Common Purpose Exposed website - Taken down

[non-sheep]

http://www.ukcolumn.org/cp-exposed-takedown/#

CP Exposed Takedown

Please spread the word as fast as possible:
cpexposed.com has been taken down by the web hosting company, Hostgator, as the result of a complaint by Common Purpose alleging copyright infringement.

The notice from Common Purpose can be downloaded from here: http://dmca.hgfix.net/cpexposed.com/cpexposed.com.pdf

We are puzzled since all the documentation is in the public domain, and has been for some considerable time. It seems strange that this has happened since we recently posted information from Common Purpose’s own website showing the links between the Scottish paedophile James Rennie and the Common Purpose organisation. Are we getting too close to the truth? How many other paedophiles are protected by Common Purpose networks and their secretive Chatham House confidentiality rules?

[Stephen]

This is bad news. This should be put on the front page headlines - Lasterst news.

[TonyGosling]

I imagine they'll be back again soon - meanwhile here is one more cp site and recent article that Google didn't seem to want to cache
http://acpscotland.wordpress.com/

BBC Audience Council is stuffed with Common Purpose trainees
The lies that form the Common Purpose of the BBC

Latest News 23/09/2009

Read the following by Sir Michael Lyons – Chairman BBC Trust, which appears on the Audience Council of England website.

“What we do. The BBC Trust exists to get the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers. Audience Councils form a vital link between the Trust and the public. During the past year, Audience Council England has assessed the services the BBC provides for the English licence fee payer and more widely for audiences across the whole of the UK.The pace of the Council’s work has stepped up, with a greater focus on engaging directly with audiences through the work of the 12 Regional Audience Councils. As part of the Trust’s overall work to better serve all audiences, during the year we hosted events for more than 400 young people aged between 17 and 21, resulting in some surprising insights into how young people consume broadcasting media.

The membership of ACE and RACs aims to reflect as fully as possible the diversity of the communities in each of the BBC’s broadcast regions. In an innovative approach for our volunteer members, they also visited families in their homes to find out more about what people expect and want from the BBC by way of entertainment.”

Notice the “BBC Trust exists to get the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers”. What Sir Michael Lyons fails to mention is the £158,100 that the BBC has spent on the political and pro EU charity Common Purpose.

It will come as no surprise therefore that even the BBC Audience Council is biased by Common Purpose trainees. Read on:

“Jill Hogan is Head of Marketing and Communications at Ravensbourne, a leading higher education institution specialising in digital media, design and innovation. She is responsible for the leadership and strategic development of public relations and stakeholder engagement programmes, internal communications, brand management and student recruitment.Jill has over 12 years experience in strategic marketing communications and public relations. Before joining Ravensbourne, she was Head of Communications at Arts Council England, South East. Jill has an honours degree in drama and postgraduate diplomas in arts management and public relations.

She is a Common Purpose graduate and a professional member of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations.

Jill lives with her partner and two young children in Maidstone. Between them they consume many hours of wide-ranging BBC broadcast and online output every week.”

http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/update-common-purpose-expos ed-bbc-taking-our-cash-for-cp-training/

[non-sheep]

Funny how much seems to stem from Maidstone

Maidstone Borough Councillor IND has obviuosly poked the wasps nest and paid dearly for it, no wonder after being surrounded by common purpose graduates

As for those who would expose this corruption, any one arbitrarily deemed to be a potential threat is subjected to a policy of Control or Destroy, and ruthlessly, remorselessly and relentlessly abused.

Why is are they seemingly deliberately doing everything it can to ensure the development of those conditions that give rise to disorder, social unrest, riots, insurrection and even revolution ?

If the people should react as being driven, this gives excuse to impose a dictatorship - which is, by and large, what we have had for the past several years, with increasing impositions upon the freedoms of citizens.

To date, every law introduced for security reasons has been used against the citizens, for no other reason than for preservation of power.
This corrupt cult understands the importance of controlling the flow of information and stifling debate. It is pure paranoia and desperation on their part of to censor public criticism.

This LIB/LAB/CON cadre has declared war upon it citizens. Government has become the enemy of the state. Last time this happened, heads rolled, literally

Our leading politicians, to whom we are entitled to look for behavioural guidance, have failed to make the distinction between what is legal and what it right. Those unable to make the distinction have no place in our society, and certainly not as our leaders or representatives in any government.
Sorting expenses is like moving the proverbial deck chairs. Is there any aspect of government that is not tainted?

[non-sheep]

Try telling all teh families who have had their children/grandchildren stolen that Kent ; is being served


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/dec/09/oneplace-website-council -services

Councils named and shamed by online audit of public services from bins to jails
• Inspectorates launch joint website amid row over cost
• Gradings reveal affluence linked to top performance
A ground-breaking website that exposes the quality of public services – from children's welfare to council recycling, and crime fighting to teaching – goes live today amid a row over its cost and accuracy.
Oneplace, an ambitious collaboration involving six independent inspectorates, is intended to provide a consumer guide to the performance of local authorities, police forces, schools, NHS primary care trusts, prisons and probation services.
The website draws together assessments by the Audit Commission, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission, and the inspectorates of constabulary, probation and prisons. Reports on the overall performance of councils in England, and ratings for children's services, are also revealed at the launch of the website, highlighting the best and worst.
But the Conservative party said it would abolish the comprehensive area assessments (CAAs) developed by the Audit Commission, which form the backbone of the new ratings.
And although they were among the overall top performers, two Conservative-led councils – Wandsworth, and Hammersmith and Fulham – announced they would no longer participate fully in CAAs due to the excessive demands on their time and finances.
The Audit Commission revealed a correlation between affluence and top scores. Those rated as excellent in "organisational assessments" include six of the most affluent boroughs in London. Others praised are Hampshire, Leicestershire, Sevenoaks and Tameside.
The worst performers include several West Country authorities – Mendip, Mid Devon, West Somerset, Forest of Dean, Doncaster, Haringey, and Eastbourne.
Similarly, the top 10 for children's services include eight London councils, York, and Blackburn. Listed as worst are Haringey, Doncaster, Birmingham, Cornwall ,and Warrington. Councils are graded from 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent).
"This new regime is too bland and too superficial to provide any meaningful insights," Edward Lister, the Conservative leader of Wandsworth council, told the Local Government Chronicle. "In attempting to cover just about every aspect of public life in the area, the reports simply descend into generalities. Despite the huge effort in cost and time, there is nothing here that provides any added value for our taxpayers. We are not going to waste another year propping up such a wasteful and poorly directed system."
His comments follow criticism of the annual league tables for NHS trusts produced by the Care Quality Commission, which rated Basildon and Thurrock NHS foundation trust as good when the commission's inspectors were uncovering bloody equipment and unusual death rates. The extent to which self-assessment forms are used has also been questioned.
The Oneplace website is organised by region and area. The Audit Commission said the start-up costs had been only £220,000, which does not include the inspection process. Green and red flags highlight particularly innovative or unsatisfactory services.
Blackpool is awarded a green flag for cutting homelessness, and Hackney for decreasing child mortality. Doncaster gets two red flags, for not meeting the needs of vulnerable people and "poor prospects of Doncaster's children and young people".
Suffolk distinguishes itself by having three green flags and two red. The county is praised for its exceptional performance in developing wind and wave power, for coastal protection in Bawdsey, and tackling street prostitution in Ipswich. It is criticised, however, for the a lack of high-value rural jobs and for poor learning and skills outcomes among children and young people.
The six inspectorates said: "Oneplace is for those who pay for local services, those who provide them, and those who depend on them. This is 21st-century accountability, based on expert assessments of what services do for people, not how they are organised.
"It paints a picture of places, their agreed local priorities, challenges and their public service performance. The website offers a way of checking the effectiveness of public spending and helps people hold those who provide publicly funded services to account for their decisions."
The shadow secretary for communities and local government, Caroline Spelman, said: "Labour have created an army of clipboard inspectors to monitor councils, which has done nothing to stop council tax doubling or frontline services like weekly bin collections being cut. "Conservatives will abolish the bureaucratic CAA, and target inspection where it's really needed, such as children's social services."
Communities secretary John Denham said: "The new assessment system is putting more information about the state of local services into the hands of the public than ever before.
"It is just the start of our efforts to give local people far better access to information held by local public organisations so they can challenge, compare or scrutinise their local services in order to drive up standards in their area.
"We expect all councils to be delivering the best local services possible and to respond to the challenges laid out in today's assessments.
The chairman of the Local Government Association, Margaret Eaton, said: "Inspection can be a useful source of information for councillors in their efforts to do the best they can for local people. But during these tricky financial times, it is important the processes don't get in the way of councils spending their valuable funds as efficiently as possible."
Cynthia Bower, chief executive of the Care Quality Commission, said: "Getting public agencies working together effectively is absolutely central to the provision of good health and social care. The findings from this work bring this issue sharply into focus."
Best
Camden, City of London, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hampshire, Kensington and Chelsea, Kent, Leicestershire, Tameside, Wandsworth, Westminster, Chorley, Rushcliffe, Sevenoaks, Staffordshire Moorlands, and Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service.
Worst
Ashfield, Boston, Brentwood, Craven, Eastbourne, Forest of Dean, Mendip, Mid-Devon, West Somerset, Doncaster, Haringey, and Cornwall Fire and Rescue Service.

