Stop Injustice Now - News

Enfield Arts Activities Concert!

2012-01-10T13:35:00.005+00:00

Enfield Arts Activities Concert (24th November 2011)

Performing live in Edmonton, Enfield
Please Watch To The End & Please Leave A Comment,
Thanks!
Enfield Youth Choir
Songs sang in this Performance:-
1. I say a Little Prayer
2. Blame it on the Boogie
3. Valerie (Solo by Zoe Lisa Walton)
Name of performers in the choir!
Whitney Boateng
Shannon Edwards
Tia Harris
Fay Hollingsworth
Helen Nicolaou
Hannah Taylor
Zoe Lisa Walton…
Conductor: Sara King, Accompanist: Paula Warren
Original Songs Sang By
Aretha Franklin - I Say a Little Prayer
Jackson 5 - Blame
it on the Boogie
Amy Winehouse – Valerie
Please Watch To The End & Please Leave A Comment,
Thanks!

10,000 CHILDREN RIPPED FROM THEIR FAMILIES 'Stop Injustice Now'

2011-07-17T22:50:00.000+01:00

AT LEAST 10,000 young children have been dragged from their families and needlessly adopted due to a flawed target at the heart of Government, it was claimed last night.
Vulnerable children were handed over in their thousands under a New Labour crusade driven by artificial adoption targets.
A top Oxford academic yesterday branded the policy as Tony Blair’s worst mistake.
The expert in social work who did not want to be named said: “Forget the Iraq War. “Blair’s adoption target was the reason I left the Labour party.” Last night backing came from MP John Hemming, who said the policy led to the unnecessary adoption of 1,000 children every year.
He claims the target set 11 years ago was flawed from the outset because it contained a fundamental error of maths and he has called for a full Parliamentary inquiry to prevent further damage.

FULL STORY:-
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/259355/10-000-children-ripped-from-their-families

Unreliable Evidence, Social Services Evidence is becoming Unreliable in the Family Courts.

2011-03-06T19:04:00.001+00:00

Listen to the Full Broadcast:
http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Unreliable_Evidence,_Social_Services_in_the_Family_Courts
Unreliable Evidence, Social Services Evidence is becoming Unreliable in the Family Courts.
BBC Radio 4 Reports, An increase in children going in to care, against the wishes of parents and based false Social Services evidence.
Social services have to make up false evidence so they can meet new government targets.
This means children like baby P (Peter Connelly) are left with abusive parents and more children are taken in to care away from inocent parents like Sarah and Ian Walton (These are there real names).
Listen to the Full Broadcast:
http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Unreliable_Evidence,_Social_Services_in_the_Family_Courts

Met accused of 'campaign' against shaken baby witnesses

2011-02-22T12:42:00.004+00:00

Listen to the full Broadcast
http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Met_accused_of_

Three leading pathologists have accused the Metropolitan Police of attempting to discredit them as expert witnesses in so-called Shaken Baby court cases. About 250 Non-Accidental Head Injury (NAHI) cases go to court every year, with the outcome often relying on a expert testimony from pathologists. The Royal College of Pathologists has called for an inquiry into the claims. Responding to the allegations, the Met said the force was "completely committed to the judicial process". The scientific debate over NAHI has grown increasingly acrimonious over the past 10 years.At first it was played out in select gatherings of pathologists before ending up in courtrooms and inquests up and down the country. That debate turned toxic, with one side accusing the other of proselytising suspect scientific theories. Now, senior consultant pathologists have accused the Metropolitan Police and others of an orchestrated strategy to discredit them as expert witnesses for parents and carers accused of murdering their children.Dr Waney Squier, Dr Irene Scheimberg and Dr Marta Cohen say their evidence is based on a speech made by Detective Inspector Colin Welsh, a lead investigator with the Met's Child Abuse Investigation Command.

FULL STORY:
http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Met_accused_of_

Provisional Skeleton Argument Of Julian Paul Assange (Mr Assange, Wikileaks)

2011-01-13T21:34:00.003+00:00

Read The Full Provisional Skeleton Argument

Julian Paul Assange (Mr Assange, Wikileaks)
Extradition Hearing of the 7th & 8th Febuary 2011, In The Royal Courts of Justice.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B7-vo-lUScJDYjg5MDA2YmQtODYwYS00ZTdjLTg2OWQtNGM1MmUzZGVkZmFm&hl=en

Wrongly Acused of Child Abuse

2010-11-19T13:48:00.002+00:00

How one family coped with a traumatic accusation of harming their child

When Cassie Gould and Wayne Halligan took their sick son, Cavern, to hospital they were falsely accused of harming him - then began 11 months of hell as they tried to get their baby back. Being accused of abuse not only meant they lost significant s...tages of Cavern's development, but also caused a great strain on their relationship, so much so that they split up for a while.Now back with their son and back together, they are enjoying parenthood once more, but say nothing can ever bring back that lost time with their baby.Cassie and Wayne join us today to talk about their ordeal, and resident agony aunt Denise Robertson gives her opinion on the situation, and advice on how they can move on.
http://thismorning.itv.com/thismorning/life/wrongly-accused-abuse

This case is almost the same as what happened to myself.
My first wife and I were accused of hurting my son, Enfield Social Services told me to leave the family home and I was only allowed contact with someone being present. They caused us to divorce. I still have contact with both of my children from that marriage. I moved on and married Sarah, we had a child 'Crystal Walton' she was removed and has now been adopted. I was never charge or convicted of any wrong doing. I also sort to clear my name and suceeded, but 'Crystal Walton' has never been returned!

To read Crystal Walton's full story please visit http://www.crystalwalton.com/

Please remember to sign her Guestbook, THANKS! XXXXX

The Scandal Of The Baby Snatchers

2010-10-22T22:23:00.005+01:00

The Original News Story Of Crystal Walton

(Before any gagging orders!)

Crystal Walton; A pawn in a shameful adoption system!

Two-year-old Crystal Walton smiles at the camera, her blonde hair blowing in the wind. The photograph of the enchanting little girl looks as though it should have pride of place in a treasured family album. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
This picture was used to advertise Crystal's availability for adoption - appearing in a tabloid national newspaper with an accompanying blurb describing her as a "clever, lively, cheerful toddler" who likes puzzles and swimming.
A phone number was printed alongside for anyone interested in becoming her new parents.
Perhaps a million people saw the heart-breaking advert which had been placed by a London council, and streams of callers offered to take care of her.
Yet that is not the whole story. The truth is that Crystal had become a pawn in an adoption system that should shame
In 2000, Tony Blair set new targets to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent - to a total of 5,400 every year.
He promised millions of pounds to councils that managed to achieve the targets. Some have already received more than £20million for successfully pushing up the number of adoptions.
This sweeping shake-up in social policy was designed for all the right reasons: to get older children languishing in care homes into happy new families with parents.
But the reforms didn't work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, councils began to earmark those children who were most easy to place in adoptive homes - babies and cute toddlers such as Crystal.

FULL STORY: http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#The_Scandal_Of_The_Baby_Snatchers

500 parents in legal action to win back 'stolen' children taken into care (Sunday Mirror)

2010-10-22T16:18:00.003+01:00

This Story Has Been Re-Instated, Legal Action Be Damned

Part of the 'Crystal Walton Story' along with other families!

Full Story:http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#500_parents_in_legal_action_to_win_back_

Hundreds of heartbroken parents who claim social services "stole" their children have launched a legal bid to win them back.
The 500 mums and dads say it is impossible to get justice in the UK and have turned to an international court.
Families argue they are the victims of social workers who are over-zealous after cases such as Victoria Climbié and Baby Peter and a process in family courts which is excessively secretive.
They also say that the courts rely too heavily on the opinions of experts or social workers and that it is wrong that there is no right of appeal. The UK now has 64,000 children in care...a 6pc rise since 2006.
If the Court of Human Rights in The Hague backs the new case, it could let parents bring proceedings against councils - and get their children back.

Full Story:http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#500_parents_in_legal_action_to_win_back_

500 parents in legal action to win back 'stolen' children taken into care

2010-10-10T22:37:00.005+01:00

Part of the 'Crystal Walton Story' along with other families!

This Article Has Been Remove Under Protest and Threat of Legal Action!

The rank hypocrisy of family court judges

2010-09-27T22:01:00.001+01:00

The Crystal Walton Story!

I was gratified this week to find that an article I wrote in December has been quoted in full by the Court of Appeal. (I only hope there were no typos.) It is flattering that Mr Justice Munby takes The Times seriously. It is of more import that he decided to publish his judgment on the case that I wrote about six months ago. For it is only when judges make their reasoning public that we can start to debate the grounds on which children should be taken into care.
A few long-suffering readers may remember that this peculiar case concerns a woman whose baby was removed by social workers, not because the child came to any harm but because there was a suspicion that her father might have injured a child from his previous marriage. That suspicion was never proven, no charges were ever brought and the child of the earlier marriage was never removed. But a woman who everyone agrees is blameless has lost her only child – for ever – because she is deemed to be besotted with a man who may pose a danger.
As so often in these situations, there are complex allegations and flawed characters. In my view it is questionable whether the father’s inability to conceal his loathing of social workers makes him unsuitable for parenthood. Mr Justice Munby has decided on several grounds not to grant an appeal. The case may still go to Strasbourg, but it will be too late: the child will have been adopted.

Full Story: http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#The_rank_hypocrisy_of_family_court_judges

Family courts are the B-side of the law

2010-09-27T21:58:00.002+01:00

The Crystal Walton Story!

What a strange, fumbling kind of justice system it is that condemns a woman as an unfit mother for the heinous crime of trusting her husband. Yet this is what seems to have happened in a recent case that I feel compelled to write about, even though legal restrictions force me to leave out much of the detail.
The nub of the case is this. A woman, let us call her Janie, gave birth to her first and only child a year ago. That baby was taken away from her and subsequently put up for adoption. Not because of her own failure to care for the baby — her own love and care never seem to have been in question. No. She has lost her baby because of a suspicion that her husband John may have injured another child in his previous marriage almost ten years ago.
The suspicion was no more than that. John was never charged with anything, let alone convicted. Social workers were never sufficiently worried to take that first child into care. Since his divorce John has shared custody of that child perfectly amicably with his ex-wife. Yet the same local authority which left the first child with him has forbidden him to see this new baby. And his new wife, despite having nothing to do with the first case, may never see her baby again.

