Councillor's who have had their children/grandchildren remov

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

Postby Hope » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:59 pm

Did they steal 3 of her 4 granddaughters and send them to America for exposing what they would prefer was kept hidden about childrens services :thinks: :puke:

1) KCC have paid for 3 air fares, which consist of 2 flights back and
forth from the USA to UK for prospective adoptive parents. The 3rd flight
was to take the children to America.


http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foreign_adoptive_parents_airfare#incoming-240143


Costs paid to Prospective Adoptive Parents
2010/11
Apr- Sep 2011
Description
Air Flights
3,175.53
5,700.34
Car Hire
3,003.36
3,003.36
Other Travel
6,204.20
5,964.88
Accommodation
6,720.34
4,410.00
Settling in Fee
22,491.72
8,598.44
Shipping Costs
651.73
Legal Fees
350.00
16,598.00
Loss of Income
7,200.00
5,800.00
Other Adoption
4,876.80
Related Costs
Total
49,145.15
55,603.55


Whats going on why are they trying to hide 3 children No mention of America in a FOI July 2011 :puke:


Intercountry Adoption April 2010 - April 2011

34 enquiries
5 initial visits relating to Nigeria, Colombia, Russia, China and India
1 assessment of change of approval from China to UK
6 assessments linked to Pakistan, Colombia, Nigeria, Russia, Sierra Leone
3 approvals linked to Russia, Sierra Leone, Pakistan
3 placements 1 female child from Sierra Leone and 2 female children from
China
4 post placement reports for China
6 Annual reviews 5 linked with China and 1 linked with Thailand


http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foreign_potential_adoptive_paren#incoming-200116
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

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

Postby Hope » Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:28 pm

Children's social services, complaints of misconduct / intimidation :clap:

4 February 2012

Dear Kent County Council,

I would like, under the Freedom of Information Act for information
on action taken when a Children’s social worker who persistently
fails in the following. Complaints to the GSCC and LGO have been
exhausted. All have failed to acknowledge evidence, or take into
account the law, what would the next steps be in the following
questions?

1. Failing to follow public law, even when pointed out to them they
are in breach of the law and some examples of their actions listed
below.
a. Act beyond their powers.
b. Ignore relevant information.
c. Fail to undertake a sufficient enquiry.
d. Mislead professionals.
e. Clearly showing biasness towards one parent.
f. Not informing a parent what the case is against them.
g. Not taking into account evidence or factors which he or she was
not aware of.
h. Not allowing the individual to put his or her case forward.
i. Not giving the individual the facilities to put his or her case
forward.
j. Refusing to hear evidence that may have led to a different
decision.
k. Denying access to relevant documents.
l. Holding a hearing in the absence of the individual when they had
good reason for not being able to attend.
m. Changing the time / date / location of a hearing and failing to
inform the individual or failing to notify the individual of the
time and place of the hearing that would lead to the decision being
taken.
n. Record keeping being grossly inaccurate, cheery picking
evidence, falsifying evidence.
o. Social Workers attempt to cover up mistakes that they or other
team members have made in the past.
p. Bullying or intimidating a service user with the removal of
their children to remain silent on social services past mistakes,
making complaints or highlighting any of the above.

2. Failing to follow the Children’s Act, even when pointed out to
them they are in breach of the law and some examples of their
actions listed below.
a. Failing to put the best interests of the child first.
b. Failing in the due of care towards a child.
c. Ignoring or showing no concerns of either imminent or future
risk towards a child.
d. Ignoring professional advice or concerns.
e. Ignoring parents / family or friend’s advice or concerns

3. If a social worker or social services had, ignored professionals
/ service users and failed in their duty of care to a child and the
risk came to light by another social services, would this be
grounds to instigate a Serious Case Review. Would it be justified
of social services or a social worker to carrying out any of the
items listed in Q1 or Q2 against a service user to keep quiet?

4. What is the next course of action when LA have no concerns,
refuse to satisfactory answer complaints, refuse to look at
evidence.
5. What is the next course of action when GSCC have no concerns,
refuse to satisfactory answer complaints, refuse to look at
evidence.
6. What is the next course of action when LGO have no concerns,
refuse to satisfactory answer complaints, refuse to look at
evidence.
7. What action would be taken if LA refused to act on guidelines /
policy / recommendations by OFSTED, LGO, GSCC.
8. What action would be taken if LA refused to act on guidelines /
policy / recommendations by professionals?
9. Please can you supply statistics for the last 5 years where
concerns or complaints have been raised on a social worker within
your borough (either other staff or service users) for any of the
above? Please supply information on any action taken, outcomes, no
further action or passed to GSCC to investigate. Please give
reasons why.
10. Have any of the social workers, over the last 5, years had two
or more concerns or complaints made against them, as per Q6, from
unrelated service users or staff. By this I mean the individuals
that raised complaints were not related.
11. What course of action would be taken if a social worker refused
to answer emails, or questions?
12. If all service users agreed, would the LA set up a support
group for all service users who have had dealings with social
services. i.e. give out leaflets to service users or inform them of
support network meetings run by other service users. (Similar to
Women’s Aid coffee mornings)
13. We acknowledge that GSCC is responsible for the conduct of a
social worker, but have no authority over social services as a
whole, therefore proving difficult to bring a case of misconduct
over a particular social worker. Please can you tell us who is
responsible for the conduct of social services?

