(Freemen of the land, and whether you can ‘jump out of the system)
When I was an impressionable teenager, computers were all the rage. I had my own computer, and through exposure to films such as “Wargames” (would you like to play a game Y/N? Let’s play Global Thermonuclear War”)
I and many of my peers were under the impression that we could, if only we had the right password or combination of keystrokes, seize control of computers used by corporations and get them to do our bidding.
[Actually, I probably would have been a lot richer, if much more nervous of sirens, had I continued in that belief and learned how to hack properly, but that’s by the by]
Anyway, one of the big rumours of my adolescence, was that if you went upstairs in Boots, where there were test computers set up to play about on (99% of the time, they were used in this sophisticated code :- 10. Print “Steven is Skill” (or “Steven Smells” depending on whether or not you were Steven, or an adversary of Steven) 20 Goto 10) and typed in the right combination of numbers and letters, you would get into the program that Boots used to operate their shop. You could turn the lights on and off, make the escalators run backwards, all sorts.
Nobody ever managed it [because it was b***ocks], but I can quite see the appeal that it held for me, thinking that there was a passport to all sorts of joys and benefits, if only you knew exactly the right sort of word or phrase to use.
[Probably part of the appeal of Harry Potter, is that we all still think even as a sensible adult that we could use magic, if only someone taught us how to do it… perhaps that’s just me. In case you are in any doubt, I would use my magical or superpowers for evil]
Anyway, rambling lead in over, onto the actual topic, which is the Freeman of the Land movement. This crops up now and then in care cases – invariably amongst males of a certain age (young enough to be able to use the internet, but too old to know that you should take 98% of what is on the internet with a scoop of salt).
I have had colleagues say “This is a really unusual letter I’ve just received”, looked at it and seen that it is at right angles to reality, and been able to explain to them that they are dealing with a Freeman of the Land.
So, just in case you too have come across such a thing and hadn’t recognised it, this is a guide to identification. I can’t offer you a solution, but at least you will know what you are dealing with.
The Freeman of the Land movement effectively believe that you can avoid any unpleasant consequences of the law, or the Court system, by simply deciding that you exist outside the law, that you “step outside the system” by asserting that the law does not apply to you.
A common ‘trick’ to this is to mentally split oneself in two and to talk about yourself not as Dougal Zebedee but “The official representative of the legal fiction known as Dougal Zebedee” or “Dougal of the family Zebedee” or “The flesh and blood man Dougal of the Zebedee family” or so forth.
The belief here is that the law only applies to Dougal Zebedee, but you aren’t him, he is just a legal fiction. You are someone else, and thus the consequences that would come Dougal’s way are nothing to do with you.
That sort of convoluted way of referring to yourself in the third person is not, in the context of legal proceedings, an indication that you’ve been watching rather too much Game of Thrones, but that you are a Freeman of the Land or that you have stumbled across a website with some ideas that you thought were awfully clever.
There’s some clever (if misguided) stuff going on with Freemen of the Land arguments, most of it downright peculiar, but it is so different to the arguments that one normally hears about the facts of a case or different interpretations of a piece of statute that it is quite easy to be flummoxed by it. When someone starts with Magna Carta and that we are all governed by admiralty law, that’s not the sort of stuff that lawyers or judges are accustomed to dealing with, so there tends to be something of a goldfish response.
It reminds me quite a lot of the people who put huge amounts of effort into designing perpetual motion machines, many of whom have provided what seems like very competent and capable science to explain how their machine works; but who lack the fundamental underpinning of physics that would have told them that the device can’t possibly work and it is a waste of time trying.
[Annoyingly, I can’t recall the name of the physicist who every time he received such a proposal sent in reply a stock postcard saying “your invention, in order to work would breach at least one of the three following Laws of Thermodynamics, almost certainly the Second, and thus does not work”… So I’ll just quote Arnold Sommerfield, who is spot on “Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don’t understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don’t understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn’t bother you any more.” ]
Some of the arguments deployed by Freemen of the Land as to why the law doesn’t apply to them (or sometimes to anyone at all) include for example :-
A UK law isn’t valid until it is approved by the Monarch, and the Queen did not swear the correct oath at the time of her Coronation so she is not legally the Queen, therefore no laws made under the Reign of Queen Elizabeth have any legal status.
Or
The Act of Union was unlawful and therefore any law postdating the Act of Union is also unlawful
Or
We are all legally dead and the laws don’t apply to the dead
Or
The fact that a registration document on a car refers to the ‘registered keeper’ means that there is no concept of ownership in English law
But all at their core being the concept that the law does not apply to this person in question – other ready ways to recognise a Freeman of the Land are references to Magna Carta, demanding to see a Judge’s qualifications and certificate of office, references to maritime or admiralty law.
There is not, so far as I am aware, a judgment in the family Courts which deals with Freemen of the Land or gives any guidance on how their arguments should be considered. [There have been some cases in which there has been a flavour of it, but the reported judgments don’t get into any detail]
The Court of Appeal have just dealt with an appeal where the mother had been deploying these arguments Re J (Child) 2013
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1685.html
but backed off at the appeal hearing
- The paperwork reflected that, as had also been the case in front of Judge Bromilow, M and IM considered that they were claiming to proceed under “Common Law Jurisdiction and Authority”. They considered that this affected the proceedings in a number of ways. For example, in M’s skeleton argument for the appeal she said, speaking of the proceedings at first instance, that:
“we established Common Law Jurisdiction prior to the hearing and Mr Bromilow confirmed he was on his Oath before the hearing began. Therefore, as a Court de Jure was in effect, no consent means Mr Bromilow had no authority”
Another feature was that M treated the name by which she would normally be known as her “legal fiction” and insisted that she be addressed by a rather differently formulated version of it. Furthermore, she and IM did not consider they were bound by orders to which they did not consent.
- The local authority submitted to us that M’s then adherence to this notion of Common Law Jurisdiction and Authority had contributed to the case being challenging to manage. I have no difficulty in accepting that submission. The judge described the material sent to the court by M by way of evidence as “voluminous” (§19 of the judgment) and that description is corroborated by the bundles supplied to us, containing both the original material that formed part of the care proceedings and new material generated for the appeal.
- M freely acknowledged to us that she had been under IM’s influence and had developed misguided beliefs. She put this down to her vulnerability following an accident she had had, about which I shall say something later. She accepted that her reference to “Common Law” was wholly inappropriate and she said she could understand why objection had been taken to IM. She made a prepared oral submission in support of her appeal which was in a distinctly different tone from that adopted in her written submissions and in which her former beliefs played no part. She also abandoned some of her grounds of appeal. This was sensible given that they could not have succeeded. The effect of M’s new constructive approach was to enable us to concentrate on the issues that required determination.
That meant that the Court of Appeal didn’t need to give judgment on the mother’s previous bold submissions that a Judge has no power over her and that she is a legal fiction. That’s a shame for me, as I think a judgment about this whole concept is long overdue, but never mind.
So at the moment, the best approach will be to gently and politely explain that the magic tricks don’t actually work, that the Court will eventually find that the law does apply to them, and that it would be better to make the arguments based on the merits of their case, shedding any nonsense about Magna Carta, the Act of Union or maritime law. The Judge will listen to those arguments, and if they are made well, may agree with them.
There’s a very nice retort in the Canadian authority I link to later
You cannot identify one instance where a court has rolled over and behaved as told. Not one. Your spells, when cast, fail.
I would just look at it this way :-
If Ian Huntley had gone to criminal trial and said in his defence “Yes, the legal fiction known as Ian Huntley murdered two children, but he is just a fictional legal construct, and the person speaking now is Ian of the family Huntley and I am not responsible and the Homicide Act does not apply to me, let me go”
Do you think he would now be a free man?
That’s a fairly decent test to how the Court is going to look upon your Freeman of the Land arguments. Honestly, truly, there hasn’t been a case in which these arguments have been deployed and the Court has just rolled over and said “hey, it turns out we are powerless against this guy”
[If you want chapter and verse on how the Canadian Court dealt with someone running these arguments, and provides a dissertation on the various techniques and devices and how the Canadian Courts have rejected each and every one of them, each and every time they have been deployed
http://www.canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html ]
I would welcome something similar in English law, for the benefit of Judges who have to tackle this on a piecemeal basis.
For some of the background on this piece, I am very grateful to a number of law bloggers who write in other fields, and particular to Adam Wagner’s UK Human Rights blog who pulls a lot of it together here [His title is a quotation from the above judgment] :-
suesspiciousminds 
You chart a fascinating descent from genuine grievance into conspiracy cloud-cuckoo land. Thanks for such an amusing deconstruction!
Thank you! I have recently through my work come across quite a few men of a certain age using terms like ‘Natural Law’; Magna Carta’, ‘The Queen is a Fake’, ‘God’s Law’, etc. When I point out ‘The courts aren’t interested in that; stick to the facts’, I am usually met with a tirade of abuse and threats. I have learned that once they start on that line of thinking, I would be wasting my time and breath and just move onto the sensible people.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2012/secret-courts-plans-under-fire-again.php
Thank you. I was hoping you’d mention the Canadian case, great reading when you have a week or two to spare. But at risk of providing new diversions for FOTL, I was curious about your statement that “…other ready ways to recognise a Freeman of the Land are references to Magna Carta…”
Does this therefore include
1. Lord Justice Laws here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/lj-laws-speech-northumbria-uni-eldon-lecture-01112012.pdf
2. Lord Mance here: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/speech-131214.pdf
3. Lady Hale here: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/speech-131128.pdf
From the latter: “We are, after all, the land of the Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in 1215. The doors into the library of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom are engraved with a facsimile of the copy kept in the British Library, with one of its two most important clauses picked out: ‘To no man shall we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice’ (article 40).”
I think the thing about Magna Carta and FOTL is rather the almost magical powers ascribed to it.
Actually, the truly scandalous thing about Magna Carta is how little of it survives to this day. But touche on your point – my example is better refined to “shoehorning in Magna Carta when it has no application whatsoever to what is being considered”
Did Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?
Just because you call it a conspiracy, doesn’t make it non reality.
I’m on the fence with this one … it is documented very well, that several Freemen who have indeed walked from court using various tactics, among them are the asking if the bench has taken oath – many haven’t therefore cannot sit, another is to bring the birth certificate of the accused into the court, after all, that is the ‘person’ in attendance, the legal person, the named and numbered government received piece of identity, the actual body who is the ‘human being’ is not required to be there as there is no ownership by anyone.
In the instance of a birth certificate being present, it is very difficult for the court to claim the person did not attend court because technically, he did.
The world is flat, this must be so because it is said by the high powers/knowledgeable, you suggest it is round? You are a conspiracy theorist! Go ahead, drop off the edge of the world!
That panned out well …
Did man land on the moon? Were any of us there? How sure can we be? We only have, yet again, the word of the governments, we don’t actually KNOW.
I guess my point is, anything is possible, anything at all, if you can make it happen, then you have simply proved the world to be wrong
Just because you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you
What’s worse is that even if you are not paranoid they may still be out to get you.
I’ve coped with this in my legal day-job. As a JP when in the Chair my answer is to say that if nobody is present who says he is Joseph Bloggs I will invite the prosecution to prove in absence. That does the business.
Well one of my ‘sayings’ I use in life is ‘Man did land on the moon, Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman and Elvis did return to his home planet’. * That usually shuts people up.
I generally don’t believe in conspiracy theories until I survived Operation Ore and the SS. (How come I can’t have a T-shirt with it on; like the one I got as a kid ‘I survived Three Mile Island’; which is true by the way.)
*TMI did happen- why did we have to bring in Italian specialists????
But surely, if his birth certificate is there, he IS present?
Let’s get this clear first: NASA did not get to the Moon, they got to Mars. That signals only took just over a second to get there or back – and that they made it in five days – is because they had discovered a way of travelling through hyperspace, but it has been hushed up to protect the oil companies. Then they pretended that they had “only” got to the Moon.
Lord Lucan shot JFK from the grassy knoll.
Elvis is on tour with Princess Di. They take it in turns to ride Shergar.
OK now?
Gosh, you sure get angry with people who have open minds – lol
Oh bollocks. A birth certificate is a document which evidences an event: the registration of the birth of a person. It is not that person. The person is flesh-and-blood – if that flesh-and-blood is not there then s/he (politically correct, but I’ve never heard of a Freewoman on the land) did not attend. Many people living here were born in countries without any reliable system of registration of births but they still exist and are subject to the law.
I think the Freemen get a bit of a hard time. I think it’s actually a fairly decent ruse.
While they might confuse cause and effect a little bit, I reckon a good few of them get left alone after pulling the stunt in ‘money’ cases. How many corporate bodies would willingly accept the risk of litigation against these theories?
By risk, I mean that you’re almost guaranteed to have to go through the entire process right through to enforcement without any confidence that the defendant has enough money to settle his judgment debt, interest & costs. I actually think, in a rather odd way, that for lawyers to ignore this gives credence to the ideas of Freeman-ism.
Having said that, I doubt the CPS or a local authority (in public law proceedings) have ever given up in the face of a bit of Freeman-ism…and that’s the real test.
(n.b., getting the mags to adjourn something off in the vain hope that you come back and play properly is not “winning”. That’s just deferring the pain for another day…)
Which is why nobody should be allowed to issue a claim without having insurance against any possible liability for the defendants’ costs if you lose; the premium to be recoverable if you win, but you have to find it up front. That would deter these types at least from bringing claims.
It is also why the rule in the old Order 14 should be restored under which leave to defend could be conditional on money being brought into court.
Do they ever bring claims in the courts they deny have any power over them?
The mind boggles…
Do they ever bring claims in the courts they deny have any power over them?
Ha! Good point, I’d never have spotted that
I get sent a lot of this nonsense for some reason. Some of it is very amusing; there is one Freeman in Australia who has apparently spent a great deal of time and effort writing a book and is mightily peeved that it has sold only one copy. Freeman literature is full of strange capitalisations and passages in different colours, I’ve no idea why, but it helps to identify and avoid it.
There’s another system called Maxim law which is based on maxims taken from sources such as Bouvier’s Law Dictionary of 1856, Black’s Law Dictionary of 1891 and from Roman Law (which is why many of them are in Latin – often incorrectly translated). Several maxims are based on the sayings of Christ or on other biblical sources, and are therefore regarded as the word of God, and higher than ‘man’s law’.
Some people claim success using these ideas, but the only cases I am aware of have come badly unstuck; the best known is probably the Vicky Haigh case.
Wow, how spurious is the Ian Huntley example…he was tried in a “common law” court ie one with a Jury….don’t see those in family proceedings,. I suggest the author of this piece requires a hell of a lot more research, before he boldy goes giving his “authoritive” denunciation of a movement that has had successes. Unfortunately his comments are like many “within” the system, and is beholden to maintain a system that is corrupt. If the system was truly justice then the issues around the child snatching by the state would not exist. Perhaps he should look up a Mr Karl Lentz if he wants examples of common law superceding statute.
Had a few ponderings over this one myself. As back in the 1800’s – 1960’s there are many cases of false birth certificates or none applied for.
It came with the ‘shame’ factor of an illegitmate child to the risk in laundries etc of having a child stolen or having been stolen, given a new name.
There were also many men killed in WW1 and WW2 where mothers were left pregnant with a husband killed in war.
Many of the latter births the mother would still register the baby to the deceased husband or register the baby to another man who they hoped would take them on.
Some babies were also registered by the marriage name though the baby was not of the deceased or of the marriage even if alive.
So although using the ‘not the correct name’ tactic has won on a few occassions, the courts in the main tend to chuck it out regardless of birth certificate giving a different name.
A check on the births, deaths and marriages would show up many of the above. i.e. How could that man be the father when he was deceased at time of conception.
This still happens, if a woman is married but say seperated from her husband, and had another child with a different man, the child would be registered by the mother, using the married name (as it’s hers) the man she is married to gets automatic PR.
The other side to this is with today’s technology, women ARE having babies by their deceased husbands, but of course it would be recorded in detail that it is his sperm used to impregnate her in laboratory conditions
No, Ashamed, anybody can get a birth certificate for anyone, and possession of a birth certificate does not prove that the bearer is s the person named on it. It’s a nice try but it suffers from the same snag as Blackadder asserted to Baldric about the balance of power. It’s bollocks.
I have seen it done, successfully. okay let’s go with what you say as I can see the problem it could pose.
I will ask you this, what would you as a JP do with someone who has never had their birth registered? They are not contracted to the government (or had their soul sold to the government as a freeman would say)
You ask the person who is trying to be clever “Are you Joseph Bloggs?” and in the absence of an unqualified Yes you invite the prosecution to prove in absence. Bear in mind that we don’t normally ask defendants for birth certificates or anything of the sort.
You have (or are pretending to have) bought into the nonsense, which is that laws only apply as a matter of contract. Not so. And I think you know it.
Not at all, as I said clearly above, I am on the fence where the Freeman is concerned, I do know some get away using what seem to be uber intelligent tactics, that is all.
I also know only too well that non registration rarely helps, having dealt with parents who have efused to register their chilkd in order to prevent the Local authority taking them, it doesn’t work, they take them anyway
Whether that is legal, seeing as they’re removing a non person or not, is a different matter
Quite true and also why there are so many photo id cards needed for various reasons.
A birth certificate really proves nothing.
Yes, I read in a psychiatrists book (and there is not many that are read worthy) of a man who continued to talk of his problems by projecting the issues as those suffered by his friend, the cuddly toy.
It reminds me of a conversation once with a social worker, who seemed in every way in cuckoo land but heavily protected by her peers.
She started a conversation with. There was a friend of hers who was abused from a child to an adult.
After a while she got tearful and repeated , My friend was abused from a child to an adult, she was in her early 20’s before she realised it was wrong.
OK, I said but who is this friend.
She replied A friend
I replied Was that someone I know.
She replied Yes, it was me.
The next day I asked another social worker. Did you know that ——–was abused from a child to an adult. The social worker quickly answered.
She shouldnt have told you that.
It then became obvious to me that when she had invited me to work for child protection. She wanted it because I could see that
cont.
what is hidden behind the image projected.
As I sit here reading a case (not projecting, but because of privacy of others) that clearly shows the harm caused to a child through the wrong intervention of a social services department.
I sit here reading foster carers notes while reading the mind of the child in question.
It is shocking that this little girl is suffering and so missing her mum and potential step father to the point of showing extreme behaviour and obviously not linked to any harm caused by either, but harm caused by the social worker and barbaric tests on the little girl who should obviously have suffered none of it.
And you call this child protection.
And is that not what social workers excuse their barbaric actions to birth families on.
Child protection.
Back to the psychiatrist and the cuddly toy.
Perhaps the real problem lies with the social workers.
As for the Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act, in family courts all consideration to either is tossed aside.
I think there might be an argument that article 8 wasn’t considered in as rigorous a way as it could be, hence the recalibration since the Supreme Court decided Re B, but I think Courts have been very stringent on article 6. Magna Carta really doesn’t have much to do with family law at all – as I said earlier, what’s left of Magna Carta in English law is pretty narrow and technical.
Of course it’s tossed aside, it cannot be changed by anyone anywhere, so it is easier to ignore it
On a general note, it is not surprising that human rights are being eroded in a growing ‘big buisness’ world.
In fact left to politicians there would be none left at all.
I can see huge flaws in the new Families and Childrens Bill which can be easily ‘worked’ by the corrupt intent on wrongful removal of children. And if the Bill of Rights is ‘tuned’ for purpose God Help all of us.
I have seen the corrupt work like a reverse of Harry Potter turned psychopath previously using the Freeholder rights to properties withdrawing vast sums from Leaseholders bank and building society accounts on the pretence of work needed to properties. In fact there has been suicides over it by destraught leaseholders. (1980’s)
Social workers are finely tuned to obtaining an end result, having no fear of prosecution for crimes committed in family courts.
So although seeming a little ‘nutty’ that people are challanging the law using the Magna Carta etc. it in reality is making a very valid point.
That politicans are allowing the corrupt to work most legislation to their own advantage.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act/what-the-rights-mean/article-6-right-to-a-fair-hearing.php
And I have not even seen much of Article 6 in family courts for the parents of children.
1/ How many cases has a parent been allowed an expert in the court to access a reported non accidental injury by a social worker
2/ How many social workers are tested for their statements under oath.
3/ How many of those social workers are prosecuted for false statements either under oath or by being in contempt.
4/ How much time is given in court to cross reference of statements and fact finding.
5/ How many reports are read regarding the childrens notes in alternative accommodation often showing a different story to that presented into court by a social worker.
6/ How many cases are there concerning domestic violence that are included in fact finding and cross reference of statements. And how many associated police statements are allowed in the court.
Too long a list to give all but the system is so flawed that it does not protect children.
Therefore how many judgements are made stating those false facts.
Hence dont judge a book by its cover.
One of the best and still standing sections of the Magna Carta, is section 39 or XXXIX as its written,
“39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
That was the 1215 Version although quite a lot of the Magna Carta was repealed on the 18th and 19th Centurarys,
In 1297 section 39 was re-worded as
XXIX Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
So in 716 years what happened to the use of this section, well with the last sentence one would say that from experience MG 1297 section 29 does not hold muster in the courts of this land
If a case could be tossed out on the above, then a case to ponder on as follows.
A mother fought to get a birth certificate and had to wait several months.
This included a visit to London Births, deaths and marriages office to search all the records. The result of this was she was not listed with that name or as being born to that address.
There was another birth registered on that day at that address but under a different name.(2)
The mother asked them to sort it out as for her entire life had been known by another name.(1)
After several months the mother was given a birth certificate with the name (1) and as being born at that address.
Some years later and having lost the certificate she again applied for a copy.
The London office again stated there was no-one of that name (1) to that address.
As luck with have the the lost certificate turned up again.
BUT, if anyone checked the birth certificate it would not tie up with the London Births, deaths and marriages as proven with the second application.
Following this the mothers children were taken by the family court.
At the court hearing the childrens names were spelt wrong, the wrong fathers name was on the Judgement and also there was incorrect dates of birth.
What would a Freeman do with this I wonder.
As in all the above, it was errors by the authority/s concerned and not the fault of the family.
Just as bad record keeping leads to wrong judgements.
Having come across this A LOT, the general rule of thumb is, that it doesn’t matter whether the children’s names are spelt wrong and/or the wrong sate of birth is written down, as long as the parents names are correct, they have the right people, the reasoning behind this is that it’s not the child on trial
So a Freeman wouldn’t do much with it basically
Parents names were not correct either.
In that case they were trying the wrong ppl
Another point of law is that under the Mental Health Act combined law, cps.
A child is taken into care under the balance of probability.
The child then becomes a target for 2 incentives of the social services department.
1/ To prove an offence has been committed by the parent/parents
2/ To move the child on to an adopted family.
Hence the following will occur, as experienced and supported by then young children (now adults) removed into care.
The child is placed with foster carers who are told to make daily reports on the child.
During the next few months the child is put through unpleasant tests which could upset the child. As those tests do not support any crime by the parent/parents the next stage is brought in.
The foster carer allows visitors sent by social services who bring gifts to the child. The foster carer and the social worker tells the child that these visitors are good people. The child is encouraged to state over and over again. A is good lady, B is good lady, C is a good man, D the social worker is a good lady E The foster carer E is a good lady.
This is repeated until its firmly set in the mind of the child.
In the meantime the parent/parents are told “Do not spend much money on gifts”.
As the days roll over, the child who is being spoilt by A, B, C, D, E,
cont.
is looking forward to the visits of A, B, C, D, E. as the child knows she/he will get lots of gifts. being taken to exciting or interesting places (while parents are restricted on contact)
Contact with the parents is only a couple of hours, a couple of times a week.
Time spent with A, B, C, D, E is frequent.
Time to move on to the next stage.
The child is becoming confused and its showing in behaviour problems. The child is missing the parents, but the parents dont seem to care. They dont see her/him very often, dont buy the gifts that A,B,C,D and E buy, and of course she/he is beginning to feel angry towards her parents.
Now the child is primed ready to say G and H (the parents are bad)
The first sign is the child not being so keen for contact.
The rest you can find in hundreds of court papers in many cases writen by social workers.
The social workers will present to the court, that the child is unwilling to attend contact. Will blame difficult behaviour following contact on the parents, regardless if its the child being deeply upset at having to say goodbye to the parents following contact.
The social worker will state, the parents are not making it easy and prolonging the end of contact which is distressing the child.
Once the court has made the decision for adoption or long term foster care and there are problems settling the child, the child will be given therapy and counselling to learn to accept the decision of the ‘court’.
Any further bad behaviour by the rebelling child will be dealt with under the childs mental health team.
Mostly unsuccessful as records show most grow into damaged adults, many issolated with no family support having had it removed as children.
But the lucky few will find their parents and move on. Though the anger will remain towards the authority that destroyed their lives for no good reason and for this reason may well become targets of the authority.
Where in any of the above is child protection?
Its really a case of serious child abuse by the authority and its social workers.
I have said it openly many times and will continue to say it here, regardless of who stomps all over my opinion wiuth their size tens on
There is no bigger child abuser than a Social Worker, they play games with these vulnerable children they get into their minds, they change and warp them, the child is just looking for the madness to stop
Look up Wilderness programmes, boot camps etc, it is BIG business, lots of money in that industry, with claims of being able to cure ADHD, homosexuality and such like, these children either never return because they are killed there thanks to the brutal restraint techniques, or they come out and commit suicide, or they become robots, they are destroyed minds, just like children in care (Google children who have died in wilderness programs to start)
They use the same tactics, they have ‘wraps; which consist of sitting these kids round and forcing them to say they have done soemthing they haven’t, if they refuse to comply and become good little robots, the other children have to turn on them and beat them up, or they also will be seen as non compliant, it’s the same divide and conquer technique, no talking, laid naked in small rooms for days without food and water until they comply
And the first sentence said to parents is … “They will try to tell you we are beating them or treating them cruelly, do not listen, it is their way of getting you to come get them out”
No, it is them begging their parents for help
The two systems are very similar except for one little thing, in the UK the kids are taken, in the USA the parents are paying to kill their children
As an end note …
If you break a vase and glue it back together, you may never see the damage, but no matter how good the patch up is, it is still broken, you cannot unbreak something, it will always be fragile and ready to shatter into a thousand peices
Wilderness program motto’s are to ‘break them, then build them up’ … broken = not fixable
And its the same in the military, they break the men to rebuild them into killers. And I dont know a military man who would deny it.
But in the USA it is far worse where they will openly supply illegal drugs to the soldiers to achieve their aims of complience and killer instint.
That is why in the USA more mistakes are made in battle and more men go home damaged for life.
In the UK the men have more incentive to work ‘ethically’ if that is the right word. And the British soldiers are less prone to whitewashing and the tecniques are not the cruel ones used in the USA.
Sadly many workers who work with young children in the care cycle are probation officers, you can even find them as Directors of Social Services. Some are also ex military or police.
There seems to be a tendancy that children who end up in care have terrible parents and their traits will follow on in the children.
In fact many children are lost into care not because of terrible parents but by corruption in the social services offices and LAs.
Sometimes I wonder how blind LA lawyers are to the reality of the case having only read the allegations and stories of the social workers who may well be far from honest.
As for brutal restraint techniques many of these are used on children and often very young children.
I also have witnesses to this who would stand in a court of law to uphold it. Some of these are whistleblowing care workers.
Although carers are trained in restraint there are many restraints that only a police officer should use in certain circumstances. But these restraints are used on a regular basis in childrens homes and even some foster care. And often just for taking a drink from the fridge without permission or some other petty reason.
Yes and while polilitians play with British peoples lives and dwindling rights and give the golden handshake to the USA, they are not taking on board the strong feelings of the public.
It is a fast track route to being voted out especially when allowing corrupt social workers to child snatch children on false allegations, deny contact for abscent parents, remove the human rights of men women and children, and use barbaric forced adoptions that in most countries are seriously frowned on and outlawed.
And could write a long list of important issues.
Only the USA and UK use forced adoptions and of course UK politicians always stick with the USA no matter how wrong it is. We dont seem to have a polititian who works to British principals and our culture. (Which is quite different to USA)
The UK has become under heavy global investigation and many countries are not seeing the UK as fit for purpose anymore and certainly not as a leader in a civlilised world.
Another reason for the UK politicians wanting to withdraw from the European courts, is to escape the European Human Rights. UK politicians do not like human rights (unless its their own). That is how the British public see it too.
Remember Blair / Bush and public opinion. If only he had addressed all the issues the British public were asking him to, it might actually still be in power.
It seems Cameron is going the same way.
By the way, the spin doctors for the LA social workers have barely a sprinkling of wisdom.
Has it ever occured to them the high number of children wrongly taken for forced adoptions and care do GROW up to adults.
Perhaps it should address the system as a child wrongly taken (vast numbers on research) amounts to another anti authority number. (Adoptions, forced adoptions)
On reseach the vast numbers of children abused in care, emotionally, physically or sexually are also another anti authority number.
Those who know first hand the damage caused by British lack of care, justice, corruption, human rights form more numbers.
And building more prisons or sentencing people for complaining or protesting will not address the ticking time bomb. It has become a global issue.
Not much British about that. But then there is not much British about the politics and shortly neither human rights or justice.
So are British politicians waiting for a ‘coo’ and vast public demonstrations or are they just laughing at the thought of that too.
Another line of wisdom perhaps should be, never think it cannot happen to us.
Important issue which should be high on the agenda of British politics is British families. ALL British families and their right to family life without fear of persecution and corruption.