Full Story: http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Family_courts_are_the_B-side_of_the_law

Parents of forcibly adopted baby condemn 100 per cent success record of Enfield’s social workers

2010-09-17T13:39:00.004+01:00

I have no problem in naming ourselves; This is the story of Crystal Walton (My Daughter), Sarah Walton (My Wife) Ian Walton (My Self)

Questions have been raised after 100 per cent of applications by Enfield’s social workers to forcibly remove children from their families were approved by the courts in the past four years.
Figures obtained by the Advertiser under the Freedom of Information Act show that in the past four years, every single one of the 43 placement orders Enfield Council has applied for has been granted by the courts.
A placement order authorises a local authority to place a child for adoption where there is no parental consent, or where consent should be dispensed with.
The controversial power of forced adoption is intended to safeguard children from parental abuse or neglect, but serious concerns have been raised over its widespread use and lack of transparency.

The 100 per cent success rate in Enfield cases has led to fears the courts are just
rubber-stamping forced adoptions rather than going against the recommendations made by social workers.
Full Story: http://www.northlondon-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=32305&headline=Parents%20of%20forcibly%20adopted%20baby%20condemn%20100%20per%20cent%20success%20record%20of%20Enfield’s%20social%20workers

Don't Forget To Sign Our Daughter's Guestbook, and Show You Care!
http://www.crystalwalton.com/Guestbook.php Thank You To Everyone Who Has Supported Us and to Those Who Have Already Signed Her Guestbook!

Crystal Walton at Play with Mummy and Daddy (Sarah and Ian Walton, ourselves)

2010-09-01T15:04:00.002+01:00

Crystal Walton at Play with Mummy and Daddy (Sarah and Ian Walton, ourselves)

19:48 Min

This is the only video of our Daughter 'Crystal Walton' with Sarah & Ian walton playing together as a family. One day the truth will come out and Enfield Social Services will have to pay for the pain they have caused my Sarah and My Self.
If you are the following Social worker or know of them 'BEWARE'!!!
Grace Fagan,
Sarah McClindon,
John Bottemley,
Faith Weekes,
Alison Reedman,
Angela Bennett,
Paul Wanness,
David Lawrence.
You are on my 'WANTED' list.....
P.S. If anybody knows of there where abouts please let me know.
You can email him at ian@stopinjusticenow.com

Social workers who snatched four-day-old baby (ITV London Tonight)

2010-09-01T13:08:00.007+01:00

ITV LONDON TONIGHT!

Social workers who snatched four-day-old baby (ITV London Tonight)

