Saturday 23 June 2012

The Scales of Justice


Chapter 12
The Scales of Justice

I have been a friend of this woman for the best part of 20 years. Over these 20 years we have remained firm friends and she worked for my company in the USA (San Jose) on many occasions and subsequently as a representative in Hong Kong and Singapore.
I have read this doctor’s report (or should that be doctored) and although I am no psychiatrist I find many of the comments regarding this woman’s supposed personality disorder very difficult to take in. The assessment is based mainly on medical records which on reading them I can see that they are highly inaccurate. I note one incident was supposed to have happened in the UK when in fact she was in America as her passport confirms. If she was in the UK at that time I was never aware she had the ability to travel independently at the speed of light. 
I am well aware that she had had childhood problems she had never denied them, more importantly I  know this woman as a caring intelligent adult. We all do things in your teens and early twenties that in hindsight were not the best decisions we ever made. Those who have sailed through life and never did anything wrong or made a bad decision are to me people who frankly have never experienced much of a life.
I know her as a strong and determined woman with a mind of her own. This doctor appears to use history to determine how she is now. I feel that his conclusions are entirely wrong and without firm base. This woman had faced her previous problems face on; she did not hide the pain this caused her. It was a struggle for her and her determination to put her past behind her was obvious to all who know her. It was a fight she won.
In recent years she has been a great help to me. I have suffered many medical and personal problems. She looked after me when I had a heart attack. She gave me support when my sister suffered and eventually died with cancer.
When I read this assessment I feel he is taking small parts of her life and blowing them out of all proportion. There is constant reference to negative little incidents. It is as if he could find nothing substantial and concentrated on the small insignificant stuff with a view to making them appear important.
He cherry picked items from medical records that really never show how a person lives. When one visits a GP it is because there is something wrong. What of the intervening periods when one does not visit the doctor? Are we to assume that the problems exist ad infinitum between visits?
What I see in the assessment is nothing more that a list of items without substance. Even the conclusion lacks substance. If this assessment is indicative of a ‘personality disorder’ then I would say there is an extremely high probability that the general public could be diagnosed with the same complaint. We do not all live in a sterile bubble as this doctor appears to imagine, as if in a world devoid of problems and emotion. We do not all consider our fellow man/woman to live perfect lives. We do not consider that a person’s past will automatically predict their future. Change happens for many reasons.
Am I the same person I was when I was twenty or thirty years old, no I am not and I am very glad about that. If I followed the criteria laid out in this report that my past controlled my present and future then I would have learned nothing over the intervening years. What I did then changed me in many ways. Ways in which I suspect this doctor will never be able to imagine.
I actually find his methods not only suspect as to why he holds them but also to be dangerous. His view of this woman’s condition appears to be based on nothing more than book learning. He has taken incidents that occur naturally in the life of anyone and attaches to these some kind of Psycho Babble condition. I ask what exactly a Personality Disorder is?. Who decides the criteria, is there a recognised scientific series of tests, does one have a blood test that shows one has this disorder. No, it is merely an opinion preached by someone who subscribes to a particular set of values that they decide is the way we should all live. There is great suspicion in the questions he was asked by the local authority. They were asked in a way that directly pointed to the conclusion the local authority required. It was very much of “this is the diagnosis we want if you want to be paid and get more work of the same from us”  It appears very much of a mercenary transaction. Remember “I go where the money is”. Does one have to look further than this to reach a conclusion.
The next question has to be, who gave this doctors profession the right to be the keeper and director of ones moral values? The answer is simple, they did. They took it upon themselves to club together as a profession and set out on a mission to prove their view of life is all there is. I am not one given much to expletives but here I must succumb, Bullshit.
One criticism laid at this woman’s feet, is that she complains to and about authority, he looks at this as part of a disorder. Now since when did that attribute become a disorder? It may have been considered to be such if one complained in Nazi Germany or under Stalin’s reign of terror. They had their own way of eliminating the dissenter much similar to how this local authority acts. If one is not allowed to question and complain about authority when they make mistakes we venture into the realms of Mr Orwell’s 1984. I was aware that in many ways it was a warning but never thought that it would become to be used as an instruction manual.
The report itself has a very worrying aspect to it. Not only does it pigeon hole this individual but because of its eventual use by social services it condemns this perfectly good mother to virtually a lifetime of damnation and eternal purgatory. They use it against her in a way to deny her the opportunity to be a mother to her own child. Remember this child was born with an incurable genetic condition and is being denied a mothers love.
Despite the fact that two other reports gave a contradictory view of the mother and frankly both contained an element of human understanding and compassion, these were totally ignored by the social services and the local authority. If one goes back to a previous chapter one finds the comment to the maternal grandmother “we have plenty of people who will adopt her” (the child). Now we see this case travelling full circle.
If this damning report is pushed forward as the truth and the other two are buried one has to start asking why? To me the answer is very simple. The social workers and the local authority made mistakes at the beginning by blaming the mother for the child’s problems. They did not wait or take time to investigate to find the real reason for the baby’s problems. The crux lies firmly there, had they tried to find cause rather than attribute blame without evidence the outcome could have been entirely different. However, rather than admit they made a mistake they would much rather destroy a mother and her child.
During this whole tragedy not one person from the social services or the local authority has had the courage to stand forward and admit mistakes had been made. In this I include elected officials who were informed of the lies and insidious deceit perpetrated by employees of the local authority. What does this tell us about those with responsibility of overseeing the local authority’s conduct. That they basically don’t care what happens as long as they can keep their position in the hierarchy of power. Let no one rock the political boat. They have denied any liability by not taking the evidence they were given, investigating it and laying it before those accused. They have been party to the abuse of power given to them by the people and to the ultimate and unforgivable abuse of a small defenceless baby with an incurable condition. They have denied this child the opportunity of experiencing a life bathed in the light of her mothers love. For that they must stand accused before the Figure of Justice, be it in this world, which I doubt or in the next. Only their conscience will decide if the scales of Justice will keep their balance.
Looking at this from another angle one cannot escape the dominance of the effect money has on this type of case. In a recent viewing of a local authority’s web presence there was a comment made that the expected number of children to be taken into care over the coming year was 8750 and they would require foster care. There is no point in anyone looking for this, as soon as they realised people could read the comment it was removed. So let’s look at this figure as an estimate. On average a foster carer receives approximately £400 per week per child, therefore £400 x 8750 = £3,500,000 per week or £182,000,000 per year all paid for from public taxes. Now one begins to see why this system exists. It is a gravy train for all involved. This figure above does not include solicitor, barrister, expert witness and court fees, nor does it include the wages paid to the social workers. When one takes all this into consideration it becomes not as many try to tell us, a social service, but a thriving commercial enterprise based on the destruction of families and their children in the United Kingdom.

Friday 8 June 2012

Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes


Chapter 11

Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes

The case illustrated in this book has in many ways been decided on the opinion of one man, a psychiatrist. I use the word opinion, as there is basically no factual medical evidence based on clinical tests that can be associated with his opinion. Therefore it is nothing more than an opinion devoid of clinical fact, it is not a diagnosis.
The result is based on the propaganda of self interest, in this case money, hence the comment “I go where the money is” in Chapter 9. The opinion offers only garbled and incomplete evidence in the very loosest of form. The opinion avoids logical argument and seeks to influence its victim by the mere repetition of catchwords and phrases.
This opinion was based on history, much of which is inaccurate and open to more than one avenue of interpretation. Needless to say the avenue chosen was the one that suited the local authority’s paymasters.
The use of history, especially history where its veracity is in doubt, provides answers that are neither logical nor moral. By taking that course one becomes encumbered by history when the path taken should be to look to the future based on the present. Too many seek to find fault in the past and apply their findings to the present. They do this in their desire to influence others to accept that this is the way life will be in the future, any one who looks at life in this way brings a sense of stagnation to the present. They themselves have their minds locked in the past; they have closed their mind to progress, to change and show a sense of bitterness towards others with the ability to change and progress.
They decree that the past predicts the future. The future is as yet unwritten and as such must be approached with a totally open mind. To do otherwise is to deny that there is such a thing as life changing events. Events that direct one away from the past and from becoming a slave to the restriction of historical thought.
Throughout the local authority expected this mother to behave as predictably as a pre-programmed machine. She was expected to cease to have any thoughts, judgment or will of here own. In this scenario Big Brother is no longer a TV programme but has become a reality worthy of its Orwellian origins. 1984 had ceased to be a novel and began to be used by the local authority as an instruction manual.
The way the local authority act when confronted with logical argument is the change their method of attack. This happens constantly when their thoughts are challenged and proven to be wrong.
Here we have a mother who has demonstrated a cohesiveness and common purpose in being constant in her approach. Mentally and physically she has always put her daughter’s interest before her own. There has been no deviation from her actions and desires as there has been in the approach taken by the local authority.

One must ask why the local authority act in the manner they do. Are they afraid to admit that they are capable of making mistakes? Is this constant changing of direction a reaction to the fact that they have committed too heavy a reliance on their own inward looking criteria? Are they guided by the sole purpose of their existence to the fact that they operate within a system that they themselves know to be corrupt?
Is there a much more simple explanation? That to them it is all just a game where they hold the rule book and that they cannot see beyond that. That they have become so entrenched with winning that they don’t care who they destroy in the process.
In this approach they are protected by the system. The fact that all court hearings are held behind closed doors gives an indication to the machinations that occur. Were openness and honestly to prevail then the constant changing of the goal posts would be seen for what it is. There is too much reliance on this secrecy that tends to show that the local authority have really nothing factual to work with. They know that with the court process being secret they cannot be challenged in the same way as they would be in open court. This gives them the opportunity to direct the judge to allow perjury knowing they will never be prosecuted.
Is there any government service, local or national that can come before the Bar of Justice and claim that it exemplifies moral right? My answer is no. They gave up the moral ground when they decided to follow the path they now take. They became puppets to the system, to the corruption and to their scheming and evil trade in the destruction of the family.
So the real question remains

Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes

Friday 4 May 2012

J'accuse


Chapter 10
J’accuse

Having now experienced several court appearances I can now say that the Justice system in the Family Court is well and truly broken.
I have witnessed a complete and unbelievable turn of events I never thought existed except in a country where the rule of law was controlled by an elite for their own personal satisfaction.
Evidence was presented that proved conclusively that the previous judgment was seriously flawed. Evidence showing witnesses had committed perjury under oath. Evidence showing a child had been abused by members of the local authority. Evidence showed a doctor gave an opinion that was medically indefensible.
Now one would think that with this type of evidence there would be an outcome in favour of the child being returned to the mother.
No, the very opposite happened. The judge decided to ignore the evidence. In fact in the summing up it became very obvious that the judge had in fact never even read the evidence presented.
The mother was blamed for not challenging some of the evidence at a previous court hearing. In blaming the mother for this oversight it showed the evidence presented had never been read. Had it been it would have been seen that at the previous hearing the evidence in question could never have been challenged. The documentation containing the evidence had been withheld by the local authority until after that particular hearing. The express purpose for doing so was that they knew it would have been challenged and their case would have fallen apart. By withholding the documantation the local authority knew it was an unlawful act, an unlawful act ignored by the judge.  Part of the accusation by the local authority was the the child had been considered to be "at risk of neglect" by the mother on a particular date, however, at the time when this "neglect" was supposed to have taken place in the family home the child was in hospital and had been for several days before and after this alleged "neglect" had taken place. There was also evidence presented that the local authority had committed a criminal offence in relation to a potential witness, again this was ignored.
So basically the court and the local authority decided “in the interest of the child” that it was better to leave the child in care where it had been previously abused by the local authority and that this child abuse had been covered up for the best part of a year.
This is the state of British Justice today. Children being condemned to a life of abuse and misery in care rather than the courts and the local authority admitting they have made mistakes.
This system of so call Justice is rotten at all levels, from the Prime Minister down. The politicians with the exception of a very few know this abuse is happening but they refuse to do anything about it. This makes them compliant with the abuse and as such, in the opinion of the author, guilty of child abuse.

Saturday 3 March 2012

The Lost Souls


In the list that follows most will know of two maybe three of these children from news reports, how many of us know of the rest. I know I didn’t. Before I became involved I had no idea of most of these young souls lost. I suspect my list is not even complete as many of the inquest findings into the deaths are suppressed either by the local authorities involved or by the courts, “in the interests of the child”.

Child deaths caused by failure of social services in the UK

Carla Bone aged 13 months
Aberdeenshire Social Services
Social workers repeatedly warned of the dangers

Deraye Lewis aged 3
Bedfordshire Social Services
Social services admit errors on tragic tot death

Balthous Galtricia aged 2
Barking and Dagenham Social Services
Mother cleared to care for Balthous six days before she was killed.

Ajit Singh aged 12
Barking and Dagenham Social Services
Over 160 failings but no-one to blame?

