RSS Feed

My open submission to become Chief Football writer for the Telegraph



West Midlands in Rapture as Simon Gerrard lifts the Premiership Cup for Liverpool


After nine long years, the West Midlands was ready for a party and they certainly got one, as Liverpool clinched the Premiership Cup, causing all fans in the area to rejoice and sing at the top of their voices. Simon Gerrard, their captain, known as “Simey Gee”,  lifted the trophy aloft, saying that “This one is for all the Yam-Yams who have supported this club for so long”

Liverpool, owned by the Russian billionaire, Roman Abramovich, finally triumphed in the Premiership Cup, beating Newcastle 2-1 whilst their rivals West Ham succumbed to a 2-0 defeat to Manchester City.


How about it? I think I come up to the rigorous standards of accuracy, fact-checking and in-depth knowledge of my subject that we have come to expect.



[There are miscarriages of justice in family cases, there are bad social workers, there are mistakes made, there are people to fight for, there are wrongs to be remedied. I’ll give two names that are in the public domain and where you can see from the judgments that mistakes were made and that families went through misery as a result – Alas Al-Wray and Musa.  But nobody is done any favours when the basic facts are misreported so badly]


I’ll borrow from Lucy Reed, on the code of conduct for journalists


The National Union of Journalists Code of Conduct says :

A journalist:

  1. At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
  2. Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
  3. Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
  4. Differentiates between fact and opinion.
  5. Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.
  6. Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
  7. Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.
  8. Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge.
  9. Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
  10. Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed.
  11. A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.
  12. Avoids plagiarism. 


[I’ve broken point 12 there…]


Perhaps Mr Booker and his editor honestly think that his reporting on the Italian C-section case, to take just one example, really follows the spirit of that code. Perhaps I missed the correction piece that would seem to be desirable under point 3 when the facts of the case emerged.


About suesspiciousminds

Law geek, local authority care hack, fascinated by words and quirky information; deeply committed to cheesecake and beer.

31 responses

  1. forcedadoption

    Booker is supremely accurate and was especially so in the Italian Caesarean case .The only so called” fault” was when he said social workers were responsible for the Caesarean but of course they were indirectly as they were hanging round the operating room and had obviously influenced the doctors to drug the mother , and not keep her informed of what was going to be done to her.(contrary to normal medical practice) for fear that she would not “cooperate(see judgement).Who does that sound like ,docs or social workers?
    The main story was indisputably that this lady was kept in a mental hospital against her wish to return to Italy,drugged ,sliced open and baby taken for adoption by strangers leaving mum to be finally released to return home to Italy wihout her baby !

    • Brooker’s original story paints a very clear and frightening picture of a normally well adjusted mother, ambushed after a panic attack and forced to have a C-section birth simply so her child could be adopted.

      It misses out any of the inconvenient background elements, which based on other reporting (possibly inaccurate so feel free to correct anything that is definitely wrong) appear to include past very significant mental problems, past medical history (in particular two previous births via C-section for medical reasons) and the fact that the previous children were removed from her care in Italy.

      None of this necessarily means the c-section and the child’s removal were right, but it does very significantly change the way most people would view matters.

      This very selective presentation appears to be a common theme in Brooker’s articles, and is the point I believe the author of this blog is making. Worse there are often straight inaccuracies which curiously always appear to be in a direction which supports his positions.

      • forcedadoption

        Fosterer 5:-You will always find “sins of omission” in any account of events whether by a judge or by a journalist or even a blog contributor ! You in your background elements do not mention that this woman had just passed a two week course to be cabin crew for Ryanair ,but was prevented from returning to Italy by the”men in white coats”though she was never violent at any time.She repeatedly asked to be allowed to return home to Italy during her detention in the mental hospital , always spoke in plain and measured fashion on the phone,and was always denied with no reason given.She was previously manager of a large restaurant in Los Angeles whilst her mother looked after her two children.Sadly she was detained for around 3 months ,cut open,baby taken and only then allowed to return to Italy “empty handed”. Journalists are on the whole more accurate and less selective than judges in the family courts !

      • Ashamed to be British

        Yes, Christopher Booker does often report the details that will grab the public’s attention, he’s a reporter, that’s what they do, he’s no different to any other reporter who might be running a story on the latest pop star scandal, cherry picking details.