Social workers who snatched four-day-old baby put her up for adoption over unproven abuse claim
Mum’s heartbreaking fight to get her daughter back.
A mum and dad have been told they will never see their young daughter again… after she was snatched away at only four days old.
Tiny Baby A was taken from her mum by social workers who claimed the tot, who we will call Emily, was at risk in the family home.
Not because of the mum’s failure to care for her – but because of a six-year-old unproven claim that her husband had injured his son from a previous marriage.
Yet, although interviewed by police, he never faced a criminal court over that allegation. And he has even been allowed unsupervised access to watch his boy grow up.
Now the High Court, in a devastating civil court ruling, has decided that a decision to forcibly adopt Emily – now aged four – away from her parents (who we are calling Tania and Stephen) must stand.
Revealing her agony for the first time, mum Tania said: “I had my beautiful baby girl snatched from me at just four days old. Only a mother could understand the horror of that.
“My only crime is that I love and trust my husband. I don’t believe he could ever harm a child, and the courts have been unable to prove it. I have already missed years of Emily’s childhood.”
Stephen, in his 40s, married Tania, in her mid-20s, in 2003. Almost a year after their wedding Tania gave birth to Emily in hospital and they were overjoyed to take her home two days later. But they were to enjoy just two days alone with their little girl before she was taken from them. Social workers claimed there was a danger her dad would hurt her because of the case six years earlier.
Stephen had been married before and has a 10-year-old son, Jamie. When he was eight weeks old, Jamie was taken to hospital with a suspected brain injury and was found to have suffered bleeding behind his eyes. The episode left him permanently disabled, and he now has cerebral palsy. A medical expert said that he had been shaken viciously.
Stephen, who also has a 12-year-old daughter from the previous marriage, said: “Doctors couldn’t tell for certain what was wrong with Jamie. But one came up with a theory it could be ‘shaken baby syndrome’, even though there was no conclusive evidence.
"My wife and I were told that care proceedings were being started. It was heartbreaking to be accused of harming your own child. I vehemently denied doing anything wrong, but no one listened.”
A whole year later – during which time Jamie stayed with his parents and came to no further harm – the couple were taken to a family court in London, where a judge concluded on the basis of an expert’s opinion that the child’s injuries had been caused by one of his parents.
The possibility that the baby had an inherited condition, provoking the same symptoms, was never explored.
And the theory put forward by the family’s lawyers that he banged his head on a baby bouncer while playing with another child was not accepted.
However, social workers in Enfield, North London, finally allowed Jamie to remain with his birth parents under daily supervision. And seven months later the local authority was impressed enough with their parenting to drop the visits.
And there the story might have ended if Stephen and his wife hadn’t split up at the end of 2000. They were granted, and still enjoy, joint custody of the boy and remain good friends. Stephen, whose first wife also backs his adoption fight, sees Jamie regularly and often spends time with him alone.
It was only when – almost four years later – Stephen remarried and his new wife Tania became pregnant that the social workers reappeared. Stephen, who himself has multiple sclerosis and walks with a stick, said: “Tania has no other children and we were both overjoyed to be having a baby.”
Then, when she was eight months pregnant, Stephen developed a heart problem and had to be rushed to hospital. He says social workers visited him at his bedside and handed him a letter saying they were starting emergency childcare proceedings for their unborn child.
I could barely breathe because of the shock,” he says. “It had been six years since Jamie’s case and I’d had no contact with social workers.”
Emily was born in December 2004. When she was just four days old, social workers burst into their home and took her away.
Tania said: “Stephen’s parents were visiting. We were missing an ingredient for dinner, and Stephen and his dad popped to the shops. While they were out social workers knocked on the door. They walked straight in, picked up Emily in her moses basket and walked out again.
“I was screaming and crying, begging them not to take her, grabbing at their arms.”
Social workers warned Tania she would only stand a chance of getting Emily back if she left her husband.
“We had no choice,” said Tania. “We decided I would go to live with my parents a few miles away and we would fight in court to be reunited as a family.”
Emily was returned to Tania the following day after a court injunction was obtained ordering Stephen to keep away from her.
But social workers were unhappy that Tania and her family remained close to Stephen.
“I often visited Stephen on my own, which was allowed under the injunction,” she said.
“He asked me to text him if Emily ever woke in the night because he wanted to be involved, and I did that.
But for some reason, social workers wanted me to hate him and cut him out of our lives.”
Four months later, in April 2005, Emily was taken from her mother for a second time. Tania had been branded unfit to look after Emily simply because she trusted her husband.
Tania said: “I had taken Emily to visit my grandparents. But while I was there, two police cars turned up with a social worker. They burst into the house and snatched Emily from me again. I was in shock – I couldn’t believe what was happening. They said I had been ‘conspiring’ with Stephen. They thought we were going to kidnap Emily.”
Social workers said Tania was too mild-mannered to be able to protect Emily from Stephen. At that point Emily was put into a foster home, and Stephen and Tania were allowed to visit her once a week for an hour.
“It was so emotional,” said Tania. “I tried my hardest to be happy around Emily. But I cried uncontrollably before and after we saw her.”
The couple have video footage taken on July 18, 2006, of them with Emily, and say they look happy and at ease together. At one point, they say the little girl puts her arms out to her mother, who picks her up and kisses her.
Touchingly, Tania says when she asks Emily where her daddy is, the toddler turns and points at Stephen. But already the clock was ticking towards their daughter’s adoption.
Within a few weeks, the couple were told new parents were being sought for their little girl. And they were horrified when they came across an advert in a glossy magazine offering her up for adoption.
The beautiful blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl was smiling at them from the page. The accompanying blurb described her as a bright, happy girl who likes swimming and games.
A phone number was printed alongside for anyone interested in becoming her parents. Tania said: “Our daughter was essentially being put up for sale in a magazine and under her own name. We hadn’t even been warned. It was despicable.”
At the time Enfield officials took Emily away, councils were under pressure to raise the number of children they had adopted by 50 per cent.
Tony Blair had promised millions of pounds to councils that managed to achieve targets. The aim was to get older children in care homes into new families.
But councils found it easier to place babies and cute toddlers such as Emily, and thousands of children under four were removed from their families across the country.
In October 2006 the couple saw Emily for the last time.
Stephen, his eyes filling with tears, said: “We didn’t know that then. We had arranged to see her, but the meeting was suddenly cancelled five minutes beforehand. Presumably a new family had been found. We didn’t even get to say a proper goodbye. It breaks my heart to think she doesn’t know why we aren’t there for her.”
In a desperate bid to beat the system, Stephen and Tania took Enfield Council to the Court of Appeal in March 2007. They asked for a stay of execution on the adoption while their case was heard by the European Court of Human Rights. But it was refused.
The couple did not give up there. Last month they were allowed to challenge the initial accusation against Stephen at the High Court. There they were backed by top europathologist Dr Waney Squier, who believes there is no evidence that the boy’s injuries were caused by her father.
In the three-day hearing, Dr Squier told the court the injuries were not consistent with Shaken Baby Syndrome. She said that, crucially, he had no other marks or injuries on his body to suggest he had been shaken violently.
She told the court that 85 per cent of autopsies in shaking cases have additional bruising or other injury. And she said the force required to produce bleeding behind the eyes would inevitably cause damage to the neck.
But the local authority’s expert Dr Neil Stoodley disagreed and said the injuries were consistent with SBS.
However the argument was based just on medical notes, because Jamie’s original brain scans had been lost.
The couple lost their final chance of halting the adoption when Mr Justice Mark Hedley, who described the decision as “agonising”, sided with the council and upheld the care order.
In what he described as a “dreadful conundrum”, he said: “Wrongly to find that there has been an NAHI (non-accidental head injury) is to risk tearing apart an innocent family – a shocking thing to happen.
“Likewise, wrongly failing to find NAHI where such in fact occurred is to risk returning a child to a situation of high or even fatal risk, as notorious cases have sadly demonstrated.
“The consequences of a judicial error in these cases are calamitous.”
The judge praised the parents’ persistence, saying: “The father’s belief in his innocence and the injustice done to his family is genuinely held.”
He also said there was not enough evidence for police to bring a trial on the initial child-abuse allegations. But he said there was still no new evidence to undermine the original findings.
The couple have vowed to appeal against the decision, but they are running out of time. Once Emily is officially adopted, it is British law that she can never be returned to her parents – even if they are found innocent.
Clinging on to each other in their living room, with walls covered in photos of Emily, the couple say they cannot bear to have another child.
Stephen said: “My health is getting worse and I do not want to go through the agony of having another baby taken away from us by the state.”
The couple are prepared to go to the European Court of Human Rights if their appeal fails.
But Stephen said: “The European court cannot reunite us with our daughter – all we would get is monetary compensation, which means nothing to us when all we want is our little girl back.”
-For legal reasons, the real names of the people involved have been changed to protect their identities.

'''Although I have identified our selves'''

Please sign my my Daughter's guestbook at http://www.crystalwalton.com/Guestbook.php Many Thanks!

If you know where my Daughter is please email me at ian@stopinjusticenow.com

Stop Injustice Now; Back on-line

2010-08-15T00:27:00.001+01:00

We are pleased to tell you that 'Stop Injustice Now' will be posting new news items very soon! Watch this space.

‘Stop Injustice Now’ Blog Site!

2009-10-30T15:14:00.002+00:00

‘Stop Injustice Now’ Blog Site!: "Baby Ps stepfather Steven Barker has had a poster of himself removed after he complained it damaged his reputation.
At this was the man jailed in May for causing or allowing the death of Baby Peter, you wonder what one that couldnt get any worse?
This monster (how does that sit with your reputation MATE, A photo with the same words is attached to this story, try to stop me you Bastard)?
Grew up violently abusing small animals then moved on to defenceless children, including Baby P and the rape of a two year old girl.
It is why animal rights group Peta used a picture of him in a poster with the words People who are violent towards animals rarely stop there.
But Barkers lawyers demanded it was taken down because it was libellous, suggesting Barker murdered Baby P the courts couldnt agree which of Baby Ps three torturers finally killed him.
It is beyond belief this sicko, who destroyed the lives of two small children, has the arrogance to wave the human rights card. It just shows he is more worried about saving his own skin than demonstrating any remorse for his vile crimes. In Barkers case, a life sentence must absolutely mean LIFE."

Woman dubbed 'not bright' enough to marry, now faces baby being removed when she gives birth

2009-10-18T22:04:00.001+01:00

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/october/18/02.htm

A pregnant young woman,whose wedding was halted by social workers in an extraordinary row over whether she is bright enough to marry, is to have her baby boy forcefully removed from her at birth.
Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, was this week told during a meeting with social workers they believe she is also not ëintelligent enoughí to look after her baby, due in January.
She will be allowed just a few hours with her baby, whom she has already named Ben. But she and fiance Mark McDougall, 25, will not be allowed to leave the hospital with Ben and he will then be placed with foster parents.
She said yesterday: "I couldn't believe it when they told me I wouldnít be allowed to bring my baby home. I feel sick all the time.
"I am so upset I donít know what to do with myself. I know I am having a little boy and so I have already started buying baby clothes and am getting a nursery ready for him. But now I can't take it in. I don't want to think about January and I canít stop crying."
Last month Kerry, who is 26 weeks pregnant, was told her wedding was being halted just 48 hours before she was due to walk up the aisle because, according to social services, she 'did not understand the implications of getting married'.
Her fiance Mark, an artist, added: "Seeing Kerry so upset is absolutely heartbreaking and I am very worried that all this stress she is under will affect our unborn baby's health.
"We're just devastated by this and at the moment we just don't know how we are going to cope in January. We have both already bonded with Ben and I can't even begin to think what it will be like coming home without him.

Judge condemns Jack Straw's 'haste' on media access to family courts

2009-10-18T22:03:00.000+01:00

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/october/18/01.htm

The most senior family judge in England and Wales urged ministers not to rush ahead with controversial plans to allow greater media access to family court hearings.
Sir Mark Potter, President of the High Court Family Division, said that he was concerned about the haste involved with the latest plans from Jack Straw and warned that they may lead judges to exclude the press altogether.
Despite concerns already expressed by judges, lawyers and others over the plans, Mr Straw, the Justice Secretary, plans to include the changes in the Schools and Safeguarding Children Bill in the new session of Parliament.
The Justice Secretary has said that opening up family hearings in April to the media was being undermined by reporting restrictions.
He intends to allow the media acccess to confidential medical and social work reports, subject to anonymity provisions, in a move that would allow the media to name and shame social workers.
But Sir Mark told a conference of family lawyers this week that even interim rules, pending the legislation, should not be rushed.

Is it right to take children away from parents at birth?

2009-09-24T12:00:00.000+01:00

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/september/22/09.htm

The head of Barnardo's, Martin Narey, has called for more babies to be taken away at birth from parents who have "failed" with their previous children.
It follows fresh concern over a generation of "feral" children in the wake of the case of the two boys aged 10 and 12 who battered, tortured and sexually abused two other children in Edlington near Doncaster.
The pair had come from a chaotic home where they were exposed to drink, drugs and violence from an early age and had a long history of involvement with police and social services.
In the words of the father of one of their victims: "My kid plays with Lego... they play with knives."
Mr Narey, who as a former director general of the Prison Service knows the criminal justice system inside out, believes that some families simply cant be fixed and wants the authorities to move in earlier to give children a chance of a better life.
He said that social services should not be afraid of taking children into care and ultimately sending them to new families.
It sounds terrible, but I think we try too hard with birth parents," he said.
"If we really cared about the interests of the child, we would take children away as babies and put them into permanent adoptive families, where we know they will have the best possible outcome.
Ann Widdecombe, the former prisons minister, has praised Mr Narey as courageous.
"We all know what we are talking about here, we are talking about families where there is a persistent pattern of failure," she said.
But others warned against "nanny state interference".

Britain’s child protection laws create ‘spoilt generation’ with no respect for adults or authority, psychologist claims

2009-09-24T11:59:00.000+01:00

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/september/22/08.htm

Britains child protection laws have created a spoilt generation with no respect for adults or authority, according to a prominent psychologist.
Dr Aric Sigman claims young people are growing up unprepared for the realities of adult life as parents, teachers and police have lost the power to discipline them.
His new book cites as proof a leaflet left in courts asking visitors politely not to carry knives.
Dr Sigman who believes under-threes should be banned from watching television and fears that social networking websites such as Facebook may damage the health says the sense of entitlement now enjoyed by children is contributing to increased crime, obesity, underage pregnancy and binge-drinking on the countrys streets.
Ahead of the party conference season, he wants politicians to draw up laws that would curtail young peoples rights and reassert the authority of adults, as well as encouraging mothers to care for their babies at home and introducing compulsory civic service.
Dr Sigman, an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society, said: Authority is a basic health requirement in children's lives. But, while children have become increasingly 'empowered' in terms of legislation and rights, far from being protected, they are actually suffering in ways that could never have been foreseen.
Children of the spoilt generation are used to having their demands met by their parents and others in authority, and that in turn makes them unprepared for the realities of adult life - this has consequences in every area of society, from the classroom to the workplace, the streets to the criminal courts and rehabilitation clinics.
There is now an urgent moral and legal imperative incumbent upon legislators to help restore authority to children's lives. Adults must be legally empowered to deal with both their own and other people's children without the fear that they may be confronted or prosecuted for doing so.

Haringey Council under pressure over social services

2009-09-24T11:58:00.000+01:00

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/september/22/21.htm

CALLS are growing for a public inquiry into Haringey Council's social services department, in the wake of revelations a child was placed in foster care with relatives of a Muslim terrorist.
Lynne Featherstone, MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, reacted with horror to the disclosure, and demanded answers from council chiefs.
She said: We need answers now to ensure that no other child has, or will, be in danger when they are placed in care.
After the awful tragedy of Baby Peter and the clear failures made by Haringey Council, these new revelations show further evidence of the need for a root and branch review of Haringey Councils childrens services that only a Public Inquiry can provide.
The council is under pressure after it was revealed a child was place into foster care with relatives of Abdullah Ahmed Ali, one of three men convicted of conspiracy to murder for planning to kill thousands by blowing up planes using liquid bombs disguised as soft drinks cans.
Shadow Children's Secretary Michael Gove MP, shadow children's secretary, has called for immediate disclosure of the vetting procedures in place for foster parents in Haringey.
He said: Its truly frightening to think that the social services department of this council placed a child with a terrorist, and even more so to think that the child could
Haringey Council has been criticised for placing a child in the care of relatives of a terrorist have been used as part of the foil for the bomb plot.

We need to protect Whistle Blowing social workers

2009-09-24T11:57:00.002+01:00

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/september/22/07.htm

Too many social workers' careers have crumbled after they raised concerns
In social work at present it never rains but it pours. At a time of continuing public scrutiny, the last thing the sector needs is to be told that nearly half of those frontline social workers who plucked up courage to blow the whistle about poor practice or workplace problems subsequently reported that their employer failed to tackle the issues raised.
The findings, in a survey of more than 500 social workers by the General Social Care Council, confirms what many staff already know. Too often raising concerns at work, never mind blowing the whistle, is a bad career move.
However, 45% worried that their employer would not take action if they raised concerns about a colleague, and nearly half of those who had reported problems about colleagues or "operational difficulties" said their employer had taken no action.
The GSCC has had bad press recently, but the publication of this survey ought to earn it a few bonus marks, not least the GSCC's acceptance that victimisation and career damage were the most common fears of those who said they would not speak up.
Unfortunately this is nothing new. There is a long roll call of those social workers whose careers nosedived after raising concerns, most recently Nevres Kemal whose whistleblowing in Haringey was ignored and led to her unfair dismissal when it ought to have set alarm bells ringing.
The survey results were published on the day that the Unison convenor in Doncaster who has been repeatedly critical of the culture within the council was suspended immediately after speaking out about what he alleged were budgetary pressures distorting professional decisions in child protection.
The failure of staff to whistleblow in the NHS cost dozens of lives at Mid Staffs and Maidstone hospitals in recent years. In social care, the costs are less obvious but no less disastrous. Although social workers and their managers are required as a condition of continued registration to highlight concerns and speak up for those they work with, the inexorable pressure on resources, excessive caseloads and inappropriate delegation of work are a potentially lethal cocktail.
The pressures go to the top. I have spoken to a number of very senior managers who have expressed their concerns at the consequences of questioning budgets and unsafe or unethical resource led decisions. One told me "you can spell out the consequences of inadequate budgets but if you keep waving shrouds, you'll eventually have a P45 waved back at you". Their reluctance to speak out is despite the fact that they would automatically have statutory protection as whistleblowers should they suffer detriment as a result.

Bonnie Lewis Kidnapped By The State They Gagged UK Column And No2Abuse On This Story Copy And Paste It All Over The internet

2009-09-24T11:57:00.001+01:00

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/september/22/06.htm

Bonnie Lewis Kidnapped by the State
Investigation into the scandalous abuse of a young girl by the Neath Port Talbot State Child
Protection Machinery.
As Social Services get power to section parents as mentally ill - why every parent in Britain should
be fighting for the safety of their children and Child Courts that are open to the full Public scrutiny.
Sick, in constant pain, and frightened after months of medical incompetence, 12 year old Bonnie
Lewis was deliberately and deceitfully taken from her mother by Port Talbot Social Services.
Their aim? Probably to meet government fostering and adoption targets, which reward Councils.
And to help the NHS cover up medical blunders.
This true story is a wake-up call to every parent in UK. Every child is now at risk of kidnapping
by the State, as Social Services can manipulate the law with impunity. Recent new
draconian laws also give social workers powers to section parents who fight back as being
mentally ill. They can then be incarcerated indefinitely. Welcome to the Blair - Brown created
UK soviet. Secret and corrupt courts, mental institutions and collusion between public authorities,
NHS and police.
In our June edition we printed the harrowing story of a very sick young girl called Bonnie.
Kidnapped at gunpoint by police in Florida, the US authorities had in fact been duped' by a
conspiracy of lies concocted by Neath Port Talbot Social Services, Bonnie's loving mother and
grandfather looked on totally helpless as their daughter was taken into care in UK. She never
lived with them again. SS officials used falsified evidence, unlawful passports, and operated in a
deceitful collusion with Hospitals, Courts, Foreign & Commonwealth Office and MPs. Local
police assisted the process.
Devious Social Services staff duped US Social Services into believing that Bonnie had been
diagnosed as suffering from Maunchausen by Proxy, and they submitted a pick up order to
the US authorities, before flying to Florida to kidnap Bonnie.
Even Judge Evans, stated in his had made saying that the child should not be removed from the
jurisdiction was in fact made the day after the child had in fact left the jurisdiction. He added..
and I wanted to make it abundantly clear [to the US Authorities] that I said as far as I was concerned
firstly the child had already left when I made that order so it didnt seem to me that there
was any breach of that order. The judge also indicated that he only had information supplied
by Ms Rzezniczek.
The Judges words clearly indicate that Mrs Lewis and her father had not breached any order
in taking Bonnie to the USA. In that case the question has to be asked - on what authority
did Neath Port Talbot SS and Ms Rzezniczek obtain a passport for Bonnie, and under what
authority did they then take Bonnie from her mother in the USA.
Mrs Rzezniczek Head of Neath Port Talbot Children and Young People Services. Her
responsibilities include leading on child protection, looked after children, fostering and adoption.
Working towards closer relationships with schools and health agencies to deliver a more integrated
service for children and families.
This action, taken without proper legal authority, mirrors the recent admission that Birmingham
Social Services sent five children to the Jersey childrens care home without the necessary
court orders.
After personal investigation, Neath Port Talbot Cllr Davies was prepared to write in a personal
statement dated 2002....
I believe that we [Neath Port Talbot Borough Council] were not entitled to go there
(USA), we relied on Orders that were invalid and there is a possibility that we may have
misled the Courts when those original orders were made.
These are very serious allegations by Cllr Davies, but what action he took inside the Council
is unclear. Allegedly he was threatened.
The kidnap followed major medical mistakes and incompetence in South Wales hospitals.
Passed from one hospital to the next, with no diagnosis or treatment, the desperate mother
eventually sought help from Social Services. This was a huge mistake, which was ultimately
to result in Bonnies kidnap by the SS.
Yet from the time that she was taken by Social Services, Bonnie remained in pain. The same
pain for which her mother and grandfather had worked tirelessly to obtain a proper diagnosis
and treatment. What parent wouldnt?
The mothers reward for her justifiable parental concern was to be branded mentally unwell
and to have her child taken by the State. In doing so, SS officials callously brushed off the
daughters terror at the kidnap in Florida. Then an ordinary social worker, Julie Rzezniczek
described Bonnies trauma at being forcibly taken from her family as being....Tearful..
In the subsequent Contract for Contact, Social Services deliberately and specifically prevented
any discussion between Mrs Lewis and her daughter concerning Bonnies health, illness
or pain. Letters from Bonnie all had to be given to Ms Rzezniczek before they were passed on.
Denied free speech, Bonnie did manage to smuggle out harrowing letters detailing her pain
and longing to come home. None of these were taken into account by Social Services or the
Courts. Blocked behind a Barnados guardian, this little girl was no longer permitted to show
love for her family, or express her feelings.
Bonnie has still not been re-united with her mother. Now adult, she remains held and apparently
controlled in a strange world of Social Services contacts, who have aggressively blocked
attempts by the family to see their daughter.
At the age of 16 Bonnie met her Grandfather in the street. This was the man she had loved
and thought the world of. As he greeted her, she shrank back, and warned him....Granddad, dont
come near me. Theyll know. Theyll know. You mustn't. Sensing his granddaughter's distress,
and fearful for her, he walked on. Programmed and controlled by Neath Port Talbot SS, Bonnie
was now lost in a psychological prison called British child protection. Her strange
was, and still is, totally contrary to the loving letters which she smuggled to her family.
Just what did the SS do to this childs mind?
The June UK Column story produced instant response from the general public. Telephone
calls from parents reporting yet more SS child snatch cases, further information on the Bonnie
case (including allegations of threats by police officers), calls and letters of support for
the work of the paper, demands by Port Talbot Council that they did not want more copies of
the Column.
A few members of the public couldnt believe that the story was true. And this is a critical
point. Not only is Bonnies story true, but the facts of the case are mirrored in thousands of
other cases of child stealing by the state that have occurred in UK over the last 30 years.
Something evil is at work in Great Britain, and it is targeting our children. Just consider
the revelation that Birmingham Social services sent children to Jersey, and now has no record
of them. Most worryingly this is an evil backed and supported by top level government ministers
using secret family courts.
The UK Column promised to continue to help the Lewis family expose the truth. We are
therefore publishing excerpts and quoting from the official documents and letters concerning
the case. Painstakingly obtained by the family, these have all been duplicated for safekeeping.
It is this evidence which must be brought into the light, if our children are to be safely brought
up by their loving families, and not by an increasingly domineering and prescriptive state
machinery.
The original charges made by the UK Column against Neath Port Talbot Social Services
and local hospitals included:
Failure to diagnose a serious illness. Removal of a healthy appendix by Neath Hospital
with no license to operate.
Cover-up of the severe post operative abscess. Excessive prescription of drugs, some not approved
for use on children. Negligent prescription of oral morphine. Incorrect discharge and prescription
forms. Confused and incompetent hospital referrals, examination and treatment. False denial of
Bonnies pain by Doctors and Social Workers, in
Instead of supporting Mrs Lewis to obtain proper treatment for Bonnie, evidence shows
a number of doctors conspired with Neath Port Talbot Social Services to silence the mother by
branding her mentally ill / unstable and taking Bonnie into care.
Not happy with destroying the family, Social Services then failed to treat Bonnie and left her
in pain and isolated from her family .
Bonnies smuggled letters (actual handwritten letters opposite page), show her trauma and
ongoing pain at the hand of cold callous Social Services minders. The following letters are in
her own words. March 19th 1998 ...they are the only things two things that I want is to be out of
pain and back home with you all.
June 1998 she says (in her own words): I love my Nan and Granddad and my pain if
I say it to my Mum they will stop contact never see you again. Julie Rzezniczek and the Guardian
have told me I am never coming home.
September 1999....Please please help me I miss you all so mum. I hate living with Julie.
I just want to be home and I am still in the same pain.

Cornwall child abuse charges, two charged

2009-09-24T11:55:00.000+01:00

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/september/22/05.htm

A 45-year old man arrested following a child abuse investigation by Cornwall police has been charged with 24 offences of sexual assault on a child.
He has been named as Alan Wills.
a 50-year-old man has also been charged with four offences of sexual assault on a child. He is David Beckett.
Both men will appear at Truro Crown Court on October 16 and are currently on bail.
A 29-year-old man understood to be from the Camborne area has been released without charge.

Secret agenda to score adoptions

2009-09-24T11:54:00.002+01:00

http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/september/22/04.htm

A judge has condemned the "disgraceful" conduct of social workers over an adoption case, says Christopher Booker.
The revealing of the names of those responsible for the killing of Baby P reminded us yet again of the failure of Haringey social workers to avert the child's death. What a shocking contrast this provides to the behaviour of East Sussex social workers in the case I reported a month ago, which led to their seizure and putting out for adoption of a girl, now seven years old, from a respectable middle-class home, to the anguish of both her parents and the little girl herself.
The chief reason offered by the social workers for abducting the girl two years ago was that her home had been left in an appalling mess after a raid by RSPCA officials and 18 policemen. They ransacked the premises looking for non-existent guns, and released into the house a pack of dogs kept in kennels outside by her father, a professional dog-breeder. The parents were arrested for protesting at what was happening (the mother suffering a miscarriage while in police custody) and the social workers were summoned to remove their daughter.
Everything about this case is bizarre, not least the apparent complicity of social workers, lawyers and the courts in determining that the child should not be returned to her parents, as she wishes, but rather, after two years in foster care, sent for adoption.
I have now been able to read through many papers relating to the case, including the judgments resulting from the 74 hearings in which the parents attempted to get their daughter back. What stands out is the startling contrast between the two totally different versions of the case given by the social workers and the courts on one hand and, on the other, that presented by the parents themselves and by many who knew them. The latter include their GP, who recently wrote that he had never "encountered such a case of appalling injustice".
The most impressive document was a report by an independent social worker, based on many interviews with those involved, including the child herself and the chief social worker in charge of her. In measured terms, this made mincemeat of the council's case. Nothing about it is more suspicious than the contrast between descriptions of the "clean and tidy" home reported by those who knew the family well and the mess allegedly found by the policemen who burst into it mob-handed on the day in question.
The report found an equally glaring contrast between the social workers' insistence that the child was quite happy to have been removed from her parents, and the abundant evidence, observed at first-hand, that the little girl had an extremely good relationship with her parents and wants nothing more than to be reunited with them. The courts seem to have totally ignored this report, whose author last month expressed astonishment that the child had not been returned home.
What has also come to light is a remarkable judgment by Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wall in the Appeal Court last year, in another case which also involved the apparently ruthless determination of East Sussex social workers to send a child for adoption. The judges were fiercely critical. The social workers' conduct, said Lord Justice Thorpe, could only reinforce the suspicions of those who believe "councils have a secret agenda to establish a high score of children they have placed for adoption".