Sean Denton aged 18 mths
Barnet Social Services
Left by Social Services to die at the hands of his drug-abusing mother.

Melissa Strickson aged 13
Blackburn Social Services
Father claims serious failures

Chloe Thomas aged 14 weeks
Bridgend Social Services
Officials told of cruelty just weeks before her death

Brandon Davis aged 2
Birmingham Social Services
Parents were well known to Social Services

Khyra Ishaq aged 7
Birmingham Social Services
Why did social workers ignore warnings, asks MP

Toni-Ann Byfield aged 7
Birmingham Social Services
Agencies slammed over murder

John Smith aged 4
Brighton and Hove Social Services
'Horrendous' mistakes by social workers

Baby Z aged 14mths
Bristol Social Services
The life, and the Social Services failings over the death of Baby Z.

Child A aged 10
Bristol Social Services
Social workers criticised over child death.

Lois Lazenby aged 2
Caerphilly Social Services
On the Child Protection for social abuse

Salma ElSharkawy aged 12
Camden Social Services
Begged SS to go home to her parents

Ukleigha Batten-Froggatt aged 6
Camden Social Services
A child protection team was responsible for her safety.

Chelsea Brown aged 2
Derbyshire social services
System failed a child at risk


Baby A aged 10 mths
Doncaster Social Services
Social services branded 'chaotic and dangerous

Amy Howson Aged 16 mths
Doncaster Social Services
Social services failures resulted in 16-month-old girl's murder.

Kennedy McFarlane aged 3
Dumfries and Galloway Social Services
Child death 'could have been avoided'

Dylan Lockerbie aged 5 months
Dumfries & Galloway Social services
Council admitted to failings in their care of Dylan

Brandon Muir aged 2yrs
Dundee Social Services
Social workers knew of Heather Boyd's chaotic life

Elisha Allen aged 5mths
Durham Social Services
Social services errors led to death of baby.

Caleb Ness aged 11 weeks
Edinburgh Social Services
High-profile failures by social work departments

Kimberley Carlile aged 4
Greenwich Social Services
Numerous visits by Care officials failed to stop the abuse

Antoine Ogunkoya aged 10
Hackney Social Services
Social workers accused on of "frogmarching" children to their deaths'

Kenniece Ogunkoya aged 3
Hackney Social Services
Mother killed her children when social services allowed her an unsupervised visit.

Tyrell Rowe aged 19 months
Hackney Social Services
Social workers criticised over baby's death

Tahla Ikram aged 17 months
Hammersmith, Fulham/Ealing
Social Services said there was no concerns

Peter Connelly - Baby p -aged 18 mths
Haringey Social Services
Baby P was seen 60 times by social workers health visitors and doctors.

Rhys Biggs aged 2mths
Haringey Social Services
Cruel death means nothing if lessons are not learned

Victoria Climbie aged 8
Haringey Social Services
A SOCIAL worker who failed to halt the abuse and murder.

Billie-Jo Jenkins aged 13
Hastings Social Services

Neo Craig aged 10 Months
Havering Social Services (Essex)
Social Workers missed numerous injuries.

Aliyah Ismail aged 13
Harrow Social Services
Child prostitute 'failed' by social workers

Jasmine Bellfield aged 2
Kirklees Social Services
Stab tot’s mum feared social workers

Leticia Aalayah Wright aged 4
Kirklees Social Services
Social services admitted failings

Jasmine Galyer aged 3
Lincolnshire Social Services
Social services had been involved for four years.

Tia Rigg aged 12
Salford Social Services (Manchester)
Social services missed SEVEN opportunities to
help her.

Alex Sutherland aged 13 Months
Manchester Social Services
Social Services missed 17 chances to save him.

Delayno Mullings-Sewell aged 3mths
Manchester Social Services
More failings by police and Child Protection Services

Romario Mullings-Sewell aged 2
Manchester Social Services
More failings by police and social Service

Courtney Crockett aged 3
Manchester Social Services
Social workers said she wasn't at any risk?

Chloe Fahey aged 5
Manchester Social Services
Investigation has been launched into the social services

Alexander Gallon aged 4 months
Newcastle Social Services
Care review follows baby's death

Aaron O'Neil aged 3 months
Newcastle Social Services
Social Worker sacked after baby murder

Ainlee Labonte aged 2
Newham Social Services
Social workers paralysed by fear

Ruby Spink aged 11mths
Norfolk Social Services
Social Services monitoring Ruby when she died.

Lauren Wright aged 6
Norfolk social services
Social worker 'saw girl's bruises'

Lauren Creed aged 5
Norfolk social services
Social Services and police admitted fatal errors.

Amaraye Bryan aged 11 weeks
Nottingham Social Services
Disastrous failures by social workers, police and health staff

Charlotte Avenall aged 8yrs
Nottingham Social Services
Social services condemned over death of girl found hanged

Leanne White aged 3yrs
Nottingham Social Services
Social services who investigated earlier abuse decided there were no concerns.

Violet Mullen aged 15 months
Oldham Social Services
String of mistakes by 11 agencies

Rikki Lee Neave aged 6
Peterborough Social Services
Failed by social services

Jessica Randall aged 2 Mths
Plymouth Social Services
Social services blunders allowed baby death

Perrin Barlow aged 9 Months
Plymouth Social Services
Agencies 'failed' to protect baby

Trae-Bleu Layne aged 3
Reading Social Services
Social Services failed to protect toddler

Tiffany Hirst /Wright aged 3
Sheffield Social Services
Inquiry into whether social services were at fault.

Ashley Chadburn aged 2
Sheffield Social Services
Social workers criticised for the death of a two-year-old boy

Kirk Hammersley aged 7yrs
Stoke-on-Trent Social Services
Kirk was on a child protection register.

Luigi Askew aged 2 Months
Suffolk Social Services
Key questions being asked of Social Workers.

Carly Townsend aged 16
Swansea Social Services
Another catalogue of failings by Children's Services

Chloe Davies aged 16
Swansea Social Services
Failed by agencies to properly protect her.

Kyle Bates aged 16
Swansea Social Services
A number of referrals made to social services were ignored.

Gilbert aged 13 months
Swansea Social Services
Swansea Social Services ignored the warnings

Kimberley Baker aged 11 months
Swindon Social Services
Authorities admit failings over baby's death

Scott Slipper aged 17
Swindon Social Services
Scott's parents failed by Social Services

Baby Jack aged 6 mths
Tameside Social Services
Serious case review was launched.

Chloe Fletcher aged 4
Wirral Social Services
Report slams children's services

Diamond Dwomoh aged 10 mths
Waltham Forest Social Services
Significant shortcomings in methods used in child protection.

Ryan Lovell-Hancox aged 3
Wolverhampton Social Services
A social worker attended the home the day the toddler was rushed to hospital in a coma.

Family Court Corruption - Chapter 9


Is it now government policy to cleanse the population by snatching young babies from their mothers simply because that mother may have a learning difficulty, or the child has a disability of some sort? Or the parents are poor. Where will it end? Is it the start of an insidious move to form some manner of ethnic annihilation where eventually one will have to apply for permission to have and keep a family? Where one will have to fit into a certain predetermined cultural and political mould before that permission is granted. This is the face of Justice in the UK today? Anyone with children may be dragged before one of these secret courts. No criminal charges are made against you but you can be stripped of your identity and your family. All on the word of a social worker with an inflated opinion of their worth ‘thinks’ may happen in the future! No actual evidential proof has to be offered. The case is built on lies, supposition and assumption and suspect opinion from ‘expert’ witnesses who ‘go where the money is’ it is pure crystal ball justice.

Justice has been gagged as well as blindfolded; she has been turned around to present her back on the innocent. The oppressor has control and will continue in their pursuit of their aims to destroy the family structure in the UK.

You will note that throughout this article the author has never mentioned the name of either the mother or the baby or the local authority involved. That is to protect them from the vicious backlash of the courts if I had. The mother could have been sent to prison for contempt of court for something she has never done and had no control over. The procedure in the Family Court is to strip the mother of her identity, to remove her child’s name from the records. In the majority of cases the Judgment made is never published. This results in massive corruption on a scale that beggar’s belief.
The Director of Children’s Services was approached and given the information that the child had been abused in care by a member or members of their staff. The same information was passed to the elected Council members with responsibility for overseeing the working of the department. So what did they do about this?
Absolutely nothing, they buried their heads deeper in the sand and hoped that the problem would go away. I really hate to have to tell them, but the problem will not go away. So much for their concerns that this is all done “in the interests of the child”.

They are allowing the staff under their control to ignore the law and the child’s right to proper medical attention when she was in their care. There is no use saying they did not know, it is their responsibility to know and take action when wrongdoing is found or suspected and to take the appropriate action to investigate and report the incident to the police. By doing nothing they have become part of the problem, they have by their inaction become liable for any criminal action that may follow.
There has been a systematic misuse of State power by the Police and the Local Authority that has caused a Deprivation of Freedom of this little girl and her mother.
While writing this we have all been aware of the phone hacking scandal of certain sections of the press. However, it now seems that the social services are eavesdropping on private Facebook messenger conversations, in other words hacking into them. Will an inquiry be set up to investigate this, I think not. It only involves the small people, the people with no celebrity clout, the people who do not matter to the political establishment except at elections. In days come past these people were considered ‘cannon fodder’ nothing has changed except the position of the battlefield.
I therefore place this in the public domain for those who read it to make their minds up on the situation within the family courts. The questions that have to be asked are –

  1. Should Family Courts be kept secret or opened to public scrutiny?
  2. Should all cases before a UK court be subject to the strict application of factual evidence?
  3. Should any Justice system in the United Kingdom be allowed to operate behind closed doors without a Jury?
  4. Should those social workers and local authorities operating within the system be exempt from prosecution before the law when it is found that they have lied under oath?
  5. Should those social workers and their employers and the elected council representatives who ignore child abuse by their staff be subject to the full force of the law and be prosecuted?
  6. Should those brought before the Family Courts be allowed the same rights under law to open and honest justice before a jury, to the same degree as awarded to murderers, rapists, terrorists and others accused of committing serious criminal acts? At present those brought before the Family Courts are denied these rights.
  7. In general as those brought before the Family Court system have never been charged with a criminal offence and are there because someone ‘thinks they just might’ do wrong sometime in the future. Should this be allowed?

Family Court Corruption - Chapter 8


The family court system, operating as it does in secret, is open to the most insidious corruption of power the author has ever come across. We constantly hear politicians of all parties condemn other countries for their abuse of Human Rights. They are hypocrites, the abuse of Human Rights of mothers, children and parents in general is happening on a daily basis in the United Kingdom right under the politicians combined blue red and yellow noses.
The Government knows this is going on and does nothing to stop the abuse. The next time a politician whines on television, press or radio about a Human Rights Abuse elsewhere or the cost of public services remember what you have read here. This case, at a rough estimate, will have cost the taxpayer somewhere in the region of £750,000 when all that was required was a new mother to be offered some help and support with her ill baby.
This support may have cost the taxpayer a few thousand pounds at most but certainly nothing in realms of the above amount. The politicians both national and at local level are to blame for this mess; they gave unfettered power to people who do not have the training, intelligence or the basic humane skills to use it properly. We all know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The power the local authorities have been given has produced an arrogance that knows no bounds. Arrogance that allows them to ignore the law and directions given by Judges in court
The yearly bill for this system overall throughout the UK is estimated to be in the region of £3.4 billion a year and rising. Most of this money finds its way into the pockets of solicitors, barristers and expert witnesses. It is not in their interests to expose the system for what it is. A vast out of control gravy train running at top speed over the lives of those unfortunate enough to be caught in its track. The foster carer gets £469.00 a week, yes a week, to look after this child. That's £24,388 .00 a year. If returned to the mother she would get an extra £20.00 a week, £1040.00 a year a difference of £23,348.00.  Here lies one of the problems, the pursuit of profit at the expense of the child. Too many pockets are being lined with easy money. 
This is a system so corrupt and lining the pockets of those involved that the Mafia must be envious. Although I suspect the Mafia operating standards would be too high to contemplate such a system that makes war on new babies, children and their parents. They I feel would have too much respect for “the family”.

The system has been referred to as a national disgrace and has now developed into an international disgrace. In Europe the Family Court system in the UK is referred to as a corrupt money making concern. I take it further than this. It is a system supported by corruption on a vast scale run with the full approval of the British Government. In the last few years this country has gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and more recently helped to get rid of Gaddafi in Libya. The excuse for these wars was to rid the world of repressive regimes and dictators.
The self same repressive regime operates freely in the United Kingdom with the full backing of the British Government. It is called the Family Court. On the surface it shows its public face as an organization that is there to protect children. The daily mantra is “the child comes first”. Local authorities constantly hide behind this statement when asked to explain many of their unlawful actions. It is interesting that there are many similarities between this system and the “The Lebensborn Programme”. If you are not familiar with this programme, there is a link on this blog, have a look you may be surprised and shocked by what you find there.
In the authors experience the child caught in the system is of no concern to those administering the system. The main concern is money, local authority employees trying to hold on to their jobs with their inflated wages. They use every excuse they can to hide their real activities. Activities that are supported by the system, supported by corruption within the courts, supported by corrupt politicians and the various corrupt children’s charities who depend on the system to line their own bank accounts. A once respected children’s charity actually made a series of adverts that brought a large number of complaints from the public. They also were banned from broadcasting another series of adverts. Is this the proper way for a children’s charity to act? I think not!
Below I have listed some of the children failed by the system. Where was the protection for them when it was needed? Where was the “concern for the children” in these cases? It was elsewhere; looking for vulnerable families where the children would be ripe for adoption so that their government set adoption targets could be met and maintained.

We have at present an Adoption Czar who thinks that the whole adoption system should be speeded up. Is his concern about the children? I think not. It is simply a matter of speed to save money. His plan denies the children and their respective parents a voice and their human rights. One has to remember where he came from. The aforementioned charity organization where their advertising was the cause of the greatest number of complaints to the ASA. It is let’s hurry before anyone notices what we are really doing to families and children in the UK.

Family Court Corruption - Chapter 7


The local authority social workers attended an Adoption and Permanence Panel (APP) meeting and blatantly lied to the members of the panel. A doctor gave the panel information that was medically indefensible. The doctor obviously knew nothing of the actual cause of this incurable condition. She blamed the mother for her daughter’s condition. It was obvious from reading the minutes of this meeting that the local authority was out to get their own way. If they had to destroy a family and more importantly the child’s future then so be it. It is interesting that there has to this point been no condemnation of the father or his actions. He had found himself another relationship and had effectively given up on his daughter, although he still attended court hearings to make it look as if he cared. Everything seen by the local authority as negative was directed at the mother because she was doing, as mentioned previously, the unthinkable in their eyes, fighting back to protect her daughter.

The condition diagnosed can occur in one of three ways, one that the mother is the carrier of the condition. Two it is the father who is the carrier. Three it can occur spontaneously in the child for the first time. However, the mother had been cleared by forensic testing; she is not a carrier of the condition.  The father, to the best of my knowledge, has never been tested. So why the doctor picked on the mother to be the carrier points to only one possible conclusion. She had been primed by the local authority. I find it incredible that a qualified medical professional will give a statement when they did not know the diagnostic truth of the situation. If ever there was a case for a doctor to be investigated by the General Medical Council this is definitely one of them.
Again this points to the local authority’s determination to blame the mother for this tragedy no matter who they destroy in the process, including the child. Remember we are now dealing with a little girl who has an incurable condition. A little girl snatched from her loving and capable mother to fulfill the desires of a local authority to pander to governmental adoption targets.
These lies were then submitted to court and no one questioned them although they were obvious and pointed out in the mother’s statement to court, they were totally ignored. Throughout the court system there have been numerous lies in the statements made by the local authority and other agencies involved. Let me spell it out here, these cannot be termed in any way whatsoever to be mistakes, these are deliberate lies. The local authority does not expect anyone to pay close attention to what they have written.

After seeing the size of the court bundle I fully understand why they may think this. It is a daunting task to wade through over 3000 pages of reports running to nine large lever arch files and to cross reference all the information. However, the mother, undaunted in her pursuit of justice for her daughter did exactly this. She found the inconstancies in statements submitted to court by the local authority and the ‘experts’. Not one of the mother’s four solicitor firms or five barristers used this in her defense although they had been informed of the lies. One report submitted to court by the local authority was six pages longer than the one submitted to the mothers solicitors. They are all supposed to be the same. A document submitted to court running to 126 pages and used as part of an assessment against the mother was withheld by the local authority for over a year from the mother. It was only released after it could no longer be considered as evidence. This is a flagrant breach of the law. A report from an ‘expert’ witness was passed to others who should never have been allowed to see it. These others then used some of the material contained in this report against the mother. More insidious corruption!
The mother who had over a period of two years and three solicitors and five barristers later finally managed to get another solicitor who she hopefully expected to be on the her side. Again she was sold down the river. All the solicitors involved just rolled over and allowed their client to be crucified in court. Not one offered an effective defense. On investigation of other cases I have found that this is par for the course. The number of cases that solicitors in the family law arena of this type win can be counted on one hand.

Friday 2 March 2012

Family Court Corruption - Chapter 6


This time there was talk of ‘failure to thrive’. Eventually with a change in feeding pattern from feed on demand as previously recommended to a feed every four hours. The baby was once again returned to the family home. The father refused to help to collect his daughter from hospital it was left to the mother to arrange transport with a friend as she does not drive. It is also noteworthy to remember that the father had already moved out of the family home. However, he was ordered by a judge to move back in to help with the child care. A few days after the return home the mother phoned the police.
You may ask why the police and the local authority became involved yet again. The father of the baby assaulted the mother and for her and the baby’s protection she phoned the police. She did so in the belief that the police would at least protect her and her daughter. Instead they snatched the baby and handed her over to the local authority and this small baby was handed to a foster carer. The police did this on the instructions and with the collusion of the local authority. In addition they lied to the mother when they took the baby. There were two witnesses to these lies. During interview with a witness present the police tried to have the mother make a serious false accusation against the father. She refused. The police then issued false information to the Local Authority which they had to later apologize for on instructions from the IPCC after the mother had made an official complaint. In addition the police never made any attempt to carry out a proper investigation into the assault. When the mother approached the local authority the following day they refused to tell her anything. She had no idea where her baby was or how she was, she was told nothing. Again I was witness to this.

The mother was then accused by the local authority of being the cause of her baby girl’s ‘failure to thrive’. The baby had been placed in foster care with an “experienced nurse”. However, this ‘failure to thrive’ continued unabated. Eventually, four weeks later the baby was taken to hospital by the foster carer and had a nasal feeding tube inserted. The mother had said all along that the feeding problem was medically based. This theory was ridiculed by the local authority and another agency involved. The local authority in their desire to prove they were correct then jumped at the chance of using information from the father. This information was passed to them the day after the father had been arrested for assaulting the mother. Were they interested that the father’s information may have been tainted by his arrest and an eight hour incarceration in a police cell? No, they had no interest in that side of the affair. I also suspect they do not have the intelligence to look at claims such as this as being spurious. Their interest was simply to prove their original thoughts as being right. They never asked the mother for her side of the event. They were not interested in looking at this from both sides. The truth was the last thing they wanted to surface.
So here they had information in line with their own thoughts. They could use this against the mother. Whether it was the truth or not was of no interest to them. An assessment was ordered by the court through another family organization. Again what happened during this assessment was the staff involved where totally ignorant of what they were doing. Again there was no compassion or understanding that the mother was suffering from untreated PND. Assessors with no medical qualifications tried to pry into the mother’s past medical history. As with the hospital staff they acted in total ignorance to what damage they may have done. It was only the mother’s tenacity and self awareness that stopped them. To make matters worse at the end of the assessment they blatantly lied to the mother in front of a witness. The evidence of these lies surfaced sometime later as the case progressed.

Numerous tests done on the mother over the following year proved that the information being used against her had not only been suspect but was untrue. These tests were at the insistence of Cafcass, who admitted the tests were in violation of the mother’s Human Rights but pressed for them anyway. Then another blow to their insidious accusations against the mother arose. Cafcass and the local authority are now working hand in hand to damn the mother. It was obvious this was now a vendetta against the mother, this was no longer about protection of the child. They, the social services, eventually, ten months after the mother voiced her concern that her daughter’s problems were medical, sent the baby to a specialist who they hoped would confirm their view of the cause of the baby’s problems. This backfires on both agencies. The baby is diagnosed by specialists as having a rare incurable condition. One of the main misdiagnosis of this condition is ‘failure to thrive’. This was discovered ten months after the mother’s insistence that her daughter’s problems were medically based. It should also be noted that the mother was not alone in her thoughts. Shortly after voicing her thoughts a Consultant Paediatrician had issued a report in which it is stated it would of advantage to have these tests done on this baby. His recommendation was also ignored by both local authority and the Cafcass Guardian.  Had the mother’s fears been acted on sooner by the local authority instead of their adherence to their own misguided agenda, the baby may have been saved from unnecessary pain and suffering she had experienced in her so far short life. Later a consultant pediatrician asked the local authority for information that was required to allow the hospital set up a programme of care for this small vulnerable baby. It took the hospital three requests over a period of three months to get this vital information released by the local authority. Proof that the health and welfare of this small vulnerable baby was of no concern to the local authority, this is in line with other incidents where the same lazy attitude of the local authority’s lack of concern for the health and general welfare of this child in their care surfaced.

This incurable condition was missed at first by three hospital pediatric consultants although there were some ten indicators pointing to it. Two chromosome tests were done and both were lost and a third was ordered, this third general test failed to find the condition. It is also interesting that the foster carer at one point wished to take the baby to A&E as she was concerned that the baby had apparently injured her left arm. It was a, as yet unnamed, non-medical, social worker from the local authority who made the decision not to have the baby examined. It was discovered some months later from x-rays that the baby had had a fractured arm and also discovered there had been various compression fractures to the spine. These had happened whilst the baby was in the care of the local authority. The local authority although required by law to inform the parents did not do so. The local authority then withheld the information on these fractures until it was finally revealed in a doctor’s report one year later. The fact remains they covered up the occurrence of fractures and told no one until the doctor’s report was issued. Had this happened when the baby had been in the mother’s care there is no doubt that she would have been arrested for child abuse and more than possibly jailed. Was anyone within the local authority held responsible for not having the baby medically examined, of course not, the system does not consider this. They are protected from prosecution by the secrecy that is in place to protect the child! This of course is wrong - it is plainly obvious that the child was the victim of their abuse.

Did this new information on the baby’s incurable condition change the authorities mind and return the baby to the mother. No it did not. The local authority racked up and increased the pressure on the mother and treated her in a way that can only be described as humiliating and degrading in its application. She was treated as low life and as if she was the scum of the earth. I suspect that they were in some way transferring their own values of life onto the mother. They saw her as a threat to their warm and comfortable positions within the system. She had had the audacity to do the unthinkable, fight back for the sake of her daughter.
They employed a psychiatrist who is known for his misogynist view of the world. For a massive fee, and I do mean massive, he gave the diagnosis they wished him to give. So he picks that which no one can challenge, the reason being is that it does not exist in pure medical terms. Ask for a scientific medically proven definition and you will find that none exists. That is why the authorities love it so much. It has become the tour de force behind the condemnation of many women who have been caught in this insidious trade of baby abduction by government for profit. If there was any doubt in my mind that the diagnosis was given for purely financial return it was soon dispensed with by remarks made outside court. When someone says ‘I go where the money is’ would you reader consider this to be anything other than what it implies. Remember the title of this series. Family Court Corruption.

Thursday 1 March 2012

Family Court Corruption - Chapter 5


One has to look at the situation the mother is placed in. The mother, during pregnancy, was informed that there may be something wrong with the child she was carrying. Downs Syndrome was voiced as a possibility amongst several other problems. This is a fear that I am sure all expectant mothers dread to hear. There is no way anyone, and in particular the male fraternity can know what effect this has on the mother. One could read all the books ever produced on the subject of pregnancy and never come close to how the mother actually feels.
There would be in most people’s minds an expectation that the hospital staff in a maternity ward would understand to some degree at least what this mother was going through. Especially as most of the nurses in the department were women. Her new baby daughter was ill. The fears that she had harboured during pregnancy flooded back.
Did she receive the understanding and compassion as one would expect from hospital staff. No she did not! What she was met with was outright conflict, hostility and a total lack of concern for her feelings. She was literally pushed aside and expected to react as if nothing untoward had happened or was happening to her new baby. As if the situation she and her baby were in was all perfectly normal. The application of any compassion and human understanding was absent and the mother was plunged, understandably, into Post Natal Depression (PND).
She was criticized by hospital staff shortly after the birth for looking ‘disheveled’. She had given birth, her new precious little daughter was ill and what did they expect, a Vogue model! Where was the humanity? This was not a Hollywood movie it was real life, there were no make-up artists or hairdressers waiting to spring into action. She asked for a consultation with a midwife as she did not feel as she expected she would have. The euphoria she had expected to feel after the birth was not there. The rush of instant maternal feeling she had anticipated was not there. In its place was confusion. A confusion caused by all the different information she was getting from the staff and their insensitive and unfriendly attitude.
Instead of sitting her down to calmly explain what was happening and why, she was met with raw hostility from certain members of the nursing staff. This lack of sympathy was compounded by staff untrained in mental health accusing the mother of having a mental health problem. The request she had made regarding PND was totally ignored and she was threatened with the police arrest if she continued showing signs of these spurious remarks of mental health problems. Part of the problem was that despite suffering from PND she managed to be assertive in her attitude. This was then considered by hospital staff to be aggression. A mistake many make when presented with assertiveness. She was warned that the police would be called.
Can anyone imagine the effect of this? This new mother was being assertive and showing concern for her new daughter who was ill. The attitude was ‘how dare she be assertive’! For nine months a woman carries her baby, she is told there may be problems with her unborn daughter. Would it have been outside the realms of possibility for her to expect some modicum of understanding and compassion? Instead she was met with conflict and threatened with arrest.

It was at this point that the hospital staff decided to call in the local authority social services. There is now suspicion that social services were informed even before the baby was born. This suspicion is based on documentation produced by a hospital midwife during the pregnancy. Documentation that the mother was never informed about. It was only much later that it came to light. It contained information that was totally wrong and should have been checked by a simple phone call to the mother’s GP. This decision to call social services was backed by members of the hospital staff who had never met, talked to, or otherwise had any contact with the mother. It was purely an administrative decision taken on what can only be described as the opinion of staff untrained to deal with this situation. It became obvious that a certain degree of personal animosity from some of the staff also existed.

Meetings were held between the hospital and the social services where decisions were made that the parents were presented with as a fait accompli. There was no consultation process with the parents where they could give their views. The essence of this is the meetings held by the social services and hospital staff could in fact be unlawful. Similar circumstances had been challenged previously in the Appeals Court and had been found to be unlawful and any decision taken at the meeting deemed to be invalid.
The outcome of the meeting was an agreement which at first the mother refused to sign. Not because she did not agree with it, it was simply that it was handwritten and totally illegible. I have seen a copy of this handwritten document and frankly it looks as if an illiterate chicken had walked across the paper. If what I saw was an indication of the written communication methods accepted within the local authority then I am of the opinion that those producing the document need to go back to school. Somewhere around the second or third grade would be appropriate. The mother simply asked for it to be typed. Part of this agreement was that the social services demanded that the mother have a Mental Health Assessment under the Mental Health Act. It has subsequently found that this is a favourite tactic of the social services. It is designed to confuse and upset the mother even further. No consideration that she had an ill baby. It should also be noted that this agreement was presented to the parents without the chance to consult with a legal representative. It was also accompanied with a verbal threat, “sign or you don’t get your baby home” A threat that is nothing less than blatant blackmail, which I may add is a criminal offense and something that must to be looked at in more detail by some other authority.
The result was the mother had two mental health assessments in twelve hours. The first carried out when one of the ‘professionals’, a social worker, was not qualified to be there but subsequently allowed to produce a report. Twelve hours later another assessment was done by properly qualified people. This second assessment concluded that the mother presented as no danger to her baby. All this carried out while this new mother’s baby daughter lay ill in the next room. The author was present at the second assessment and during it a nurse was openly hostile to the mother for nothing other than what can only be described as purely personal reasons. I was later informed that this was one of the hospital staff to whom the mother had been assertive. It was also the nurse who had said to the mother, who when observed to handle her daughter very gently, “babies are a lot more robust than you think” This remark should be held in the mind considering events that were to follow a year later.

Eventually the mother and daughter were allowed home with social services making the father the “primary carer”. At a meeting with social worker in the family home the mother tried to negotiate a small change to the agreement she had been forced to sign. The social worker present only said one sentence “I can see we are in conflict I will have to talk to my manager”. At this he got up and left. There was no discussion, no attempt to listen or negotiate. Again I attended this meeting; my own feelings were that the changes the mother proposed were sensible and not in any way confrontational. It was a simply an attempt by the mother to allow her family some breathing space and attend to their daughters needs. To be in a position where if required they could ask for help. Which later she did and was told there was none available. What she was actually told was, ‘if you need help you have to find it for yourself’.

However this was followed by another ten day admission to hospital for the baby. This time to another hospital at the mother’s insistence, as she considered it superior for the treatment of children. This second hospital stay was due to feeding difficulties continuing and the baby had lost two ounces in weight. Feeding was taking on average an hour and half. This was following the regime suggested by the original hospital to feed on demand.. During ten days her daughter was in hospital the mother visited every day. It required her to make a journey of eighty four miles a day. The father made one visit lasting twenty five minutes. You will note that so far there has been no mention of the father. That is to this point he had been ineffective in protecting his new family. It should also be noted that he had already moved out of the family home leaving the mother to cope on her own despite he had been designated by the social services to be the primary carer.

Family Court Corruption - Chapter 4


The local authority searched around for more ammunition that they could use against this mother. This digging finally went to the past, a past that was over thirty five years old. Can anyone honestly say that they are the same person as they were thirty years ago? In this case the mother certainly was not because that past went back to when she was three years old. What happened to her at that age was pushed to the forefront and she was asked to explain it. Explain what exactly? Explain something she had no control over. Explain it to people she had only just met, who had no understanding of what they were asking or the damage their question could have done. This incident shows the low mentality of the people that she was dealing with. Using the past like this against anyone deprives the victim, and victim this mother has become yet again, of the ability to live in the present. It causes the suppression of genuine emotions and forces the subject, for that is what this mother is considered to be, a subject, an object, not a human being. It was an attempt to shut her off from the experience of embracing the present. It was a past the mother had fought for years to understand and learned to cope with. A fight that was successful thanks to a professional psychotherapist who worked with her to bring her out of the darkness into a place of safety. The local authority marched in with their jackboots and tried to trample her efforts into the ground. There was no attempt by the local authority to look further than the end of their collective noses. Noses that were in my opinion stuck where the sun does not shine.

In this case it was the baby involved who threw her own unexpected spanner into the works of the local authority. The authority had early on decided that this baby would be one ripe for adoption. She would be easy to place; in the words of one social worker to the grandmother “we have loads of people who will adopt her”. Behind this statement there is more than meets the eye. Here we start to see the true reason of the local authority involvement. It is not about the protection of the child. It is the rush of the local authority to meet adoption targets. Targets that they and many in Government constantly deny exist.
The baby suffered some setbacks when she was born. Several concerns were indicated even before the birth. These were indicators that not all was well. The mother was in a position where she had to decide if she wished to carry the pregnancy to term. It was at this point she showed a determination that no matter what the problems may be she would see her daughter born.
The concerns shown in various prenatal scans appeared at first to be unfounded at birth. Twelve hours later the specter of the previous fears arose and her daughter had to be transferred to the Special Baby Unit. The baby could not feed correctly. Eventually the baby was transferred to another hospital and was diagnosed with a complaint which is not rare but is uncommon and can be reasonably treated by medicine and diet. After another period in hospital she was eventually allowed home. What happened in the period between hospital and being allowed home is what gives great cause for concern.

White Rose - Why?


An explanation of why the White Rose.

The White Rose was the name of a group of students in Munich in 1941 who opposed the Nazi party. Several of their members were arrested by the Gestapo and executed. A full description of the movement can be found here - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERwhiterose.htm

Makes for interesting reading considering the state of Justice in the UK Family Courts, some other interesting reading with reference on the subject of the Forced Adoption now being carried as policy of the UK Government can be looked at here and show that it is not new, just a change of name – The Lebensborn Programme was the original. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/children.html you may be surprised.

The Procrustean Solution - Chapter 3


 Procrustean Solution (Procrustes [Προκρούστης] )

What, you may wonder, does this have to do with a case in the Family Court? It is in the presentation of evidence to the Court by the Social Services that falls foul to the Procrustean Solution.

Firstly who was Procrustes? He was a figure from Greek Mythology a blacksmith and bandit from Attica. He would invite travellers to spend the night in one of two iron beds. If the traveller was too big for the short bed Procrustes would chop off the traveller’s legs to fit the bed, if too short for the longer bed, he would be stretched to fit. The original one size fits all!

It's important when faced with a problem to consider it carefully and find a solution that fits it, rather than forcing it into a premixed solution, a Procrustean bed. Templates and models of past situations are useful, but it is they that must fit the empirical circumstances, not the other way around.
The local authority makes the bed—the solution—fit their needs. Doing this takes a lot of knowledge. Those in the local authority do not have the knowledge of a sufficient quality. If they had had it would not be so easily discovered that the bed of information presented in the Family Court case is so badly made.

It takes craft and skill to make the bed fit the sleeper. It requires one to listen carefully to the scope of the problems. What are the real problems? One must ask have we obtained enough information. Have we supplied the right information? Is the information supplied true?
Crafting the solution to fit the problem also means exercising informed choices. Deciding what's really important and what is fluff? The local authority used more fluff than fact in the hope that no one would notice. In this case someone did notice!
One must not try to envision how to make the solution work until the problem has been thoroughly understood by those being asked to adjudicate. The adjudicators to do this efficiently and to the best of their abilities must be supplied with all the available information. In too many cases the adjudicators are not supplied with the proper and true information. In layman's terms they are lied to.

It's too easy to take up the approach of Procrustes and adjust the problem to fit the solution. As the local authority does when presenting their information to the Court.  I fear that the local authority managers and some in executive positions approach this daunting issue by emulating the misguided Greek guy. Their answer is to stretch the problems on the rack until they see it as the perfect fit or they amputate those inconvenient parts of the problem that do not give them their desired result. If the child and parents involved suffer they do not care. The social services have the result they want regardless of the what the truth is.

Worse still, do they know when they are taking those kinds of actions or even worse,  are they  ashamed when their Procrustean tendencies are exposed.

It becomes business as usual with no thought given to the damage done to the individuals involved, so at many levels within the local authority the evil that is Procrustes and his bed survive unabated.

Sometimes the bed fits. But often it doesn't, and the result of the local authority trying to use their preconceived distorted elements and presenting them to the Court as the truth is extremely misleading and very dangerous especially when engaged as we are in legal action. We are not here dealing with some inanimate object. Here we are considering the long term care of a young child. In spite of this being a human tragedy the local authority decides to try and use methods to gain their aims by any means at their disposal without regard to the truth of the situation.

Ultimately, emulating Procrustes often results in the same fate he suffered. Having made their bed, the local authority will eventually be forced to recline in it, stretched to fit or sans legs.

Family Court Corruption Chapter 2


It is this desire by a local authority department to exert control and to bury an individual’s right to a family that first brought me into the arena that I now fight in. It was the local authority trying to impose their dictatorial control over a new mother that was directly responsible for my involvement.
At first I thought it can’t be this bad! My reaction was the same as many I have experienced since “No they can’t do this can they?” As time progressed I was to get a serious wake up call. Yes they can and do. Not only was it bad, it got worse as time went one.
The arena that the fight takes place is laughingly called “Family Court”. The adherence to any semblance of family or family values is the last thing you will find in this system. In the arena of this system where there two sets of rules, the family has to follow one set. Their rules are fixed and rigid. The other side in this combat field is the local authority. Their rules are totally different. They are allowed to move the goalposts when it looks as if the family will score a victory. They, the local authority, are allowed to lie and cheat in the knowledge that no one will stop them. They form with a like minded group of solicitors, barristers and expert witnesses who will touch forelock and hold out their large caps to collect the ill gotten gains being offered. They line up to take their prebooked seats on the gravy train as it leaves the station. The local authority has no rigidity applied to their method of operation. The law states that both parties operate under the same rules, however, the local authority just ignore that and operate as they see fit.
 
In the family case I have been involved with against a local authority, they have acted to impose tyrannical control over the proceedings. This has been at the expense of the application of common sense and empathic understanding. In their rush to control the situation they have used the aforementioned statistical information to try and enhance their case.
This has been supported by the constant changing of conditions, the application of misinformation, or in layman’s terms lies, and the blind adherence to the rule book. No rule book ever written can cover all eventualities. The old adage holds true in this situation, ‘The rule book is written for the adherence of fools and the guidance of wise men’. In this case the latter seems to be in very short supply when one is dealing with the local authority. There was a high degree of self interest in that they offered nothing but garbled and incomplete evidence. This avoided logical argument and sought to influence any verdict and hid their true intentions from their victims.
The local authority employed professional experts in many disciplines to give results that they try to convince us to be independent. However, these ‘experts’ are subject to the instructions of their paymasters and as such cannot be termed independent in the true sense. The information fed to these experts by the local authority is tainted and never investigated as to its veracity. When the expert’s income depends on their compliance with their paymaster’s demands there is no profit for the expert to carry out a deep investigation to find where the truth resides. The instructions of the local authority enforcers are paramount.

The expert’s ability to question properly is destroyed by a system designed to discourage honesty. The local authorities supply these experts with information that can only have one eventual outcome. The result the authority requires is controlled by the questions they ask. These questions are designed and based to give the classic Procrustean Solution.