Thank you for the great response and support you gave to my first installment of this series. I offer my heartfelt thanks to you all in return.
Besides the persecution carried out by the Social Services on my own family, there are countless others out there facing the same injustices and many of them, like my sister, have paid the ultimate price.
It is for my sister and all the families who are experiencing the same horrors that I tell this story and expose the sinister and often unseen side of the Child Care System.
In this second chapter, I will be exploring the involvement of politicians who have campaigned against forced adoptions.
Over the years many political figures have voiced their opinions about children being placed into the care of the state and while there is a vast spectrum of reasons for placing children into the care system, the emotional, mental, and social consequences regardlessly remain. Some of these consequences were explored in my previous post for 
Generally the Child Care System tics away in the background like a Swiss watch, never missing a beat and rarely opened for repair. If it wasn't for the odd "mishap", like "Baby P" or the more recent "Baby Arthur" situations, I would dare to say that those fortunate enough to never have the Social Services invade their family life wouldn't ever be aware that 80,000 children are placed into the care system year after year.
Most would assume that the "Scandals" which make their way into the public domain serve to expose the Social Services for the broken, corrupt, and misguided enterprise that it is. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. Baby "P" and Baby "Arthur" are indeed tragic cases but they are by no means a true reflection of the problem, nor do they reflect an accurate representation of the numbers of children who are failed by the social services, day in, day out. Truth be known, there are an unimaginable number of children who lose their lives and/or their innocence while under the supervision of the Social Services. These tragic failings were highlighted to the point of nausea during the IICSA (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) and while many victims were classified as "historic cases" there was also ample evidence to prove the system remains rotten to the core.
In a humane and well-governed society, these scandals and inquiries would be the catalyst for improvement. They would expose the villains and smash down the walls of silence and fear they have used as barricades. However, their world is neither humane nor well-governed, and these "scandals" and "independent inquiries" only serve to add more fortifications around those who benefit from the Child Care System. And while certain pawns may be thrown under the bus from time to time in a vain effort to show the government cares, the Child Care System tics away like a Swiss watch, never missing a beat.
Problem. Reaction. Solution...(And the solution is always more money and power for the Social Services).
More often than not, it is only when these scandals enter the public domain that certain politicians speak out against the Social Services. There are many MPs out there who need no such encouragement or reason to speak out, and they often do because there are always plenty of reasons to bring the Social Services under the microscope. However, the politicians who wait for the scandals to happen before they act are usually the ones who have the greater impact...
Problem
Victoria Climbié became synonymous with child protection failings after she was murdered in Haringey, north London in 2000.
Lord Laming’s public inquiry, which reported in 2003, found the eight-year-old was let down by a “gross failure of the system”, involving poor practice, a lack of accountability for it at senior level and inadequate interagency working.
His recommendations formed the basis of the Every Child Matters reforms, enacted in the Children Act 2004, which have radically reformed safeguarding in England over the past four years (see panel, below).
The role of director of children’s services was introduced to assume full accountability for council services, and local safeguarding children boards established to ensure relevant agencies are engaged in protecting children.
Now, the case of Baby P, also in Haringey, has raised questions over the state of child protection and whether the Laming reforms are working. At the end of the Baby P trial last week, ministers asked Laming to look at progress since his first review. Social care leaders are already discussing the issues he should consider.
Reaction
Jane Haywood, chief executive of the Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC), says it may review its strand of the national occupational standards for social work, “to ensure that safeguarding and the need to challenge is at the heart of this”.
Solution
The Department for Children, Schools and Families is already investing £73m from 2008-11 in the development of children’s social workers. This includes £21m for three-year pilots, organised by CWDC, to provide extra support for newly qualified social workers, including fortnightly supervision and dedicated time for training and development.
Haywood says the CWDC will adjust the pilots, which began in September, if necessary in the light of the Haringey case.
As I mentioned earlier, there are always plenty of reasons to scrutinise the Child Care System, with or without a national scandal, and there are always plenty of MPs out there who are willing to do just that. There is one thing you will notice between those who wait to voice their opinions and those who are always fighting for the rights of children, regardless of what's trending, and that is that you simply won't hear the ones who fight continuously. Here are just a few examples of those who do not need a scandal in order for them to speak out...
Below is footage from the European Parliament from some years back when Sabine McNeill pleaded with delegates from all over Europe to help end the Social Services’ rampant abuse against families within the UK, informing them that 1000 children per month were being taken into care…
This next video features John Hemming, MP, explaining what he has learned about the corruption within the family court process and the care system.
“one social worker from Birmingham came to visit me and explained how he would sit down with the PARENT’S SOLICITOR and work out the best way for the parent to lose the case”
For her efforts, Sabine McNeill found herself ostracised, smeared, and at the receiving end of a government-backed witch-hunt and like many who join the ranks to protect children and call out the Child care system for its failings, Sabine found herself influenced and sidetracked by those with more extreme views which ultimately led to her own destruction.
Although I feel Sabine lost her focus and allowed the major issue to become clouded in the extreme, less relatable, side of this debate, one of Sabine's greatest achievements was to bring attention to this;
PETITIONS COMMITTEE CONCERN AT UK FORCED ADOPTIONS
Another such person who I feel is being led down a similar path is John Wedger, an ex-police detective who attempted to blow the whistle on former high-ranking colleagues he knew to have covered up child sexual abuse and protected known high-profile peadophiles.
I once spoke to John Wedger on the phone for about an hour and a half, when I was heavily involved in Lawful Rebellion, and to me, he seemed absolutely genuine and sincere. Here is John speaking with Brian Gerrish from the UK Column news about his experiences.
Getting back to the subject of Members of parliament, Liberal Democrat, John Hemming fared no better against those who refused to accept their government could allow such corrupt practices to exist.
John Hemming raised very specific allegations about the corruption in the family courts in the case of RP v Nottingham [2008] which were rejected by Wall LJ as being without evidence:
- It is plain to me from these documents, that in addition to the allegations set out above, Mr. Hemming believes that HJ was in the pay of the local authority and thus was “the local authority’s expert”. For good measure, he asserts that the system is “evil” and that “there does seem to be little concern in the legal profession about the reliability of opinion offered in court.”. The clear implication behind the “witch findings” items on the website set out at paragraph 95 above is that “experts” like HJ are in it for the money; that they are happy to “manufacture ‘evidence'”; and that they are in receipt of “phoney” letters of instruction. The result, Mr Hemming asserts is a “disaster”.
- In my judgment, these comments are not only wrong and ill-informed; the simple fact remains that they have no foundation in the evidence presented either to the Nottingham County Court or to this court. That they are made publicly by Mr Hemming once again strikes me as an abuse of his position.
Wall LJ went on to say at para 127:
In my judgment, the arguments advanced by Mr Hemming in this case are ill-informed and tendentious. They are contradicted by the evidence, and must be rejected. I think this most unfortunate. Nobody who works in the Family Justice System regards it as perfect: most of us see it as under-resourced and struggling to deal with the work loads thrust upon it. Constructive criticism, particularly from those in a position to bring about change, is to be welcomed. I am myself in no doubt that the system must change and adapt, and I have spoken many times in public in support of my belief that there needs to be greater transparency in order to combat the partial, tendentious and inaccurate criticisms made against the system. I therefore welcome the opportunity provided by this case to demonstrate that the system has operated properly, and that the criticisms made are unfounded.
source
For people like me and you who sit and spectate, these battles only ever become one person's word against another's. I do not have the time to sift through the mounds of evidence that supports the opinions of people such as John Hemming, Sabine Mcneill, John Wedger, and the countless others who fight the good fight. But like every other reputable truth speaker, they more often than not offer considerably more material evidence than those who resist them.
Another point well worth mentioning is this; how many of you reading this have ever heard of Sabine McNeill? How many news reports have you read that feature John Hemming? And before you read this post, did you even know John Wedger existed? No, probably not. And that's a major part of the problem. Maybe if the mainstream media did their job and remained impartial, then, maybe, you would be aware of such opinions. Like many of the posts I write for
How many other families do you think will be blindsided and then trapped by the hidden nuances of the family courts? How many whistleblowers will be led down the same path as John Wedger and Sabine McNeill? More importantly, how much more authority will be handed over to the state in relation to the way they dictate how we raise our own children? A recent post added to the
