed out that this breached the European Data Protection Directive. The Scottish Government has recently issued some reassurances:

The Scottish Government was not involved in the surveys carried out by Perth and Kinross Council through Dartington Social Research Unit. Where the Scottish Government will be involved in this in the future in other local authorities it will be with oversight of its Analytical Services to ensure it is in line with the strong ethical and quality guidelines it employs for any research it carries out.

Scottish Reporter 

Also read  A Seasonal Quiz for the Cabinet Office