Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Legal_AIDS revelations are explosive


When a 6 Tweet Tweeter Tweeted, the UK media went into overdrive. Although @InjunctionSuper went awol, it pre-empted the outing of Ryan Giggs.

So the latest injunction buster, @Legal_Aids (Sue Mae) is going much further and outing many more people plus linking to media stories and the injunctions themselves. This is us first to note the Tweets (4 hours after they were posted).

This is explosive stuff. The Courts appear helpless, the MP's are all on holiday and the media don't know where to turn.

And yet this Tweeter has very few followers. Looks like the threat of prison is praying on the minds of Tweeters.

Or is it most of the tittle tattle (unproven of course) is so mundane that the media and little people are no longer interested?

A typical outing ...
http://twishort.com/aczcz

The media responds ...
http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/864851-new-twitter-account-names-more-injunction-celebrities

30 comments:

  1. Very few followers? When I signed up at about noon there were around 500 and now it stands at 2,400. Not bad going in six hours.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the case which you have provided a link to is one you have to be very careful about. It has just been mentioned on the news too.
    It seems this man has custody of the daughter and hasn't been prosecuted with anything.
    It's not written in legal speak and seems to have a biased tone.
    Also, I can't understand why she would be having her child removed from her by a different county council; these things don't happen regularly, even to the worst mothers. And it would need the usual court order and so on. Unfortunately, county councils are not allowed to comment on any cases so are already effectively gagged or not allowed the right to reply. Hence why the Daily Mail love these kind of stories.
    Including his address seems self-motivated and not relevant to the discussion of injunctions.
    I suspect this is more a case of stopping the mother talking about things that might be untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. According to the telegraph, the 'pop star' injunction (Annie Lennox) is incorrect.

    I guess this implies the other ones are correct

    ReplyDelete
  4. @anonymous "these things don't happen regularly, even to the worst mothers"

    From the information available, it seems that these child confiscations do now happen regularly. Several years ago the Blair government introduced adoption targets, and so it is now in the councils best interests to snatch as many children as are necessary to meet the targets.

    Cases like this are much more important to air publically that all the celbrity tittle tattle ones

    ReplyDelete
  5. It takes on average a year to obtain the paperwork to confiscate a child, even in the most vulnerable families. I would suggest 'regularly' is not the correct adjective.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thus this is the issue with adoption. by the time children have been removed and placed with foster parents (also time consuming) they are getting too old to be adopted. But that is a whole other issue we are working on. More adoptions are obstructed than are successful. I just wrote a book about it. Please don't jump on bandwagons without your ticket.

    www.adoptionwithhumanity.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. "From the information available, it seems that these child confiscations do now happen regularly."

    It must be true, the Daily Mail said so!

    ReplyDelete
  8. come on, plenty of children are removed from stable families. Fran Lyon, Kerry Robinson, now Haigh... all went abroad and in all cases were found to be perfectly good parents there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. and it's not just the Mail... every paper has written about this.

    Google for John Hemming MP if you want to know more.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ms robinson According to http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000960/index.shtml over 9000 children were 'taken into care' in 2010. I'm not well informed enough to know whether these were all confiscated, or even how accurate these figures are, but it does seem to suggest that confiscations do happen regularly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. and in over 50% of those cases the reason given is 'emotional abuse' (or a danger of) - an allegation which is almost impossible to prove oneself innocent of

    soon we will have large expat communities of 'S.S. refugees' in both Ireland and Spain...

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ms robinson

    ps cant seem to get you web site to work - front page takes an age to load and cant get further.

    Also, how are we supposed to get our ticket to the bandwagon if information is supressed. Stealing children is a very emotive subject for us parents, and a natural subject for us to want to know more about. Let's make the whole thing transparent and accountable.

    ...and lastly, even though the paperwork may take a year, this doesn't seem to stop care workers queueing up in maternity hostpitals ready to baby snatch as soon as the mother delivers. Are you saying all these stories are incorrect?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Stealing children"

    Emotional appeal much?

    "Are you saying all these stories are incorrect? "

    Yes. Prove us wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you think that local authorities are improperly taking children from their families with alarming regularity, you have to be able to back it up. It's down to you to prove that "emotional abuse" hasn't been happening (evidently the council have proved it to the satisfaction of the courts if they've succeeded in taking the child into care).

    I've seen people who have had their children taken away, and continued to protest their innocence, despite it being very obvious why they've been taken. Of course, then they go to the "voice of the people" at the Mail or the Express and moan about how unfair it was that the council came and took a child away from honest hard-working parents who had "done nothing wrong" other than keeping the child locked up all hours, berating them for perceived poor performance at school, pushing themselves on them at every opportunity, etc. The drunks and the druggies tend not to weigh in because they're a little easier to see through.

    ReplyDelete
  14. well, to give you one example: in the Kerry Robinson case, the Fife teenager had her marriage blocked and told her baby will be taken at birth. She and her future husband fled to Ireland where the S.S. found nothing wrong, so she was able to marry and keep the baby (and now will have a second one).

    What's more, since no child was actually removed, the files relating to the case were not confidential, and they requested them. Well, it turned out that Fife had absolutely nothing on them. Zilch.

    ReplyDelete
  15. " It's down to you to prove that "emotional abuse" hasn't been happening"

    in reality, that is almost impossible to prove. And it is totally impossible to prove that 'the danger of emotional abuse' (the one where you child is removed because you _might_ abuse it) does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  16. An extreme example is representative of them all, right? Just making sure I'm understanding your insane troll logic properly. I'm also not finding any reliable sources to back it up. (Hint: the Daily Mail is not a real source, and has since reported that Irish social workers took the baby anyway.)

    One down, 4,499 to go.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "in reality, that is almost impossible to prove."

    Good. So you accept that most of the people that have their children taken away do so deservedly. After all, if the council have already proved to the satisfaction of the court that there is a substantial risk, there's no point taking statements from the parents saying their isn't, because (to paraphrase Ms. Rice-Davies) they would, wouldn't they?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I really wish you wouldn't resort to abuse...

    there are plenty of sources relating to the Robinson case... not just the daily mail, but every paper wrote about this, they had blogs, gave GMTV interviews and so on.

    The baby was temporarily placed in foster care in Ireland but the parents had good rights of access at all times and eventually were allowed to take him home. The whole point is that they did get their files from Fife and there was nothing substantial in those.

    Because of the secrecy and the gagging surrounding these cases (which are massive problems in themselves) it is very hard to give many examples, obviously. But there is a good number of S. S. refugees in Ireland, Spain and Sweden who were condemned as bad parents here and the S.S. over there saw nothing wrong with them. Fran Lyon is the one that springs to mind first...

    ReplyDelete
  19. 'Good. So you accept that most of the people that have their children taken away do so deservedly. After all, if the council have already proved to the satisfaction of the court that there is a substantial risk, there's no point taking statements from the parents saying their isn't, because (to paraphrase Ms. Rice-Davies) they would, wouldn't they?'

    I don't consider the secret family court to be a perfect infallible authority on whether a parent is likely to emotionally abuse a child in the future or not. Not does it have sufficient safeguards against the abuse of the system by people within it. A social worker could very easily, with the help of just one doctor, construct a damning 'potential emotional abuse' case that is impossible for a parent to defend him/herself of.

    How about we concentrate on catching physical abuse first (see Baby P)? Make sure that the _real_ abusers have their children removed and leave the 'you haven't done anything wrong but you MIGHT abuse your child' people in peace?

    ReplyDelete
  20. an interesting piece of research by Lynne Wrennal on this issue

    http://www.justice-for-families.org.uk/familylawreform/takingthestickaway.html

    and maybe you want to read Ian Josephs' book - bit more haphazard and less academic but still very revealing http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YSz0m12jkjwC&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=tyler+black+fallen+into+a+pond&source=bl&ots=19s5Cl_zq8&sig=YeU-FAVtPEJcNlCcfYchtKSzAps&hl=en&ei=WRPiSvqTLpD_4AaeyKT6AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tyler%20black%20fallen%20into%20a%20pond&f=false

    as a PS, I have no doubt that 95%, even 99% of social workers do a fantastic job. But the tiny fraction of those who do not can still cause damage, because the system is not proofed against them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. another type of case is this one: mother contacts S.S. because a partner is harassing her and her child. The mother has done _nothing_ wrong. The S.S. respond by taking the child away (!)

    http://headlines-today.co.uk/2011/01/17/forced-adoptions-get-no-sympathy-from-the-ministry/#comments

    the moral: NEVER contact social services looking for help. Too risky.

    I have a whole library of links on this subject...

    ReplyDelete
  22. sorry, one last thing. This is about how Family courts work. Perfect justice, eh?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8098952/Child-protection-MPs-must-act-on-the-scandal-of-seized-children.html

    now this is not hearsay or allegation, these are some of the rules of family courts:
    -------
    Social workers may give written evidence to a judge which the parents aren't allowed to see.


    A key part is played by evidence from supposed "experts", psychiatrists or paediatricians who may be paid up to £35,000 for their reports, and who receive regular work from the social workers involved. Parents are forbidden to call their own independent experts to challenge a case made against them. They are, all too often, pressured into being represented by lawyers who, again, work regularly for the council, who fail to put their case and who turn out to be just part of the same system.
    Parents may be forbidden to testify on their own behalf, but must listen for hours, even days, to everyone else involved – including their own lawyers – putting what amounts to a case for the prosecution. The guardian appointed to represent the interests of the child may never have met the child and merely endorses whatever the social workers say.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "there are plenty of sources relating to the Robinson case... not just the daily mail, but every paper wrote about this, they had blogs, gave GMTV interviews and so on."
    Yeah, those are all reliable sources, right? Real sources, or it didn't happen that way.

    "I don't consider the secret family court to be a perfect infallible authority on whether a parent is likely to emotionally abuse a child in the future or not."
    Nobody's perfectly infallible. But then apart from the courts, who would you say is an authority on the matter? Clearly not the parents themselves, for obvious reasons, and not the community at large, for equally obvious reasons.

    "How about we concentrate on catching physical abuse first (see Baby P)? Make sure that the _real_ abusers have their children removed and leave the 'you haven't done anything wrong but you MIGHT abuse your child' people in peace? "
    Oh, look, it's this argument again. "Only other criminals are real criminals." Children aren't taken into care because the parents might abuse them, they're taken into care because someone vastly more qualified than you considers that there is a significant risk of abuse.

    "sorry, one last thing. This is about how Family courts work. Perfect justice, eh?"
    Christopher Booker is a troll, and he has apparently got involved in that case without checking his facts. He has also apparently become emotionally attached to it, so his writing should be treated as coloured.

    "another type of case is this one: mother contacts S.S. because a partner is harassing her and her child. The mother has done _nothing_ wrong."
    So she says, and so she would, wouldn't she? Unless you have access to both sides of the case, it's difficult to judge properly. What I've seen here is people presenting three questionable cases (again, only seeing one side), and using those three to claim that all 9,000 children taken into care are done so wrongfully. That's a failure rate of less than 0.1%. That's pretty good going in my book.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @anonymous

    Firstly, can everybody please stop calling themselves 'anonymous'. I'm getting confused as to who is arguing against who.

    "Yeah, those are all reliable sources, right?"

    No source is 'reliable'. We just have to work with what we have, and if we only have one side of the arguement then so be it. We have to exercise our discretion and use our judgement in such cases. I personally think that when the care workers in Ireland decide not to take a child which the care workers in England have decided to take, that this is a very good indicator that the story is largely correct.

    "But then apart from the courts, who would you say is an authority on the matter?"

    Nobody is. That's what the problem is. The court might get a lot of cases right, but because it is self regulating and there is a great deal of money being made by interested parties, then there is huge potential for corruption. The system needs changing, and needs checks and balances. You could look at the current mess with FIFA to see what happens when the only regulation is self regulation.

    "...using those three to claim that all 9,000 children taken into care are done so wrongfully."

    I absolutely don't see that from reading the comments. Nobody is arguing that all 9,000 cases are wrong. But it appears that a significant number are. And for those particular parents life must be hell.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 'I absolutely don't see that from reading the comments. Nobody is arguing that all 9,000 cases are wrong. But it appears that a significant number are. And for those particular parents life must be hell. '

    spot on - most cases are not wrong, but far far too many seem to be. And it must be hell not just for parents. When children are wrenched from stable homes that's horrible too. And if they end up in care that is even worse.

    "Yeah, those are all reliable sources, right?"

    some of the sources _are_ reliable. For example, the procedural rules of secret family courts are known. Imagine you were tried by a court like I describe in commment 22 above: would you think that is a fair court capable of delivering a fair verdict?

    As I've said already, when the Robinson case unfolded people like the author of comment 23 said 'oh, we don't know the full story'. But now we do: Robinson's files are out: and they didn't contain anything we didn't know at the time.

    'But then apart from the courts, who would you say is an authority on the matter? Clearly not the parents themselves, for obvious reasons, and not the community at large, for equally obvious reasons.'

    There is no authority. The courts should be an authority, but because people are not able to see justice being done they are not. And no court is a 100% authority anyway. Let me give you an example: would you call Stalinist courts an 'authority' on the guilt of Soviet citizens they tried? I can do what you did and say 'well if these courts weren't an authority, who was?'

    'Oh, look, it's this argument again. "Only other criminals are real criminals." Children aren't taken into care because the parents might abuse them, they're taken into care because someone vastly more qualified than you considers that there is a significant risk of abuse.'

    ah, so it's subjective judgement. Like in the Colin Stagg case. Someone decided, on no evidence at all, that X is a future child abuser. And on the judgement of that person the child gets taken away. Like with Robinson, Lyon and countless others. Well, that's not good enough in a democratic country. Simply not good enough. You need hard evidence to take children away.

    Anyway, Lynn Wrennal who I link above is an academic: surely she is qualified?

    'Christopher Booker is a troll, and he has apparently got involved in that case without checking his facts. He has also apparently become emotionally attached to it, so his writing should be treated as coloured.'

    the facts he gives are commonly accepted facts about family courts...

    'So she says, and so she would, wouldn't she? Unless you have access to both sides of the case, it's difficult to judge properly. What I've seen here is people presenting three questionable cases (again, only seeing one side), and using those three to claim that all 9,000 children taken into care are done so wrongfully. That's a failure rate of less than 0.1%. That's pretty good going in my book. '

    there are many other cases. Read the links I gave above, they will give you more cases than you could ever dream of. Each of them makes one's hair stand on end.

    ReplyDelete
  26. actually, regarding Chris Booker, he alone presents a whole wealth of absolutely horrific cases

    http://www.dramatis.hostcell.net/Index_B_pt2/index_b_pt2.html (scroll down to 'Christopher Booker' for a summary)

    whatever one thinks of booker, this is hair-raising stuff. And much of it is exerpts from official documents, so very reliable

    ReplyDelete
  27. "No source is 'reliable'."
    Thanks, now I know I can safely write off anything you say as the ramblings of a conspiracy nutjob.

    "I personally think that when the care workers in Ireland decide not to take a child which the care workers in England have decided to take, that this is a very good indicator that the story is largely correct."
    So far, I have only your word that they didn't. Got anything from news outlets that don't make shit up or don't engage in emotional appeal? BBC? Times? Something from the Telegraph written by someone that hasn't become attached?

    "would you call Stalinist courts an 'authority' on the guilt of Soviet citizens they tried?"
    Because obviously what Stalin did is representative of every other authority figure ever, right?

    "ah, so it's subjective judgement"
    Now I see the problem. You didn't actually read a single fucking word I said.

    "Anyway, Lynn Wrennal who I link above is an academic: surely she is qualified?"
    Perhaps you've met Dr. Wakefield? I hear he's eminently qualified to speak on the effects of childhood vaccination.

    "there are many other cases."
    Put up or shut up. Throwing around a dozen or so cases where we only have the parents' word and sexing up the details doesn't invalidate 9,000 seizures no matter how much you twist it.

    To make this vaguely relevant, by analogy, identifying a small handful of cases where there may be a public interest in disclosure does not suddenly mean that all privacy injunctions are invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Please let me add some "substance" to your comments:

    1. http://vickyhaigh.wordpress.com
    2. State Stealing Children on http://bit.ly/jHjigY

    Sighingly yours,
    Sabine

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1. Only one side of the story, as usual.
    2. David Icke? Are you for real?

    Grieving your lack of critical thinking,
    Anon.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Have a bit more 'meat on the bones' then, Anon:

    1. the daughter's story http://bit.ly/jn3Ie5

    2. John Hemming MP's support who wouldn't have written to the Council and the Chief Constable if he didn't know about culprits

    3. John Hemming MP has been sponsoring "Families for Justice" for years and KNOWS that Vicky's case is not unique as is demonstrated on many other sites

    4. David Icke's website reports child snatching stories since 2006 or so - irrespective of what you may think of him as a person

    5. Miss A's Case on Vicky Haigh's site is still on-going

    6. Read the comments of petition signers to get a feel for the real world of victims and sufferers as opposed to onlookers http://bit.ly/mpr3pU

    7. President Zuma of SA is ready to boycott the Olympics and will call on other African countries to follow suit as soon as there are 2,000 signatures; On GoPetition http://bit.ly/jsU0vt and on Facebook http://on.fb.me/kOxcft

    8. There's a class action of over 100 cases before the Criminal Court in The Hague! http://bit.ly/lDkvpw

    Don't mix up critical thinking with biased ranting, Anon!
    http://vickyhaigh.wordpress.com
    http://victims-unite.net
    http://edm1297.net

    ReplyDelete