Controversial letters have been withdrawn by NHS Forth Valley

Coline Hart

 

"Parents were furious earlier this week when it was revealed doctors are "now required" to act as informants for a child’s Government-sanctioned "named person" – although the law is not due to come in to force until 2016. The controversial policy came to light in letters sent to parents by NHS Forth Valley, which also threatened to send "copies of future relevant reports" about children to state guardians."

"But, just days after defending the practice, the health board released a statement in which it conceded: "Following further consideration, NHS Forth Valley can confirm that letters have now been withdrawn." It added that it was working with the Scottish Government to "ensure a consistent approach to information sharing and communications with patients".

"Campaigners welcomed the climbdown, with the Christian Institute’s director, Colin Hart, saying: "Forth Valley is one of many authorities that has jumped the gun. "They have acted with stealth and, having been found out, have been forced into a very embarrassing climbdown."

"The other authorities should immediately follow suit and, if they do not have the good grace to eat humble pie, they should be forced to do so by a Scottish Government which has already promised that this shameful named person project should not be implemented until 2016 at the earliest."

"A "No to Named Persons" conference is being held in Edinburgh on Monday and a legal challenge to the policy, spearheaded by the Christian Institute, has been launched. Lawyers have already submitted an application for a judicial review of the Scottish Government’s contentious Children and Young People Bill after the campaign raised £30,000 in donations."

"It came as it emerged that a leading critic of the plans is planning to stand for election at Holyrood to oppose the named persons policy. Dr Stuart Waiton, a sociology lecturer at Abertay University in Dundee, could stand as a single-issue candidate in 2016."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/480825/Hospital-bosses-forced-into-climbdown-over-snoop-threat-to-parents

Culture of ignorance, or a cover up?

The above interview now has more sinister implications. Investigations continue:

(A) man, who comes from the north of England, claims he was a teen in a care home in the late 1970s and early 1980s when he met his abuser. He says secret sex parties were held at Westminster, with groups of children from care homes bussed in to be abused.

The victim says Savile and Liberal Democrat MP Cyril Smith, both of whom are now dead but have been named as predatory paedophiles by victims, attended.

The man claims the politician used to get a thrill out of beating him up in addition to sexual abuse.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/381759/Exclusive-TV-Star-politician-in-EVIL-paedo-ring-Victim-names-violent-abuser 

At least 500 girls and boys - some as young as two - were abused by disgraced television presenter Jimmy Savile making him one of the UK's most prolific sex offenders, new research has found.

A study by the NSPCC, commissioned for BBC Panorama, reveals confidential documents that shed light on the extent of Savile's offending and his unprecedented access to Broadmoor hospital, where some of his abuse took place.

The report said the scale of Savile's offending inside Broadmoor is higher than previously thought and found the most common age group for Savile's victims was 13 to 15 – with the youngest alleged victim being just two-years-old.

It comes ahead of the publication of BBC's own review to be carried out by Dame Janet Smith. That report, whose publication has been repeatedly delayed, is expected to uncover up to a thousand victims and reveal a culture of ignorance which protected Savile. 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/02/research-finds-jimmy-savile-abused-at-least-500-children

MI5 were used by the BBC to vet thousands of their staff. (But we are led to believe that both organisations were ignorant about Jimmy Savile., even though Savile mixed with royalty and top politicians.  Should MI5 not have taken a much closer interest in his activities? ) 

http://www.deliberation.info/bbc-used-mi5-vet-thousands-staff/

Forced adoption interview

Update, June 07, 2014.

A secret court decision meant a mother was not told of plan to remove baby at birth

High Court Judge Michael Joseph Keehan admitted the move was 'draconian' and 'at the extremity of what is permissible under the European Convention' A mother had her newborn baby girl taken away by social workers without any warning following a secret court hearing.

The judge said there was a ‘very real risk’ that the woman, who has schizophrenia and an IQ of just 63, could harm herself and her unborn child if she learned of social services’ plans and also imposed a gagging order banning all reporting of his ruling which was lifted after the baby was taken into care.

The new mother was discharged alone on May 2. Her mental state has deteriorated so much since then that she requires treatment from the ‘crisis team’ of her local mental health trust.

President Jean Robinson of the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS) said : ‘The secret hearing does not give the mother any opportunity to instruct solicitors to prevent it, or even approach solicitors or even her own family member to create an alternative. There may well have been no alternative, but the problem is that was never explored. The fact that the mother only found out the moment she had given birth, it’s terrible.’

Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who has campaigned for open justice, said: ‘It is very convenient as a way of doing things for the local authority that you have a court order which says you don’t have to tell anyone what you’re doing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2650787/Social-workers-snatched-mothers-baby-minutes-birth-no-warning-secret-court-ruling.html

MSP Graeme Pearson asks for a public inquiry into historical child abuse

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/scotland-27227618

30 April 2014 Last updated at 18:41 

Scottish Labour MSP Graeme Pearson asked the Scottish government to consider holding a public inquiry into historical child abuse, during a member's debate on 30 April 2014.

The member for South of Scotland said that the survivors of abuse deserved action and that "we have a responsibility to answer clearly and simply the demands of survivors."

Mr Pearson added: "If there is to be no response akin to a Northern Ireland public inquiry will the minister explain why? Will the government reconsider their decision now?"

Community Safety and Legal Affairs Minister Roseanna Cunningham replied that the issue was a very complicated one and "some victims expressly didn't want a public inquiry".

Ms Cunningham also said: "Concerns around the issue of an inquiry included it might take a very long time, the outcomes might not offer tangible support, that it might be expensive, and that it would have the potential for conflict and further trauma."

The minister, however, accepted that such an inquiry could be held in the future should it be deemed to be the best way forward.

Question raised in Parliament about Medomsley

          PRIME MINISTER’S QUESTION TIME 23 MAY 2012

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2012/may/prime-ministers-questions-23-may-2012/
From 31:38 to end of video

SPEAKER:
“I do want to hear Mr McCann”

MICHAEL MCCANN (MP – Labour):
“Mr Speaker, Prison Officer Neville Husband abused young men in the Medomsley Detention Centre for decades before he was prosecuted and sentenced for some of his crimes. 

A Constituent who was abused by Husband has given me information which suggests that senior figures in the Establishment knew what was going on. 

The CPS refuses to pursue these matters and instead the Home Office has sought to issue compensation payments.
Mr Speaker, young men were detained by the State and then they were abused by the State. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that a full enquiry is necessary to insure that justice is done and is seen to be done?”

DAVID CAMERON (Prime Minister - Conservative):
“Well I think the first thing that the honourable gentleman should do, and I’m sure he already has, is make sure that any evidence he has of abuse, or of cover-ups of abuse, or compliance with abuse, is given to the Crown Prosecution Service and given to the authorities so it can be properly investigated. 

The Home Affairs Select Committee on which I sat actually looked into this issue in years gone past, made a number of recommendations, so I’ll look ‘carefully’ at what the honourable gentleman said and see if there’s more advice I can provide.”

On YouTube:
Adam Rickwood & The Medomsley Heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOVMEg83Cx8

See also: http://alicemooreuk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/abuse-at-medomsley-detention-centre.html

and Bring back borstals

Most parents were not aware of GIRFEC. Where are we now?

Follow the documents and it is easy to see that GIRFEC was introduced surreptitiously.  For example, `Getting it right for every child: Where are we now? (2011)`  clearly exposes this.

 

Whilst it is admitted in the document that most parents in the area under investigation did not know about it - so much for stakeholder consultation and democracy - the government officials went ahead indoctrinating the various children`s agencies to accept it. The government never engaged in a meaningful public debate about it, nor did they go on a public campaign for support. Since the legislation effects every parent and child in Scotland this lack of engagement shows a shocking contempt for the public.

 

In 2011, the Scottish Government announced its intention to introduce a Children and Young People Bill. The legislation would seek to embed the rights of children and young people across the public sector in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the child (UNCRC). It set out an approach to welfare that put an understanding of wellbeing based on Getting it right for every child at the heart of design and delivery of services. The named person would be responsible for the child.

Since GIRFEC is about risk to wellbeing it covers every aspect of a child`s life and lowers the threshold of concern. Any parent could fall foul of a named person`s `gut feelings` yet there was not a squeak from any parent about it; but then if you do not know what is being set up how can there be resistance?  There was a good political reason why systems were established before parents became aware. Stalling a programme is easy but it is always more difficult to dismantle what is already in place.

Overall, senior managers had a good understanding of the Getting it right for every child approach. However, at class teacher and practitioner level, this understanding was not well-developed, particularly in the secondary school sector.

In a few education authorities, some establishments, in the main early years centres, were making good use of the wellbeing indicators to observe children and to record their progress and build up information and children`s progress and to plan effectively. ..

 Most parents interviewed were not aware of the Getting it right for every child approach http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/GIRFEC%20FINAL%2024-10-12_tcm4-735258.pdf

WND previously reported that a sociology lecturer was warning the plan could lead to the targeting of perfectly good and careful parents. Lecturer Stuart Waiton told the institute, "It will take very little to trigger an investigation into a child and from there a false picture can easily be arrived at." Innocent issues such as what a child eats or the views they express could make "good parents fair game" for the "health and safety zealots, obsessed with risk management," he said.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/03/u-n-behind-plan-for-overseers-for-all-kids/

Poorly publicised consultations are standard practices for governments to use in order to push through unpopular policies. For example: `Do parents even know their children’s school data has been given away?`See link below:

https://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/do-parents-even-know-their-childrens-school-data-has-been-sold/

Our child protection system in Canada

Mark and Kerry Mcdougall

Fife Council Social Services vs Mark and Kerry McDougall ..

Update: The video has been removed. I can only assume that the McDougalls have been warned by social services that by putting their case into the public arena it identifies their children and this will cause them significant harm.

With the threat of removing their children they will have no other option than to comply with whatever social services propose.

False allegations from Fife social services

Kerry and Mark McDougall talk to John Hemming in the video above.

Because Kerry was banned from marrying Mark and told that their baby would be removed at birth, they fled to Ireland. The reason given to them by social services was that Kerry had learning difficulties and had been in care herself and had had a bad experience. Mark explains that this sort of thing happens to many mothers and John Hemming agrees. "It is really about adoption."

When they arrived in Ireland, and after the baby was born, Ben was removed into foster care because the reports from Fife social services painted such a very poor picture of Mark and Kerry. In the reports that followed them to Ireland they were accused of being cocaine addicts and alcoholics. There were also allegations that they had picked up sexually transmitted diseases. In order to prove their innocence and to get Ben out of care they had to go for health checks to show that they had never had such diseases and also had to have drug tests. There were all kinds of tests undergone and these disproved the reports from Fife social services.

After four years in Ireland they returned to Scotland where eventually social services told them that they would leave them alone, but they didn`t.

John Hemming asks them if fleeing to Ireland had been the right thing to do.

Mark tells him that, had they not fled to Ireland, they would never have been able to get Ben back.
 

 

The case of the baby with no name

"Lord Justice Munby has insisted that more family court judgments be published Photo: Brian Smith."

"When Lord Justice Munby last year launched his admirable campaign to clean up our family courts from the growing stench of scandal surrounding the way they work, his priority was to strip away that self-protective veil of secrecy that has allowed so many abuses to flourish. His first move, on becoming head of the family division, was to insist that more judgments be published. But, welcome though this was, it is not easy for outsiders to grasp just how biased so many judgments have become without knowing how fairly the hearings that lead up to them are conducted, and how much the judgments themselves leave out."

"An excellent example of this was the widely reported judgment last week by Mrs Justice Parker, in a case described as that of "the baby with no name", whose father had "assaulted one social worker and threatened to kill another". Nowhere did these reports explain why the father had refused to allow his son to be named, any more than they did those other two seemingly damning incidents. Yet having spoken to more than one person professionally involved in this case (but not to the parents), I understand that a full account of the circumstances behind them might have given the public a very different picture."

"The father, who until recently held a senior position in a large company, is a British Indian and a devout Hindu. Ten years ago, when the mother was very young, she had a child with a man who left her. Her difficulties in coping on her own drew the attention of social services and the baby was given to the father. When eventually she met her present Hindu partner and had a second child, Hertfordshire social workers won a supervision order to ensure that her new son was being properly cared for."

"But the Indian father, although said to be "normally a peaceable man who treats everyone with respect", could not hide his increasing impatience at the constant intrusions of social workers into his family’s life, to the point where they applied to take the boy into care. A judge accepted that the child was "thriving", but ruled that, because of the father’s "hostility" to the social workers, the boy should go into foster care. Outside the court, the father accused a social worker of having "lied" in his evidence. The social worker, as confirmed by a lawyer present, punched him on the shoulder. The father, in self-defence, took a swing at his head, and was fined £430 for assault."

"Solely because of this background, when the mother had another baby, it was immediately taken into care. The parents were anxious to have their child named according to Hindu tradition, which involves a temple ceremony, Namakarana, which only the parents, close family and friends can attend. But the social workers insisted that they be present, lest the family "abduct" the child."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10866289/The-real-story-of-the-baby-with-no-name.html?fb

Foster mother is set to be freed from prison

"A foster mother who was jailed for beating, abusing and starving three children in her care is set to be freed from prison in a matter of weeks – and could be rehomed just miles from the daughter she once tortured."

"Eunice Spry, 70, was jailed for 14 years in April 2007 after she was convicted of subjecting the vulnerable youngsters to a ‘horrifying catalogue of cruel and sadistic treatment’ over a 19-year period."

"However, after serving just over half of her sentence, Spry is set to be released on parole in a couple of weeks and is reportedly set to be rehomed just 25 miles away from her daughter in Worcester, West Midlands."

"The news has horrified her adopted daughter Victoria Evans, 28."

"Speaking to The Sun, she said: ‘The thought of her living nearby again is dreadful – heart-breaking."

"‘I don’t want her anywhere near us. She is a psychopath and my concern is that being so close she’ll find out where we are.’"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2643637/Foster-mother-jailed-14-years-torturing-three-children-care-set-released-prison-rehomed-near-terrified-victims.html