Yours faithfully,

Sheila Hersom

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/childrens_social_services_compla_3#incoming-251905
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

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

Postby Hope » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:42 am

Another former Conservative councillor Lucy Allan ,who was on David Cameron's select list for MP , who fortunately got to keep her son.

"Twice a month, she sat on the local fostering panel, which oversaw the removal of children from their parents and placed them with new families.

It was heart-rending work, as she recalls. ‘At each fostering meeting we were presented with horrifying cases of abusive parents, almost always depicted as “substance abusers”, mentally unstable or “unable to put the needs of their children over their own needs”

The 'experts' who break up families: The terrifying story of the prospective MP branded an unfit mother by experts who'd never met her - a nightmare shared by many other families

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121886/The-experts-break-families-The-terrifying-story-prospective-MP-branded-unfit-mother-experts-whod-met--nightmare-shared-families.html


( Lucky she had a spare £10,000 and probably hadn't been raising other issues such as the treatment of families by the SS , Contact Point child database and finger printing of children in schools without parental consent etc like former Maidstone Conservative councillor Sheena Williams who refused to have psychological testing, whose 4 granddaughters were stolen for forced adoptions.) :thinks:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW42xON0HHs
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

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

Postby Nemesis » Sat Mar 31, 2012 11:52 am

Thanks for all these posts, Hope. For letting people know what is going on.

I have said this before, but when i first started hearing these stories, some years back, my immediate thought was, "That can not be going on in this country. There must be something wrong here." Sadly, i now know better. The state really are stealing children for no good reason.

I have in the last few years done a fair bit of research to try to find out how this is happening. I have a few friends who i have known for many years, who work in local councils, which has helped.

It comes down to the fact that councils are there for their own ends, so have to justify their existence. And if that means stealing children to keep the social services gravy train ticking along nicely, then that is what they will do.

I have grown to despise the local councils over the last few years, as i am now aware of the true picture.

The reason why people like Richard Littlejohn have been writing anti public sector rants like this for years - this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1261423/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-I-imagined-town-hall-Nazis-quite-mad.html - is because the local councils are out of control. It is usually people who are considered right wing, like the tax payers alliance, that are trying to rein the councils in. Their accusations that the local councils are stuffed full of non-job guardianista buffoons who are, at best, surplus to requirements, at worst, operating way beyond the remit that used to be acceptable for such bodies, do not go far enough. If they knew what i know, they would weep.

So yes, they are now operating way beyond the scope of what any sane person would find acceptable for a local council. I can say for certain that the local councils are stuffed full of inept fools, on very healthy salaries, funded by your extortionate council tax bill, that would not cut the mustard in the real world of work. A whole non-job culture developed while blair and brown were in power. We now have untold thousands of these parasites busying themselves by doing nothing of any worth whatsoever. The extreme end of this upside-down world of local council leads to the horrendous situation that we have now arrived at: The social services department, aided by their partners in crime, the courts, police, solicitors, et al, stealing children from their parents.

Nemesis.
Last edited by Nemesis on Thu May 17, 2012 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DISCONNECT FROM THE CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT
User avatar
Nemesis
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:27 pm

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

Postby Hope » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:27 pm

Adoption tsar Martin Narey: I do listen to social workers

My proposals for a swifter assessment process for adopters grew directly from the time I spent in Kent.

HE SPENT MORE THAN 8 WEEKS INSIDE 20 LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND VOLUNTARY ADOPTION AGENCIES ....

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/05/04/2012/118131/adoption-tsar-martin-narey-i-do-listen-to-social-workers.htm
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

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

Postby Hope » Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:54 am

Well done to Pat from the Ukcolumn for highlighting this evil !

Children stolen by the state needlessly, causing utter misery in one of Britain's most disturbing scandals
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2128987/Children-stolen-state.html

Christopher Booker's excellent articles in The Telegraph did not allow comments.Now he has written on the subject of child stealing in the Daily Mail, comments have been allowed, albeit a meagre 204 when thousands, if not millions have been affected. Where is their voice?

These brave former councillors have got it about right!!