        However, in the case of the Italian job, he did something very important, the public started to believe what I and others were trying to tell them all along, I personally, had several phone calls from the ‘nay sayers’ who were horrified by what had happened to this woman.

        It was a means to an end, innacurate reporting, meh, it did the job, the public are slowly realising, does that make it ok? Probably not, but in this case, the lack of detail, did all of those who have faced the corruption and lies of the local authorities a favour … lack of detail v blatant lies and stitch ups, Booker nailed it

  2. Ashamed to be British

    I’d like to see the same rules apply to social workers and anyone else working on behalf of the local authority, wouldn’t that be sweet …

  3. The people who work within the system like this blog that I am commenting on, (a Local Authority Lawyer I believe), are encouraged by the Government to protect the very system that rips families apart, steals our children by corrupt and inhumane ways. Why a social worker or Directer of Childrens services from Haringuay has not been put in prison for contempt for blatantly ignoring a court order and separating the Musa siblings for ever is a disgrace, encouraging even more (than there already is) corruption, lies deceit and steam rolling any Human Right a British (or foreign as much publicized) citizen has. This will continue as long as the UK Government sanction these crimes.
    I await the day the British Government are prosecuted for War Crimes in peace time, which is what the trafficking of our children amounts to.
    I await the day the British Government are shamed throughout the world for torturing and persecuting parents, by throwing them in prison for being accused of what the Government are actually doing to the people “kidnapping our children”, “abusing our children”.
    I await the day there is a revolution in the UK.
    After watching the film “12 years a slave” set in 1880, I see no difference to the treatment of people then and now in the UK. My skin may not be black but I have had my child snatched with no crime committed, was thrown in prison for no crime committed and had to flee my own country to feel safe and free,and again for no crime committed..
    Shame on the civil servants carrying out these crimes against humanity for their own comfortable life and good pension.
    Christopher Booker, Sue Reid, Camilla Cavendish, Ian Josephs, Sabine McNeil, Belinda McKenzie and myself have compassion and care about the abuse of Power that is being administered to the people of the UK. If it were not for these people and myself, these crimes will continue for many generations to come. Our freedom of speech is being gagged by the UK Government further suppressing the dire situation that the UK finds itself in. The situation is as political as any political movement throughout history. Who can be more vulnerable than a mother who has just given birth to a child? How can it be that the police and social services are arriving in labour suites and taking babies. Why is the government preventing, with all of it’s power, these stories becoming public?
    Let Gloria Musa give a live speech on TV with no gag, then we can all listen to the facts “straight from the horses mouth”, then there will be no doubt on how our country are treating Human Beings under their rule. I would also be happy to be interviewed live on CNN and tell the world how my daughter was stolen and how my unborn baby was a marked baby for the child trafficking industry in the UK. Let Anna Kornas tell of her time in a prison, a loving mother, I have a long list of names if you want them. Suespicious minds, wake up and stop being a Government puppet.
    Other Governments are becoming involved, this is not a pretty situation, you cannot keep aiding and abetting crimes against humanity and expect other Governments to not become suspicious.
    If you are going to criticize on your blog, do not criticize the humane people who are desperate to expose the seriousness of the situation in the UK. Instead criticize those who pay your wages, who pats you on the back when you have gained another child into the system in the UK and destroyed yet another family life against the wishes of the United nations.
    I sincerely hope that you have the courage to publish my comment on your blog without editing what can only be described as political unrest.

    • Ashamed to be British

      Overall, I have to agree with what is a heartfelt and angry post by you, I know this is happening, I know what is going on, you have my sympathies

      There are problems with letting the Musa’s or any other parent stand up and tell their stories ‘straight from the horses mouth’ (This was done in Trafalgar Square London, no holds barred) is that
      a) The nay sayers will still listen and STILL end up saying ‘ there must be more to it than that’ (my frustration goes into overdrive when I hear those dreaded words)
      b) The horses mouth may not be telling the truth. I’ve already pointed out that certain parents are rejected by myself and others, because they actually believe their own lies, or think what they have done is ok, when it really isn’t
      c) How are we ever going to define what/who is in danger? These are vulnerable children, newborns cannot speak out and say they feel starved, neglected, unloved, hurt. We all hopped up and down screaming that Tracey Connelly needed to meet with the hangman, and that Sharon Shoesmith should accompany her. Would we be hopping up and down screaming that that social services took her baby away IF they’d done the right thing by him? Of course we would, because she is a manipulative liar who would have convinced us she was innocent of any wrong doing.

      There has to be a balance, it’s swung like pendulum, but too far into the ‘snatch and run’ direction, risk of has it’s place, the problem we have is that it is used to feed an industry rather than to protect the child, which of course is where the uproar lies – it’s a tricky one, I do agree with you that when it is a case of ‘let’s just take hat child/ren to keep the adoption targets up’ then the courts should allow parents to disprove the lies, listen to the child who is gillick and send any perjurer straight into the criminal court, as it should be, that is what the justice system is designed to do

      • I am not angry, just saddened that the Government can and are (at the moment) getting away with these crimes against humanity. State looked after children are not safe from abuse. In fact no child is safe in the UK from anything. Better to live somewhere else if one has a young child as they are too valuable a commodity for the UK government. There are too many agencies everywhere looking for any reason to get your child.
        What a very sad state of affairs in the UK.

    • There’s quite an appropriate line from a very well known family Court judgment – one you may be familiar with

      “Any person who embraces one party’s version of events and treats it as the whole truth is making a serious mistake. In most family cases the version given by one side is partial and tendentious; on any view it does not give the other side. The only sensible course is to see what the court says in a judgment on all the evidence. Hence, the rule in English law that a court’s judgment is authoritative, based as it is on all the evidence, is not only sound in law but founded in good sense. “

      • “On all the evidence”, parents are not even allowed to speak or call witnesses. The UK is a communist country under the guise of a democracy and people like you are managing to kid themselves that the judiciary is a fair one. I do not earn money by stealing people’s children nor am I taken in that these secret court judgments, that you keep regurgitating, are able to justify these serious crimes against humanity.
        I am looking at the picture as a whole, where the Government are corruptly stealing infants, trafficking infants and throwing anyone in prison if they try and expose it. If a judgement satisfies you that all is fine and dandy, I wish I lived in your little bubble where this horror story did not bother me. The fact is, it does bother me.
        I am extremely troubled by the UK judiciary, the Government actions and the facts that slavery was banished over 100 years ago has gone full circle and history is repeating itself, but in the UK and not in the deep South.
        I normally read your blog and press delete but Christopher Booker is an extremely intelligent man and has an understanding of many aspects of politics, and how you have tried to belittle him with your silly article, goes a long way to show why Mr Booker has his own column in a big Sunday Newspaper and you have a lowly paid job for a Local Authority, why Mr Booker is in demand as a public speaker and I am guessing you are not.
        I am sorry to get personal as it is not my style, but I wish all you government puppets would take a stand and try and cut out the rot instead of feeding the fire.
        I am now going to spend time with my daughter Sapphire, one of the lucky ones who I managed to save from slavery.
        Have a good evening.

      • forcedadoption

        SUESPICIOUS do you really believe what you say?
        “Hence, the rule in English law that a court’s judgment is authoritative, based as it is on all the evidence, is not only sound in law but founded in good sense”

        Look at what the judges say abut the system.In fact L.J.Thorpe’s comment on its own should be enough to tell you what a thoroughly rotten and prejudiced system we have in our family courts.

        1: Lord Justice Thorpe said “There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.”

        2: Lord Justice Wall (the former Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.

        3: In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West.

        4: Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court said that other than in exceptional circumstances judges should treat requests to hear cases in closed courts with ‘distaste and concern’. In a blow to ministers, Lord Neuberger said hearing evidence behind closed doors was ‘against the principle of justice’.

        5: Baroness Hale (the only lady judge in the UK supreme court) said “Taking a child away from her family is a momentous step, not only for her, but for her whole family, and for the local authority which does so. In a totalitarian society, uniformity and conformity are valued. Hence the totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her family and mould her to its own design. Families in all their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all the modern human rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights (art 8), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art 23) and throughout the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Justice McReynolds famously said in Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 US 510 (1925), at 535, ‘The child is not the mere creature of the State’. ”

        Lady Hale: Dissenting judgement in the Supreme Court “B” a child.
        143. This case raises some profound questions about the scope of courts’ powers to take away children from their birth families when what is feared is, not physical abuse or neglect, but emotional or psychological harm. We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse anti-social political or religious beliefs. (Baroness Hale of Richmond in B (Children), Re [2008] UKHL 35 (11 June)

        6:-Courts are routinely removing children from their mothers into care after “cutting and pasting” the arguments put by social services and rubber-stamping them, a senior judge has warned.

        Mrs Justice Pauffley said that she was “profoundly alarmed” at the discovery that family courts were effectively in cahoots with social services through such “clandestine arrangements”, which undermined the independence of the justice system. She added: “It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again.”

        The judge made her comments as she granted an appeal to return a baby to his mother in a case she described as “shocking”.

        7:-Pauffley J also expressed concern about a ‘triage’ assessment of the mother by a chartered clinical psychologist which was commissioned and completed during the course of the day before the first hearing. She said:

        “It simply cannot be right, fair or reasonable to commission an expert to provide what may turn out to be the pivotal evidence justifying separation of a neonate from his mother in the way that happened here.

        “It surprises and alarms me that Dr van Rooyen [the psychologist] was asked, and was prepared, to provide a report during the course of a single working day, a terrifyingly tight timeframe, and on the basis of papers supplemented by a telephone conversation with a local authority professional who had never met the mother. I struggle to understand how Dr van Rooyen’s apparently firm opinions, adverse to the mother, could have been formed given the complete absence of any kind of discussion with her or, indeed, any communication with [the resource].”


        We should also remember the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions) [2007] 1 FLR 2050:

        “Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”


        MUNBY LJ states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” {Norfolk county Council v Webster & Ors 2006 EWCH 2733 Fam, para 27}

        10:-Sir James Munby:-

        The country’s top family judge has warned that moves to speed up adoption could lead to children being removed from their birth parents on flimsy evidence.

        President of the Family Division Sir James Munby described separating children from their families as a ‘last resort’ but said the current ‘sloppy practice’ meant that often ‘little more than lip service’ is given to other options.

        In an unanimous judgment in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, the President said:

        “We have real concerns, shared by other judges, about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption, both in the materials put before the court by local authorities and guardians and also in too many judgments. This is nothing new. But it is time to call a halt.” [30]



        What did the Minister for Children say in 2012 ?

        The Children’s Minister Edward Timpson said “the outcomes for children in care remain woeful.””For instance, we know that children in care are seven times more likely to misuse drugs and alcohol than others, 50 times more likely to end up in prison, 60 times more likely to become homeless and 66 times more likely to have children of their own who will need public care.

  4. deborah holmes

    One big advantage of the increased reporting of Family Court proceedings is that statements such as ‘parents are not even allowed to speak or call witnesses’ are going to be less and less regarded by the public, as they get to read judgements plainly based on what parents have said, and the expert evidence they have called. For sure it will call into question the failings of some authorities, and some experts, but a side effect that I think believers in corrupt forced adoption haven’t really grasped is that the spotlight is also going to turn inexorably on the actions of parents. My guess is that, as fuller reporting than Mr Booker’s takes over, the great British public are actually going to be a whole lot more judgemental of those parents than the much reviled judges are. Just my guess, and we shall see, but the Daily Mail readers’ reactions to Ms Haigh’s case were quite instructive.

    One thing that makes me laugh about Christopher Booker’s enthusiasm for tearing away the veils shrouding the secret courts is that his reports on them are one of the few areas where the Daily Telegraph refuses to accept online comments, even when they relate to judgements which are clearly already in the public domain. This didn’t used to be the case, and seemed to be initiated shortly after a case where his opinions took a bit of a drubbing below the line. There may, of course, be other reasons for this curious editorial decision, but it is out of line with the other mainstream media websites which I frequent. Seusspicious Minds may only be a lowly local government officer, but in this respect alone he is more ‘transparent’ than Mr Booker.

    To ‘Forced Adoption’ I would simply say that criticising faith in judges’ decisions by quoting extensively from judges’ decisions, and indeed, mere opinions, is a bit of an own goal.

    From: Suffolkgirl

    • Hello Deborah Holmes aka Suffolkgirl. I have found a Social Worker SW93183 from Wisbech (next to Suffolk) with the same name. Is this you?
      I had a look at Notable People from Wisbech and found Thomas Clarkson – an anti slavery campaigner born in Wisbech in 1760. The Clarkson Memorial was built to commemorate his life ending slavery in the British Empire on 25th March 1833. Maybe you should have a look at this memorial and understand the real meaning of it.
      John Clarkson his younger brother 1764-1828 was also a good person assisting his brother.
      Slavery is where Human Beings were stolen against their will and sold for money. It was big business, and continues to pop up in different guises throughout the generations, continuing to be a huge business. At the moment the guise is the child protection racket in the UK. One day this will be abolished just like all the other crimes against humanity. One day you might understand how you think that you are doing a great service for the State, but for the thousands of people you persecute, who are having their babies snatched and sold into the fostering and adoption industry you are causing untold harm and grief. This grief can never be erased from a mother’s heart. A child rarely recovers from losing a mother. These actions damage society by going against what nature intended. Now I am sure that you mean well and this is not the blog to change the system as it is run by a Local Authority lawyer, who is doing very well from the system “thank you very much”.
      Maybe you can help me as you seem so experienced, it is a problem that myself, Christopher Booker and Ian Josephs scratch our heads over time and time again. We know of many cases where the child tells authorities that he/ she is being sexually abused by the father, the police are not interested in doing a proper investigation, yet Social Workers then take the child from the mother and place the child with the father, accusing the mother of coaching.
      As this is not a localized problem as there are similar cases throughout North, East, South and West that we are aware of, I can only wonder whether incest is not a recognized subject when social workers are been taught their trade. The police rarely prosecute this crime nor do they care that they have no evidence on mothers coaching, but are happy to let the child live with a suspect paedophile.
      We all wait in anticipation for an experienced person’s insight into what seems to be a big problem creeping through the rotten system. One philosophy we have is that there are so many paedophiles attracted to the child trafficking industry that they are fixing hearings to keep their sordid activities covered up! If Cyril Smith and Jimmy Savile can keep it covered with help from the Government then it seems to me the Status Quo is accepted throughout the whole system.

      • Ashamed to be British

        Again I have to agree with you (I personally have dealt with an ongoing case where a child was removed from a parent reporting suspected abuse, quite rightly considering what the child was saying – (in front of me personally, so no heresay regarding this one) and passed on to live with the parent where the suspected abuse was allegedly taking place. Bear in mind that a different local authority were concerned enough about this child to remove them from the parent where the alleged abuse is occurring, then three years later ripped the child away and handed back to the other parent again, cutting off all contact between the concerned parent and child. (Yes you read this right, apparently it is abuse to report suspected abuse and ask for play therapy to get the facts) Apologies if you can make no sense of this, we can’t either.

        On the flipside

        My only concern with what you said is – if we start a precedence of parents gaining sole custody of their children, by alleging physical or sexual abuse, we will end up with a system that immediately removes the child away from the accused parent, this is very dangerous ground.
        Imagine the scenario. Woman meets new partner, marriage breaks down, she wants to move abroad, or to the other end of the country or simply wants a new life without the father involved, so what’s simpler than accusing him of physical/sexual abuse, if it guarantees she gets what she wants? It’s likely she has had residency long enough to ensure the child backs the story up.
        This leaves the child without their father and the father without their child, an innocent man branded as a child abuser, broken hearted, life ruined, he could lose his job, never be allowed around children again, a very bleak future indeed. And more importantly, the child grows up with their whole life being a lie.

        Unfortunately parents often don’t think of the long term impact on the child any more than social workers or courts do, parents need to think very carefully about putting their own needs and wishes before those of the child, the outcome could be catostrophic

      • forcedadoption

        Nobody is suggesting automatic sole custody ;What is as wicked as it is wrong is to deprive by court order ALL CONTACT by phone ,email,or birthdaycard to the “losing parent” unless that parent has severely physically harmed the child.If the result of reporting sexual abuse is the loss of all contact by the parent reporting then it is better not to report at all…..

      • Ashamed to be British

        Unfortunately it is too late in this case, contact is lost and the child has been brainwashed and lied to – as have the courts, by the local authority (not that the judge would believe this despite the clear evidence this is the case)
        It’s a sad state of affairs when parents are afraid to report any kind of abuse for fear of having their contact removed, where does that leave the child, apart from confused and ultimately disturbed. I know many parents refuse to report anything as they live in fear of ss backward way of thinking.

        As a side note, most concerning is, that 7-8 contact workers who raised concerns on what the child was saying (backing up the alleging parent’s concerned) were either sacked or taken off that particular case, one was accused of having an affair with the parent to justify gross misconduct, leaving her with nothing but her P45 – see how this affects so many?

      • If coaching was a criminal offence, mothers accused of this can at least have a fair trial in front of a jury. There is no flip side to a child alleging abuse then being given to the abuser. The child victim of sexual abuse has been ignored for many years, probably even centuries to allow the paedophile to continue their activities, throughout State run children’s homes, in private family homes the list is endless.
        Sexual abuse of a child IS a criminal offence, yet the police cannot be bothered with this heinous crime especially if it has been alleged it is the father committing the crimes. Myself and Ian Josephs cannot think of any of these cases where the father has actually been prosecuted. Even the Barristers are telling the mothers not to mention sexual abuse or they will lose their children. It is bonkers!!
        What best way to cover this up than to give the child to the father and cut the innocent mother out of the child’s life. If a jury finds an alleged paedophile not guilty so be it, but what about the poor mother accused of something in a family court, in secret, with no jury and no “beyond all reasonable doubt”, trial, just a probability opinion from a judge,in what is being increasingly exposed as a corrupt, family court.
        In the case you mention, what did the police do? Nothing I suspect. They really are a useless organisation and the tax payer has to pay for all of this corruption and poor performance.
        I have been trying to “follow the money” in these cases as to why it could be more profitable for the LA to swing the case to place the poor child with the abuser. It has to be about the money…………
        What a sick perverted country the UK is.

      • Ashamed to be British

        You misread what I said, on the flipside a mother (or father) can allege there is abuse going on to get the father out of the child’s life, in other words make vexatious claims against an innocent person.

        In reply to what’s happen re: the police and the case ongoing, it’s taken a couple of years, but, the police are actually investigating this one, all credit due to the parent who has relentlessly persued them – not so much the alleged abuse (as you quite rightly point out, it doesn’t happen frequently) BUT the perjury, the the misconduct, the falsifying of documents, the expert and a whole host of other things are under investigation, who knows where it will lead, a serious case review and/or actual criminal proceedings, which is what we are hoping for, but probs best not to say too much more on the subject, don’t want to scupper it

      • good for the police in your case. In my case the police are not investigating anything. We are talking about the same police force who changed 80 something police officer’s statements regarding Hillsborough and the same police force who allowed the Asian gangs to sexually traffic young girls.There was a serious incest case once also with the same force who ignored the evidence. I despair with the police.

      • Ashamed to be British

        The police even gave evidence in the final hearing to prove what the social was saying was a set up and an out and out lie (they had heard her cancelling contact, which she told the court the parent was doing) the judge disregarded this evidence saying ‘social services dont lie’

        Really? I think we all know they do

      • No point in googling my name – I am not now nor ever have been a social worker.

        You write with enviable vigour and energy but again, google is not your friend. I ask myself what happened to your daughter in your contested custody case and learn that she is not a slave: she is living with her father. To say otherwise just weakens the other point that you make, which is that where a parent raises a concern which is not accepted they may be later prejudiced. Most people understand that quite easily, but outside these self selecting forums will not readily agree that children either within the cares system, or adopted, are the same as slaves.

      • Please publish this below Deborah Holmes the social worker for Wisbech LA. It was not a contested custody case. The case was a child sexual abuse case. The LA started care proceedings to protect the child from the father, leaving the child happily with the mother (me). The police failed to prosecute, or even give any evidence to the CPS. In the family court anything can happen! The LA then managed to convince the media that this was a contested custody case. So why start public proceedings if this was a private custody case? Maybe because the social worker told the mother that the child was being sexually abused by the father therefore meeting the threshold. Either I am going stupid or the formula is not too difficult for a child sex abuser to manipulate
        You tell me why these cases are going so badly wrong? To name but a few cases where the child has told authorities that she or he is being sexually abused by the father, Cheryl Stannard (put in prison and silenced) lost her daughter, Helen Gavaghan, lost her daughter and put in prison, Anna Kornas, lost her daughter and put in prison, xxx lost her son and put in prison, there are many more.
        I am either an advocate for all of these mothers to have the system changed or we carry on accepting the sheer horror from the Government whose track record with child abuse is not looking too good at this present time.
        I need to know why INCEST is being overlooked by the authorities. There is something in this subject. Are the State not meddling in what they think is a private family affair? Does the law not extend to incest? There are too many cases of this kind where it seems the State are condoning incest.
        If the mothers knew this, they would keep away from the State rather than reporting incest as I did. We innocent mothers are being led into a trap. Child sexual abuse is either a crime or not, regardless of who commits the crime. That is what the law says.

  5. One big advantage of the increased reporting of Family Court proceedings is that statements such as ‘parents are not even allowed to speak or call witnesses’ are going to be less and less regarded by the public, as they get to read judgements plainly based on what parents have said, and the expert evidence they have called. For sure it will call into question the failings of some authorities, and some experts, but a side effect that I think believers in corrupt forced adoption haven’t really grasped is that the spotlight is also going to turn inexorably on the actions of parents. My guess is that, as fuller reporting than Mr Booker’s takes over, the great British public are actually going to be a whole lot more judgemental of those parents than the much reviled judges are. Just my guess, and we shall see, but the Daily Mail readers’ reactions to Ms Haigh’s case were quite instructive.

    One thing that makes me laugh about Christopher Booker’s enthusiasm for tearing away the veils shrouding the secret courts is that his reports on them are one of the few areas where the Daily Telegraph refuses to accept online comments, even when they relate to judgements which are clearly already in the public domain. This didn’t used to be the case, and seemed to be initiated shortly after a case where his opinions took a bit of a drubbing below the line. There may, of course, be other reasons for this curious editorial decision, but it is out of line with the other mainstream media websites which I frequent. Seusspicious Minds may only be a lowly local government officer, but in this respect alone he is more ‘transparent’ than Mr Booker.

    To ‘Forced Adoption’ I would simply say that criticising faith in judges’ decisions by quoting extensively from judges’ decisions, and indeed, mere opinions, is a bit of an own goal.

  6. forcedadoption

    Suffolk Woman:- If the judges admit the family court system stinks why should I or any other reader disagree? As to the no comments on Booker’s column.. Blame the “justice in secret “cult of the family courts.The Sunday Telegraph does not moderate contributions and some readers were naming parents and witnesses so in deference to the secrecy laws the newspaper had to withdraw the facility for comments in order to avoid infringeing these ridiculous rules and thus avoid legal troubles. Of course parents are still stopped from speaking and sometimes even stopped from going into the courtroom.BY whom? Why by their own bent lawyers currying favour with the legal establishment. As for witnesses nearly all the cases that land on my desk involve parents who are forbidden to call their witnesses either by their own solicitors or by the judge.Can’t you even agree that there should be “NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME” ??As for the public reading judgements? You know as well as I do that the public have no idea where to find the judgements and even if they did few would understand them,such is the long and turgid legalese with which they are written. An open court is like a criminal court where anyone can go in and that is how it should be in family courts.
    As to Vicky Haigh can you honestly excuse a 3 year jail sentence for speaking to her daughter?Can you excuse another spell in jail for passing a card from her two stepdaughters to a vicar who passed it to a social worker? How can you justify all the parents who have committed no crimes being subject to such inhumane injunctions and non molestation orders in the first place?Have you actually got a heart?

    • I don’t know why you think that the DT does not moderate its comments. It certainly does, and it hosts comments on very contentious subjects where the moderaters work overtime removing some of the more extreme racist and violent comments. I’m afraid I think this is a rather convenient excuse.

      I think anyway that the judgements are slowly but surely drifting into the public domaine – certainly quite a few court of protection cases are being reported, albeit not very well. Even when, as in the Mail, the reporting is dubious it is quite interesting that many btl commentators see through this. Most of us have our own families, which gives us a touchstone when judging these cases.

      I’m not going to take the bait on the details of Ms Haigh’s case. She has had her opportunity to go to the press as has her former partner, and as far as I’m concerned the Great Court of Public Opinion has decided.

      • I have not had an opportunity to go to the press. I would like an opportunity to reveal the full extent of the corruption regarding child sex abuse cases within family courts, along with many mothers in the same boat, who incidentally are all gagged!!

      • Hi Vicky, I don’t have a problem with you posting things I disagree with, even when you are a bit personal, and I don’t mind you saying that you were unhappy with the way you were treated by the Courts or even that you disagree with the decisions they made, but there are limits to how far we can talk about your own individual case without me (and potentially you) getting into defamation areas, which I’m not prepared to do. We’re about as far as we can go in walking up to that line without crossing it, so if this conversation crosses the line, I would have to remove any such posts. Sorry to have to be all lawyery, but as you’ve pointed out recently, that’s all I am. You can absolutely talk about the way in which the Courts and authorities deal with other mothers who report allegations, and your feelings about it, I would not want to stop you doing that.

      • Hi Vicky – removed that at your request.

        I haven’t been contacted by anyone in authority about anything that you’ve written here, nor have I contacted anyone about it. I would not do that. What I would do, is exactly what I did, which is to politely suggest that we were getting too close to crossing a line.

        (my name is hardly a secret)

      • Ashamed to be British

        Vicky, maybe writing your own blog would help you? It would certainly help others, I have to be honest, that, helping other parents, is what has kept me (semi) sane. PTSD is evil, I don’t know a parent who has not suffered it after social services intervention, I don’t know any who don’t ultimately sit & wish to rewind time to that fateful day, in order to change their actions (in my case asking for a special needs assessment, for example)
        Even those who haven’t had their children removed suffer PTSD because of the strain they’re put under.
        To me – and I always say this to the parents I come across – to lose your child to the system, is a living grief, possibly the worst grief any parent can suffer. I put this to a guardian once, she wasn’t happy with me as she had told me she had buried her child, to which I rather ruthlessly snapped back ‘at least you know your baby’s safe, and you know where your baby is!’ I feel real guilt for saying this, however, deep down I still believe it.

        Your child is going to find you one day – whether it’s to demand angrily that you explain what the hell you think you were doing, or to get your side of the story, you are well publicised, she’s going to want to know, thank God you have an extremely good papertrail to discuss with

  7. If the SS is so ‘open’ as these ‘Bailli’ reports would suggest to a duped public, then why are not all case reviews undertaken by local authorities anonymised and made public in full, without any other changes at all, on local authority websites so that we can all see what goes on.

    The whole system is skewed. Opinion is ok if you are SS / social work or a person in pay of the state to deride and falsely accuse families who have not comitted crimes, but not in Ms Suffolks view if a judge gives an opinion about SS workers? What good for the goose is not good for the gander?

    The public if they hear all the information from all sides will not necessarily think the system has behaved correctly and certainly not when they can be shown how the same system is seriously failing those is puts into care- by increasing their chances of further abuse. That is what balanced reporting is about and Booker does raise these matters.

    But no Social workers and those on the ‘gravy train’ protection racket are so well balanced in how they report- they want outcomes, often predetermined by those with their own prejudices / ways of thinking. There always other ways of looking at things and in a democracy ‘gagging’ and not making information fully open only highlights that someone in power has something to hide- to their detriment. So bring on the right to publicise a case from the family / parent’s perspective. Thy do not get much of a chance without the media.

  8. forcedadoption

    In Praise of Social Workers !

    Dedicated public servants ,overworked under staffed and underpaid .. That’s who we are and what thanks do we get? Cursed and reviled for doing our duty ;We save countless lives removing newborn babies from mothers who might emotionally abuse them sometime in the future !Our well paid “experts” always back us up in court too ! Loyal to the last ! What happens if parents kidnap their own children and escape to another country? Why,we spare no expense in tracking them down and taking them to court abroad so we can rescue these kids and take them safely into “care” in the UK; If half of them end up in jail or as prostitutes that’s not our fault is it?
    Damned if we do and damned if we don’t ;Damned when we rescue children from witnessing the disgusting spectacle of parents arguing and shouting at one another so we get them adopted,Damned again when we left baby p where he was because after all that drunken drugged up fellow with the rotweilers was really not too bad after all ,and why get in an argument?
    We win 99% of our cases against obstinate parents so we must be right musn’t we?
    Lord Justice Thorpe said on Appeal “I am completely aghast at this case.There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing,because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.Once you have lost a child it is very difficult to get a child back.” He really let the side down there!I am sure that what he actually mean’t to say was that parents rarely get a child back because they don’t deserve to; kids are better off with us professionals than lazy ,workshy,good for nothing parents !Thank goodness they can’t complain publicly when we come with 4 or 5 police remove their children in the middle of the night , as if they do they end up in jail ,and quite right too !Why should we get pilloried in the press for taking kids into State care when everyone agrees that the State knows best !
    Some parents are actually hostile to us when we first call to check up on them ! The poor things all suffer from borderline personality disorders or narcissistic traits: otherwise why would they hate us so much?
    We social workers are nothing if not ambitious.Most of us dream of founding a fostering and adoption agency like the one started up only a few years ago by fellow social workers; That one was recently sold out for £130million !Now that’s what I call a success in times of recession.And it’s all in the best interests of the children !
    Cheerio !

%d bloggers like this: