‘Veteran of all McKenzie friends’ helped convicted child rapist keep her baby

A couple of days ago we discussed the case of the Musas—a case of horrific child abuse linked to the belief in witchcraft—and pointed out that so-called ‘child protection activists’ Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill had come down squarely on the side of the abusive parents.

Similarly, when we read last week that convicted child sexual abuser Marie Black’s application to appeal her conviction had been dismissed, we were reminded of the support given Black by people with close ties to the promoters of the Hampstead hoax.

‘The most harrowing case I have dealt with’

You’ll likely recall that last summer, Marie Black stood trial along with 9 others, including 5 women, at Norwich Crown Court: [Please note that the following information is very disturbing, and may be difficult to read if you’ve suffered from abuse.]

During the trial, the prosecutor stated that over a period of 10 years, Black had used the 5 children as “sexual playthings”. During the trial, the full horror of the abuse was revealed.

The abuse, which is said to have happened in and around Norwich and London, included forcing the children to have sex with one another.

On some occasions, the adults threw parties and played card games to decide who would abuse which child, Mrs Rafferty said.

In interviews the victims described how they were abused in front of one another and other adults.

Some of the abuse involved children’s toys, including Barbie dolls.

Of the 10 people charged, 4 were found guilty:

Black denied 26 charges. A jury found her guilty of all but three counts.

She was convicted of offences including rape and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. Two men were found guilty of child sex abuse and another woman was found guilty of assault.

Michael Rogers, 53, from Romford, was found guilty of 14 counts including cruelty, rape and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.

Jason Adams, 43, from Norwich, was convicted of 13 similar counts.

Carol Stadler, 60, from Atkinson Close, Bowthorpe, Norwich, was found guilty of assault causing actual bodily harm but cleared of nine other charges, including serious sexual assaults.

Following the conviction, the Senior Investigating Officer, DCI Peter Hornby, stated,

In their tender years, these children were subjected to sexual abuse beyond most people’s imagination by adults they believed were telling the truth. It is the most harrowing case I have dealt with in 23 years of policing. [Emphasis ours]

Links to the conspiraloon community

As Scarlet Scoop pointed out shortly after the trial, one of the accused, Carol Stadler, was listed on Facebook as a friend of conspiritainment provider Brian Gerrish.

Perhaps even more horrifying are the links between convicted child sexual abuse ringleader Marie Black and people like Ian Josephs and Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker—both of whom have been lauded by Sabine McNeill and Belinda McKenzie as inspirational paragons in their ongoing battle to prevent any state intervention whatsoever in the lives of families.

In her excellent article titled Helping Parents Leave the Jurisdiction, family lawyer Sarah Phillimore describes how Ian Josephs, who advocates families leaving the UK to avoid having children removed by Social Services, and “openly admits giving cash to parents to help them leave the country”, is known to have assisted Marie Black when she fled to France in order to keep her baby.

In 2012, Christopher Booker wrote:

In France there were tears of joy when Marie Black and Joe Ollis were reunited with their baby daughter Luna, born in France in February but then seized by Norfolk social workers, to be brought back to England to live in foster care. Although this action had been sanctioned by a British court, a High Court judge ruled in May that the seizure was illegal, because Luna was born in France and was therefore outside UK jurisdiction.

Grateful for Ian Josephs’ assistance, Black herself wrote this letter:

Hi Ian,

We hope you are well.

Attached is a recent photo for you of Luna, she will be 10 months old this thursday and is trying to walk already! She is so happy and laughs so much. We feel lucky everyday to have Luna home with us and we are looking forward to her 1st Christmas.

We get on well with the social worker here and she took us swimming last week and this week will be a baby group. She is also looking into if she knows anyone who can help us with French lessons too.

She commented on how happy Luna is! We have even been to see Mr Mondin the manager of social services who helped us in Court with a shining report and he has a photo of Luna on his desk, he was so happy to see us all together last week.

Thank you again in our rescue operation! [Emphasis ours]

Best wishes

Marie, Joe & Luna.

Josephs continues to display this and another equally glowing letter from Black on his website.

In interviews, Josephs has confirmed that he’s spent approximately £30,000 helping approximately 200 families leave the jurisdiction. He’s stated that he keeps no records, and has never conducted any sort of risk assessment to determine whether the children of these families might be in danger, nor indeed whether they are abused once they’ve left the UK.

Sabine has adoringly described Josephs as “the veteran of all McKenzie Friends, as he has observed an estimated 50,000 cases in over 50 years”.

She says:

Ian Josephs coined the term ‘forced adoption‘ and published a book with that title besides the website Forced Adoption which I revamped into “Punishment without Crime”. I wanted you to see all his gems more easily and be kept up-to-date about this scandalous subject.

Yet on the subject of Josephs’ having assisted convicted child rapist Marie Black in having access to a baby girl, Sabine and Belinda remain curiously silent. Similarly, they have nary a discouraging word to say about Christopher Booker, who crusaded in print on behalf of the convicted child abuser.

Granted, Black was not a convicted child rapist at the time Josephs helped her; but allegations against her began in 2010—2 years before her joyful reunion with her daughter, as described by Booker, above.

But never mind: Josephs has stated that “he does ‘not care’ if the parents have done anything to justify intervention. Because forced adoption is wrong and that justifies his actions. ‘ I don’t care who it is. They have every right to escape’”.

We’re quite certain that Josephs’ loyal disciples, Belinda and Sabine, would have no quarrel with this argument.

Marie Black-by-Denise Bradley

Marie Black—photo: Denise Bradley

98 thoughts on “‘Veteran of all McKenzie friends’ helped convicted child rapist keep her baby

  1. And I’m ‘revamping’ Forced Adoption & “Punishment without Crime” as saving precious children from abusive, bullying, neglectful & sometimes criminal parents.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Personally I usually begin by assuming all the allégations against parents made by social workers are true .I then ask if they justify forced adoption and the answer is nearly always “NO” !

        Like

        • On what basis do you decide that the answer is no, Ian? Do you carefully consider the allegations, the evidence, on both sides? Do you do a psycho-social evaluation of the child or children in question? Or do you simply have a knee-jerk reaction and decide that your personal antipathy towards adoption without parental consent should trump all other considerations?

          More to the point, can you tell us, please, whether you’ve ever turned down a family that wanted to flee the country, as you thought that they really might be endangering the well-being of their children?

          You have set yourself up as a one-person court, making decisions that will affect children for the rest of their lives. I wonder how the five children who were raped by Marie Black will feel about your nonchalant approach to child welfare when they are old enough to realise that their tormentor was aided and abetted by a person who thinks himself above the law.

          Like

    • Maggie Mellon, British Association of Social workers; Vice Chair says:-

      http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/19/parents

      “I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession.

      For the last 20 plus years the number of investigations or assessments into families suspected of child abuse has climbed steadily upwards and now accounts for one in 20 families in England and Wales !!!

      A recent analysis found that since the Children Act 1989 referrals have increased by 311%, from 160,000 per year to 657,800 per year, between 1991 and 2014.

      Assessments have increased by 302% over the same period, from 120,000 to 483,800, while the number of cases of ‘core abuse’ have fallen. The figures show that the ratio of referrals to registrations have fallen year on year from 24.1% to 7.3%.

      Child protection dominates work

      These assessments will have been carried out mainly by social workers. For social workers in statutory children and family teams there is no doubt that ‘child protection’ dominates every aspect of their work. Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high.

      What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear

      “The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent. That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that

      Like

      • All of what Ms Mellon says may well be true, and we have addressed these issues here in the past. In particular, our readers might be interested in an article from a few weeks back: https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/the-real-story-behind-belinda-sabines-child-snatching/

        In the article, a woman whose children were removed from her care talks about the process of getting them back.

        Surprise! It didn’t involve her declaring that the state was indulging in child-snatching, or deciding that the best strategy would be to flee her home to ensure her youngest child was born abroad. It involved working on the issues that had led to her children being removed in the first place, and being honest with herself and those working with her.

        I shudder to think what might have happened, had someone like Sabine or yourself managed to feed her your distorted, dangerous false narrative.

        Like

    • Actually it was the court of appeal who restored the baby to this lady after I advised her to consult the three Wise high court judges of appeal ! They decided that the child had been taken illegally and ordered the baby to be returned to France WHERE SHE NOW LIVES VERY HAPPILY WITH HER FATHER AND PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER .
      The SS swore revenge and the mother was submitted to a kangaroo court where she was not allowed to give evidence in her own defence,was not allowed to call her chief witness (a professor expert on false memory syndrome,and where police testified that 268 alterations were made to court documents to eliminate any leading questions or matters that might incriminate the carers !! Her appeal is still pending contrary to press reports .
      Lastly why not condemn those barristers who defended Dr Shipman,Mylene Hindley,Peter Sutcliffe,Baby P’s mum,and other vicious criminals?An adviser is not a judge ;and should like myself be ready to advise anybody .I have many letters of thanks from parents I advised who subsequently recovered their children;

      Like

      • Ah, so you believe it was a stitch-up job, and she was falsely tried and convicted as a result of her misbehaviour.

        Thank you for sharing your conspiracy theory with us. It’s most interesting.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “An adviser is not a judge ;and should like myself be ready to advise anybody .”

        And yet you have taken upon yourself the role of judge, have you not, in deciding the fates of children and families by allowing them to sidestep the system? I think it’s morally disingenuous of you to claim that you’re “just an adviser”. You fund people to flee abroad, and you’re proud of it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I fund pregnant women who flee abroad to more civilised countries simply to avoid the forced adoption of their unborn children made to feed the greedy rich adoption industry ! No other country in the world takes babies at birth for mere risks (that may never happen!) of emotional abuse (nearly always the reason given) ;My intervention is equivalent to helping a child leave Saudi Arabia to avoid having his hand cut off for stealing a piece of bread !
          (the mothers’ punishments are much much worse than that …………..

          Like

      • A real life example, dad brutally murders mum, in front of their little one, paternal family aren’t that bothered and think mum was a skank anyway and don’t understand why little one now has problems and doesn’t want to visit dad in prison. Maternal family can’t step in. Dad’s in prison for a very long time.

        Another real life example, in the midst of florid post-puerperal psychosis, mum burns baby alive on a bonfire because she thinks her baby is evil. Baby dies. Mum is going to be away for an indefinite period. No one knows when she will be better. No known father of her surviving child. She’s estranged from her family.

        I might agree with you if you said there should be alternatives to adoption in some cases, or more work with families in crisis, but that isn’t what you are saying.

        What you are saying is mummy and daddy can jump up and down on their child till it dies, and their surviving children may never have a family to call their own, just because something, well because children are property of their parents perhaps?

        Lots of European countries have adoption without the parents’ consent, just to clear up one harmful myth. It may be used less frequently, but it happens.

        Your advice is always the same though isn’t it? Right down to the incredibly childish use of SS for social services. Using such a bilious term shows your agenda you know.

        And to make something clear, I’ve been in care and was in care until I reached adulthood.

        The one thing, the glaring thing, that is missing, is you attempting to see the child’s point of view.

        Children must have a mobile phone so their rapist can contact them whenever they want?

        No matter how strong the evidence, children must be cross examined in court no matter their age or any other consideration?

        No matter how bad the parents are, the children will be forced to see them, as long as say, they were only starved and locked in a room on their own for months on end.

        That mother, who burned her baby to death on a bonfire, was never convicted of a crime.

        You might make the mistake of thinking I’m some sort of fan of social services, that I believe they can do no wrong, that isn’t the case.

        I just want to say, you can comment all you like here, but as far as I am concerned you can fuck off. I’ve seen enough of your posts over the years to lead me to strongly believe that you really don’t give a shit about children.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Well said. It’s never about children for Josephs and the others who share his platform. It’s about the rights of adults to do what they like to children, just so long as they stay on the right side of the criminal law.

          Liked by 1 person

        • I say it is wicked to take children from non criminal parents so your example of parents jumping up and down on kids is absurd ! The one glaring thing however is that YOU fail to see the points of view of children brutally dragged off sreaming for their parents (sometimes on Xmas day !) at around 6.30am by uniformed police and unpleasant social workers to be isolated from family and friends .
          You Tracey seem to applaud this cruelty to innocent children;If they want to phone their law abiding parents why is it forbidden when murderers can phone whoever they like ?
          Foreign children in care cannot speak to visiting parents in their own language ! Yes Tracey do think of the children’s view on all this !

          Like

  2. APD has posted a snap of letter purportedly from a football club (in Louisiana ?) thanking for a donation from the Kenya Project ?. Thought the money was to aid kids in Africa?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. EC you are almost correct. After the collections Angie Power Disney decided to pass some of the money to the local football club That is not the main issue.

    The main issue is rather simple – that is the issue that the amount Angie Power Disney claimed that was given to the orphanage was not received by the orphanage. In fact the orphanage received several thousand pounds less than APD claimed she had sent them.

    The amount that Angie claimed was AFTER she had deducted a sum for her local football team.

    A secondary issue is the fact that the collection was solely made for the orphanage (and originally just in the orphanages name) and then Angie Power Disney decided to donate some of the funds collected for that cause to the local football team (where her son played).

    Is it fraud if money is collected in the name of one cause and then diverted to another without the donors express knowledge and consent? That is one of the questions Angie faces.

    The document that she claims is real in her facebook post is shown below (if it is genuine then it digs her a bigger hole)

    Details of accurate breakdowns can be found at https://hoaxteadresearch.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/kenya-project-update-angie-exposed-further/

    I am told that Angies latest Facebook post regarding this has been passed to the Guardia, who are investigating Angie in regards to her scamming.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I think its fair to say that nothing Angie Power Disney says can EVER be considered to be the truth without a verification.

    A look at the Facebook page of Oldcastle United AFC found an interesting post made on 25th July 2015.

    The post is with regards an AGM of the club, it could be that the club has two sections to it. However it seems unlikely that it has two chairmans.

    The post is shown below:

    As you can see the post states

    “Oldcastle United Schoolboys held their Awards & Agm today with outgoing CHAIRMAN DAVE RUDDEN stepping down from the club after Six years at the position. The Club would like to thank him for all his hard work and wish him the best of luck for the future.”

    It would seem that the AGM of Oldcastle United AFC was held on 25th July 2015 and Dave Rudden had been the Chairman for the past 6 years,

    Who was Fergal Farrelly? Why would he sign a note as Chair person? Why was the note (if it was genuine) not signed by Dave Rudden who was clearly ChairMAN of Oldcastle United AFC on 5th July 2014?

    Surely Angies donation would have either been to the whole club or to the part of the club (if it was managed with two chairmans??) that her son was involved with?

    Like

  5. So in fact Brian Gerrish, Ian Joseph and Christopher Booker and those who encourage them and visa versa (we know who they are) must share some blame in allowing this evil woman to have felt emboldened and probably untouchable as she allowed others to abuse her child.

    For all their hyperventilating this mob are the enablers of the abusers of children and there isn’t one signal case where they have actively helped a parent or a child.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s been said before by others, but of all those people I suggest they do doth protest too much. – And far too often! You’ve actually slightly echoed something that was said to me the other day by someone else – name me one single case where any of these hoaxers can be linked, even tenuously, to the arrest and conviction of a solitary child abuser?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I have been searching for the better part of a year, and have never come across a single instance where they have either saved a child who was being abused, or had an abuser arrested, let alone convicted. It’s pretty clear that their game is not to do with preventing child abuse or apprehending abusers; it’s about promoting an agenda of fear, and using that for their own self-aggrandisement.

        Like

  6. Booker is quite a disturbing character I think. I’ve seen material linking to another member of his ‘fan club’ which suggests they were trading in some fairly vile types of porn, including child pornography, bestiality, S&M etc. That in itself would be nothing (nobody in the public eye is accountable for their audience) were it not for the matter of that same individual being known as one of Booker’s regular sources! – Well known as a particularly rabid right-wing lunatic who makes Nick Griffin look like quite a reasonable chap. Josephs is another name I’ve only recently learned, and the opinion I’m forming of him is not positive either!

    The more I learn about thee hoaxes and the characters behind them the more convinced I become that, apart from being linked to out-and-out scams, part of the agenda is indeed to create a smokescreen behind which many child abusers and other criminals hide. They’re very quick to try and discredit normal people who call them out, or even just fail to give them the attention they crave on the basis of relatively normal indiscretions. Yet dig into their own background. – but it’s the NATURE and extent of the skeletons in THEIR cupboards that get me…

    The other thing that baffles me is how the hell these people are still out and walking around when very-often they can be directly linked to serious criminal matters – McKenzie is the most obvious example of this. How the HELL did she stay out of jail after the Iran Aid debacle?

    Liked by 1 person

    • JC – simple really, all the evidence was destroyed during the occupation of the Iran Aid Charities offices. That’s the only reason that she was not prosecuted.

      From the investigation report into the charity:

      “The charity’s records

      16. From the Commission’s enquiries it was apparent that the trustees had not met their obligations to maintain proper accounting records. These obligations arise under the requirements of the charity’s own governing document, statute and the common law duties of trustees. The Commission and the Receiver and Manager were unable properly to examine the books and records of the charity or to ascertain fully what accounting records existed. This was caused by a lack of co-operation on the part of the trustees, and an unlawful occupation of the charity’s premises that occurred between October 1998 and June 2000. As a result, the Commission was unable to conclude that the accounting records required by law existed or were properly kept. The occupation raised the following issues:-

      17. The occupation of the charity’s premises started with the expressed intention of denying the Commission and Receiver and Manager the full access to records that both were legally entitled to receive. The trustees said that they played no part in this illegal occupation and could not identify any of those responsible, but the occupation had a deleterious effect on the Commission’s ability to scrutinise the charity’s records.

      18. The occupation also raised serious concerns about the charity’s ability to operate in the future. Those in occupation made it clear that they were unwilling to permit any access to the charity’s premises and records unless the Commission allowed the charity to function as it did before the Receiver and Manager was appointed. The occupation ended with the destruction of all records that might have been expected to show how the charity distributed its funds.

      19. Prior to the occupation the trustees had applied to the courts for a temporary injunction preventing the removal by the Receiver and Manager of the charity’s records. The High Court refused an application by the trustees of the charity to extend this temporary injunction and made it clear that the Receiver and Manager had a right of possession and control over the charity’s records. In the Court’s view the assurances given to the trustees about the security of the records were proper and entirely adequate.”

      See http://www.iran-interlink.org/files/info/Iran%20Aid%201998%20Report.htm

      Liked by 1 person

    • THE CASH RACKET EXPOSED !

      The sad thing is that the sort of parents who really mistreat,assault,or neglect their children rarely go to court to try and keep them ! That sort of person will usually give courts a very wide berth !

      No ,the “SS” take children from nice happy law abiding families whose parents love them enough to go through months and sometimes years of debilitating court sessions .Surely most of these caring parents should win in court? But nearly all of them of them lose as the stats below prove.

      JUDICIAL COURT STATISTICS (page 25)

      In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.

      Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?

      Judicial and Court statistics 2011 – Gov.uk

      Stats from BAAF:-

      Placements 75% (52,050) of children looked after on 31st March 2015 were living with foster carers 9% (6,570) were living in secure units, children’s homes or hostels 5% (3,510) were placed with their parents 5% (3,320) were placed for adoption 3% (2,280) were with another placement in the community 3% (1,750) were placed in residential schools or other residential settings Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children 2,630 unaccompanied asylum seeking children were looked after on 31st March 2015 – See more at: http://www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/for-what-reasons-do-other-countries-allow-adoption-without-consent/#comment-62844

      The cost of residential care (dept of education)

      i.Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk

      Using the data collected and approach adopted this year we estimate that the average cost of residential care provision per child per week is around £2,900 !!
      i.www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04470.pdf = VERY COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS COMPILED FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY
      ii.Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk
      iii.www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35064228
      iv.Explanation of stats above is that approx 5000 children go missing from care but on average each child runs away (very often back to parents) at least 3 times hence 17,000 reports of missing children !
      v.http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/19/parents (maggie mellon vice chair british association of social workers)

      If there is no physical or sexual violence involved wouldn’t it be better spending some of this money helping law abiding parents to keep their children at home?

      Despite all these wonderful descriptions of overpaid foster carers, 10,000 children went “missing” from care, as you will see from the article below:

      lordslog

      Joint Inquiry into Children Who Go Missing from Care

      Extract (point 9):

      In June 2012, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Runaway and Missing Children and Adults and the APPG for Looked-after Children and Care Leavers published the report of their joint inquiry into children who go missing from care.

      The report argued that the Government was under-reporting the number of children going missing from care. While the official figure for 2011 was 930, the report argues that, according to police data, an estimated 10,000 individual children went missing. The report cited that this high number was symptomatic of a care system which was far from being fit for purpose and in need of an urgent rethink.

      Foster children go ‘missing’ from care 17,000 times

      •10 December 2015

      •From the section England

      Child holding adult’s handImage copyright Thinkstock

      Image caption There was a 2% increase in the number of children in foster care in 2014-15

      Foster children went missing from care in England more than 17,000 times in a year according to new figures.

      Ofsted revealed 5,060 children were reported as having gone missing while living with foster carers in 2014-15, compared with 4,245 the year before.

      But the total number of instances of children going missing rose from 13,300 to 17,175.

      Ofsted said the numbers were “an issue of concern” but believed better recording may in part explain the rise.

      The South East and London reported the highest percentages of children going missing, 6% and 5% respectively, which “may be linked to the disappearance of children thought to be trafficked into the UK and removed from foster care”.

      Kent County Council, one of the largest local authorities, reported the biggest number of instances of missing children, 792, in 2014-15.

      In England 155 children went missing from foster care for more than 28 days over the year, while 545 were missing for at least a week.

      A further 1,845 were missing from one to six days and 2,515 were missing for less than 24 hours.

      Maggie Mellon, British Association of Social workers; Vice Chair says:-

      http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/19/parents

      “I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession.

      For the last 20 plus years the number of investigations or assessments into families suspected of child abuse has climbed steadily upwards and now accounts for one in 20 families in England and Wales !!!

      A recent analysis found that since the Children Act 1989 referrals have increased by 311%, from 160,000 per year to 657,800 per year, between 1991 and 2014.

      Assessments have increased by 302% over the same period, from 120,000 to 483,800, while the number of cases of ‘core abuse’ have fallen. The figures show that the ratio of referrals to registrations have fallen year on year from 24.1% to 7.3%.

      ii.Child protection dominates work

      These assessments will have been carried out mainly by social workers. For social workers in statutory children and family teams there is no doubt that ‘child protection’ dominates every aspect of their work. Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high.

      What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear

      iii.“The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent. That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that ….”

      Councillor Roy Perry, Chairman of the Local Government Association’s Children and Young People Board, said: “Councils work hard to ensure children are settled with Foster

      Foster care and adoptions have become a lucrative business. Whether it should be a business at all is another question.

      Click on the relevant link below to go straight to a particular company:

      Foster Care Associates; National Fostering Agency, The Foster Care Agency; Acorn Care and Education, Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering; Partnerships in Children’s Services, Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House; Swiis Foster Care; Capstone Foster Care; Compass Fostering, The Fostering Partnership, Eden Foster Care and Seafields Fostering; Caretech

      Foster Care AssociatesFoster Care Associates logo

      Owned by: Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees through Ideapark Ltd

      Income from foster care in 2014**: £127.2m

      Payouts to owner in 2014: £7m

      Highest paid director salary and other benefits: £406,000

      Founded by carers Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees in 1994, Foster Care Associates (FCA) has become the biggest foster care company in the UK, and even has branches in Finland, Australia and Canada. The FCA website assures potential foster carers that it does not have any “shareholders or private equity interests to serve”, but this is only half right. Unlike many of its rivals it is not owned by a private equity firm. But it certainly does have shareholders – principally Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees, through a holding company called Ideapark Ltd.

      The latest accounts of Core Assets Group Ltd (Foster Care Associates is a trading name) show the company paid out £7m in dividends to Ideapark Ltd in 2014, and £11.6m the year before. Ideapark Ltd’s accounts show it only paid out £50,000 to Cockburn and Rees in 2014, but a whopping £9.2m the year before

      nationalfosteringagency

      ———- STOP PRESS !The agency above has been sold for £130+million!

      busad2014

      __£590/week per child to fosterers ! Nice work if you can get three at a time!

      iv.page !

      Foster care and Adoptions have become lucrative business. Whether they should be businesses at all is another question.

      Click on the relevant link below to go straight to a particular company:

      Foster Care Associates; National Fostering Agency, The Foster Care Agency; Acorn Care and Education, Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering; Partnerships in Children’s Services, Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House; Swiis Foster Care; Capstone Foster Care; Compass Fostering, The Fostering Partnership, Eden Foster Care and Seafields Fostering; Caretech

      https://corporatewatch.org/news/2015/dec/15/foster-care-business

      Foster Care Associates

      Owned by: Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees through Ideapark Ltd

      Income from foster care in 2014**: £127.2m

      Payouts to owner in 2014: £7m

      Highest paid director salary and other benefits: £406,000

      National Fostering Agency (includes the Foster Care Agency)

      Owned by: Stirling Square Capital Partners (previously Graphite Capital until April 2015)

      Income from foster care in 2014*: £94.5m

      Payouts to owners in 2014: £14.4m to Graphite Capital

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £318,112

      .

      Acorn Care and Education (includes Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering)

      Owned by: Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan

      Income from foster care in 2014*: £73.1m

      Payouts to owners: £13m accrued in 2014

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £266,420

      back.

      Partnerships in Children’s Services (includes Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House)

      Owned by: Sovereign Capital

      Income from foster care in 2014*: £29.8m

      Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.9m

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: not shown in accounts

      we have not heard back.

      Swiis Foster Care

      Owned by: Dev Dadral and family

      Income from foster care in 2014: £29.4m

      Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.5m (from the wider Swiis group, see below)

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £169,000

      Capstone Foster Care

      Owned by: Different individuals and companies (see below)

      Income from foster care in 2015: £21.1m

      Payouts to owners in 2015: £406,000

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £185,000

      Compass Fostering (includes The Fostering Partnership, Eden Foster Care and Seafields Fostering)

      Owned by: August Equity

      Income from foster care in 2015: £25.9m

      Payouts to owners in 2015: £3.1m accrued

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £131,000

      caretech

      Owners: shares are publicly-listed – Farouq and Haroon Sheikh biggest shareholders with 20%

      Income from foster care in 2014: £12m

      Payouts to owners in 2014: £240,000 in 2014

      Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £324,000

      v. nspcc

      Ministry of justice :- Official Judicial statistics

      In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused. What chance did those parents have as (to quote L.J.Thorpe) “parents are so prejudiced in proceedings” ??

      NSPCC figures above show that the “baby P factor” is a myth ! Children subject to a child protection plan were over a 5year period as follows:- Physical abuse+sexual abuse 2009=6400 but 2013=6700 an increase of only4.6% but emotional abuse 2009=9100 and 2013=13640 an increase of 49.8% !! More than double the numbers of physical and sexual abuse combined ! This goes to show that the “SS” have not increased numbers because of baby p and fears of physical or sexual abuse but have nearly doubled those they claim to have been emotionally abused because nobody can properly defend themselves against such an accusation. EASY MEAT………….

      Like

      • Ian, if there’s a ‘cash racket’ to be exposed, it’s the one involving a group of people who have fabricated a conspiracy theory around this country’s admittedly very imperfect child welfare system. The ‘cash’ would be the money that a deranged person with crackpot ideas doles out to any parent, no matter how abusive or negligent they may be, on the basis of his belief that no child should ever be removed from parental care.

        I have no wish to turn this blog into a replica of yours, so from this point on, I’ll be editing your comments for length. Guide yourself accordingly.

        Liked by 1 person

          • Yes, I absolutely and categorically deny it. However, I see little point in arguing with you; it’s about as productive as having a deep intellectual discussion with my vacuum cleaner.

            Like

      • Have you even met a police officer who has to fill out the paperwork for a missing child, who has been found, not quite safe and well, unfortunately drunk, for the third time that week, many dozens of times that year. Found with mummy, also drunk, pissing it up with a convicted child abuser.

        You have no clue what those figures are about. The stories of those missing children. So varied.

        Some are even adults, heresy I know, said they were a child when found in the back of the lorry, run away before being assessed, possibly to an awful fate, you’d probably say they were better off away from their foster carer, who is obviously in it for the wonga, they’re all rich those foster parents. All mine were minted, lol.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. Thanks JW, it’s appreciated. – I was shown this the other day. The main question that arises from it is why her affairs were not delved into in greater detail? – Was there no other sanction that could be applied to prevent her moving on in what I can only interpret as a life-long career in the charity scam industry? – You would have thought/hoped that being implicated in this apparent fraud/arson would have placed her on police radar to the extent that she would not dare to so much as drop a toffee paper in the street!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Evalion reckons she can teach people to identify Jews. In fact she’s SO clever that at the beginning of her last video she plays a Simon and Garfunkel song. Always liked S & G. Two nice Jewish boys who made it big. Well spotted Evalion (not). Why aren’t I surprised.

      Liked by 1 person

      • More similarities with the odious Araya Soma and her vicious antisemitism. Araya praises Bernie Sanders who I’m a fan of as well. But if you read early interviews with Sanders, though not religious ( but he says he’s spiritual) he credits his religious Jewish parents who fled persecution as having influenced his desire to help humanity.
        As always this mob never delve deeply and skim the surface.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. The term the prosecutor used, “playthings”, not only accurately describes Black’s actions, but also those of Sabine, Josephs, Belinda…etc. The children are just playthings in a game against the system.They take the side of whoever they see as being pressured by the system.

    They took the side of the Musas, Abraham and Ella, Brian Pead…etc. Ignoring allegations and even convictions against these people. Even when there is clear evidence and confession of abusive behaviour.
    When they make up stories of their own abuse, it is also targeted at the system. Examples, being David Shurter, Fiona Barrnet and of course APD.

    Sadly, they have chosen child abuse as their vehicle to fight the system, with no real care for how it hurts the children. In my opinion, they are not only enablers, but actual child abusers.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes. These people all use children as tools, but care nothing for their actual well-being. If they did care, they’d react with horror at the thought of Abe and Ella torturing RD’s children into creating the videos that started this hoax. They’d be appalled at the thought of the little Musa girl having to throw a note out her bedroom window in hopes of attracting help for her plight. They’d be dismayed that someone like Ian Josephs would even think of helping to spirit families out of the country to avoid the Social Services.

      Their interest in children is limited to viewing them as goods and chattels, and as tools to use in promoting their loony agenda.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The letter was in a completely different and adult handwriting from that of the little girl but the defence counsel did not bother to challenge it. She was isolated from her parents when she complaine at her last contact with them that she had been “touched” and sexually molested by the son of her Foster carer !
        I do NO spirit families out of the country.I help pregnant mothers flee abroad to avoid the horrors of forced adoption of their unborn children; !

        Liked by 1 person

        • If you’re correct about the evidence, I’m certain that her defence will address that in the leave to appeal. Oh, wait. That’s already happened. Must have missed it…again.

          And semantics aside, you do indeed assist pregnant women in leaving the country, despite the possibility that they might be doing so to evade contact with Social Services. Whether you like it or not, you don’t do this in any sort of responsible way. You are contributing to child abuse.

          Like

  9. Pingback: ‘Veteran of all McKenzie friends’ helped convicted child rapist keep her baby — HOAXTEAD RESEARCH | ShevaBurton. Cross of Change Blog

  10. It was around the year 2002 that I realised that adoption without parental consent (as it was known then) was being carried out despite opposition from parents fighting in court to keep their children.That was in effect “forced adoption” .I therefore created this” forced adoption” site and the term “forced adoption” has passed into current and popular use in the English language !

    The UK is the ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD where:-

    1:-A steady stream of parents flee the country every year to avoid having their babies and young children taken from them by the State for forced adoption. Social workers,behaving like police , take babies at birth from mothers ,not for anything they have done but for something someone with a “Crystal Ball” thinks they might do in the future ! The UK is also the ONLY PLACE INTHE WORLD where:-

    2:- babies are taken at birth for “risk of emotional abuse”
    Yes it really is true as most of the mothers who phone me complain because social workers acting as though they were police but with no authority to do so, snatch babies at birth from the hospital for this hypothetical”risk of emotional abuse” .Everyone can have a different opinion about such so called risks but both before and after these babies are snatched family court judges will nearly always rubberstamp the snatching and later order forced adoption of these little mites by strangers ! That way social workers can blame judges for the cruelty these actions entail . The UK is the ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD

    3:- where family courts in nearly every town up and down the country are overloaded with desperate parents fighting (mostly in vain) to keep their beloved children from fostering or forced adoption;
    Hard to believe this happens in UK? Well every single day, dozens of babies are taken at birth following a prediction of future risk by social workers and their “experts” .In fact not dozens but hundreds of babies are taken every year from their law abiding mothers for mere future risk,(usually from verbally abusive partners,often long departed or in jail !) and handed over for expensive fostercare or forced adoption in the UK!

    .If a single mum (for example) is told by a neighbour “a social worker called on you while you were out” the reaction would not be “what a pity I missed her” but would almost certainly be “My God they are after my children !”All this is why social workers are the most hated profession in the country !

    Maggie Mellon, British Association of Social workers; Vice Chair says:-

    http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/02/19/parents

    “I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession.

    For the last 20 plus years the number of investigations or assessments into families suspected of child abuse has climbed steadily upwards and now accounts for one in 20 families in England and Wales !!!

    A recent analysis found that since the Children Act 1989 referrals have increased by 311%, from 160,000 per year to 657,800 per year, between 1991 and 2014.

    Assessments have increased by 302% over the same period, from 120,000 to 483,800, while the number of cases of ‘core abuse’ have fallen. The figures show that the ratio of referrals to registrations have fallen year on year from 24.1% to 7.3%.

    Child protection dominates work

    These assessments will have been carried out mainly by social workers. For social workers in statutory children and family teams there is no doubt that ‘child protection’ dominates every aspect of their work. Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high.

    What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear

    “The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent. That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that ….”

    Dave Hill, 57, the new president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS), used his inaugural speech last month to demand a debate about the limits of state interference in family life, saying plainly that “we intervene too often and sometimes too readily”.

    THE BEST DEFENCE for parents involved in any adoption case is to show that adoption is NOT the last and only possible resort as required by law (below) but that the child or children could go to a parent or parents or to relatives under a supervision order with much less risk than going for adoption by complete strangers.

    Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B:

    There is no reason in most cases why the child should not be returned to parents under a supervision order.

    WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CHANGE THIS SITUATION ?The only remedy is new legislation on similar lines to the following:-

    1:-No Punishment without Crime

    Children must never be considered for removal from their parents unless a parent has been convicted in a criminal court of a serious crime against a child or children.If a parent is charged with such a crime the child or children may be removed temporarily but returned if the parent is acquitted.

    2:- Parents and children must never be legally gagged

    Restore absolute freedom of speech and public protest as already exists in the USA;. Parents must be allowed to identify themselves and protest via the media if their children are taken from them.When children are in care they should be allowed free discussion with relatives and friends,and given mobile phones if of an age when they can use one.They should be allowed to speak their own language (if foreign) to parents and others.All allegations of abuse in care should be investigated by police and never ignored.Parents must have the right to call their own children to court as their witnesses (Article 6 human rights act ) irrespective of age.

    3:-Always allow some form of contact contact between non criminal parents and children..

    Parents not guilty of crimes against children must never be deprived of face to face contact with their children; but even if they have been convicted of such crimes (providing those offences do not include child sexual relations or violence towards their own children) they should then still be allowed to initiate indirect contact by phone,email,or post . Non molestation orders should only have effect if a parent molests a partner ,spouse or child ;To molest =to intentionally harass or annoy (Oxford dictionary) and must not extend to legal prevention of indirect contact.

    4:-Abolish forced adoption !

    Forced adoption = adoption despite active opposition from parents via the courts and other forms of protest.The UK is the only country in the world in which babies can be taken at birth for “risk of future emotional abuse” and then forcibly adopted despite law abiding mothers begging to keep them !.

    HOW TO BRING ABOUT THE ABOVE CHANGES ?

    All major changes are brought about by parliament as only MPs can bring about changes in the law by their votes in the House of Commons. They will only do this if public opinion is strong enough to cost them votes and possibly their seats if they do not comply;Most MPs advertise in local press and on the internet their surgeries to hear grievances from constituents at least once a month. Parents should press for changes in the law at these meetings with their own MPs.Do not as a rule plead your own case as most MPs will refuse to interfere with the courts but cannot easily refuse to discuss changes in the law that you suggest.Also write letters to all the National and also local newspapers that you can think of cutting and pasting the above paras or writing your own versions if you prefer. If enough pressure is brought in this way the law will eventually be changed.

    IF you missed them at the beginning ,here is another chance to see the 3 fabulous videos made by the BBC, ITV,and Channel 4 news!

    Watch the BBC film ‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’. Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports.!
    Here’s the link to share this: https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout.

    i.Click on this link to watch the fabulous ITV documentary “exposure” and please share it!https://youtu.be/_7IQhrAOwiw A mother screams in agony as her newborn baby is ripped from her arms………

    ii.See the programme below on Channel 4 News

    http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

    iii.Ian Josephs speaking at the ‘Children Screaming to be Heard’ conference, London April 2016

    : Click here to open a pdf which you can then print. It shows clearly the defects of the “system” and also the measures needed to reform our family courts and social services all on one page !

    Statistics that show how much it all costs and how thousands of children run away from wonderful State Care (usually back to their parents !).The parliamentary briefing clearly states “Using the data collected and approach adopted this year we estimate that the average cost of residential care provision per child per week is around £2,900 !!!
    i.www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04470.pdf = VERY COMPREHENSIVE STATISTICS COMPILED FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY
    ii.Children Homes data pack 2014 – Gov.uk
    iii.www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35064228

    Like

    • TL:DR, Ian.

      Those who read this blog are already far too familiar with the conspiranoid rhetoric you use, as we’ve been hearing Sabine and Belinda spout it for well over a year now.

      As Sarah says, anyone who might be inclined to give your ideas the benefit of the doubt would be well advised to visit her page for some useful and well thought-out responses to the issues you raise: http://childprotectionresource.online/the-woeful-state-of-our-debate-part-vi-8-questions-to-ask-family-judges/

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ian Joesph uses all the same phrases and catchwords as S.McNeil.They are singing from the same song sheet. He should answer the question : did he fund Marie Black to flee from the UK.

        Seeing Marie Black won her case to keep her child – so much for the hysteria by this mob that parents always lose in the court and she is quite obviously not wealthy – and then went on to host a perverted pedophile gang to abuse that child, does Mr Joseph feel event he slightest ting of guilt?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Most lawyers advise parents to “go along with social services” so only one in 400 application for care orders is refused ! Brendan Fleming of course argued her appal successfully but he alas is now semi retired.
          The only three found guilty were Marie and her two previous partners and the only children involved were her own so hardly a gang ! Police evidence was that 268 alterations had been made to court documents by a named social worker in order to eliminate any leading questions put to children or that might incriminate the carers ! Marie was prevented from defending herself in court as they stopped her giving evidence to deny the charges so her appeal is still pending.

          Like

          • I’m not at all interested in re-trying the Marie Black case here. Thanks for playing.

            And lawyers advise parents to co-operate with social services for a reason: in doing so, they have an opportunity to find out what they are doing wrong as parents (drink, drugs, neglect; physical, mental, or sexual abuse; etc.) and mend their ways. This does happen, despite your dire claims of a child-snatching conspiracy.

            I do agree that social services need to focus more on prevention than late intervention in child abuse cases; the system is obviously far from perfect, and people are getting hurt by it. But your solution is a terrible one, that allows potentially dangerous parents to avoid looking at and dealing with their own behaviour.

            Like

      • I AGREE that conspiracies are mostly rubbish ! When our wonderful MPs decided to fiddle their expenses nobody suggests that 650 of them met in a hall to decide the best way to fiddle ! No each acted for themselves and so it is with the family courts ,the adoption agencies the special schools,and the hangers on.All have their individual “snouts in the trough “! No conspiracy necessary when the system makes it so easy for them to profit from the misery of others …………..

        Like

        • If you agree that most conspiracies are rubbish, perhaps you can explain why you consort with noted conspiracy pushers Belinda McKenzie and Sabine McNeill? I’d think that if you dismissed their wacky beliefs out of hand, you’d wish to distance yourself from them.

          Like

    • Good Evening Mr Josephs (#Forced Adoption), A rather interesting post by you….

      I trust you are well?

      Please would you be so kid as to answer a rather simple question – DO YOU SUPPORT SABINE MCNEILL and BELINDA MCKENZIE IN ALL OF THEIR ACTIVITIES AND BELIEFS?

      I will take silence in response as an affirmative”

      Liked by 1 person

      • I do not know all their activities and beliefs so cannot support them all the way but I DO BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME AND SO SHOULD YOU JW !

        Like

        • I agree that their should be no punishment without crime. However there is not a single record of a successful case by Sabine McNeill or Belinda Mckenzie – why is that?

          Ian, how many times has there been a need for an injunction to stop you publishing a child’s details? Sabine claimed that you had been involved in 50000 cases in 50 years, that’s an incredible number???

          Its common knowledge on at least six occasions (during the six years that the association of McKenzie friends has operated) that there has been a need for and an injunction granted to stop Sabine McNeill publishing children’s details on the internet.

          I am pleased that you state that you cannot “support them all the way” but surely you will have seen enough to question in your own mind their activities and ethics.

          Perhaps a look at the Musa’s or Haigh case would speak volumes.

          Perhaps a look at the findings of the Judge in the Hampstead matter that started this blog would raise questions with regards the conduct of SM and BM with regards the publication of the children’s details and the lack of respect for the Court

          Surely by the support (an association) you have given them you dilute any credibility of your own efforts?

          Liked by 1 person

          • JW I am sincerely glad that you agree with me that there should be no punishment without crime;My argument has always been precisely that as I would never oppose the removal of children from persons convicted ot serious crimes against children.
            I work alone and cannot answer for others like Sabine or Belinda who can answer your questions themselves if they wish. I disagree with them on the Hampstead case. I myself have had many many successes as can be seen on my website where only a fraction of them are posted. I helped mothers when on the KCC from 196I -1967 but then stood down to attend to my neglected language school business.
            I reentered the fray around 2003 when more financially secure,, coined the forced adoption phrase to mean “contested adoptions” and named my site accordingly.I certainly receive more than three calls or emails per day from distressed parents .More like a dozen most days ! 1000 per year would be a low estimate.
            Guilt by association is a communist/fascist idea and I am surprised you support it ;I feel no guilt for admiring a lot of things that these ladies do but not everything;
            Vicky Haigh for example sentenced to 3 years jail for speaking to her own daughter when her ex (the father) drove into a petrol station to fill up his car where vicky was shopping locally and could not have known he would drive in at that time.Yes when she came out of jail and fell pregnant by her new Partner I helped her escape to France to give birth there full of praise for kind and helpful french social workers! Vicky now trains racehorses at Maison Lafitte and trained one for me recently ! Her new daughter is safe and happy and already riding ponies.
            She committed no crime against children except speaking to a daughter she had not seen for two years……..
            Nobody has ever served an injunction on me of any sort whatever though I did sign a secrecy document in the court once before being allowed to act as a McKenzie friend for someone many years ago
            All questions answered I think…… Thanks for partial agreemet at least !

            Like

          • Having your children in care isn’t a punishment btw. It isn’t a sentence as a result of a conviction.

            Calling it a punishment, yet again, shows how little you care about children.

            That’d be like saying having your house repossessed is wrong because getting in debt isn’t illegal.

            Being very seriously mentally unwell isn’t a crime. Neglect isn’t a crime of violence, you seem fixated on certain offences.

            Is Vicky a sex offender? Did she admit to naming and outing her daughter from her point of view as a victim of sex offences? That’s a sex offence right there.

            Don’t you agree then that the children P and Q in the Hampstead case should have had all the material published? If not why not? You seem to argue that that is fine elsewhere. And Vicky Haigh did a similar thing at the end of the day.

            Odd though, that in cases where parents have cautions for being drunk in charge of a child, or where there is clear evidence of neglect, that’s just dismissed.

            And people lie to you, parents lie to you.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Yes, that’s an important consideration: I’ve only rarely met a parent who would confess to being less than stellar in all respects. Ella Draper thought of herself as an excellent mother, and yet she allowed her children to be used as puppets, beaten, starved, burnt, smothered, and threatened…all in front of her eyes. By Ian’s logic, she should be given her children; the High Court begs to differ.

            Like

          • Ian, I am glad that you have posted here. I see you have commented on Haigh, but what about the false accusations that she made against her child’s father?

            It’s interesting that you are silent with regards the Musa’s – why?

            Exactly what cases of Belinda’s and Sabines do you think they have handled well?

            Like

    • If people desire to prevent or reduce the numbers of children taken into care they might like to consider campaigning on two proposals of mine:
      1. compulsory education of all students whilst at school in parenting skills.
      2. the introduction of a license to have children. People without this license have their children taken into care. The licensing system to require a set of standards expected of carer or parent of child.

      Like

      • Sorry, I can’t possibly endorse that or say nothing about it any more than I can endorse the Orwellian ‘named person’ scheme being floated here in Scotland. – It’s an affront to nature, natural freedoms and natural justice. Contrary to what some of us where taught in school we are NOT burdened with original sin. And are innocent until proven guilty!

        Yes, by all means society has a right and obligation to set basic standards. Yes, a proper education in those standards should be a part and parcel of every young person’s education…

        But a LICENCE to have children? State sanction necessary to breed?

        Personally I’ve seen too much evidence that the State is staffed and run by just as many unhinged nutjobs as the conspiritainment industry! And it really needs to be held to account just as surely as any other corporate body! The notion that the State might know better than any reasonable person is certainly one to be questioned – always! And where it is forced to intervene on behalf of the people it serves that must ALWAYS take place ‘feet to to the fire’ of accountability and transparancy.

        Part of the problem is that this doesn’t always happen. And our Civil Servants often forget that they are just that – Servants.

        Like

    • I don’t think anybody is claiming that social services get it right 100% of the time. I believe most rational minded people fully understand that some children are taken when they shouldn’t be. However, rational minded people also recognise that there are times when social services get it absolutely correct. The complaint against people like you and Sabine et al, is that you don’t appear to recognise that social services ever get it right. It seems as though you believe children should never be removed, and that they are property of the parents; instead of having their own rights which sometimes need to be protected when the parent cannot do so.

      The worst part though, is you advise and help people to leave the country, when for all you know, they could be seriously dangerous and terrible abusers. Lawyers do advise and defend their clients, but how often do they advise and help them skip the country? Lawyers will often be straight and blunt with their client, advising them to plead guilty, because the evidence is stacked against them. In relation to this case, I find it no coincidence that Ella sacked two lawyers before approaching Sabine. Most likely, because they told her thing she didn’t want to hear, and could see what really happened.

      It’s nice that people want to help vulnerable parents that may not understand what is going on or may not feel confident dealing with social services and other authorities. However, that doesn’t mean the advise they are receiving is helping their plight. The advice could be crap, and even lead to more friction with social services. And potentially turn a situation which could be sorted by working with social services, into a situation in which the parents lose the child due to taking rubbish advice.

      Liked by 2 people

      • The thing about this man is he has such a narrow view of what child abuse is.

        What about the two girls I knew, whose mothers stayed with their sexual abuser, and this is after conviction and in one case guilty pleas to each charge? One girl I’m still in touch with. To say she as an adult woman has problems would be an understatement. There’s no way I can describe the anguish that causes a child.

        The cases where neglect or parental drug abuse or debilitating mental health problems or constant domestic violence is a feature of children’s lives? The mother who keeps on, despite warnings, inviting the local paedophiles to stay over while they all get drunk and she passes out intoxicated?

        I don’t think he has a clue really.

        Liked by 1 person

        • No, he doesn’t. And the claim that he and his friends Belinda, Sabine, et al are in it to protect ‘children’s rights’ is laughable. If they were being honest they’d admit they are promoting the interests of parents whose ability to care for their children has been called into question. The children are merely collateral damage.

          Like

        • How many times must I say that we should stop persecuting law abiding parents and only take children from parents who commit crimes against children. In the case above being drunk in charge of a child is a crime, committing sexual abuse on a child or allowing it is a crime,being drugged up on illegal substances in charge of a child is a crime so there were at least three good reasons to take the children if the facts were true and were not (as sometimes) malicious allégations from an anonymous source.

          Like

          • A good friend of mine has had allegations made against her by an anonymous source on three occasions. Social Services investigated each time and left satisfied that there were no problems. If they don’t find anything, they don’t act.

            People don’t always tell you the truth about what’s going on behind closed doors and you are not doing the research that needs to be done to find the truth. Sometimes people are also blind to their own failings.

            Re ‘crimes’ – it’s often extremely difficult to get convictions for some offences in relation to children. Where young children are involved it’s sometimes impossible. What Social Services do is investigate by talking to all who come into contact with the family, including doctors, health visitors and teachers. These people attend the Case Conferences which determine whether or not a child should be taken into ‘Care’ in the first place.

            What bothers me is that these days parents aren’t being given the input to put things right.
            If we want to improve the system we need to actually increase the number of social workers and provide facilities so people can learn to be ‘good enough’ parents so that Social Services need never be involved again. The financial cut-backs we’re seeing in the country today is largely to blame for this awful state of affairs. If it was up to me all of these services would be Government run and private companies wouldn’t come into it.

            Lastly, helping people you know nothing about (other than what they’ve told you) to abscond is so irresponsible that it’s beyond words. Why don’t you do something useful like fund some parenting classes.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Yes, excellent points. I’d far rather see money spent on helping people become better parents than on allowing people to avoid responsibility for their own behaviour.

            And I fully agree that the situation has been made worse by the current atmosphere of slashing and burning any sort of government social spending.

            Like

      • No,no,a thousand times no ! Children who are physically beaten or sexually assaulted are poor adoption material so like baby p they are left to die by callous and unfeeling social workers when they should have been taken.
        I say that children should only be taken if a parent has committed a serious crime against children and NOT for risks that may never happen ! They should STOP persecuting law abiding parent citizens !

        Like

        • Right, you are complete conspiraloon who thinks there is a childsnatching squad filling orders for babies.

          Team meetings like this perhaps?

          Senior social worker: Right team, we need three more babies this month. I don’t want babies like the ones you got last month. One little baby boy had global development delay as a result of neglect, couldn’t even sit up and scars from human bites and cigarette burns. How often have I said, just leave those ones to die. And the disabled ones, just arrange a couple of hours of respite care and close the case. We need ones that we can snatch at hospital ideally. Also, babies, as long as they are between 6 and 12 months old. No seven year olds, or sibling groups please. And ignore those that have been abused.

          Liked by 1 person

        • “No,no,a thousand times no ! Children who are physically beaten or sexually assaulted are poor adoption material so like baby p they are left to die by callous and unfeeling social workers when they should have been taken.”

          This comment is so completely lunatic that I’m sorry I joined in this conversation.
          Please disregard everything I’ve said so far since there’s no point in arguing with this person.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Blah Blah Blah, yadda yadda yadda…

      There ARE problems with ‘the system’, yes. But people like you and your associates are part and parcel of those problems.

      It’s because of people like YOU that the maliferous side of the state flourishes. Yes, there ARE instances of officials operating beyond their authority and as if they were the agents of a dictatorship. But, rather than hoist them with their own petard and expose illegality, people like YOU happily throw fuel on the fires entirely for your own benefit. It’s because of people like YOU that the state moves to become ever more draconian. And because of people like YOU that any sign of dissent or independent investigation can be readily dismissed as just the chattering of nutcases. – Because that is entirely and wholly your stock-in-trade.

      You work with individuals who are in my opinion (which is evidenced-based and shared with a great many people) common con merchants and criminals – lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas.

      Your rhetoric is a shallow gruel of half-truths, blatant lies, and deceptions. And worse, the disinterest – even the open hostility of your kind to those who DO genuinely investigate matters of child abuse and DO genuinely contribute to the convition of child-abusers is as palpable as it is disgusting and disgraceful. For you to conflate your own ramblings with the investigations and findings of serious journalists is comical.

      As it happens a recently made contact of my is the adoptive brother of five siblings some of whom were placed for fostering and later adoption in the late 60s and early 70s on no more solid a basis that their mothers were single and of a particular ethnicity. They are people who genuinely DID experience unjustified ‘forced adoption’ and see all sides of the issues. He and his family know much about the problems, and are among the first to admit that those dark days when a baby could be ‘snatched’ for trivial and/or mercenary reasons are long gone…

      And they were the first to point out that people like YOU and the con-merchants you so readily get into bed with – those who do not actually care whether or not the state is justified in its actions or not, so long as your own self-serving needs are statisfied – people like YOU are just creating a lucrative smokescreen which ensures that, if child-snatching by the state occurs at all, it’s extremely difficult to expose in any kind of rational way. YOU people are the boys crying ‘wolf’.

      Liked by 2 people

    • See my very intemperate response above.

      From someone who has walked the walk and who eventually left care to make my way in the world, which was in the bad old days, with my stuff in black bin bags, we didn’t even get those cheap laundry bags in my day!

      Liked by 2 people

    • And I might as well say, I see, and read, and appreciate what you and others are doing for families. I know not everyone agrees on the same solutions, or maybe even what the problems are, but the care and dedication from many parties is obvious.

      XXXX

      Liked by 4 people

  11. “as he has observed an estimated 50,000 cases in over 50 years” – That would necessitate him observing 3 cases a day, almost every day, for 50 years. So is clearly as untrue as Snowden stealing 1.7 million documents in three years (do the sums, it makes no sense).

    Liked by 2 people

    • Observing in his case appears to be taking a phone call. He knows the whole situation top to bottom. Special skills of telling the good parents from the truly dangerous, in a phone call. Maybe even an email.

      That’s his observing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tracey (and others) Sir James Munby is President of the family courts”;Since the abolition of the death penalty”, he says”, the kind of orders a judge has to make on whether children should be removed from their parents “are among the most drastic any judge in any jurisdiction is empowered to make”.
        Yes only the death penalty can compare with the taking of a baby at birth for risk of emotional abuse followed by forced adoption by strangers.
        Tell any woman losing her newborn baby in these circumstances that she is “not being punished” and the baby deprived of its mother suffering untold emotional abuse………The heartless just..enjoy semantics while mother and baby suffer…..
        No law abiding Citizen deserves to have their children snatched by the “ss” and then adopted by strangers;
        Others on this site keep giving examples of criminal child abusers and pretending I support them !
        I write two or three statements every day (based on the Template from my site) for parents based on what they tell me in answer to my questions; If they lie to me their statement will be counter productive and the know this because I tell them so .
        No law abiding sane mother deserves her baby snatched at birth especially as the baby is possibly damaged for life as a consequence.;Other countries occasionall use forced adoption but none of them snatch newborns at birth for risk of emotional abuse and that makes the UK the worst in the world in that respect.
        This will go on as long as the fostering and adoption agencies make millions ,and the “special private schools make even more sometimes,.Money makes this horrid corner of the world go round………..

        Like

        • I’m immune to your bullshit. Won’t work.

          My mother was an exceptionally accomplished liar, and charming when she wanted to be. I was so undernourished I could put my hands round my waist, and my sibling had five of their adult teeth removed due to neglect of their dental care. It was only, finally, when stuff like this became apparent that morons like you would even begin to listen. Even then she managed to charm so many.

          No convictions. Never will be. Unlikely even at the time.

          I’m not actually bitter, but I see through you due to bitter experience.

          So, just fuck off. Some people might be impressed, me, no.

          If you won’t listen to someone who has been through the system, who has been that child whose concerns you dismiss so casually, then you are not worth my time.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Roll up! Roll up! Roll up! Come and see the side show! Weasel words woven while straw men dance the polka!

          The very fact that is your face and your voice on that video attention-seeking on the conspiritainment stage tells the world everything that needs to be known in terms of your credibility. No-one who is actually concerned about and learned in the issue would take that stage or associate with those charlatans. – It’s really just THAT simple. And, as was suggested earlier, the fact you put the parent’s angst before the safety and wellbeing of the child tells us everything we need to know about your level of understanding and wisdom on the matter.

          Liked by 2 people

  12. Pingback: Josephs distances himself from Belinda, Sabine | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  13. Those who support forced adoption of newborn babies from sane law abiding mums for risk of emotional abuse (not actual abuse but risk of it in the future !) are either fascists or communists in the way they think even if they are actually believe they are adept at reading the future with tealeaves,tarot cards,or crystal balls ! When it becomes unlawful in the not too distant future I hope they will hang their heads in shame !
    No circumstance can justify such barbarity ! No baby deserves to lose a loving law abiding mother at birth and the emotional damage done by harsh family courts must be enormous .Think of the babies and young children for once ,not the needs of social workers and judges to give unstinting support to the system they all live off !

    Like

  14. Pingback: On a walk in Belinda’s neighbourhood… | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.