"I note that Brian Gerrish was the first to mention" Child Stealing by the State" he should have copyrighted it. No one wanted to accept it, what are they thinking now? Brian said this at least 3 years ago!! Well done Brian Gerrish for being the first to talk about this and get the word out, its only taken the media 3 years. I believe ex councillor Sheena Williams from Kent brought this to Brians attention when her Grandchildren were stollen by Conservative Lead Kent County Council. I am also a survivor of the secretive satanic child stealing system. Sheenas Grandchildren were stolen in 2008, I went through the horror in 2003, we have been lobbying MP's for many years to no avail, The media would not touch our story, too strong, we could have stopped this corruption and destruction of innocent families years ago. Now we all want these children that have been stolen by the state back, NOW. The forced adotions are unlawful and criminal. MP's have known about this since at least 2002!!"

- Yvonne Stewart-Taylor, Kendal, 13/4/2012 1:01

http://www.ukcolumn.org/forum/child-stealing-state/pats-news-thread
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

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

Postby pedawson » Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:05 pm

I know this may seem a little strange, and will elicit many negative comments so read what I have to say, in context and then comment.

This child stealing has gone unreported for far too long. Yes I know many have tried to get it into the news but have failed, until now. However there needs to be a multi front attack on this and this is what I suggest.
Those that have accepted children from the state should be included in any and all prosecutions regarding the state adoption. Many of these individuals will not have bee told the whole truth but when one is dealing in child trade, which is what it is, one HAS to be informed as to where the child comes from and why.
Yes I know they will have been told something, however, due diligence is and should be utmost in everybodies mind.

Here's the drift, if a child is brought to a family after being separated from a family the carer should have been given information regarding the abduction, TICK
All involved would read and understand the situation. 'TICK'
Any and all problems that arise from an abduction will be investigated. 'TICK'
By the COUNCIL 'NO TICK' (Problem here)
It is here where the buck stops and will be manipulated by all involved.

However if the buck stopped with the family receiving the child, the first place the family would go to would be the council - Child Services, the council MAY provide a service for the family to protect themselves (problem here too). So the buck should stop with the receiving family, however the council should be BARRED from interfering. A reputable firm, if there is such a thing, of solicitors should be allocated or the family takes on a private firm - with a signed declaration that they are not connected 'IN any way with any council'. This is where the process should start.

What will happen in these situations is that the accountability will quickly be placed firmly in the councils lap, they will become the TRUE defendant and not be able to squirm out of it by conducting an investigation and then just spout shite. The ball is held in place by the accusation, if the accusation is incorrect the ball falls to the family. The family in this case should make absolutely sure that what they say will stick and not come back at them. This is an adversary process but it is the only way it could work.

What will this do to the current child trade?
It may do one of many things.
The trade stops and those in real danger will be at risk.
The trade continues but the families will be scarcer than before, this could result in children being put in care homes (hostels) this may not be the best solution and could put children at risk.
The council could wash its hands of the situation and all is lost, I believe the service is required but not under the conditions we have right now.

The council should receive no funds regarding the removal of children, the family involved should be compensated - personally but a strict set of accounts should be kept and the family from whom the child is taken should / could / may be informed (situation dependant)

Psychology may seem to be an exact science and it can be argued that it is, mainly from those who practice it, however psychologists are as different as the last so it is not the psychology it is with the people and the 'EGO', something Rank may have encountered. I could say a lot about psychology but I will refrain from doing so here.
There can NEVER be one 'LEADING' psychologist on any board and the final decision can never be left to just one person. This the councils will always argue never happens, but in many, if not a higher percentage, it is what happens. EGO and promotion.
It is therefore imperative to seriously evaluate current practices and separate COMPLETELY the role of psychology from the council.

There is no doubt that there are some children who are at risk and it is imperative that a solution be found, the current process is flawed and dangerous for all involved.
More dangerous is the evaluation process, it is ONLY conducted by professional psychologists and NO outside influence can be injected, in reality.

My input to this would be that the whole subject be unregulated and decriminalised, thus opening up the situation enabling the parents to come forward and admit there is a problem. At this point the parents will be treated while the child is being cared for by other families, the child can be returned at any point and the parents can ask for further help if required. It may end up that the child will be adopted however it would be done with the direct input and request of the parents. Occam's razor, in effect.

Remember this is ONE post and ONE persons opinion and is put simply, it is not a total solution, just ideas.

There is a problem and it is not just down to a set of professionals to solve it, as we have seen the situation has arisen because there is a locked door on possible solutions because of LACK of professional education of 'others', it should never be said that the community cannot be involved.

I could go on but I would rather leave it at that and maybe refine or omit at a later time. The problem really is here we have no way of getting this type of information injected into the profession.

Namaste, rev;
Don't be surprised to discover that luck favours those who are prepared
User avatar
pedawson
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:17 pm

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

Postby Hope » Wed May 23, 2012 11:25 am

pedawson wrote:I know this may seem a little strange, and will elicit many negative comments so read what I have to say, in context and then comment.

This child stealing has gone unreported for far too long. Yes I know many have tried to get it into the news but have failed, until now. However there needs to be a multi front attack on this and this is what I suggest.
Those that have accepted children from the state should be included in any and all prosecutions regarding the state adoption. Many of these individuals will not have bee told the whole truth but when one is dealing in child trade, which is what it is, one HAS to be informed as to where the child comes from and why.
Yes I know they will have been told something, however, due diligence is and should be utmost in everybodies mind.

Here's the drift, if a child is brought to a family after being separated from a family the carer should have been given information regarding the abduction, TICK
All involved would read and understand the situation. 'TICK'
Any and all problems that arise from an abduction will be investigated. 'TICK'
By the COUNCIL 'NO TICK' (Problem here)
It is here where the buck stops and will be manipulated by all involved.

However if the buck stopped with the family receiving the child, the first place the family would go to would be the council - Child Services, the council MAY provide a service for the family to protect themselves (problem here too). So the buck should stop with the receiving family, however the council should be BARRED from interfering. A reputable firm, if there is such a thing, of solicitors should be allocated or the family takes on a private firm - with a signed declaration that they are not connected 'IN any way with any council'. This is where the process should start.

What will happen in these situations is that the accountability will quickly be placed firmly in the councils lap, they will become the TRUE defendant and not be able to squirm out of it by conducting an investigation and then just spout shite. The ball is held in place by the accusation, if the accusation is incorrect the ball falls to the family. The family in this case should make absolutely sure that what they say will stick and not come back at them. This is an adversary process but it is the only way it could work.

What will this do to the current child trade?
It may do one of many things.
The trade stops and those in real danger will be at risk.
The trade continues but the families will be scarcer than before, this could result in children being put in care homes (hostels) this may not be the best solution and could put children at risk.
The council could wash its hands of the situation and all is lost, I believe the service is required but not under the conditions we have right now.

The council should receive no funds regarding the removal of children, the family involved should be compensated - personally but a strict set of accounts should be kept and the family from whom the child is taken should / could / may be informed (situation dependant)

Psychology may seem to be an exact science and it can be argued that it is, mainly from those who practice it, however psychologists are as different as the last so it is not the psychology it is with the people and the 'EGO', something Rank may have encountered. I could say a lot about psychology but I will refrain from doing so here.
There can NEVER be one 'LEADING' psychologist on any board and the final decision can never be left to just one person. This the councils will always argue never happens, but in many, if not a higher percentage, it is what happens. EGO and promotion.
It is therefore imperative to seriously evaluate current practices and separate COMPLETELY the role of psychology from the council.

There is no doubt that there are some children who are at risk and it is imperative that a solution be found, the current process is flawed and dangerous for all involved.
More dangerous is the evaluation process, it is ONLY conducted by professional psychologists and NO outside influence can be injected, in reality.

My input to this would be that the whole subject be unregulated and decriminalised, thus opening up the situation enabling the parents to come forward and admit there is a problem. At this point the parents will be treated while the child is being cared for by other families, the child can be returned at any point and the parents can ask for further help if required. It may end up that the child will be adopted however it would be done with the direct input and request of the parents. Occam's razor, in effect.

Remember this is ONE post and ONE persons opinion and is put simply, it is not a total solution, just ideas.

There is a problem and it is not just down to a set of professionals to solve it, as we have seen the situation has arisen because there is a locked door on possible solutions because of LACK of professional education of 'others', it should never be said that the community cannot be involved.

I could go on but I would rather leave it at that and maybe refine or omit at a later time. The problem really is here we have no way of getting this type of information injected into the profession.

Namaste, rev;


You raise some very good points there is not much to disagree with :shake:

The child trafficking rabbit hole goes extremely deep
http://www.whale.to/b/pedophocracy.html
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

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

Postby Hope » Wed May 23, 2012 11:26 am

Happy 6th Birthday to Lacey Williams-Piper granddaughter of former cllr Sheena Williams who was stolen by the state for forced adoption.
They may be able to steal the children but they can never steal their heritage - it is yours by birthright, you are the light , you hold the light, the light is with you always x :hug:

Sheena speaks at the UK Rally Against Child Abuse 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW42xON0HHs
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

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

Postby Hope » Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:11 pm

To Poppy Williams-Piper on her 5th birthday today, granddaughter of former Cllr Sheena Williams.

My gift to you my precious granddaughter is justice, the corrupt child kidnappers may hide within their secret societies but they can never hide from the truth or the natural law of the universe.

You are loved, you are our universe x :love:
Hope
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Freedom of Information only

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron