The problem is the secrecy which the Family Court division is shrouding itself in.
Consequently we are not getting the full story. Not that I dispute anything said here as we know there is always two sides to any story.
There is something quite National Socialist about a civil power being able to remove a child from it's natural parents without reason or the contents of the Court order being made public.
Yes ... a valid reason would surely have to be given if there was a Law to say a Court Order must be made public.
Members of the family, friends, neighbours, anyone who has known the child with the parents would want an explanation why the child is not there any more with them, (or either parent), so for them to be informed is actually making things public. If the initial proceedings have been shrouded in secrecy, then that would make it impossible for the public to object later because there would always be that secrecy relied on for true facts or reasons not to be brought out.
Correction .. a valid reason would surely have to be given especially if there was a law to say a Court Order must be made public.
The problem is the secrecy which the Family Court division is shrouding itself in.Consequently we are not getting the full story. Not that I dispute anything said here as we know there is always two sides to any story.
There is something quite National Socialist about a civil power being able to remove a child from it's natural parents without reason or the contents of the Court order being made public.
Hi Geezer or Westonman
Could you or Westonman point me in the direction of where the Family Court Division is mentioned as I can't find anything so far ... (quite a lot of other issues crop up though). Thankyou in advance for your help.
I found more enlightening reading on this subject when I clicked on 'read more' but my question still applies as I can't find any mention of the Family Court Division. Thankyou for now
I picked up quite quickly that part of the allegations were dirty tricks by various agencies to bring about an outcome where a child can be taken into care.
The family court division are the legal authority in this area. If Social services think a child is in immediate and significant danger I think they have the power to remove children prior to a court order being obtained, it would be procedure though would be for them to acquire this order as soon as they could subsequently.
The family court is shrouded in secrecy. It has been the case in the past where parents and or close relatives are not allowed to be in the room to hear the evidence/judgements.
Thousands of mothers over the past seven years have had successive children removed by family courts in England, the BBC has learned.
Court records for that period show 7,143 mothers were involved in repeat care cases - affecting 22,790 children.
Researchers found children were taken away from their parents by local authorities in more than 90% of cases.
The article goes on to give some of the reasons such as neglect, drug use by the mother and others so most if not all of these may well be justified.
The trouble is though that clearly other cases are being unjustly caught up in the secrecy of the system and Joe Public is not allowed to see or test the evidence which has led to the removal of children.
Then we add into abuse at Children's homes with the recent case of Cyril Smith and others less well known where lots of smoke has been lingering for years (even some judges were rumoured to be in on the paedophile gangs) and it becomes apparent very quickly that this secrecy does more harm than good.
I could enlarge on that last statement and how Op Yewtree was brought about to keep the heat away from 'people that mattered' indeed to spotlight those in the media and how the press has done a superbly efficient hatchet job on James Saville without a shred of evidence suggesting he actually did any of these things but that would be for another thread.
It is no accident that I would cite Russia Today (RT) and Al Jazeera with more credibility than some 'closer to home' news organisations.
I picked up quite quickly that part of the allegations were dirty tricks by various agencies to bring about an outcome where a child can be taken into care.
The family court division are the legal authority in this area. If Social services think a child is in immediate and significant danger I think they have the power to remove children prior to a court order being obtained, it would be procedure though would be for them to acquire this order as soon as they could subsequently.
The family court is shrouded in secrecy. It has been the case in the past where parents and or close relatives are not allowed to be in the room to hear the evidence/judgements.
Thousands of mothers over the past seven years have had successive children removed by family courts in England, the BBC has learned.
Court records for that period show 7,143 mothers were involved in repeat care cases - affecting 22,790 children.
Researchers found children were taken away from their parents by local authorities in more than 90% of cases.
The article goes on to give some of the reasons such as neglect, drug use by the mother and others so most if not all of these may well be justified.
The trouble is though that clearly other cases are being unjustly caught up in the secrecy of the system and Joe Public is not allowed to see or test the evidence which has led to the removal of children.
Then we add into abuse at Children's homes with the recent case of Cyril Smith and others less well known where lots of smoke has been lingering for years (even some judges were rumoured to be in on the paedophile gangs) and it becomes apparent very quickly that this secrecy does more harm than good.
I could enlarge on that last statement and how Op Yewtree was brought about to keep the heat away from 'people that mattered' indeed to spotlight those in the media and how the press has done a superbly efficient hatchet job on James Saville without a shred of evidence suggesting he actually did any of these things but that would be for another thread.
It is no accident that I would cite Russia Today (RT) and Al Jazeera with more credibility than some 'closer to home' news organisations.
Geezer .. Thankyou for taking the time to set out so much information which makes very interesting but upsetting reading. It has brought to mind a friendship I had with a vulnerable young mother who I, and my husband, tried to help and support through difficult times. The Social Services were involved (not LBH) but everything still ended with her child being taken and adopted. It seemed a drastic and cruel measure, not just for her but her child as well. The heartbreak caused is quite unbearable to think about especially as we would have loved to have been foster-parents so that she could still be able to see her child when she wanted to. Her request for this, rather than her child being taken permanently was turned down and the story became worse and could never have been a happy ending.
If temporary fostering had taken place, help could have been made available and with time, mother and child reunited. The letters I received showed how hard it was for her, not really understanding why such a drastic action had taken place and we could not be told either.
There is a lot to digest in your comment and the BBC article but the story I have told seemed relevant because of parts of the article. i.e. help and time should be given ..
Regarding the story the first links highlight, I wonder how there can be a full Public Inquiry if the secrecy is maintained which may be buried somewhere at the beginning of events. As I can't see anywhere that the Family Courts are involved it may be something the public will not be told whether they are or not.
I picked up quite quickly that part of the allegations were dirty tricks by various agencies to bring about an outcome where a child can be taken into care.
The family court division are the legal authority in this area. If Social services think a child is in immediate and significant danger I think they have the power to remove children prior to a court order being obtained, it would be procedure though would be for them to acquire this order as soon as they could subsequently.
The family court is shrouded in secrecy. It has been the case in the past where parents and or close relatives are not allowed to be in the room to hear the evidence/judgements.
Thousands of mothers over the past seven years have had successive children removed by family courts in England, the BBC has learned.
Court records for that period show 7,143 mothers were involved in repeat care cases - affecting 22,790 children.
Researchers found children were taken away from their parents by local authorities in more than 90% of cases.
The article goes on to give some of the reasons such as neglect, drug use by the mother and others so most if not all of these may well be justified.
The trouble is though that clearly other cases are being unjustly caught up in the secrecy of the system and Joe Public is not allowed to see or test the evidence which has led to the removal of children.
Then we add into abuse at Children's homes with the recent case of Cyril Smith and others less well known where lots of smoke has been lingering for years (even some judges were rumoured to be in on the paedophile gangs) and it becomes apparent very quickly that this secrecy does more harm than good.
I could enlarge on that last statement and how Op Yewtree was brought about to keep the heat away from 'people that mattered' indeed to spotlight those in the media and how the press has done a superbly efficient hatchet job on James Saville without a shred of evidence suggesting he actually did any of these things but that would be for another thread.
It is no accident that I would cite Russia Today (RT) and Al Jazeera with more credibility than some 'closer to home' news organisations.
Geezer .. Thankyou for taking the time to set out so much information which makes very interesting but upsetting reading. It has brought to mind a friendship I had with a vulnerable young mother who I, and my husband, tried to help and support through difficult times. The Social Services were involved (not LBH) but everything still ended with her child being taken and adopted. It seemed a drastic and cruel measure, not just for her but her child as well. The heartbreak caused is quite unbearable to think about especially as we would have loved to have been foster-parents so that she could still be able to see her child when she wanted to. Her request for this, rather than her child being taken permanently was turned down and the story became worse and could never have been a happy ending.
If temporary fostering had taken place, help could have been made available and with time, mother and child reunited. The letters I received showed how hard it was for her, not really understanding why such a drastic action had taken place and we could not be told either.
There is a lot to digest in your comment and the BBC article but the story I have told seemed relevant because of parts of the article. i.e. help and time should be given ..
Regarding the story the first links highlight, I wonder how there can be a full Public Inquiry if the secrecy is maintained which may be buried somewhere at the beginning of events. As I can't see anywhere that the Family Courts are involved it may be something the public will not be told whether they are or not.
Public enquiries these days are not really worth the paper they report on.
Chillcott was set up to determine the reasons the UK was dragged into the Iraq war. It cannot publish due to Bush and Blair not wanting their correspondence/discussions on the invasion getting into the public domain. All sorts of legal moves are going on behind the scenes to water down the content of Chilcott's report.
All this sort of stuff is related. These people look after themselves.
Blair and his Labour party made much of the introduction of the Human Rights Act. I ask you whose wife has made millions off the back of that legislation? Blair at some point early on in the process promised Bush that the UK would support the US in it's plans top invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. Many people warned that further down the line there would be problems with the tribes in open warfare and guess what we are seeing today.
That just leaves Campbell and Blair and the dodgy dossier with Iraq's 45 minute window to launch WMD against the UK and he had everything he needed to assist Bush.
One man stuck his head over the parapet and an influential man at that. There was no better expert on the capability of Iraq and it's WMD program. He went to the BBC and said the dossier was rubbish and turned up dead a few days later in an Oxfordshire field.
When Governments are capable of such things transparency and regulation are very very low on their list of priorities. Paedophile rings operate at all levels of UK society, it has long been rumoured that certain judges 'dissapear' kids into the system so they can be 'used' by these vile creatures.
Maybe a Public Inquiry is better than nothing because it would show that something has been taken seriously enough by someone like an MP, so making the Inquiry possible. The seriousness may then be brought to the public's notice and, whatever the outcome, the public will decide whether they agree or not. An Inquiry can make something well-remembered by the public and also put someone's mind at rest if they feel they are suffering an injustice. The perfect Inquiry resolves issues but whether that could happen depends on how thoroughly investigations have been carried out. If an Injustice is corrected then it can only be good.
As we know, the setting up of the Chilcot Inquiry was on a very high level and was going to be held in private. Because it was changed and to be public, this has presented the problems it has. For it to have been in private would have still been veiled in secrecy and the subject of secrecy comes up again. There can't be transparency and the Inquiry would have been useless to the public. I think it was to be published this year.
Reading the last disturbing sentence makes me hope that it is based on unfounded rumours only.
Cyril Smith and other so called 'influentials' like him would not have been able to operate without some protection from the authorities.
The fact he was a Liberal MP meant his 'actions' were known about at the very highest level so some protection from prosecution must have been sanctioned at a very high level. The fact it has turned out Manchester police have a file on these allegations going back decades is the difference between Smith and Saville. Saville was under the radar pretty much until his death and of course his inability to defend himself. Of the many hundreds that have emerged from the woodwork now none have provided that tangible bit of evidence to suggest Saville is guilty. On the one time Surrey police interviewed him in 2009 he was forthright and honest in his replies. There is a full transcript of that interview here.
Saville's account of why these allegations came about is quite credible and he makes the distinction between it being reported in the media as a children's home when it was actually a borstal. Yes there were a couple more allegations before his arrest and this interview but they all seemed to come years after the alleged offences. The media is seemed from a very early stage made to 'juice up' the allegations from what actually occurred.
The hundreds of allegations that came after he died was simply a result of the compensation culture in this Country.
Turning to Chilcott, The only thing stopping it's publication now are legal moves on the part of Blair and Bush to have their personal conversations/correspondence prior to the invasion excluded or so heavily redacted as to make them worthless as evidence. Why would you think that is? Chilcott senior judge as he is still does not have the power to change this and must 'toe the official line'.
For the enquiry to publish the full frank account of what had happened could leave Blair open under existing UK/International law to charges of being a war criminal. The same would of course be true of Bush but US law (and the powers of public enquiries) are even more watered down that they are here. No precedent would be set as the first UK PM to sanction it could very possible be forced to tread the same path.
Turning back to the paedophile rings and the connection to very senior political figures and the judiciary allegations go back many years and have always been circulated in what shall we say the lower forms of the press. The advent of the internet in the last 20 years has meant that many more people have learnt about these rumours.
You will of course be aware of allegations made on prime time TV against the former treasurer of the Tory party, all within the last couple of years. Did you know other allegations were being made as far back as the 1990's?
Then we have the links Westonman has published on this site relating to abuse within a Scottish family in Aberdeen where the accused were being protected by the police and the courts. I have no doubt he will be along in due course to remind us of the case and provide the link.
Of course people have to draw their own conclusions but as they say there is no smoke without fire. In this instance there seems to be a hell of a lot of smoke going back decades.
All of these links I have found within 5 minutes of searching google with the term judges + paedophile rings. There were 303,000 results for that terms these links are just a smattering on what was on page 1 and 2.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
LOCAL RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS: YOU CAN ADVERTISE TOTALLY FREE OF CHARGE IN OUR ADS SECTIONS!!
ARTICLES WANTED, ARTICLES FOR SALE, PLUMBERS, PIZZAS, ELECTRICIANS, ESTATE AGENTS, ACCOMMODATION WANTED OR FOR RENT, FLATS, ROOMS, HOLIDAYS & TRAVEL,
JOBS AGENCIES, TRADESMEN & WOMEN, MOTORS, DRIVING LESSONS, HGV TRAINING, VOLUNTARY GROUPS... JUST REGISTER AND POST YOUR FREE AD, IT'S THAT SIMPLE. NO CATCH! TELL YOUR FRIENDS.
Login
FAQ
Search
