Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

Postby Hope » Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:16 pm

Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren removed by the state


http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/councillors_who_have_had_their_c_3#comment-6674
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

Postby Hope » Sat Dec 05, 2009 3:31 pm

Elle-May Williams-Piper d.o.b. 22.9.2002

Ruby Williams-Piper d.o.b. 21.1.2004

Lacey Williams-Piper d.o.b. 23.5.2006

Poppy Williams-Piper d.o.b. 2.6.2007

Granddaughters of Maidstone Councillor Sheena Williams who resigned from the conservative party after Kent county council stole them for forced adoption
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

Postby Hope » Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:26 pm

No grandparents can be considered suitable :thinks: according to this, in one breathe you are good eunoguh to raise your own children but not your grandchildren because they have been taken into care :puzz:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=6298837526323117917&blogID=216729824077790522&isPopup=false&page=5

Judgement of Judge Green

The application for renewal of these interim orders is opposed by Sheena Williams (at Judge Polden suggestion)
and by mother, Jade Williams, who, whilst not putting herself forward as a carer, says that the children should no longer be subject of an interim care orders and she would ask her mother, Sheena Williams, to exercise her parental responsibility in her place.

I want to make it clear at the very outset of this judgement that the way I approach any application for care orders is, and it is in accordance with the general law, founded on a recognition that a care order is the most draconian step the Court can take in respect of a family. Making an interim care order is the order of last resort.

(Really Judge Green ?? we think not otherwise why contradict yourself and try to bully relatives along with the local authorities into submission?)

I want to say that at the outset because I am clear that Sheena Williams believes that the local authority has only one aim in mid, and that is to have her 4 granddaughters adopted outside the family. (Proved correct) I do not accept that she is correct but I want her to be absolutely sure that whether that is or not the position the Court will have a final say in the matter.

In this case Sheena Williams has a particular concern that the whole process of bringing these proceedings has been vitiated by a failure by the local authority to follow its own policy and make a referral for a family group conference before proceedings were issued. (Correct they didn’t)

Sheena Williams has submitted that there have been breaches of the Human rights Act 1998 as a result of this failure and that the court is obliged to recognise those breaches.

But i am confronted by the fact that it has been made clear by teh senior courts in this jurisdiction that the childrens act is human rights compliant.

I assessed Sheena Williams as a patently honest witness throughout the evidence she gave me.

(He also believed Forde Ferguson SW was sincere and that Mrs Edwards (independent SW) Amanda Barden Guardian were experts patently trying to do their best- absolute rubbish)

This commitment is achieved by a process of family group conferencing where a child aged 10 years or under is at risk of becoming looked after it is mandatory for a social worker to refer the child and his/her family for a family group conference.

(but of course this would prevent children from being stolen so easily, wouldn’t it Mr Green)

There is no dispute that the local authority knew Sheena Williams address and knew of her previous involvement with the children.


Judge Green continued to do local authorities job for them very well; leading from the bench.

But there will have to be evidence before the court whether mother or other members of the family do have the qualities, and I go back to the quote I used before "which are necessary to meet these emotional needs"
(what he means is the emotional needs that have been caused by being placed in care in the first place.)

What I have in respect of Sheena Williams is ample and convincing evidence that in respect of her own three children she is, to use a phrase which is not meant to be patronising but is the best phrase i can use, a good mother.

(Although clearly not good enough to be a grandmother to her own granddaughters without being assessed and stitched up. Is this why Judge Polden couldn’t answer when questioned about what was to stop them coming for her children if she agreed to their requests for psychological assessments?)

Judge Polden failure to answer - says it all by his direct acquiescence

It is a given assumption for me, for the purpose of this judgment only, that in respect of her own three children Sheena Williams has all the skills that they need. I do not need to hear from the Leader of Maidstone Borough Council to come to that conclusion for this hearing. but , as i understand it, on evidence available to me (massive amount of references including those of KCC own foster carers who are not psychologically assessed neither are SW or adoptive parents )

Sheena Williams' three children have advantages that her daughters four children never had.(really !! - she must really regret going to the SS because of her daughters domestic violence in the first place)

I have heard about a stable loving relationship between Sheena Williams and her partner over ten years, and her three children have grown up in a nice home with all the facilities they could wish for within the home physically and emotionally, not least because they have grown up within the framework of a stable partnership between their mother and mother's partner. (be careful any single mum's out there; yet single/ gay adoption/ trans-gender in some cases is perfectly acceptable?)

I have not been told this I assume that Sheena Williams' partner is the father of her children and if this is the case that reinforced what I have just said. (Yes they are; be careful of any second time relationships).

Thankfully those children have not tested the ability of Sheena Williams or her partner to cope with the extra needs that children in care have (yes he really said this!!)
Nor do I expect they will ever require such intervention because all the evidence is, just to repeat myself, that they have had a very high quality of care from their parents.

(Yet still not good enough to be grandparents to their granddaughters - pretty rich)

The Court - has to look at the side of the coin that says there are risks to the children if they stay in foster placement. Those risks are obvious. (Even more so if you look at a picture of baby Poppy with a gash on her head from , apparently?? falling out of the 'carer' car and Elle-May wetting herself in 'care')

But there are also risks to the children if they are taken out of foster placement and placed with another carer. (What about the countless moves including respite care for the foster carers and splitting the children up - God help us is all I can say, these people in position lack complete and utter common sense)
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

Postby Hope » Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:22 pm

How interesting :clap:

Isn't it funny that a film crew from Kent commonly known as
(child snatching capital of the UK) contacted Jimmy from Grandparent Apart in Scotland,
to ask about any grandparents that social services have helped; not interested in any
they have not helped.

Of course he couldn't tell them as he doesn't know any; and why would they have to go
as far as Scotland, could it be because they have not helped any in Kent?

Sound desperate to me, maybe they will have to muster up some from thin air,
what a pity they are not so forth coming with the truth about their policies and practices
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm


Re: Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

Postby Hope » Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:54 pm

Kent Payments to Adoptive Parents :thinks:

1. Adopted Child Support Allowance for 10/11 was £3,324,101

2. Grants to Adoptive Parents to purchase furniture,
equipment, etc, prior to the adopted children's arrival for 10/11 was
£9,463

3. Prospective Adoptive Parents expenses for 10/11 was £36,241.01

All children's cost i.e. Therapy, life books, passports Birth certificates
have been stripped out as they are paid from the same line.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_to_adoptive_parents_159#incoming-203623
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

Postby MikeThomas » Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:02 pm

WOW! All that cash and you only get £50 + per week in Tax Credits for a child. No wonder those fostering children are reluctant to hand them back! It's quite a little earner eh?
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
User avatar
MikeThomas
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Llanharan, South Wales

Re: Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

Postby enegiss » Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:19 pm

it sure is a way to make an easy living if you can get it. peace and light
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
enegiss
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1309
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

Postby Hope » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:12 am

Kent council among worst in UK for losing vital information :puke:

Kent County Council has been ranked the second worst authority in the UK for losing sensitive and personal information - including details of children.

According to research from the civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, in the past three years the council has had 72 cases of data being lost or stolen.

These include:

Scanned case notes relating to children found on Facebook. It contained information that would identify individuals
An outreach worker who lost a memory stick travelling from one school to another. It contained personal data of 30 pupils from 16 schools including assessment results
A 2010 diary which was left on top of a car. It contained details of appointments with clients
A social worker's car broken into, containing a laptop and diary holding client information
A child's report sent to the wrong set of parents
CSS child protection team faxed information, containing sensitive personal data about a child, to the wrong NHS team
An email plus attachment sent by the Learning Disability Team to the wrong recipient. It contained sensitive personal data about a client
A primary school sent unsuccessful application emails copying all other unsuccessful applicants in
An individual's NHS records found behind a desk. This included immunisation records and schools attended
A laptop carrier left on a car roof containing information about social care contracts

According to the report, Buckinghamshire came out as the worst authority, with Essex placed below Kent in third place.

Almost all local authorities responded to the Freedom of Information request, which covered loss of personal information by council employees and contractors between August 3 2008 and August 3 2011.

Maria Fort, research director of Big Brother Watch, said: "It's extremely worrying.

"This research highlights a shockingly lax attitude to protecting confidential information.

"A lot of the data belonged to vulnerable individuals, and parents should be concerned.

The key findings nationally

A total of 132 authorities were involved in 1,035 incidents of data loss

At least 35 councils lost information about children and those in care

The information of at least 3,100 children, young people or students was compromised in 118 cases

At least 244 laptops and portable computers were lost

A minimum of 98 memory sticks and more than 93 mobile devices went missing

Of the 1,035 incidents, local authorities reported that just 55 were reported to the Information Commissioner's Office

Just 9 incidents resulted in termination of employment

"These are public sector employees who are handling private information.

"If it's not made clear to them from the start how information needs to be treated and handled then we will continue to see these breaches taking place.

"It's dangerous and guidance needs to be clear."

The report comes a month after The Information Commissioner's Office reported the Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust breached the Data Protection Act by accidentally destroying 10,000 archived records.

The records, which should have been kept in a dedicated storage area, were put in a disposal room due to lack of space.

The records were then mistakenly removed from the room and destroyed.

The hospital failed to realise the information was missing for three months.

David Smith, from the Information Commission's Office, addressed the latest local authority blunders.

But he said the blame should lie with individuals.

He added: "There is an element of individual members of staff being careless, but it's the lack of proper training for them.

"Storing data on memory sticks and laptops is a real problem."

A Kent County Council spokesman said it was no surprise the authority came out close to the top in the survey, as it was the largest shire county.

But he added: "Clearly, we would look at each case individually and take appropriate action depending on the severity of the case, which could include dismissal.

"We have a robust information security incident protocol in place, so consequently we log, monitor and investigate all reports of any alleged security breaches, regardless of cause or eventual outcome."

The spokesman said some of the incidents were beyond employees' control, such as in cases of theft.

"We are continually monitoring our procedures to make sure we have the correct policies in place to be able to deal with such incidents of personal data being lost, stolen or shared inappropriately."

Tuesday, November 22 2011

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2011/november/23/kent_council_among_worst_in_uk.aspx
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

Postby Hope » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:13 am

The Kent Freedom Movement proudly present an evening with Bill Maloney from 'Pie 'n' Mash Films' :clap:

Time: November 24, 2011 from 8pm to 10pm
Location: The Three Daws Riverside Inn
Street: 7 Town Pier, West Street,
City/Town: Gravesend, Kent DA11 0BJ

'Pie 'n' Mash Films' produce Hard hitting, gritty working class films and controversial documentaries covering sensitive and sometimes taboo issues relating to institutional child abuse and the erosion of civil liberties.

'Pie n Mash films' believe in 'telling it like it is' and Bill and Lilly are well known figures in the truth movement.

Bill will be talking about his latest work in helping to reveal abuse of children and help with parents when their children have been taken away from them unlawfully and Bill is tireless in his support for these people who would not normally get a voice.

http://kentfreedommovement.ning.com/events/kent-freedom-movement-proudly-present-an-evening-with-bill-malone
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

Next

Return to Freedom of Information only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests