UK BECOMING ABUSE CAPITAL OF THE WORLD FOR CHILDREN
This is another appalling UK abuse case once again covered up for many years.
The UK becoming the most dangerous place for children to reside in.Children being stolen in masonic run courts and fed to the beasts they select to operate state run childrens homes
Fifty kids raped at Catford South London care home
AT LEAST 50 kids were raped at a council-run children’s home in a horrific catalogue of abuse lasting 40 years, detectives fear.
A major investigation was launched after a former resident of the home recognised his abuser in the street 30 years later – and beat him up.
The victim, now in his 40s, was arrested over the attack and poured his heart out to cops about the abuse he had suffered as a child.
Specialist officers then began a probe, and now believe at least 50 children were raped and abused at Hollydale Children’s Home in Catford, South London.
Yesterday the home’s former head, John Darby, 71, was charged with 46 offences of rape, indecent assault and possessing abusive images.
The charges relate to seven boys between 1971 and 1983, when Lewisham Council closed the home. Andrew Chambers, 65, a former supervisor at the home, faces ten child sex abuse charges. Both men were bailed to appear before Greenwich JPs on June 20.
The events echo the plot of the film Sleepers, in which a man who was abused at a kids’ home shoots his tormentor years later.
A source said: “The man who was supposedly abused never told anyone and buried it away all those years, but snapped after seeing him.”
Police tracked down other victims around the country after recovering films and photos taken by staff.
One detective said: “The victims had locked the abuse away. It has been incredibly emotional and stressful for them to finally open up and say what happened.
“They’ve been given counselling to help them deal with it. Others we approached do not want to know.
“This inquiry is huge, one of the biggest we have ever undertaken. We believe there could be more victims and want them to come forward.”
Darby was head of the school from the 1960s until 1983.
He also worked at other Lewisham homes and Catholic care homes.
ROBIN GIBB DRIVEN TO BRINK OF MADNESS OVER CHILD CUSTODY
Any father enduring the anguish of an enforced estrangement from his children will know the grief felt by Robin Gibb.
Having been denied access to his daughter and elder son for six years after his first marriage ended in divorce, the Bee Gee compares the sense of loss to bereavement.
'I felt as if I was on the verge of madness,' he says.
It was distressing and very traumatic because I had no contact whatsoever. There was no response to my calls, no acknowledgement of my gifts, no letters. I felt dejected, rejected, worthless. Nobody was telling me anything about my kids.
'You can achieve great things in life professionally, but if your children are being kept away from you, you feel empty. Emotionally, mentally and spiritually I felt abandoned.
'I had some of my blackest moments during those lost years when my children became strangers to me. I think the bleakness I felt was matched only when my twin brother Maurice died.'
Imagine if every time there was a case of food poisoning at McDonald's, it made the evening news. But food poisoning at Burger King got no mention at all. What would you conclude?
The same applies to domestic violence. Even though women initiate violence against men in almost equal numbers, most of the publicity is devoted to women as victims.
This is because feminist activists, funded and empowered by Rockefeller social engineers, want to stigmatize men and marriage in the eyes of young women. They want young women to Eat at Lesbian Jill's or Single Jane's but definitely not at Joe's. This is how mass behavior modification works.
Just as the banksters propagandized workers, Blacks and Jews to do their bidding,they used feminism to harness the political power of women who couldn't get a date Saturday night.
The banksters gave them positions of power in government and media. So periodically we get a dose of propaganda about how domestic violence stalks married women.
I do not condone domestic violence of any kind. But I resent that this problem is exploited for an evil political agenda: to destroy marriage and family and so render us more vulnerable to totalitarian control.
In Canada for example, 646,000 men (6%) reported being the victim of spousal violence at least once in the previous five years (compared to 654,000 women or 7%); yet absolutely nothing is done for them. There are 300 women's shelters and not one for men. When a man is being abused, he needs a place to go.
Researchers who document violence against men are ignored, censored, slandered and threatened by government funded feminist activists. (See Murray Strauss article at very bottom of this page.)
Feminist activists use domestic violence as a Symbol of Male Oppression. Violence perpetrated by women would blur this politically charged message.
GAY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Domestic violence by gays and lesbians also would blur this message. We never hear that "Spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples. Fifteen percent of gay and lesbian relationships experienced violence." (Statistics Canada, Oct 2006)
This is because they want the homosexual "lifestyle alternative" to appear as attractive as possible. Homosexuality is the inability to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex due to gender identity confusion. The goal of social engineers is to spread this form of arrested development to society at large.
Also, social engineers want homosexuals to have the glamor of being "victims" of straight violence.
In her excellent "Crafting Gay Bisexual Children" (p. 291) Judith Reisman cites gay authors David Island and Patrick Latellier who estimate 650,000 gay men are battered by a partner every year. They estimate the rate of gay-on-gay violence is three times straight-on-gay intimidations or assaults. They estimate 20% of gay relationships are poisoned by domestic violence." ("Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them")
Women who have been to a woman's shelter will tell you how callously they are treated by the hags employed there. Distressed women are pressured to end their marriages, and are offered help and resources to do so. Feminists are not interested in the welfare of women. They rely on domestic violence for their cushy jobs and to emasculate men (by portraying them as abusers.)
The publicity given to male domestic violence,as opposed to the other equal or more prevalent kinds, illustrates how elite social engineers select information to shape mass perception and behavior according to the New World Order agenda.
DRACONIAN ATTACK ON MEN AS UK MEDIA BACKS CROOKED JUDGES AND LAWYERS
More draconian attacks on heterosexual men by UK media
supporting crooked judges and lawyers
For anyone unfamiliar with the lying devious perjury
that goes on every day in British courts
the ultimate goal to fleece assets,properties
business's and children under the guise of protection
orders.That is like Hitler excusing the killing of
thousands claiming it was for the protection
of German citizens.
Get rid of a problem while stealing the wealth of the
victims.Domestic abuse used to mask the rise
of UK fascist state abuse and the grand theft of the
family silver and our children
"A system of Government plunder providing a force subsidy against the separated father."
"More government chicanery is perpetrated under the guise of children than anything else."
" Men are forced to part with their children who are being used as hostages ."
"Children need a FATHER not money garnished from the father for the benefit of the mother."
Americans are generally aware that our Divorce Culture is a documented tragedy, but most seem to think that the availability of so-called "no fault" divorce is just a permanent reality. Few Americans seem to understand that marriage is being undermined by what can be called a "Divorce Industrial Complex" that includes lawyers, counselors, court personnel, and various others.
In other words, divorce is something of a market reality in America, and millions of persons are involved in this business. As a matter of fact, the income of these persons -- and the future of the divorce "market" -- depends on numerical growth in the number of divorces that occur each year.
Stephen Baskerville, Assistant Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College is the author of an excellent analysis of this problem, giving special attention to the fact that our current divorce laws -- and what he calls the "divorce industry" tears apart families and discriminates against fathers.
In his new book, Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family, Baskerville reveals the divorce industry for what it is -- and for what it means to this nation and its families.
Professor Baskerville recently appeared on The Albert Mohler Program. In that conversation he said:
Americans would be very shocked if they knew what was going on in this country under the name of divorce – no fault divorce. What we call divorce has become essentially a euphemism for government officials, courts, primarily social service agencies, to invade families. To invade families, to separate children from parents who have done nothing wrong, to plunder the parents for everything they have in many cases and even to criminalize the parents – to jail them without trial and to turn them into criminals in ways that the parents are powerless to avoid. Overwhelmingly the victims of this are fathers, though at some times it happens to mothers as well. It's usually, not a matter of gender bias, it's a matter of power and of money, of the huge machine that has grown up in the last four decades around the question of no-fault divorce and child custody and related issues.
This "huge machine" is not only a threat to the family; it is a threat to liberty. Professor Baskerville gets to the heart of the issue. Speaking of the divorce industry, he said:
Oh, it's huge . . . . And what's most important about it is this huge machine is government based. It's not just private entrepreneurs in this case, it's government officials. It is lawyers, it is judges, it is the huge social service bureaucracy devoted to child, so called, child protection, child support enforcement, domestic violence counseling mediation, it's a huge entourage of hangers on that are not only profiting from divorce but increasing government power over private lives in very dangerous ways.
Americans who think of divorce as a marginal issue to the culture would do well to consider this evidence. The pathology of easy divorce is now documented all around us. Even more tragically, we have allowed --and even encouraged -- an entire industry to grow up around the destruction of marriage. The Divorce Industrial Complex is judgment on us all.
BREAKDOWN OF UK FAMILIES AS DESTRUCTIVE AS GLOBAL WARMING
This is RICH coming from a British judge with full knowledge that UK
MASONIC judges are the cause of irrepairable damage to
separated families assets and homes. THEFT ON A MASSIVE SCALE.
Britain is suffering from an epidemic of family
breakdowns affecting all levels of society from the
Royal family downwards, one of the country's most
senior judges will say today.
Mr Justice Coleridge, who presided over the
preliminary divorce hearings of Sir Paul McCartney and
Heather Mills, will accuse Gordon Brown of
prioritising the abolition of plastic bags over
support for families, and say the Government is
"fiddling while Rome burns".
"Family breakdown is at all levels of society - from
the Royal family downwards," he will say.
"Without being in any way over-dramatic or alarmist,
my prediction would be that the effects of family
breakdown on the life of the nation, and ordinary
people, in this country will, within the next 20
years, be as marked and as destructive as the effects
of global warming.
"We are experiencing a period of family meltdown whose
effects will be as catastrophic as the meltdown of the
Judges are witnessing a "never-ending carnival" of
human misery, and almost all of society's social ills
can be traced back to the collapse in family
stability, he says.
Many single mothers do a good job, but thousands of
children are being raised by women who have several
children by several fathers, none of whom stick
The judge, who has 37 years of experience of family
law and is Family Division Liaison judge in the
south-west legal circuit, stretching from Hampshire to
Cornwall, will speak in Brighton at the annual
conference of Resolution, which represents 5,000
His intervention - one of the most strongly worded of
its kind by a serving judge in recent years - comes as
new figures show marriage levels are at their lowest
since 1862, and the number of children living with a
single parent has doubled in 20 years.
Lawyers say family courts are overstretched to the
point of collapse.
Mr Justice Coleridge, 58, who is married with a
daughter and two sons, is expected to say that the
family justice system - comprising social workers,
local authorities, mental health specialists and legal
experts - is all that stands between the present dire
situation and "social anarchy".
It is understood he will call for laws relating to
unmarried couples to be modernised, giving cohabitees
legal rights on separation, enforceable pre-nuptial
agreements, and for reform of divorce law to remove
the "fault" element and blame from the process.
He also wants the Government to invest millions in
properly researched projects which boost family
DIVORCE AS MILLS PROVES ,GOLDDIGGERS STILL GET RICH IN UK COURTS
It is a rarity in a British court for a judge to speak highly of the father.Paul did not deserve a bitch like
gold digger Mills, however if Paul had not been a famous singer or a Knight of the realm he would
have like most fathers been persecuted in these utter dens of inquity. Mills actually was right about the whole
charade surrounding Britain's divorce /family courts but for the wrong reasons.
She was expecting as most
gold diggers have done, throughout the time the sordid family court system has been operating, expect to walk away
with millions more than she did.It is so easy, as generally judges and lawyers LOVE gold diggers and the lies
they tell that ensures divorce actions stretch out for years funded by legal aid. Paul has been in a very
fortunate position and a rarity ANY judge did not home in on the bitches lies about her facing abuse.
This is an age old scam that lawyers use to get the upper hand in divorce.She played the same lying two
faced bitch game but on this occasion ,and due to the position of her ex husband,she failed.
We need complete reform of family/civil courts with the powers taken away from hand picked lackeys of
the state and when necessary, any litigant can INSIST on a jury NOT a judge deciding on the separation of wealth.
The legal parasites are doing more harm to marriage than any other single factor in the history of court
actions. Scandalous that so few have so much power over so many and all because two people fall out of love.
THE BIGGEST RACKET IN BRITISH HISTORY ABOVE ALL ELSE.
The California appeals court decision criminalizing parents who homeschool their children is only the tip of an iceberg. Nationwide, parents are already being criminalized in huge numbers, and it is not limited to homeschoolers.
During the Clinton years, the trend toward turning children into tools for expanding government power increased rapidly. Otherwise indefensible programs and regulations are now rationalized as "for the children."
As a result, government now has so many ways to incarcerate parents that hardly a family in America has not been touched. The criminalization of parents is highly bureaucratic, effected through a bureaucratic judiciary and supported by a vast "social services" machinery that few understand until it strikes them. They then find themselves against a faceless government behemoth from which they are powerless to protect their children or defend themselves.
Homeschoolers are usually accused of "educational neglect," a form of child abuse. Like other child abuse accusations, it does not usually involve a formal charge, uniformed police, or a jury trial. Instead the accusations are leveled by social workers, whose subjective judgment is minimally restrained by due-process protections. As Susan Orr, head of the federal Children's Bureau points out, these social workers are in effect plainclothes police – but they are not trained or restricted like regular police.
Homeschoolers are not alone. Any parents can be charged with "child abuse" on the flimsiest of pretexts, because child abuse has no definition. Because of our presumption of innocence, crimes are generally defined as they are adjudicated: A crime has been committed if a jury convicts. But the roughly 1 million cases of child abuse annually (out of 3 million accusations) are "confirmed" or "substantiated" not by jury trials but by social workers or (sometimes) judges. Most such parents are not imprisoned. They merely lose their children.
Virtually every American can now tell of a relative or friend visited by the feared Child Protective Services because of a playground injury or a routine bruise. Too many dismiss these frightening ordeals as aberrations. In fact, they proceed from a bureaucratic logic that is driven by federal funding. The more "abuse" the social workers find, the more money they get to combat it.
But serious as this is, it is still mild compared to the largest sector of semi-criminalized parents: the involuntarily divorced. The moment one parent files for divorce, even when no grounds are evinced, the government automatically and immediately seizes control of the children, who become effectively wards of the state. Astoundingly, they are then almost always placed in the "custody" of the parent that initiates the divorce, placing the divorcing parent and the state in collusion against the parent that is faithful to the marriage and family. The non-divorcing parent, even if legally unimpeachable, can then be arrested for unauthorized contact with his or her own children. Here too abuse accusations can be readily fabricated out of thin air, further criminalizing the innocent parent. He (it is usually, though not always, the father) can then be arrested, even without a shred of evidence that any abuse has occurred. He can also be arrested if he cannot pay child support that may consume most or even all his income. He can even be arrested for not paying a lawyer or psychotherapist he has not hired.
But what is most striking here – in contrast to homeschoolers – is the absence of opposition. The genius of the feminists is to vilify fathers in terms designed to incur the revulsion of decent people – "pedophiles," "batterers," "deadbeat dads" – and too many conservatives and Christians are fooled.
In fact, the social science data are clear that these alleged malefactors are rare among biological fathers and almost entirely the creation of feminist propaganda. Accused fathers are no more likely to be criminals or child abusers than are homeschooling parents. They have merely fallen into the clutches of another sector of the child exploitation bureaucracy.
Indeed, it is well-known among scholars that true child abuse takes place overwhelmingly in single parent homes – homes without fathers. By removing fathers under trumped-up abuse accusations, the child abuse apparatchiks create the environment for real abuse, further expanding their business.
Campaigns against homeschoolers and fathers are only the extreme manifestations of the larger attack on all parents. They indicate where we all may be headed if we do not take a united stand for parental rights against a judicial-bureaucratic machine that is not only destroying families but justifying its own expansion in the process.
Though conservatives often misuse the term, two features used by scholars to define totalitarian government were its highly bureaucratic methods and its willingness to invade and destroy the private sphere of life, particularly family life. Both these tendencies come together in the governmental leviathan that now administers our children: the education establishments, family courts, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, "human services" agencies, counseling services, domestic violence programs and much more.
The very idea that the criminal justice system has been diverted from its role of protecting society from dangerous criminals and instead used to threaten law-abiding parents with jail for educating or raising or simply being with their children should be seen by all Americans as a serious threat to our families and our freedom.
By Stephen Baskerville
An associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of "Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family" (Cumberland House, 2007).
Same-sex couples may be next in line to experience the 'institutional injustice' of the family courts
Judges are increasingly making law instead of ruling on it, according to a new report from the independent think-tank Civitas, and the Human Rights Act has provided them with the perfect basis for doing so. The Act's supporters sometimes deny this but the truth was admitted by a Law Lord, Lord Hope: 'It is now plain that the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic law will subject the entire legal system to a fundamental process of review and, wherever necessary, reform by the judiciary'. (p.3. Emphasis added.)
With rising numbers of divorces, the average citizen is most likely to experience the court system in the family courts, and it is here that the quality of judicial decision-making has acquired the worst reputation. In Institutional Injustice, Martin Mears, the former President of the Law Society, shows how some judges in the family courts have 'developed' the law by promoting concepts such as 'equality' and 'non-discrimination' (which are not to be found in the Matrimonial Causes Act) to an extent amounting to virtual new legislation (pp.53-58). The result, he argues, has been a culture of 'institutional injustice' in the family courts, with astonishing judgments that take no account of even the most flagrant examples of bad conduct and bad faith. Martin Mears now warns that same-sex couples may find themselves smarting under the same unjust regime, when relationships formalised under the new civil partnerships legislation start to break down.
When is a contract not a contract?
It is a generally accepted rule of contract law that, when a contract breaks down, the party responsible should compensate the innocent party for their disappointed expectations. This is not so in family law, where judges refuse to take conduct into account in divorce hearings except in the most extreme cases - and not always then. Martin Mears cites the case of a woman who stabbed her ex-husband in the stomach and was convicted of assault. The judge held that this conduct justified a reduction in maintenance from £195 a month to £50 a month, but not its abolition (p.31). In an even more disturbing case, a woman hired a hit-man to kill her ex-husband 35 years after their divorce. In this case the maintenance order was discharged, but the judge ruled that: 'it is not every homicide, or attempted homicide, by a wife of a husband which necessarily involves a financial penalty'.
'What can these extraordinary words mean other than that if Mrs Evans had been able to put together a plausible tale in mitigation, or if she had come before a more amenable judge, she could have received her maintenance until the day she or her husband died?' (p.32)
Dividing the assets
The result of this refusal to take into account the conduct of divorcing parties is that 'a party who has repudiated all the obligations of the marriage can claim the financial benefits accruing from it to the same extent as if he/she had behaved impeccably'. (p.75). Some of the rulings of the family court seem to defy all concepts of justice, and sometimes common sense. A man whose ex-wife applied for an increase in her maintenance, on the grounds that she had given birth to a child by an Irishman who had returned to Ireland, objected to being asked to support another man's child. The judge ruled against him, and granted the wife's petition, on the grounds that: 'For all we know, the child may have been conceived in circumstances that reflect nothing but credit on the wife, for example under promise of marriage from the father'. (p.38)
In the case of Clark-vs-Clark, the wife, according to the judge, 'did not love her husband and she only married him for his money' (p.19). She refused him his conjugal rights, put him into a geriatric home, used his wealth to shower gifts on her younger lover, and drove him to an attempted suicide. She was nevertheless awarded a package worth £552,500, reduced to £175,000 on appeal, on the grounds that 'it would be harsh in the extreme to leave her with nothing' (p.23).
Who will be the first gay divorcee?
It is impossible for people to protect their assets by drawing up pre-nuptial agreements, as these have no standing in British courts.
'It is not surprising that for wives married to rich husbands, London now rivals California as the divorce forum of choice. Indeed, … it is surprising that any rich man marries at all.' (p.101)
However, Martin Mears warned today that these questions, which used to be regarded as being relevant only to heterosexual couples, are about to become live issues for the gay and lesbian community as well, under the new civil partnerships legislation.
'If I were asked for advice by a man or woman considering entering upon a civil partnership, I would ask who was bringing the larger share of assets to the relationship. If my client had more valuable assets, I would advise him or her against entering such a partnership, given the record of the courts in regarding all assets as joint assets, even when one partner has contributed little or nothing to the joint stock. The divorce drone could easily become a reality for same-sex couples, after a long run of almost unbroken successes in the family courts following the breakdown of heterosexual relationships.'
'Institutional Injustice: The Family Courts at work' by Martin Mears is available from Civitas, 77 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2EZ, tel 020 7799 6677, www.civitas.org.uk, for £10.50 inc. P&P.
An American version of the horrors of family courts the BIGGEST financial racket
worldwide for corrupt judges and lawyers.
All the reasons that divorcing parents should avoid inclusion of attorneys and
judges into their lives and their children's lives. The subject and questioning
of matching federal funds for collecting child support is also questioned.
Get the full 1 hour video and make copies for anyone who might benefit from
CHILD PROTECTION? NO,RUINATION THROUGH TYRANNY IN UK FAMILY COURTS
Two men are incarcerated by the State, when they should be the stability in two children's lives
If you look up Hansard, the parliamentary record, you can read the name of a man I wrote about three weeks ago. Prisoner X, whom I called Hugh, was jailed for helping his pregnant wife and her son to flee the country to escape from social workers. An MP has named him in the House of Commons, to express concern at his treatment. But The Times still cannot print his name.
It is a longstanding convention of British law that individuals who are incarcerated should be identified, and the charges against them made known. That is an age-old protection against tyranny. But today the “privacy of the child” trumps every other principle, whether or not the child in question wants his or her privacy protected. In this case it seems very unlikely indeed that the gag on everyone involved serves the interests of anyone except the authorities who put it there.
Prisoner X's mistake, in brief, was to fall in love with a woman who had been unfortunate enough to suffer a violent and volatile first marriage. As a result of the breakdown of that marriage, her young son had been taken into temporary foster care. A court stipulated that the boy should be returned to his mother once she had “sorted her life out” and found them a new home.
But even as she cleared every hurdle, social workers dreamt up new ones. The offers of her own mother and sister, both professionals with good incomes, to foster the boy, were apparently ignored. A psychologist cautioned that the boy was suffering dreadfully in care. One night in September, the boy let himself out of his foster home and ran back to his mother. Prisoner X, now her husband, drove them to Dover and on to Paris.
Guilty until proved innocent: the grotesque reality of family courts
Many people would call this an act of love, a mercy mission. But this man is now serving 16 months in jail. Child abduction is undoubtedly a serious crime. But this was a strange kind of abduction. At the hearing it was made clear that the boy had packed his own suitcase, set his alarm clock for 4am and run away of his own accord to be reunited with his mother.
Nevertheless, Prisoner X is classified as a violent criminal. He is apparently unlikely to get early release, unlike the 1,730 robbers and 3,484 people convicted of violence against the person, who have been let out since June. Nor can he be put on a tag, because his classification is deemed to make him a risk to the public. But what risk? Surely not that posed by Joseph Booth, the convicted teenage mugger who, it was revealed yesterday, ripped off his electronic tag before murdering an innocent student. The attack was so savage that the victim's family could not recognise his body. Booth had previous convictions for threatening behaviour, assault, battery and robbery.
Prisoner X has never harmed anyone. He is 56 years old and has high blood pressure. Every day that goes by, he risks losing his business and letting down those he employs. Every day that goes by, his health is deteriorating. A friend says that he has aged ten years and gone grey with the worry.
The system is merciless to people who question the system. Charles Roy Taylor, whom I wrote about at Christmas, is in a similar situation. Mr Taylor is a 71-year-old with a heart condition. He was sent to prison for 20 months for being in contact with his stepgrandson, who has been in care since his mother died and who has repeatedly run away to see his grandparents. By breaching an agreement not to answer the door to him, Mr Taylor stands accused of “undermining the care plan”. But he and the boy's grandmother are the teenager's only living relatives. They will presumably be his first port of call when he comes of age and is thrown out of the care system. Mr Taylor may not survive that long: last week he suffered an angina attack that put him in hospital for four days. Is that in the interests of the boy?
Both of these men are under court orders not to talk about their cases. It is likely that these gagging orders will continue after they leave prison, even though they will have “done their time”. Yet they, at least, have had some control over their fates. They must have had some inkling of what they might be letting themselves in for. The boys they were trying to help have never asked to be let in for anything, except it seems for contact with their families.
Both these boys are gagged by the State. We are not entitled to know what they think, nor whether the boy who is now abroad with his mother is happy. We cannot hear from them why each wanted so badly to escape from care. Only social workers may translate their words and determine where their “interests” lie. Yet the two men who are now in jail did not risk going there for nothing. Each seems to have believed that they were saving a boy from something unpleasant. Why? Who are the real victims of this system of “child protection”? It is hard to see what the children gain from the incarceration of men who could be providing stability in their lives.
There are many good reasons why the law seeks to protect the identity of children. The problem comes when the rules are used to protect the identity of the professionals too. This prevents proper scrutiny of cases whose very complexity makes it almost inevitable that some will go wrong. The effect is to place social workers above the law, and innocent people under its thumb.
It is in no one's interests, least of all the children involved, to keep these two men behind bars. If only they could be released, if the system could show some mercy, perhaps we might be able to begin the long process of dismantling the bars that imprison the children too. Behind silence lurks injustice.
The very despots who are using family courts to tarnish good parents are the
very perverts who are STEALING children into homes were they are far more vulnerable to
abusers like THEMSELVES.Britains judiciary consist of rich self appointed elite deviants.
Why do so many judges act as chairman and guardians of the very homes these children are sent
to prior to adoption into families connected with their devil worshipping cults?
The media have been hiding the child theft network for years and it is only when you see the perjury that goes on
in family courts you realise the depths these evil bastards are prepared to go to get their way in the deprivation
and greed associated with the most heinous court system the WORLD has ever seen and the UK is
supposed to be a civilized society while this tyranny goes on?
CHILDREN OF THE STATE
Children of the State (US but the same in UK)
by Joseph A. D'Agostino
Conservative Americans fancy that socialism has been largely defeated or that its greatest remaining threat lies in taxation and spending. They forget that the dream of leftist revolutionaries for centuries has been not only to equalize wealth and social status, but to eliminate all distinctions among the citizens of their ideal republic. All of these revolutionaries from Marx on down have targeted the family for destruction.
The family is a highly undemocratic institution. The nuclear family consists of one man and one woman, a highly specific and unliberated straitjacket of a social structure. They have loyalty to one another greater than that to society at large and also dedication to their own children, over whom they have authority—and any private authority is a rival to the government’s. To a true democrat, this preference for one’s spouse and authority over one’s children violates the principle of equality, which proclaims that we must treat everyone exactly the same. For the modern democratic statist, these loyalties and authorities weaken his own power and inhibit the ongoing concentration of all authority in one central government.
Stephen Baskerville’s Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family (Cumberland House) details just how far leftists have succeeded in abolishing the family. Of course, anyone with a cursory knowledge of the state of the American family knows that it has been largely destroyed, with most children spending at least part of their childhoods without one of their biological parents at home, a divorce rate of more than 40%, an ever-increasing illegitimacy rate and no-fault divorce laws that render a marriage compact less legally enforceable than a cell-phone contract.
Yet what most do not know, even if they follow family issues, is that our family courts are nearly all-powerful, unaccountable star chambers that openly reject due process, traditional legal rights and the Constitution itself. Family courts are civil courts or courts of equity, not criminal courts, so most constitutional protections and procedures do not apply, even though these courts have been given tremendous power. They routinely take couples’ children away from them without trial on the flimsiest accusation of abuse from a teacher or neighbor, limit or eliminate one or both parents’ contact with their own children after divorce without any evidence of wrongdoing on the parents’ part, order parents to pay the fees of lawyers and psychotherapists they did not hire, and send parents to jail without a hearing.
Control of the Courts
This excellent book carefully documents the extreme control that these courts have and how faithless mothers—and, increasingly, faithless fathers—use them and are used by them to eject the other parent from the family and garnish his wages for themselves. Then, of course, these mothers must obey the courts’ every order concerning how their children are raised and educated, and the courts are not shy about imposing government-approved methods. Baskerville knows his subject backward and forward and provides 974 endnotes for documentation and further reading. He also provides intriguing psychosocial speculation on why parenthood, and particularly fatherhood, have come under such intense attack in recent decades as a culmination of the long-ago revolt against broader social fatherhood—organic societies and traditional monarchies—and against God the Father Himself.
Those who believe that the United States has, despite the occasional abuse, a just legal system will probably ignore the above. Yet in a country where the courts have declared abortion-on-demand a constitutional right no matter what legislators say and have authorized the government to effectively confiscate land without compensation if an official finds an endangered species on it, is this so unbelievable?
Baskerville repeatedly points out that it is no secret that family courts operate in this way. They officially have the powers that they use thousands of times every day. Unwillingly divorced fathers and children bear the brunt of the family court industry, which profits every time a family is broken but loses financially whenever one stays together. A mother who unilaterally divorces her husband receives primary custody of their children the vast majority of the time and child-support payments to boot. Under the no-fault divorce laws of the various states, wrongdoing on the part of the father is usually not alleged, much less proven. It doesn’t matter: When one party wants to destroy the marriage, the other pays—and now that more men are catching on to the game, mothers are beginning to lose out. Yet contrary to the image portrayed even by conservative journalists, at least two-thirds of divorces are desired by the woman and not the man. It is more women than men who are destroying families today.
Fathers Needed in Homes
The consensus among the vast majority of liberal social scientists, as Baskerville explains, is that children without their biological fathers in the home are far more likely to be abused, poor and develop psychological problems. More than race, income, or race and income combined, father absence is a predictor of juvenile delinquency, drug abuse and mental illness. Divorce harms children by reducing their fathers’ presence in their lives far more often than it helps them—and even scientists can see it.
Baskerville, a longtime fathers’ rights activist and now a professor of government at Patrick Henry College, provides one horror story after another: The unwillingly divorced father ordered to pay two-thirds of his income in child support, the man innocent of any crime jailed for saying hello to his children in the street. Since family courts usually operate in secret without oversight, there is no way of telling how common such atrocities are. But the real horror is the routine process: The power of the courts to control parents’ access to their children and determine their financial lives once the betraying spouse decides to abandon the other.
Mr. D'Agostino, former associate editor of HUMAN EVENTS, is vice president for Communications at the Population Research Institute.
British divorce is a MASSIVE CRIMINAL RACKET for
crooked judges and lawyers.The following article
describes the appalling abuses men are forced to
tolerate in British courts dominated by CROOKED
MASONIC judges and lawyers.A REVOLUTION is long overdue.
Avarice, cruelty and what this tawdry case tells us
about the injustice of modern divorce
What an utterly unedifying spectacle the divorce of
Paul McCartney and Heather Mills has turned out to be.
Treachery, greed, drug-taking, violence - the
allegations have been endless.
Few now could doubt that here was a marriage as short
as it was miserable, ending in a lingering acrimony
that no amount of PR spin or brave smiles outside the
courtroom can disguise.
Now, as the final scenes are played out in the High
Court and the couple reportedly edge towards a deal,
it is tempting to dismiss this nightmare as belonging to a
world apart from ours, a world of private jets and
public histrionics. But the truth is that this carnival of
bile, this showbiz showdown, demonstrates everything
that is wrong with the divorce laws of Britain today.
Let's step back and take stock of the settlement that
Heather is said to be seeking. The sums differ wildly,
according to which of the warring camps you believe.
Undeserving? Heather Mills will reputedly get around
£55million.But the most reliable estimate thus far is that the
former Ms Mills is in line for roughly £55 million,
made up of a £20 million lump sum, plus £2.5million a year for the
next 14 years, until their daughter Bea turns 18.
By any reckoning, that's an astronomical return on a
marriage that lasted just four short and unhappy
years.Heather denies she ever set out to be a gold-digger,
yet the result is that she will emerge from that
courtroom with a fortune far, far beyond anything she could have
hoped to earn independently.
And for her to suggest that it is in any way an
equitable return on the emotional investment and
sacrifices she made in motherhood and marriage is farcical.
Granted, if she and Macca had been married for 40
years, she would have a far more persuasive case for
sympathy. But four years?
That's not a marriage, it's an overgrown fling.
Nonetheless, the law is on Heather's side. Because
common sense, it seems, counts for nothing in the
divorce courts today, still less a modicum of decency
and fair play.The result is that marriage itself has been cheapened.
For if this bitter case has served one purpose, it has
been to send a powerful message that divorce is a
bonanza for women, however badly they behave, and
especially if they choose to give up work the moment
they marry.Whether she intended it or not, Heather has become an
icon for the Great Female Gold-Digger's Movement,
and one who will have lasting consequences.
We saw a precursor to this case with the landmark
judgement in 2005 when the £85,000-a-year PR executive
Melissa Miller took £5 million of her husband's
earnings after less than three years of a childless
marriage.How can it be right, in our age of equal
opportunities, that a divorced man is forced to work
into perpetuity to compensate an ex-wife - even successful, professional,
skilled women who are more than capable of
supporting themselves independently?
The same is true, incidentally, of those increasingly
common cases where a high-earning woman separates
from a husband she has been supporting financially.
Whatever the sexes concerned, it is manifestly unfair
that when two adults are capable of working, only one
should continue to shoulder the main financial burden
in the event of a separation - all the more so when
that burden is so unnecessary.
Yesterday a High Court judge decided that serial
divorcee Susan Sangster will walk away from her fourth
marriage without a penny from her last husband because
they had both signed a pre-nuptial agreement and
both were independently wealthy.
But how had Ms Sangster amassed her personal £18
million fortune? Yes, through her three previous
divorces. Heather Mills will certainly be
independently wealthy as well, after her divorce.
Just look at the list of demands that the Mills camp
has presented as justification for the massive payout
it is seeking.
We are led to believe Heather needs two homes, one in
Britain and another in the U.S., 24-hour security and
two full-time nannies, household staff, a secretary
and personal trainer - all to be paid for by her
ex-husband.Now, of course, children must be properly provided for
financially. But this isn't a checklist of necessity,
it's a shopping basket of greed and indulgence from a woman
who, until she got her talons into Macca, was living
a comfortable but by no means luxurious life in the
mews flat she shared with a tennis tournament
Ah, say Heather's team, but the fall-out from her
acrimonious divorce is such that she is now virtually
unemployable. I rather doubt that.
Even if she is obliged to sign a gagging clause as
part of the deal, her future bankability will owe far
more to her brief marriage to a Beatle than to her own rather
limited talents.Indeed, without it she'd be earning a pittance. How
much do you imagine Heather Mills - landmine
campaigner and former glamour model - would be earning
now, aged 40, if she hadn't shot to fame thanks to
She'd be lucky if she netted £50,000 a year. So how
can it be right that she should walk away with
£50million? But perhaps even more damagingly, this case also
teaches us that in today's divorce courts, women who
engage in cruelty and smear tactics - egged on by
their lawyers - can be sure that it will increase
their eventual payouts.
By all accounts, Paul is no saint, but the lengths Ms
Mills' so-called friends have gone to vilify him have
been breathtaking.He may well be mean with his money (who can blame him
for that, given the way things turned out?), but a
wife-beater, an alcoholic, a druggie?
Three decades of marriage to Linda would suggest
differently, despite the rocky patches that they
So, why smear his character through carefully placed
leaks? Why propagate such hateful stories?
Because, as any divorcing dad knows to his cost, they
serve to threaten the one thing in life they hold most
dear - access to the children.
For a vengeful and unscrupulous wife, allegations of
cruelty and abuse are the ultimate weapon in her
Never mind that "abuse" is a term now so loose in law
it can mean anything from being a wife-beater to a
husband who shouts at the dog.
A wife doesn't have to prove her allegations for them
to be taken seriously in the eyes of the divorce
courts. A judge must rightly consider the safety of the children
first. Proof is difficult to ascertain.
The result? All too often a father, damned by his
wife's allegations, knows that it is better to be the
victim of an unjust financial settlement than to be denied
access to his children.
Some might call that justice. I'd call it blackmail.
For little Bea, of course, it may already be too late.
With a vilified mother and a humiliated father, no
amount of luxury homes or holidays will compensate for the
fall-out from her parents' very public cruelty to each
Who are the winners here? Paul's entourage of lawyers,
supposedly the most expensive ever assembled for
a divorce case in Britain, will walk away with
millions.And this circus will doubtless be a nice little earner
for Heather's hangers-on, the personal trainer and the
make-up artist.But as for the main protagonists, Heather will get her
blood-money, yes, but in the process she has become
one of the most vilified women in Britain. The
once-great Beatle is now living proof that there's no
fool like an old and rich fool. Lasting damage has been inflicted
on all the children caught up in the crossfire - not
just Bea, but Paul's three grown-up offspring, too.
No, whatever the eventual deal, there are no winners
here.But the real legacy of the Mills v. McCartney case is
this: it has demonstrated, in all-too painful detail,
exactly what's wrong with divorce in this country.
It is no longer about justice; it is an opportunity
for avarice, a theatre for character assassination and
a gladiatorial contest in which everyone loses - except
SHANNON CLOSE TO BEING TAKEN INTO CARE BEFORE KIDNAP
For being beaten by step father while separated from biological father.This is a perfect example of
how child theft operates in the UK.A couple separate and children given to dysfunctional mother who's
lifestyle and abusive boyfriends are then used as an excuse to remove the children into care.
Here we are seeing in full view of the media how this all pans out with justification by social services
for Shannon being left with the mother and not the father.If the biological father had been given custody
there would be far less likely chance of harm to separated children.
FULL STORY HERE
DO NOT MARRY,DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN
Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No
advanced civilization has ever existed without the
married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our
civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are
And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men
to marry today. For many men (and some women),
marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket
to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how
easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,”
mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of
practical advice for young men today it is this: Do
not marry and do not have children.
Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be
the most effective method of saving marriage as an
institution. For until we understand that the
principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but
political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but
from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline
of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should
be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage
Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous
blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The
central problem is the divorce laws.
It is well known that half of all marriages end in
divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to
believe it cannot happen to them. Many conscientious
people think they will never be divorced because they
do not believe in it. In fact, it is likely to happen
to you whether you wish it or not.
First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or
commit any legal transgression. Under “no-fault”
divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally
without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant
the divorce automatically without any questions.
But further, not only does your spouse incur no
penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit
enormously. Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse
can take everything you have, also without giving any
reasons. First, she will almost certainly get
automatic and sole custody of your children and
exclude you from them, without having to show that you
have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized
contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing
your own children you will be subject to arrest.
There is no burden of proof on the court to justify
why they are seizing control of your children and
allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them.
The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on
you to show why you should be allowed to see your
The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for
your spouse to divorce you and take your children.
(All this earns money for lawyers whose bar
associations control the careers of judges.) While
property divisions and spousal support certainly favor
women, the largest windfall comes through the
children. With custody, she can then demand “child
support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more
of your income. (The amount is set by committees
consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement
agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting
the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it
however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it, but she
gets the tax deduction.
You could easily be left with monthly income of a few
hundreds dollars and be forced to move in with
relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold
everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and
maximized your credit cards, they then call you a
“deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs. You are
told you have “abandoned” your children and
incarcerated without trial.
Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this,
they have already begun an impromptu marriage
"strike": refusing to marry or start families, knowing
they can be criminalized if their wife files for
divorce. "Have anti-father family court policies led
to a men's marriage strike?" ask Glenn Sacks and
Dianna Thompson in the Philadelphia Enquirer. In
Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning
young men not to start families. In his book, From
Courtship to Courtroom, Attorney Jed Abraham concludes
that the only protection for men to avoid losing their
children and everything else is not to start families
in the first place.
Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop
marrying, what will become of the family and our
Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking,
and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the
Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce
It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being
demanded only because of how heterosexuals have
already debased marriage through divorce law. “The
world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50%
divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” advocate Andrew
Sullivan points out. “All homosexuals are saying…is
that, under the current definition, there’s no reason
to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage
to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the
exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial
of basic civil equality.”
We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in
the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to
marry, as the Bush administration’s government therapy
programs now do. The way to restore marriage as an
institution in which young people can place their
trust, their children, and their lives is to make it
an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national
debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms
under which the government can forcibly sunder the
bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to
future generations, if there are to be any.
Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., is assistant professor of
government at Patrick Henry College and President of
the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. His
book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers,
Marriage, and the Family, has just been published by
Cumberland House Publishing.
WHY THE SECRECY IN FAMILY COURTS?
Without the secrecy the world would see the duplicity
of the scams used by evil and corrupt judges and
lawyers that destroy any semblance of sanity in the
aftermath of separation.
Any hope of recovering ,reinstating or diplomatically
easing the strain on a marriage is doomed once these
abortions of human beings get involved in the
process.There is a myriad of well funded hangers on,
also with their nose in the deep trough of the family
estate ,about to be dismantled in the gulag of
When a FATHER needs permission from the state to see,
never mind protect his child from the rigors of life,
that is a clear sign we are in deep shit.Isolating a
child first from ONE parent ,THE FATHER , through
separation and then the other ,THE MOTHER ,through a
myriad of ploys conjured up by Social Services
ensures the gravy train of child theft into an
adoption system were the perverts and depraved await
the arrival of the next truck load of kids from the
UK's secretive star chamber courts.
There is NO ONE can appreciate the depths of depravity
that awaits anyone that ventures into the realms of
family court.The immediate feeling that you are about
to be criminalized and jailed for looking at your
ex-spouse or worse your children the wrong way.The
very people charged now with judging your parental
skills are some of the most devious,twisted and
depraved mobsters that have ever walked on this
earth.MONEY is their god and only goal ,they will
pervert the course of justice as far as they can to
lever you from what you love most ,your children.
While traumatized by that experience they are busily
clearing out your bank accounts,assets and seizing
your property,land or business .Before you are fully
aware of the ENORMOUS powers these gangsters have
given themselves, through stealth ,you will be wiped
out,homeless and penniless .This makes the Gestapo
tactics in Germany pale ,as at least the mass media
reported what was going on.
This racket has been covered up for FAR to long by a
complicity of Britain's mass media to ignore the
mountains of evidence that shows the scale of the
enormous harm being done to families .But
particularly our children ,scarred by forces that are
tyrannical in the horrors and devastation left in the
aftermath of these evil parasites.
As victims of these horrors we have NEVER seen
anything as sick as the psychological mind games
played on anyone dragged into the gutter of family
law.How can they think it justified that a child's
future inheritance is squandered on massive legal
bills that accrue from endless court actions?They
only end when a child reaches adulthood and can no
longer be used to manipulate the family into
accommodating the demands of legal parasites who abuse
that power in secrecy to the limits of human
Many parents no longer alive to tell of the trauma's
they endured at the hands of that warped and twisted
system and to much to bear ,suicide the only release
from the horrendous pain and living hell of that
THAT EVIL LEGAL MAFIA MUST BE STOPPED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WITH OR WITHOUT THE UK'S MASS MEDIA SUPPORT
A father who was framed by a leading barrister in a child custody case has spoken for the first time about the extraordinary chain of events that led to him uncovering the deception.
Bruce Hyman, a leading barrister and radio and television producer, is facing jail after admitting to perverting the course of justice earlier this month.
He was representing a divorced woman fighting for custody of her four-year-old daughter in September last year when he tried to falsely incriminate the girl's father.
Hyman sent him an email, pretending to be from a charity campaigning for father's rights, that appeared to support the father's claim that he should be granted greater access to his daughter.
When the father tried to present it to the judge at the Taunton family court, Hyman stood up and accused him of forgery.
However, through his own detective work, the father was able to track down CCTV footage that showed Hyman sending the email himself.
The barrister was later arrested by police.
He admitted perverting the course of justice and will be sentenced next month.
His career in tatters, he could be the first barrister in this country to go to jail for perverting the course of justice.
Yesterday the father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told of how he almost "fell off his chair" when he learnt that Hyman himself had tried to frame him with the fictitious email.
Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, he revealed how, after the "chastening" exchange in court, later that night he managed to track down the origin of Hyman's false email to an internet shop on Tottenham Court Road, central London.
"I did some research on the net about tracking emails and tracked the ones I had been sent to an internet posting service in Manchester," he said.
"They released the number of the internet shop on Tottenham Court Road.
"I called the shop and within five or six hours they emailed me saying staff had recalled a gentleman coming into the store on the day the emails were sent.
"He'd not bought anything but had asked to use their internet services. They then said they'd got him on CCTV and sent me some stills. I nearly fell off my chair."
The father added: "Its extraordinary to me on a human level, its unprecedented on a legal level and it's astonishing on any respect.
"The conduct of the case is often about smearing a client's opponent and the Hyman affair is the most grievous smearing imaginable."
Mr Hyman, who is married with four children and lives in Hampstead, north London, has since been disqualified from the Bar.
He is the chief executive of Above Title Productions, his own radio and television company, and has worked with leading producers such as Anthony Minghella, Michael Frayn and David Mamet.
He also written scripts for comedians such as Angus Deayton and Johnny Vegas.
Campaign to Stop the Family Court’s conducting ‘committal proceedings in secret’
The public and Parliament are gradually learning about the tragic consequences of the epidemic of false and incorrect evidence given by ‘public officials’ ( social workers, paediatricians, psychologists, police officers, etc) in Family Court cases, resulting in children wrongly being taken into Care and then given away for adoption, to strangers. What isn’t so well known is that the Family Courts harbour another guilty secret.
A huge number of innocent and vulnerable members of the public have been, and continue to be imprisoned, after ‘secret trials’ in the Family Courts. This is completely wrong, illegal and runs counter to one of the most basic principles of justice in a democracy; “ justice must be seen to be done”.
On 13 June 2006, Harriet Harman MP QC, the Justice Minister, in a Parliamentary reply to Sally Keeble MP ( Northampton, North ) confirmed that “ in the last year, something like 200 people were sent to prison by the Family Courts, which happens in complete privacy and secrecy”.
Note the telling phrase in a Parliamentary reply by the minister, that was meant to be precise! ‘Something like’; because even the Minister does not know the exact figure. It would appear that counting up to 190 or 220 poses a problem for the Justice Department. Indeed, neither does the Home Office keep these figures and deliberately confuses the recording of how many persons have been imprisoned after ‘secret Family Court trials’. The numbers are far far greater than Harriet Harman MP admitted in Parliament and even the Home Office figures of those imprisoned in jails would not include those members of the public held in police cells after being arrested. Many of these persons would have been arrested and detained for over 24 hours. Many would have been subsequently released without charge. Nonetheless they would have lost their freedom, been aggressively treated and seriously inconvenienced; yet must remain mute! They are sworn to secrecy, to protect the corrupt system.
The whole purpose of these summary arrests is to rough up the public at the behest of social workers or ill informed police officers, to intimidate and frighten the public. (There are documented cases of such conduct ) . Because they are all aware that the public are not allowed to inform the press & media of their experiences.
The true figures of those imprisoned after a ‘secret trial’ in the Family Courts would alarm Parliament, the public and the world community generally. Taken together with the huge number of CCTV cameras, the maintenance of Stasi type files by over 400,000 ‘public officials’ and the almost continual surveillance of the public, especially families; Britain is very close to becoming an official police state under this Labour Government.
It is fundamental principle of democracy that the ‘rule of law’ is observed by independent sentinels; universally accepted as the press and media. The procedures and protocols of the ‘rule of law’ must be open to scrutiny and reporting. Even the Al- Queida terrorist trials and those at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay, are reported by the press and media. However, such is the scandal that has enveloped the Family Courts, that fearful that the huge number of miscarriages of justice will be exposed, were the press to report the truth about these cases, that it has become routine for those parents, grandparents and others who question or complain to the press about documented criminality, breaches of Family Court ‘contact orders’; to be tried ‘secretly’ and then imprisoned. And once imprisoned, all reference to the ‘prisoner’ (parent/ grandparent/campaigner) and the experiences of the ‘prisoner’, including possible further victimisation in prison, also become ‘secret’. Should the ‘prisoner’ attempt suicide or God Forbid, commit suicide, this too is covered by secrecy.
In fact, no one is allowed to know anything about the ‘prisoner’ or how he/she came to be in prison. The prisoner would be committing a further offence if he/she was to inform other ‘prisoners’ of the reason for his/her imprisonment. And it also affects the ‘prisoner’s’ ability to seek an appeal. Because the Guligans claim that this could result in the identification of the child in the Family Court case. This clever judicial ploy has allowed huge injustices to be concealed.
There is a massive effort made to disguise and conceal what is happening in the Family Courts and the disclosure of these ‘secret trials’ exposes an absolutely huge scandal that all concerned with it, wish to conceal. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is considered persona non gratis to a number of world forums and official government meetings. Were the truth about the ‘secret Family Court trials’ revealed, the UK judicial delegations are very likely to be face similar exclusion and ridicule. Hence the attempts to silence all who dare speak out.
In early June 2007, Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor and one of Tony Blair’s cronies and flat mate from his student days, was interviewed by the BBC about the Russian request for the extradition from the UK, of Boris Bereshovsky, the Russian businessman who has been given asylum in London. The Russian Government has provided extradition papers and wishes to have Bereshovsky returned to Russia, to face trial for alleged huge financial frauds. The BBC reporter asked Lord Falconer if the British Government would accede to the Russian Government’s request for Bereshovsky extradition. Falconer replied; “we cannot do that. The Russians do not have an open system of justice. Justice must be seen to be done”.
On the 20 June 2007, Lord Falconer announced the results of a ‘public consultation’ into the current banning of the media & press from reporting Family Court proceedings. This report had already been twice delayed. He announced without any twinge of embarrassment, that the press were to remain excluded from reporting Family Court proceedings and that the ‘secrecy’ was to increase and the penalties for breaching the ‘secrecy’ were to be made even more draconian. He stated that he based his decision on the responses from children, to the ‘public consultation’. However, though Lord Falconer has been challenged to show the evidence; he has not been able to produce the evidence. This because there is no evidence that the children he referred to, did voice such opinions. The public consultation ‘organised’ by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, like much about Tony Blair’s Government, was laced with spin and misleading information. There is irrefutable evidence that social workers, lawyers and the others involved with the secret Gulag that is the Family Courts and who benefit from a judicial system bereft of independent scrutiny and accountability, pulled the wool of the eyes of a complicit Lord Falconer, to avoid the press and media exposing the huge Family Court scandal.
And neither can members of Parliament take up the issues of documented unlawful and criminal conduct in Family Court cases, reported to them by their constituents. Judges are not allowed to be criticised by MPs and have established for themselves, ‘no limit to their judicial indiscretions and misbehaviour’. The salaries of judges are paid out of a pool of money specifically set aside and known as The Consolidated Fund. Parliament is not allowed to debate this payment and in addition, judges have a ‘security of tenure’; they are almost un-sackable.
A recent article in The Times sought to convey the impression that judges were now subject to monitoring and being disciplined by the Office for Judicial Complaints. On closer scrutiny it has become obvious that once again, the spin machine has been working overtime. None of the judges complained about are allowed to be identified ( under the Constitutional Reform Act ) and John Hemming MP disclosed in a letter to The Times, that complaining about a judge in private proceedings, is a ‘contempt of court’. Well, if registering a complaint against a judge is itself considered a criminal offence; so much for the ‘monitoring’!
Which brings me back to the purpose of this communication? The imprisonment of persons after a ‘secret trial’ in the Family Courts because they have breached an injunction relating to Family Court secrecy. A number of parents have been jailed ‘in secret’ after disclosing that the court orders relating to ‘contact’ with their children had been broken by a partner or social services. How can it be right that a person is imprisoned merely for bringing to public attention that the law was being defied, ignored and broken? In Early Day Motion No. 128, tabled before the House of Commons on 18 May 2005, Teresa May MP (Maidenhead) made a plea “for the presumption of contact and the enforcement of contact, between separated parents and their children and also including grandparents and their grandchildren.”
In reply, on 31 May 2005, Parmjit Dhanda MP, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Children & Families stated, “With regard to EDM 128 on Equal Parenting, I must clarify that the Government does not support a legal presumption of contact for parents. The fundamental principle for the Children Act 1989 is the interests of the child that are paramount, not the rights of the parents.”
This is preposterous! Parmjit Dhanda MP’s Parliamentary reply has confirmed that the government is committed to parents not having ‘contact’ with their children, because this Labour Government is wedded to an ideology that is anti- parent, has no regard for traditional core family values and is prepared to encourage the breaking of legitimate court orders. Those members of the public, who have sought to bring their personal and documented experiences to the attention of the press and media, have therefore been pounced on and imprisoned, to silence them.
And it should be noted that there can be but one reason for the ‘secret trials’ to imprison members of the public; the whole process, procedures and reference to earlier hearings would identify a judicial charade played out, once again, ‘in secret’, in a number of cases.
The Family Court proceedings to take a child into Care are themselves flawed and packed with legal irregularities that necessitate ‘secrecy’. However, the maintenance of the ‘secrecy’ can only be achieved by draconian threats of immediate imprisonment. In order to execute the threats of imprisonment, it has become necessary to conduct ‘committal proceedings in secret’. Though the absence of the press and independent observers from such trials invalidates the democratic process and confirms a gag on the press and the freedom of speech. In truth this is a renegade court, living up to its reputation of disrepute.
A few days ago, it was reported through the ‘grapevine’, because that is the only way these incidents come to light, that a grandmother had been imprisoned after one of these ‘secret trials’. The grandmother had challenged a decision of the Family Court to take her grandchildren into Care and had informed the press. That was sufficient reason for her to be rushed through one of these kangaroo courts and be imprisoned, like many others before her. It is well to remember that the government has repeatedly announced that the prisons are so overcrowded that even illegal immigrants, who have committed murder and rape, could not be housed in our jails. Though somehow there is no end of space in the jails for grandmothers who inform the press of documented Family Court criminality. And whilst illegal immigrants who commit murder and rape are tried in an open court where the press are present, the UK grandmother is rushed into prison, after a ‘secret trial’ in a kangaroo court. No prizes for guessing what is going on then!
This then was the catalyst for my campaign.
Are you pleased that our fellow citizens are being treated like this and that they have absolutely no recourse to the public and Parliament being made aware of their plight? Are you sanguine that this could not happen to you? Don’t be so sure! Remember, even members of Parliament have absolutely no way of knowing what is going on in the secretive Family Courts and Harriet Harman MP QC, the Justice Minister, the Minister in charge of the Family Courts, admitted in an article she wrote in the Mail on Sunday on 4 June 2006 “ I have concluded that it is now impossible to defend a system from accusations of bias and discrimination, if it operates behind closed doors. Even as Minister for Family Justice, I find the rules make it hard for me to establish what is going on.”
So faced with a situation that the judges and the Guligans in the Family Courts believe is beyond challenge; what are we to do?
We know Parliament cannot assist us. The Minister herself has admitted as much.
We know the judges are leaning back on their chairs and laughing their socks off.
We know that the social workers, paediatricians and other ‘public officials’ paid out of the public purse, aware that the public are cornered and ‘done up like a kipper’, are therefore motivated to continue in their ways and are subject to no independent accountability or scrutiny. They have created a gulag of complete opacity
We know that the usual political response of ‘using one’s vote to affect a change’ makes not a blind bit of difference; for the reasons given above and that local government officials threaten and intimidate elected representatives of the people anyway. (See Eric Pickles MP’s speech to the House of Commons on 2 March 2006. Adoption Bill Debate & Essex County Council were intent on seeking a custodial sentence for County Councillor Barry Aspinell on 29 April 2005, because he went to the aid of his constituents in Brentwood. Essex…..
Read “The Gulag of the Family Courts” Book 1…..ISBN 9 781430 316350)
UK SOCIAL SERVICES FORCE REMOVAL OF THEIR CHILD THEFT SCAMS
A recording of social workers threatening to take a newborn into care has been removed from the YouTube website after Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire started legal action, claiming the Data Protection Act was breached.
Vanessa Brookes, 34, taped social workers telling her and her husband that they would seek to place the baby, due next month, in care, while admitting there was "no immediate risk to the child."
IT IS BACK UP AT