[non-sheep]

Transparent services or common purpose


http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/mrs_williams

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/peter%20gilroy

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/cafcass

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/hmcs

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/moj

[non-sheep]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_serving_borough_councillor_who #comment-7462

A serving Borough Councillor who is prepared to raise her own grandchildren, being denied , so the state can generate money from Forced Adoption.
A Freedom of Information request to Kent County Council by ivanataylor
The request was rejected by Kent County Council.
ivanataylor

19 September 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

A friend of mine, who is a serving Borough Councillor, is seemingly
about to lose four granddaughters, all under the age of six years
to Forced adoptions, in secret Family Court.

I have been a victim myself to this corrupt system, which tears
good families apart, to meet adoption quotas and gain government
grant funding. Its all about money generation for government
agencies rather than " Best Interest of The Child".

Birth Families should always be first considered before children
are removed from their birth families. Clearly Sheeena Williams
wishes to raise her own granddaughters and has raised her own
children , with no problems. Why is she being totally overlooked as
an alternative to forced adoption?

Under freedom of information please let me have the following
information.

What are you going to do about the above NOW? Not after this family
has been destroyed and broken. A good healthy family, I must add.

How many children have been placed for forced adoption, without
consideration of extended birth families? Is this the normal
practice of Kent County Council, to break up healthy family ties?

How many of Kent County Council forced adoption cases have been
overseen by Judge Polden? Does this Judge always exclude placements
with birth families and opt instead to steal peoples children for
Cash Incentives?

I find the situation to be quite bizare, and totally flawed.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor Retired Town Councillor for Windermere Town
Ward. Served for seventeen years.
Link to this | Send follow up
ivanataylor left an annotation (20 September 2009)
I have sent this letter to all UK MP's

Dear MP.

Secret UK Family Courts/ Stealing children form innocent families for financial incentives for Forced Adoptions.

Between Jan 2003 and September 2003 our family were falsely accused of child abuse. At the time I was an elected member of the Windermere Town Council and had served on the Council for over 15 years. We were kept in the Family Court system for exactly eight months, to the day! I was forced to resign and lost my careers as a direct result. The cost to the Tax Payer, cerca 50K Cumbria County Council. Has not answered or dealt with the very serious issues of discrimination surrounding our case, or the huge detrimental affect that this has caused, long term ,to our family. We are not criminals and never have been charged or prosecuted with any offense. I served my community in various capacities for many years in the voluntary and public sectors. We have not recovered from the abuse ,we suffered as a family, at the hands of government authorities, who were heavy handed and punitive in the way they dealt with us and treated us. CAFCASS, POLICE, SOCIAL SERVICES and Family Law Franchise Solicitors are all guilty of abusing our family and more importantly an extremely sick and vulnerable infant. Who was denied a correct diagnosis or treatment by officials, consultants and doctors in the NHS Trust Lancaster. A great injustice occurred to us, and I have been lobbying, campaigning and Complaining for over 6 years. I have good reason to believe the system is corrupt and is following underhanded agendas of human trafficking and Forced Adoptions. MP,s and Ministers as well as The House of Lords are all well aware of the above and similarly to the government,corrupt authorities have done nothing to address my grave concerns about the Child Protection system. It has recently come to my attention, that there are other Elected Representatives across the Country who are also suffering the same injustice, in Corrupt Family Courts at the hands of Judges who remove children from birth families. To meet adoption targets and draw down funding. This is quite unacceptable and a total violation of Human Rights and The Rights of the Children. You cannot deal with mistakes in the past or project how things will be in the future. I accept this. However you can deal with what is happening RIGHT NOW. Sheena Williams Elected and Serving Borough Councilor in Kent is, as I speak, faced with losing four granddaughters, all under six, to Forced adoption. For no good reason, as Sheena and her husband wish to take care of their own grand daughters. They should certainly be considered prior to any adoption. Yet Judge Polden has threatened the Childrens Mother, bullied her. Intimidation of a party to Court. He is adamant that Sheena cannot be represented in court, while decisions are made about her own families future. I know too well how that feels. How much it hurts to see your family torn apart. When I first started to Lobby and raise awareness, my motivation was ,and still is, that this must STOP NOW. No other person should go through what we did. Six years on, and not one of you can say, "I did not know about this"!! My friend Sheena is suffering the same abuse and corrupt system. NOTHING has CHANGED in SIX YEARS!!! My question is this: What are you ALL going to do to STOP THIS NOW and end Forced Adoptions and Human Rights Violations in OUR COUNTRY NOW?? Not in the future, NOW.?? You know about this case, as I and Sheena have brought it to your attention. You MUST ACT NOW to PREVENT ANOTHER MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. I wonder how perspective Local and National Government electives will feel, when this news goes public, that even Elected members are not safe from Government Corruption. NO ONE IS SAFE. NO FAMILY IS SAFE, and YOU AND YOUR FAMILY MIGHT BE THEIR NEXT VICTIMS. DO SOMETHING NOW. Anything less will be a failure.
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (21 September 2009)
Dear Mr Watson

Thanks for your email. You need to contact your own MP about these issues. Your
MP is Tim Farron.

Yours

Sara
This is always the bog standard reply. I doubt the MP will even read the letter I sent to him.
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (21 September 2009)
This is the reply to my letter from John Hemming MP

There is another Conservative County Councillor whose daughter is currently a refugees from the family courts with her two children. I know about Sheena Williams.

The adoption targets have now been scrapped, but the system is still broken. I am doing quite a bit about getting things changed, but it would be best to work with Justice for Families to fight the system through the courts up to the Strasbourg Court (which is not involved in the cover up).

Can I ask that you would be willing to act as a volunteer for us in the Cumbria/North West area?

What Sheena should do is to appeal being refused a position as a party to the case.

I hope this is useful information, it will no doubt be , the best response I will get on this.
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (21 September 2009)
Dear Mrs Stewart-Taylor

Thank you for this communication. I shall bring its contents to the
attention of Paul Burstow. However as you are not a constituent,
Parliamentary Convention will prevent him from actively taking up your
case which he hopes you are pursuing with your own MP.

Dave Ryder-Mills
Senior caseworker to Paul Burstow MP
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (21 September 2009)
Dear Ms Stewart-Taylor

Derek Twigg MP has asked me to thank you for your recent e-mail.

Unfortunately, you live in the constituency of Tim Farron MP. As MPs are not permitted to raise issues on behalf of other MPs constituents I must advise you to contact Tim Farron your own MP.

Yours sincerely,

Stan Hill
Assistant to Derek Twigg MP
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (21 September 2009)
Thank you for your e-mail. My office receives a large number of e-mails, letters and telephone calls every day. I hope you understand that this has to be prioritised and you will be sent a reply as soon as possible.

If the matter you have raised is urgent, please telephone my constituency office on 02920 668558 or my Westminster office on 0207 219 5053.

I am not allowed, under parliamentary protocol, to take up issues on behalf of non-constituents, so please ensure that you have included your name and address.

Many thanks for taking the time to write to me.

Best wishes,

Jenny Willott MP
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (21 September 2009)
From John Hemming MP to me today.

John sent you a message.

Re: Children being placed for Forced Adoption.

"This needs to be appealed. We have a system to do this, but Sheena needs to
work with it."
Link to this
Kent County Council

22 September 2009

RE Freedom of Information request Forced Adoption Family Court Corruption.txt
6K Download

Dear Ms Taylor

I acknowledge your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. I also note that you sent a similarly worded
request to Maidstone Borough Council who have in turn referred this to
us, obviously we will treat this as one request. Assuming we hold this
information, I will endeavour to supply the data to you as soon as
possible but no later than 19th October 2009 (20 working days from date
of receipt).

I will advise you as soon as possible if we do not hold this information
or if there are exemptions to be considered and/or any costs for
providing the information. Please quote our reference - FOI/09/1053 - in
any communication regarding this particular request.

Best regards

Corporate Access to Information Team, Chief Executive's Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room 1.94, Sessions
House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 696265 or 01622 694261 - Fax: 01622 694383
http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...
s/access-to-info.htm
<blocked::http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...
/contact-us/access-to-info.htm>

show quoted sections
Link to this | Reply to this message
ivanataylor left an annotation (25 September 2009)
22nd September 2009

Dear Yvonne.
Re Family Law Reform.

I now have a written response from Henry Bellingham MP as follows;

" Thank you for your e-mail of 21st September in connection with the above ( Family Law Reform). I appreciate you taking the trouble to contact me and let me know about your own distressing experience and also that of Sheena Williams.

We have been looking into family law court procedure including Cafcass very carefully over the last year, and we are always grateful to recieve case examples and opinions from those who have been involved.

We are certainly keen to improve the system, so that families and children are protected and, in particular, we would like to see a move towards keeping the family unit together as much as possible. This, as you mention, includes the wider family. We hope to encourage more active consideration of grandparents as carers before children are removed entirely from their families, and I am about to table an EDM that will call for the removal of the need for grandparents to gain leave of court before they can apply for contact.

The opening of the family law courts, backed by Conservatives, will make it easier to assess what is taking place in the courts, and protect against corrupt practices or miscarriages of justice.

I certainly agree that we must do everything we can to ensure that families are protected, and that miscarriages of justice are stopped. Thank you again for writing to me on this very important subject, and making me aware of your experiences, which will help me in my work.

Every best wish,

Henry Bellingham M.P.
London Tel 020 7219 8484
Fax 02072192844
E-mail: bellinghamh@parliament.uk

I am happy to say that this is the best ever response, in a six year period of lobbying and complaining YLST.
Link to this
ivanataylor

25 September 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

I am hereby requesting and internal review. It has been stated in a
letter to me today, from MP Henry Bellingham. In response to my
concerns re corruption within the authorities and child kidnap and
trafficking by government departments and the legal profession.
Secrecy is certainly a big issue.

Mr Bellingham wishes to protect families against corrupt practices
and miscarriages of justice.

The above mentioned case of Sheena Williams is clearly a travesty
of justice and clearly forms the basis of a vendetta, on the part
of Kent County Council department against a genuine Councilor and
her family.

Had this not happened to me personally I would never have believed
that "so called authorities" could have behaved in such an
unlawful, vindictive and malicious form of malpractice and
corruption.

It is time for openness and transparency. What is happening here is
punitive and is totally unacceptable.

Yours faithfully,

Yvonne Stewart -Taylor.
Link to this | Send follow up
John Harris left an annotation (25 September 2009)
Looks like you maybe right, although the comments found on this website, shows that all the councillors are aware of this situation and are doing and saying nothing, hoping it will go away or are gutless and frightened of the officers.It is difficult to imagine that these same people are elected by parents to be responsible for ensuring their children are protected from such abuse.

http://nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.c...

With reference to the idiotic comments placed by an obvious SS plant

Having known Councillor Williams and her family for many years, being also an Elected Councillor, I can assure you , as can many other Councillors from Maidstone Borough Council and beyond ,who gave her references (comprising of deputy mayor, barrister,magistrate etc)for the unfortunately corrupt family courts.

The family court made references to her excellent parenting abilities.Unfortunately the system has been corrupted by incompetent operatives who we as elected members are powerless to stop at present.

It will be down to the efforts of many brave men & women to remove the corrupted officials and restore justice and honour into the council and court system.

Many Councillors are simply to frightened of losing their seats , but many such as in Maidstone do privately back exposure of such an obviously corrputed system run by officers an NOT councillors.

Including Kent County Councillors who are also glad to be seeing the back of Mr Gilroy CEO next May and only wish this could come sooner.He really doesnt deserve to be allowed to leave in a blaze of glory.
Link to this
Kent County Council

25 September 2009
Dear Ms Taylor

The purposes of an internal review are to assess whether the public authority (in this case Kent County Council) has complied with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 when handling your request for information. As KCC has until 19th October to confirm whether it holds the information you requested or not (and then if it does, supply it to you subject to any exemptions that may apply), your request that we review the handling of your request is somewhat premature as the statutory time limit has not yet been reached and at the moment there is no issue of non-compliance with the FOIA to investigate.

If however you wish to complain about a policy issue or a KCC decision with regard to Children's Social Services, then you should pursue KCC's complaints process http://www.kent.gov.uk/SocialCare/gettin... as opposed to using the Freedom of Information Act.

I should also point out that the Freedom of Information Act only gives you a right of access to recorded information so if you are seeking comment or opinion on a particular subject, you will only receive this information (subject to any exemptions that may apply) if it has already been recorded. The Act places no obligation on public authorities to CREATE information to satisfy requests.

Best regards

Caroline Dodge
Corporate Access to Information Coordinator, Chief Executive's Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room 1.94, Sessions House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 221652 - Fax: 01622 694383
http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...

show quoted sections
Link to this | Reply to this message
ivanataylor left an annotation (25 September 2009)
I wonder if Ms Caroline Dodge is a common purpose graduate?
Link to this
John Harris left an annotation (25 September 2009)
Not according to this and Brian Gerrish's reply, although it does seem strange that there is a Caroline Dodge and a Jemila Dodge answering FOI requests, maybe they could be mother & daughter or relatives, or even the same person? Wonder what the policy is on relatives working together? It looks like anyone who asks too many questions is ignored or accused of something or other so they dont have to answer.It makes one wonder if they are being prevented from answering by somebody higher up the food chain?

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pe...

Kent County Council

10 August 2009
Dear Mr Gerrish

Kent County Council will be responding no later than 21st August as I
quoted in my earlier email:

"With regard to the comments in your 24th July email, I will endeavour
to provide you with a response as soon as possible but no later than
21st August".

No, I have not ever attended a Common Purpose training course in any
capacity or for any purpose. Pre-empting your next question, I'm not a
member of the Freemasons (or whatever the female equivalent is) either.

Best regards

Caroline Dodge
Corporate Access to Information Coordinator, Chief Executive's
Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room 1.94, Sessions
House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 221652 - Fax: 01622 694383
http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...
s/access-to-info.htm
<http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...>
Mr B Gerrish

12 August 2009
Dear Caroline Dodge,

Thank you for your clarification regarding this request.

I had no idea that Kent County Council employed public servants
with psychics abilities, although well aware that many are 'common
purpose' trained.(Those that are normally classed as having
suitable abilities are chosen)

Unfortunately your assumption of my next question was incorrect,
although any first hand knowledge you may have regarding heads of
your legal departments/public sector workers etc , would be most
welcome.

Yours faithfully,

Mr B Gerrish
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (28 September 2009)
Another reply to my letter to MP's for information.

Dear Ms Stewart-Taylor

Thank you for your email to Andrew Dismore MP, Chair of the Joint Committee on
Human Rights. Mr Dismore has asked me to reply.

The Joint Committee is unable to take up or investigate individual cases in any
way so is unable to assist with your case or with that of your friend. You both
may wish to contact your local MPs, who may be able to assist.

As for the systemic issue you raise, I would need a clearer summary of the human
rights contraventions which you claim are occuring: in particular, which of the
UK's human rights obligations are not being met; by whom; and what impact is
this having. If you are able to send me a short paper (no more than 1500 words)
I will advise on whether it raises issues which the Committee can consider.

Yours sincerely

Mark Egan
Commons Clerk, JCHR
Link to this
S Smith left an annotation (28 September 2009)
Not one of these MP's is prepared to do a dam thing, everything is about what they are going to do.

They should all resign after listening to this, if they dont put an end to this wickedness immediately. Or will they continue to condone abuse of children and families, whilst pretending to protect them?

How can it be right for anyone be arrested under a blanket offense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp5G_TyMgIA
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (28 September 2009)
And this is what the Family Courts cost the Tax Payer for their corruption. All the professionals get paid, for causing Human Misery and stealing Human Children.

SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS.

that's what it costs to file care proceedings and drag it through court for ONE CHILD.

FOUR POINT EIGHT MILLION POUNDS.... Read more

that's what it costs to keep ONE CHILD in long term independent foster care (READ: ADOPTION) for ten years.

DCSF ARE BLOWING OBSCENE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, TAKING 6,000 CHILDREN A YEAR FROM PARENTS, AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF WHICH ARE TAKEN ON THE EXCUSE "RISK OF EMOTIONAL HARM".

THE PARENTS ARE LEFT TO ROT IN DESPAIR, THE CHILDREN ARE ABUSED AND MURDERED IN CARE.
Link to this
A Freeman left an annotation (29 September 2009)
Do you have a link to where these figures come from ?
Link to this
michael storey left an annotation (29 September 2009)
m.p is Missguided Penis
j.u.d.g.e is jacobean unyoking dissembling gliomal elfin. michael
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (2 October 2009)
A Freeman

29 September 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Having been appalled at the amount of abuse I have found having
stumbled across this and other sites, I was rather hoping that
things had changed over the years, sadly it appears not.

Please provide all information that has lead to this decline in
children services and answer the following FOI requests.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_...

Can you please provide details of how many complaints received
about unlawful practices of Judges and Council SS Legal Team
(children social services) , barrister's etc Cafcass Legal teams
etc , regarding Children taken into ‘care’ by Kent County Council.

Relatives who put themselves forward are considered guilty until
proven innocent, and demands are made that they jump through
assessment hoops, when the House of Lords made it quite clear that
grandparents only have to be good enough parents. The system as it
stands is no better than a 'child trafficking ring.'

It is appalling that in Family Court’s so many children are being
taken into care based on mere opinion of – so-called professionals
and placed for adoption with strangers rather than relatives.

In 2007,local authorities in England applied for 8,173 care orders.
7,624 orders were made. 336 applications were withdrawn, 290 "no
orders" decisions and 21 orders were refused.

In other words, the judgement of the social workers working for the
council was so good, they were only refused by the judge 21 times
(0.27%)

More importantly 93% of the time the judge merely rubber-stamped
the care orders.

House of Lords - Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust.
Baroness Hale of Richmond. Judgement

34. There is, so far as the parties to this case are aware, no
European jurisprudence questioning the principle of freeing for
adoption, or indeed compulsory adoption generally. The United
Kingdom is unusual amongst members of the Council of Europe in
permitting the total severance of family ties without parental
consent. (Professor Triseliotis thought that only Portugal and
perhaps one other European country allowed this.) It is, of course,
the most draconian interference with family life possible.

Although kinship placements are supposed to be the preferred option
in this country, only 1 per cent. of social worker-instigated
placements ended up with kinship carers, compared with 45 per cent.
in Denmark, for example(EVIDENCE given in parliament 16th June 2008
by Tim Loughton MP shadow minister for children)

Thank you.

Peace be with you.

A Freeman
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (2 October 2009)
ivanataylor

1 October 2009

Dear Freedom Of Information,

A WORD OF WARNING

from Lord Denning, rated (by some) as the finest judge of the 20th
century. In his book ‘WHAT NEXT IN THE LAW’ he wrote about ‘Abuse
of Power’.

“ Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State,
Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy
remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There
will be anarchy.”

I believe Kent County Council Childrens Services and the
Kent Family Courts should take this warning seriously given
that on they are clearly working to achieve targets and gain funding by use of their corrupt practice and underhanded aganda.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor
Link to this
ivanataylor

2 October 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

ivanataylor

1 October 2009

Dear Freedom Of Information,

A WORD OF WARNING

from Lord Denning, rated (by some) as the finest judge of the 20th
century. In his book ‘WHAT NEXT IN THE LAW’ he wrote about ‘Abuse
of Power’.

“ Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State,
Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy
remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There
will be anarchy.”

I believe Kent County Council Childrens Services and the
Kent Family Courts should take this warning very seriously given
that they are clearly abusing power and placing children for forced
adoptions without necessity, unlawfully, with an underhanded
agenda. To meet their adoption targets, no longer required by new
government legislation, and gain profit from Human misery and the
destruction of healthy families. Shame on you.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor
Link to this | Send follow up
A Freeman left an annotation (3 October 2009)
I am sure that Kent County Council and all other Authorities and Legal Teams of all descriptors.

Are well aware that they are operating completely outside of the Law.The Family Courts have absolutely no power without our consent.Judges take a Common Law Oath of Office and have no right to operate in an Admiralty Court/Statute Law.

They are confiscating children - to steal unlawfully that which is lawfully yours - to penalise (fencing stolen goods)
Link to this
Mrs Smith left an annotation (4 October 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/user/thelostpacke...

many are speaking out to make those who have to-date been unaccountable , made accountable

good on them
Link to this
Mrs Williams left an annotation (5 October 2009)
WARNING DO NOT LISTEN IF EASILY OFFENDED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIPSLWCVbQQ

FAMILY COURT INJUSTICES THE TRUTH
Link to this
Francis.P. left an annotation (5 October 2009)
https://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/

http://www.tpuc.org/

Find out what rights you really have
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (6 October 2009)
Chris Hawkins
Invariably a judge grants an order based on the recommendations of the SS or CAFCASS and usually the biological parents have no say. A father has no rights if the mother consents to adoption and the wishes of the children and grandparent are never considere. Cumbria County Council ike all local authroites twist and distort the facts and rely on the secrecy of the family courts to push their agendas.
Link to this
ivanataylor

6 October 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,

http://protectfamily.ning.com/profiles/b...

Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor
Link to this | Send follow up
ivanataylor left an annotation (6 October 2009)
Greg Mulholland MP 06 October at 14:43 Report
Your comments are stupid and offensive. I do not wish this sort of thing posted on my FB page. I am deleting you from my friends list and putting a permanent block on you. Please do not attempt to contact me again for any reason whatsoever.

This is the way MP's think they can respond!! They do not serve the elected, they serve themselves and are very arrogant
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (6 October 2009)
Dear Ms Stewart-Taylor

Thank you for your emails dated 21 September to various government ministers about adoption. I hope you will appreciate that due to the high volume of correspondence the Ministers receive they are unable to reply personally to each one. I have been asked to reply.

I can appreciate the circumstances your family has faced must be distressing, however as you are aware the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) is unable to intervene in individual cases as these are best dealt with locally where all the circumstances are known. I would however expect social services to explain to you and your family the reasons for any decision made in relation to your child’s care and to work with you on achieving the best outcomes for them.

Local authorities should issue a ‘letter before proceedings’ to parents. The content of the letter must be explained to parents. It should be written in plain English and avoid jargon. The letter should be written to take account of language barriers, and any learning disabilities parents might have. On receipt of the letter, parents are entitled to bring a solicitor to a meeting with the Social Work team to discuss the local authority’s concerns, and consider what improvements can be made to the child’s care. Parents are entitled to access legal aid. After the meeting, the Social Work manager will send a note of the outcome and agreed plan to the family and their Solicitor so the contents can be explained.

The decision to take a child into care is never an easy one, and it is a decision that is taken by the courts, and not by individual social workers. In every case where a child is taken into care on a care order, the courts will have considered all the evidence and taken the view that the child has been significantly harmed, or would be if they were not taken into care.

In every case concerning the upbringing of a child the court is required to treat the welfare of the child concerned as its paramount consideration. To assist the court, a children’s guardian (who is independent of the local authority) is appointed to advise what is in the child’s best interests. Parents must also be legally represented, and are entitled to legal aid.
Where the court makes an order placing a child in the care of a local authority, the authority will continue to work with the family with a view to the child returning home. However, a stage may be reached when it is apparent that the child cannot return home. It is at this stage that the local authority must make alternative plans to provide the child with a permanent family home, adoption is one way of providing this and is appropriate for some children, depending on the facts of each individual case. The final decision on adoption rests with the courts and before a court makes such an important decision it must be convinced on the basis of the evidence that this is the best way to meet the child’s needs on a long-term basis.

The Children Act 1989 places a duty on Social Services to safeguard and protect children. If you are unhappy with the way in which you were treated by Social Services you have the right to make a formal complaint under the ‘Local Authority Complaints Procedure’. You may therefore wish to consider writing to either the Director of Children’s Services or the Designated Complaints Officer for the authority in which your children have been placed. They must then consider the complaint, appointing at least one person independent of the local authority to take part in dealing with the issues raised and provide you with a written response within 28 days.

If you are unhappy with the council's response, you may request a Panel hearing by writing to the council within 28 days of the response. The Panel should be chaired by an independent person. If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint under the local procedures and think that a local authority has treated you unfairly as a result of bad or inefficient management ("maladministration"); and that this has caused you injustice (such as loss, injury or upset), you may wish to refer your complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).

More information on making a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman is available at: www.lgo.org.uk or by calling the advice line on 0845 602 1983.

I am sorry I am unable to help you further.

Yours sincerely

Janet McNamara
Public Communications Unit
www.dcsf.gov.uk
Link to this
ivanataylor

8 October 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have already gone to all the government authorities you suggest.
Including writing to all U.K MP's and my own MP Mr. Tim Farron. The
LGO is an utter waste of time and tax payers money, they have no
teeth to stop this above mentioned corruption, neither do they
desire to, as they are all professionals looking after each others
backs. This has been my experience, over a six year period of
campaigning, to get reasonable changes made in the system, to stop
systematic abuse of innocent families and false and malicious
vindictive vendettas, on the part of Local Councils, against fellow
councilors with whom they do not agree politically. Or those who
have dug out corruption within the authorities.

Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor
Link to this | Send follow up
ivanataylor left an annotation (8 October 2009)
Adult and Cultural Services

The Castle Arroyo Block Library Headquarters

Fax 01228 607299 CA3 8UR Carlisle

Email [email address]Tel 01228 227282

Date: 8 October 2009

Ref: JG/OMG

Dear Ms Stewart

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST FOI 2009- 385

CORPORATE COMPLAINT CCC/03883-09

You emailed Cumbria County Council on 11 September with a Freedom of Information request for information about “Looked after Children who were placed for forced adoption, without the consent of their birth parents, by Cumbria County Council Children's Services in 2008”.

In our response of 1 October you were provided with an answer to the above question and to the supplementary questions you had asked. Our response was based on the statement that forced adoptions do not exist.

You have now challenged the information with which you were provided, your main point of contention being that forced adoptions do exist. I have been asked to review our original response on your behalf.

Having read through the paperwork, I am unable to see how the statistics with which you were provided originally can be challenged. However, it seems that this is an occasion where we will have to agree to differ about what you term a forced adoption.

I am very sorry if our response has inadvertently caused you any distress. The member of staff in Children's Services who provided the answer to your question meant no offence when stating that forced adoption does not exist. That answer was provided in good faith based on the understanding and knowledge that the member of staff has of the adoption system and how it operates in Cumbria. It is important to point out that all of Cumbria County Council's Directorates operate within a legal framework established by the Government of the United Kingdom.

If you have cause to dispute the way in which looked after children are placed for adoption generally, you should take the matter up with your local Member of Parliament and ask that he or she pursues the matter with the appropriate Department of State. Cumbria County Council will continue to operate within the current legal framework for adoptions until such time as that framework is overhauled or altered completely.

Please accept my apologies once again if our original response has inadvertently caused you any distress but I can see no valid reason to recommend that our answer to your request be altered.

Yours sincerely

Jim Grisenthwaite

Head of Culture
Link to this
Ms Chadwick left an annotation (13 October 2009)
This may be useful;

Bullying, Bungling, Social Services.

Did you know that they:- Falsify reports and twist facts.

Did you know that they:- Claim meetings have taken place that have not.

Did you know that they:- Alienate children from their natural family to make adoption quicker.

Did you know that they:- Blackmail grandparents into looking after children without support.

Did you know that they:- Have meetings in secret without notifying those involved.

Did you know that they:- Shut out family members who are willing to help.

Did you know that they:- Take control and you have no recourse.

Did you know that they:- Still get away with this despite authorities being made aware of the problem.

Did you know that they:- Remove children from families without good reason.

We continually receive complaints, concerns, worries and fears from families about Social Services and how they operate. We have highlighted this to the UK Parliaments but the damage to children is continuing.

Members of the Equal Parenting Coalition of Scotland England and Wales

www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (13 October 2009)
For all those interested parties. The following link will take you to our story. What we endured in the hands of Cumbrian Child Protection and Cumbria Police and the corruption we exposed.

http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/articl...
Link to this
Kent County Council

14 October 2009

RE Freedom of Information request Forced Adoption Family Court Corruption.txt
6K Download

Dear Ms Taylor

Thank you for your request for information made under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. We have answered your questions in the order they
were raised.

*
Paragraph 5. We cannot discuss someone else's case with you as this is
personal to them and disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act
1998. Therefore we are relying upon the section 40 FOI exemption -
Personal Information.

*
Paragraph 6. It is KCC policy that all families involved in the
possibility of their children being placed in alternative care
arrangements must have a family group conference, to ensure that all
extended families have been considered as potential carers.

Kent county council and the County adoption service do not recognise the
term, " forced adoption". All care plans where adoption is one of the
alternative family options for a child are considered by the court and
it is a judge who makes the decision as to whether a child should be
placed elsewhere other than with their birth parents.

*
Paragraph 7. We cannot comment upon the legal practice of Judge Polden.
There are no cash incentives attached to children being placed for
adoption.

If you are unhappy with this response, and believe KCC has not complied
with legislation, please ask for a review by following our complaints
process; details can be found at this link
http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...
s/complaints-procedure.htm#foi
<http://www.kent.gov.uk/council-and-democ...> on our website. Please quote reference
FOI/09/1053.

If you still remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you can
appeal to the Information Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Details of what you need to do, should
you wish to pursue this course of action, are available from the
Information Commissioner's website
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Regards

Michelle Hunt
Access to Information Co-ordinator
Communication & Information Governance
Children, Families & Education Directorate
Kent County Council
Room 2.35, Sessions House
Maidstone, Kent, ME14 1XQ
External: 01622 696692
Internal: 7000 6692
Email: [email address]

show quoted sections
Link to this | Reply to this message
ivanataylor left an annotation (16 October 2009)
Dear Mrs Stewart-Taylor,

I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your e-mail. I am sorry
for the delay in my reply.

We are grateful to you for getting in touch and for making us aware of your
concerns about the family courts system. I am passing your message on to the
Shadow Justice Minister, Henry Bellingham, so that he can look into the points
you raise.

Yours sincerely,

Lara Moreno Perez
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

This is the reply form David Cameron. Maybe they are starting to listen.
Link to this
Mrs Williams left an annotation (27 October 2009)
Another stolen granddaughter for FORCED ADOPTION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFsOpJIrGNM
Link to this
J Webb left an annotation (9 November 2009)
The only thing they care about is their wallets
this is the only reason children are being stolen and a warning to any poor naive councillor who dares speak the truth.

"The 11 MILLION children and young people in England have a voice"
Children's Commissioner for England, Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green

WHAT VOICE ? NOT ACCORDING TO THIS THEY DONT

http://nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.c...

[A letter a dear friend of mine sent to the Judge in the Family Court,( edited to protect identities) the Judge used paragraph 4 to remove them as party. Yet he failed to answer when asked in Court what would stop children’s services coming after their own children if they failed ‘so-called assessments including a psychological assessment that the Council and Judge were trying to rail road them into.]

After our recent LIP experience of the Family Courts regarding contesting the ICO (at your suggestion), in the hope our granddaughters would be returned to live with their grandparents. We now have ‘little faith’ in either the LA professionals who unfortunately, do not appear to act in the ‘best interests of the children’ or the present system that fails to make them accountable for their actions.

It may just be coincidental that I was standing for election in November 2007 after I had complained to the Director of Children’s Services , on a separate issue and took my complaints to the LGO.

Apparently, we could risk being labelled mad or worse if we go to the press; yet it seems pointless to Appeal without the media.

Regretfully, our stance on being assessed has not changed for the reasons given at the initial hearing; having young children of adoptable ages and no belief in the CSW comment ‘that the SS do not canvas for work’ our family has already been destroyed.

Please do not think us paranoid. A continuous stream of high calibre news articles including award winning Journalists, looking into ‘children’s services’ alongside the UN investigation into our Family Courts, EDM’s signed by numerous MP’s and
Jack Straw’s announcement to allow the press (April2009); all suggest otherwise.

There appears to be a mass of contradictions/inaccuracies and double standards.
Selective incomplete evidence, (mainly opinion based) interpreted as ‘fact’ without the full information requested from September 2002 including ‘notes’ from both the SS and CG. A different criteria/ model supplied (non-relative assessment), which is neither objective nor subjective. And discerning to note that there is no record of us receiving £100 cash from the SS .

Ironically, a Councillor on the ‘Children’s Champion Board’ sort my advice about ‘children’s services’ and is aware of our previous experience.
Although I did not ask him, he seems to have attempted to help; I am not his constituent nor did I ask about kinship care allowance and our children are not known to social care or receive services.

Charles J in Re R [2002] 1 FLR 755 and Munby J in Re L (Care Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] 2 FLR 730In Re R,

Relatives are expected to jump through hoops and endure fishing trips that were simply not required on the two previous occasions, when XXXX and XXXX were placed in our care, on the second occasion after an interview with CPO.
The LA may have been concerned about a possible Judicial Review and this may have contributed to why an offer of a mandatory referral for (FGC) ‘not best practice’ as suggested in Court, was not forthcoming.

D-v- Southwark LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 182
. Munby J Manchester City Council – V – F (2002) 1FLR 43

What is the definition of better than good enough parenting?

The House of Lords (2008) ‘grandparents only have to be reasonable enough parents’

“Innocent yet presumed guilty unless we comply - On the balance of probabilities?”
We probably have far more experience than many of the professionals involved, having raised 6 children.

Supervisory contact is only required we believe, if there is a danger to the children.
Being a XXXX/CRB checked with no previous concerns, it is insulting and degrading to be only offered expensive supervised contact in an unnatural environment. While our offer of contact in our home (with foster carers if need be) and Cllrs/Corporate Parents offering to be present, is ignored/rejected.
Whilst bizarrely XXXX & XXXX have been transported by taxi virtually on a daily basis from XXXX that is 5 minutes from XXXX, to XXXX approximately a hours drive by their first set of inexperienced carers; all at the taxpayers expense?

Where are our granddaughter’s Human Rights to a family life? Having been placed in foster care, where their well-being has deteriorated after being separated and passed from ‘pillar to post’ and respite care, instead of with relatives.

DCSF – figures suggest that at least 2 children a week die and/or are abused in care.

Research suggests that there are well-evidenced advantages1 for children who cannot live with their parents to be raised by relatives or friends:
Farmer E and Moyers S (2008)‘Kinship Care: Fostering Effective Family and Friends Placements’ (Jessica Kingsley); Doolan et al (2004) Growing up in the Care of Relatives and Friends (Family Rights Group); Hunt J (2003) Family and Friends Care; coping Paper for Dept of Health; Broad, B (ed) (2001) Kinship Care: the placement of choice for children and young people (Russell House; Hunt Waterhouse & Lutman (2008forthcoming) Keeping them in the family (BAAF) Dr Lynne Wrenndall, Charles Pragnell. Lisa Blakemore-Brown, Brian Morgan, Dr Helen Hayward-Brown, Bruce Irvine,
Dr Clive Baldwin, Stephen Clark, Cathy Johnson (2004) Taking the stick away: the service users’ joint statement

It is hoped that XXXX (babies are far more sort after for adoption and a marketable commodity) will be given a Voice Child Advocate, (the CSW rejected this in favour of the CG only).

The FGC Co-ordinator’s comment ‘ holding a FGC at a late stage “energises families” is insulting and worthless when the LA holds all the power and should not be advising family members that I must agree to be assessed.
The joint comments from the LA solicitor and CG who later offered to alter her notes? The LA solicitor told me ‘ the LA only had a duty to consider family members.’
If Human Rights and the PLO can be so brazenly be disregarded/ ignored, is it any wonder that ¾ of children end up adopted or on SGO with strangers instead of relatives.

The CG Solicitor’s remarks outside the Court ‘that LA Counsel could speak for me, or XXXX a passing Solicitor could represent me or they would adjourn and the Court would/could not allow my grandchildren to be placed with us on ICO’ (reiterated the CG comment) and meeting immediately after Court, with the CSW/Counsel, but not us. And the CG & ISW lunching in the Café across the road, all show how cosy the relevant professionals appear to be, hardly independent.

‘ Generally speaking, guardians act as cheerleaders for social services departments. They are entirely compliant, and seem incapable of doing more than being a cheering section’. Eric Pickles MP. (We cannot disagree.)

As Corporate Parents we should act in the way we would if the children were our own. I am appalled at what I perceive to be professionals who fail to act in a professional manner and seem to have no intention of working to reunite children with families. The public would be astonished at the costs involved and outraged that relatives are over looked in favour of expensive foster care.

Totally amazed that such draconian measures of removing children without a mandatory referral for (FGC) can amount to; crystal ball gazing opinion backed up by expensive reports paid for from the public purse.
How is it possible to review a past non event and make a decision based on what may or may not have happened if a FGC had been held, when it could/did not take place?

Children are not mere commodities to be passed around for profit; clearly everyone involved is being paid, (the larger the bundle the more costly?), which could be better spent on ‘real’ child protection and desperately needed front line services to support families to ensure that mandatory FGC referrals are completed; improved services.

I came into politics in order to defend the children of the poor and help make sure that families receive the services they deserve. Councillors are more aware of their responsibility to ‘looked after children’ and the CEO is reviewing the case following a subsequent meeting with the XXXX Leader.

The one simple thing that can never be altered is my granddaughters’ heritage, we are blood relatives, our granddaughters will always be dearly loved and wanted; this can never be obliterated. Hopefully they will be reunited with family members, who if given the opportunity could have applied (if need be) for a RO via private law.

The Court has the power to remedy matters and take the more proportional approach that the LA has not done to-date. Please take into consideration our views and concerns when making your decisions about our granddaughters futures.
Link to this
Mrs Jones left an annotation (10 November 2009)
It would be interesting to know how many children this councillor has adopted and if any others have also adopted children. I wonder if this is the reason so many children are being taken in Kent for adoption?
especially as the CEO Peter Gilroy is also a social worker.

http://nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.c...

Gary Cooke - Maidstone South East

A strong voice for you at County Hall
T: 01622 880686
M: 07803 007031
E: gmlcooke@btinternet.com

Gary Cooke lives in Broad Street, Hollingbourne with Louise where they settled after returning from living and working abroad. Gary is well known for his involvement in local community groups and projects. This year he wrote, produced and directed the popular Hollingbourne Pantomime, which annually raises valuable funds for a number of local charities. He and his wife both take a keen interest in child welfare having previously provided mentoring to adoptive parents and prospective adopters. Gary is also keenly interested in our local educational services and local policing. They are also actively involved in animal rescue and re-homing of unwanted pets. Gary is a champion for the interests of local residents, with a record of service and commitment to the communities where he lives and those he represents. Now fully retired, Gary has the time and enthusiasm to properly represent the interests of all residents in South East Maidstone.
Link to this
Ms Chadwick left an annotation (21 November 2009)
Michelle Chadwick.Grand daughters stolen by Kent County Council & Medway County family court

My Beautiful grand daughters Kianna and Tia my last contact with them 5th December 2008. I miss them with all my heart. Love you both so much where ever you are.
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (24 November 2009)
A letter has just come to me, dated the 12 November 2009 from Bridget Prentice MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.

It is a response to my lobbying MP's re corruption in the Secret Family Court System. She is responding to David Gauke MP the Ref is MC257983

The letter reads as follows.

Dear David

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor , my address is here omitted.

thank you for your letter of 14 October to Jack Straw, about social services and openness in the family courts. I am replying as the Minister responsible for the family justice system in England and Wales. You refer to an earlier letter which my officials have not been able to trace, but I apologise for the delay in responding to you nonetheless.

I am very sorry for the experience that Mrs Stewart-Taylor has had with social services and the family courts regarding her grandchild. In order to preserve the principle of judicial independence, I cannot give opinion on a specific case but I hope that she will find the following general comments helpful.

It has, since 1991, been the policy of successive governments, as set out in legislation, that children should live with their parents wherever possible and that services should be provided to children in need and their families to enable this to happen.

The child protection system is designed to identify families who may be vulnerable and seeks to offer help at an early stage in order to enable children to remain in their family. Social workers must work closely with parents to identify and evidence where change or improvement is necessary in order to enable a family to stay together.

I assure Mrs Stewart-Taylor that local authorities are not given financial incentives to increase the number of children in care or remove children from care of their parents in order for them to be adopted. The decision to take a child into care is never an easy one, and the decision to make a care order is taken by the courts. In every case where a child is taken into care on a care order, the courts will have considered all the evidence and taken the view that the child has been significantly harmed, or would be if they were not taken into care.

where the court makes an order placing a child in the care of a local authority, the authority will continue to work with the family with a view to the child returning home. Happily, the vast majority of children are returned to their parents. for those children who cannot return home to their parents, they have the right to have alternative plans considered to provide them with a permanent home; adoption is only one of the available options of providing this.

The final decision on whether a child should be adopted rests with the courts. Before a court makes such an important decision it must be convinced on the basis of the evidence that this is the best way to meet the child's needs on a long term basis. where the parents/guardians have not given their consent, but it may only do so in limited circumstances. The court would have to be satisfied that the parent could not be found or is incapable of giving consent, or that the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.

The Government does not have, and has never had, a national target to increase the number of children being taken into care. the target on adoption reflected the Government's desire to reverse a long-term decline in the number of children already in care finding a permanent home through adoption. The adoption target ended in March 2006. Similarly, the Government does not set adoption targets for local authorities, although authorities themselves may choose to develop targets with central Government through the Local area Agreement/Local Public service agreement process.

Mrs Stewart-Taylor is also concerned about the ability of parents or families to speak out about their case. The extent to which a parent, child or the media can publish information about individual children is complex and determined by a number of different aspects of legislation. The issue is the need to balance the rights of children to privacy, with the rights of other parties, and those of the media, in relation to freedom of expression.

The government has already taken some action to make family proceedings more open- the media can attend most proceedings, and the rules about disclosure of information have been amended to make it easier for people to seek the help and support they need.

these changes do not yet apply to adoption cases.Adoption is the most difficult and life changing decision a family court can make and needs special consideration. There are concerns that the identity of children and adoptive parents might be exposed, particularly in small rural populations or ethnic community areas. we are therefore considering, along with people most involved in adoption work, how best that these proceedings can be made more open but alongside legislation to ensure that identities are protected.

We will also introduce new legislation that will put the reporting and admission regime for all tiers of family court on the same foundation as that for youth courts. This will allow the media to report the substance of what they witness, but not any information that would lead to revealing the identity of the families involved. The Government will revise the law on reporting restrictions as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I hope that this letter is helpful. I am enclosing a copy for you to forward to Mrs Stewart-Taylor, should you wish to do so.

Kind regards

Bridget

BRIDGET PRENTICE

I would be interested in what anyone thinks about this. It has taken 6 years to get to here. I have been lobbying every MP for many years, repeatedly and finally we get this response.??
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (25 November 2009)
I have written to Bridget Prentice several times in the past, and it is the same reply. Is the woman delusional?

Once a care order has been applied for its granting is almost automatic and children cannot be got out of care without a bitter battle, the policy of children living at home if possible is ignored, children are not listened to and accounts made up of what they want, and adoptions are entirely automatic, the courts ignoring the parent's solicitor's evidence.

Got cases like this at the moment.

perhaps someone should ask for a meeting with David Gauke or Bridget Prentice,

Richard
Link to this
ivanataylor left an annotation (4 December 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK4MqqJ0hnM
Link to this
ivanataylor

4 December 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK4MqqJ0hnM

I suggest you listen to the above. The truth is now emerging. It is
about time too. I have written to every MP in the UK bringing their
attention to this MP, who has shown total integrity. An EDM has
been promised by parliament as a result of my lobbying and the hard
work and efforts of an increasing number of MP's. It is time to
stop stealing children for forced adoptions Now.

Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor
Link to this | Send follow up
ivanataylor left an annotation (6 December 2009)
I wonder if these are the children belonging to my friend Sheena Williams???

Elle-May Williams-Piper d.o.b. 22.9.2002

Ruby Williams-Piper d.o.b. 21.1.2004

Lacey Williams-Piper d.o.b. 23.5.2006

Poppy Williams-Piper d.o.b. 2.6.2007

Granddaughters of Maidstone Councillor Sheena Williams who resigned from the conservative party after Kent county council stole them for forced adoption

[non-sheep]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/family_court_definition_of_balan _2#incoming-59563


More official jargon, because they have always done it this way and
(got away with it they really mean) as if thats supposed to make it right

[non-sheep]

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Channels/Communications/Article/972807/Co mmon-Purpose-face-no-further-action-Information-Commissioner/


Common Purpose to face no further action from Information Commissioner
By Paul Jump, Third Sector Online, 8 December 2009
Charity that was found likely to have breached data protection principles has told watchdog it will not do so again
The Information Commissioner's Office has decided not to take any further action against leadership training charity Common Purpose despite upholding its initial assessment that the charity had probably breached data protection principles.
The ICO ruled in October that the charity was unlikely to have complied with the provisions in the Data Protection Act 1998 on processing personal data when it compiled a list containing the personal details of people who had made requests under the Freedom of Information Act relating to its dealings with public authorities.
The list was sent to public authorities receiving new Freedom of Information Act requests to demonstrate the view of Common Purpose that the requests were vexatious.
A statement from the charity said it had been referenced in more than 90 requests under the act, many of which were in template form. It said the organisation believed the volume and format of the requests "may be abusing the legislation and damaging the reputation of Common Purpose" because some of the information obtained was published online "as alleged proof of the charity's corrupt activity".
The ICO's verdict has not been altered in the light of the charity's response to its original verdict. But the privacy watchdog said it did not intend to take any further action after the charity confirmed that it no longer distributed the list and was willing to make sure it did not breach data protection principles in future.
Julia Middleton, chief executive of Common Purpose, said: "As an organisation we made a genuine mistake in this instance and did so following sound advice from the ICO.
"But it was in a very rapidly changing legal context. We have since recognised our practices needed to be amended and have amended them accordingly."

[non-sheep]

CP at its best..

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/family_court_definition_of_balan _2#incoming-59563

ivanataylor left an annotation (10 December 2009)
It was dreamed in our case that on the balance of probabilities someone hurt my grandchild. Well what does that actually say, who is this someone!! It was not one of us and we proved it, with the help of international Dr's. Based on the evidence of UK cherry picked SS Dr's, then the child was abused, which turned out to be a malicious and vindictive lie. If we did not hurt the child, then who did? The hospital? She was administered three times the normal dose of pain killers before being discharged from hospital where on her return home we discovered her leg was fractured. Why was the hospital not investigated? Why did nurses tell differing and conflicting stories?

It is very easy for vindictive authorities to turn the tables on innocent parents, after they have dropped the ball and are under the spotlight. This is the truth in our case. Then a professional "Cover Up". No finding of fact hearing!! No charges or prosecutions, of the six family members in question and being falsely accused. Professionals, 'so called" have walked away laying blame elsewhere, even though they cannot prove anything. The only people responsible for harm and abuse to a vulnerable child are those professionals?? who's duty of care it is to protect her.

John Hemming has said, do not confront NHS Dr's re the welfare of your child, otherwise you will be placed in the firing line and falsely accused. I suggest to you that this is exactly what happened in our case.

On the balance of probability, Professionals behaved dispicably to cover their own arses. and this is proven when one takes apart their own paperwork.

Balance of probability says that the majority of family court officials, SW's and Cafcass guardians are immoral, fraudulent and corrupt, and are harming innocent children and their families not just now, in the moment, but in the long term. The authorities have been nothing but destructive to three families and my grandchild is their biggest victim.

I only hope that we can come back at them in the future and kick their as.....s

[non-sheep]

Kent Common Purpose

It speaks volumes

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/20594/response/54245/attach/html  /3/FOI.pdf.html

FOI/09/1149 – FOI/09/1159


Nicholas Sherlock

Start date 2 February 1998 - 12 November 2000
Team Leader SSD – Sevenoaks C&F team (Children & Families)
13 November 2000 - 28 April 2002

Project Officer - Duty/Screening Project Social Services
29 April 2002 - 30 June 2005

Performance Improvement Manager HQ - Performance Policy Planning
01 July 2005 - 31 March 2006

Public Involvement & Performance Manager HQ - Performance Policy
Planning
01 April 2006 - 5 April 2009

Public Involvement & Performance Manager Performance Improvement
06 April 2009 - 30 September 2009

Head of Planning & Public Involvement Restructuring Transition
01 October 2009 - to date
Head of Planning & Public Involvement Planning & Public Involvement

[non-sheep]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/unlawful_authoritarian_persecuti #incoming-59844

Unlawful authoritarian persecution of innocent families. Theft of their children in secret court corruption.
A Freedom of Information request to Her Majesty's Courts Service by ivanataylor

10 December 2009
Dear Her Majesty's Courts Service,

Under freedom of information, why are you allowing this to happen
to innocent people and families?

The human rights of our family have been violated time and time
again by Cumbrian Authorities since 2003. I have complained, on
numerous occasions with no redress or recourse within existing
systems. It is not until you have experienced such atrocities,
first hand, and personally, that you realise we have no rights at
all, as authorities get away with breaching those rights without
accountability. this has been my first hand experience over the
last 7 years.

Cumbria Police, unlawfully hold the names of 6 family members on
their secret intelligence files and secret computer database for 10
years, preventing me from earning a living. False allegations with
vindictive and malicious intent on the part of Cumbria child
protection and the Police are ongoing, without any evidence to
substantiate their wicked assumptions.

I am a retired, elected town councillor of 17 year standing,
including youth work, school governorship, three local schools etc.

My MP has done nothing ,despite constant lobbying over last 4 years
to help our case.

I have been GBH'd on two counts in 2007, sexually molested by a
Town Councillor, while carrying out my civic duties as a town
councillor. On both occasions this has been played down and
suppressed by local police and the CPS have No Further actioned
both events.

I am being bullied and victimised by the said above mentioned
authorities.

I believe that my friend Sheena Williams has suffered and is still
suffering the same persecution that I am and would like others to
know, if they can do this to us, and many other professionals, then
the perpetrators are not immune themselves from such malicious and
vindictive assault, and abuse, in the hands of the system.

I no longer feel able to socialise in my own community, for social
or other lagitamate voluntary public service assignments, due to
being watched by the authorities who seem hell bent on discrediting
me.

I have never been cautioned or prosecuted for any offense, even
minor. I have, to date, no criminal record and neither do any
members of my family.

Yet, like Sheena we are being treated like common criminals, and
harassed and persecuted by authority. WHY?? Because the powers that
be, secret society stooges do not like those who are honest and
trustworthy and who expose corruption. Their only line of defense
is to shoot the messenger and emotionally and financially ruin us.

The latest two weeks ago, was an attempt by local police to attempt
to try and stitch me up on drink driving allegations. I do not
drink alcohol or take drugs, so they soon realised they are barking
up the wrong tree. If I ever do go out in public places where
alcohol is on sale. I drink soda water and watch my back.

You would have loved to have seen the look on the police officers
faces when I told them it is against my religion to consume
alcohol, and that they are wasting their time. Talk about scraping
the bottom of a barrel to find something on me. Well, if we do not
protect ourselves against such evil individuals who are clearly
abusing their authority and stepping well outside the remit of
their employment policies and procedures then no one else will. My
Guard is well and truly up and they are not going to find it easy
to stitch me up.

My latest psychiatric assessment this year as well as all those in
the past state that I am mentally stable, so they will have to
dream up something else if they wish to discredit me, to silence
me.

Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor

[non-sheep]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/20584/response/57443/attach/html  /3/7701%202009%20Response%20Letter.pdf.html



Why is Kent’s Chief Constable Michael Fuller common purpose trained, amongst many others in Kent’s Police force.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST 7701/2009

I write in connection with your request for information received by Kent Police on the 13th
October 2009. As previously advised, all of your separate requests, each relating to individual
Kent Police employees have been aggregated together for the purpose of administration and
costs into this single response.

Can you please confirm the rank & duties of the persons listed below, if they have ever worked
for the Kent Police, what position and rank they held and their current position and standing.
Please list all board or committee positions held and whether they are common purpose
graduates.

Adrian Allen Kent-West Kent Police, Maidstone - Police Headquarters Mid West Kent – 2000 Mid
West Kent Focus

Nora Chandler Kent-North Kent Police, Maidstone – Police Headquarters North Kent – 2000
North Kent Focus

Mark Janaway Kent-East Kent Police, Margate East Kent - 1999/00 East Kent Focus

Neil Jerome Kent-East Kent Police, Gravesend Mid/West Kent – 2003 Mid West Kent Focus

Andrew Judd Kent-East Kent Police, Canterbury Police Station East Kent - 2004/05 East Kent
Focus

Daniel Murphy Kent-East Kent Police, Ashford Mid/West Kent – 2004 Mid West Kent Focus

David Pascoe Kent-West Kent Police, Maidstone - Palace Avenue Mid/West Kent - 2005 Mid
West Kent Focus

Paul Brandon Kent-East Kent Police, Folkestone East Kent - 2000/01 East Kent Focus

Anne Brittain Kent-East Kent Police, Ashford East Kent - 2002/03 East Kent Focus

Jonathan Bumpus Kent-North Kent Police College, Maidstone North Kent - 2005 North Kent
Focus



Kent Police : Central Operations FOI
Policy No. D18
Form No.3540_11 rev Feb 2005 [erev 02/5] v1.5

John Frayne Kent-West Kent Police, Maidstone - Police Headquarters Mid West Kent - 2001 Mid
West Kent Focus

Lisette Harvey Kent-East Kent Police, Ashford East Kent - 2002/03 East Kent Focus

Nigel Thomas Kent-East Kent Police, Maidstone - Police Headquarters Mid/West Kent - 2002 Mid
West Kent Focus

Keith Potter Kent-East Kent Police, Maidstone - Police Headquarters East Kent - 2001/02 East
Kent Focus

Michael Fuller Kent-West Kent Police, Maidstone - Police Headquarters South London - 1998/99
South London Matrix

I can confirm that the individuals you have listed in your request are all employed, or have
been employed, by Kent Police at some time and are all Common Purpose Graduates.

Common Purpose is a cross-sector educational programme that seeks to engage senior
managers in a wide range of experiential learning in order for them to be able to enhance their
leadership skills within their own organisations as well as developing business networks
towards the 'common purpose' of improving the quality of services and prosperity to the county
of Kent. Consequently, and with that aim in mind, when officers achieve a position in the
organisation that would see them serving or acting in the role of a BCU (Basic Command Unit)
Commander, they may attend this programme.

The main benefits of the Common Purpose Programme, as identified by officers when the
scheme was last evaluated are:

- A greater understanding of how other agencies work and the problems they face
- A broadened outlook
- The opportunity to build useful networks within the area
- Improved relationships with other partner agencies on behalf of the Force
- Promoting greater understanding about the police

You have asked for information concerning ‘board and committee positions’. These terms do
not entirely correspond with the police environment. I have interpreted this to refer to the
individual’s current operational role and these have been provided.

We do not hold information regarding previous positions held by the individual officers listed
above, as we do not hold records dating back to 1998. However I can confirm their current
ranks and positions within Kent Police, these are listed below.

Adrian Allen – Inspector – West Kent Management Team
Nora Chandler – Detective Superintendent – Head of Investigations, Professional Standards
Mark Janaway – Superintendent – Tactical Operations
Neil Jerome – Superintendent – Head of Department, Partnership and Crime Reduction
Andrew Judd – Inspector – South Kent Management Team
Daniel Murphy – Detective Superintendent – Force Communication Centre, Senior Management
Team
David Pascoe – Chief Inspector, Borough Commander, Mid Kent Senior Management Team
Paul Brandon – Chief Superintendent – Area Commander, North Kent
Anne Brittain – Detective Superintendent – Head of Forensic Investigation
Jonathan Bumpus – Detective Chief Inspector – Crime Manager, Special Crime, West Kent
John Frayne – Chief Inspector – District Commander, South Kent
Lisette Harvey – Former Chief Inspector - Retired
Kent Police : Central Operations FOI
Form No.3540_11 rev Jan 2005 [erev 1/05] v1.1
Policy No. D18

Nigel Thomas – Superintendent - Currently seconded to Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Keith Potter – Former Detective Superintendent - Retired
Michael Fuller – Chief Constable, Kent Police


Thank you for your interest in Kent Police. If you have any further queries concerning your
request, or the application of the Freedom of Information Act in general, please contact this
office quoting the reference number shown above.

Yours sincerely,

Julia Potten
Freedom of Information Administrator

[non-sheep]

Found this on another site, talking about Kent County Council's chief executive Peter Gilroy.


Why would a CEO be a board member of New Local Government
Network ? …..sounds like a company run by the government


Peter Gilroy has made the following declarations of interest:
Member of:
Institute of Directors
Association of County Chief Executives - USA
Board Member of New Local Government Network

Charities - Kent Fund for Children - Board Member

[non-sheep]

How convenient and there doesn't seem to any directors for this company , does anybody know if this is legal???

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/peter_gilroy_associates_limited# incoming-60068

‘Peter Gilroy & Associates Ltd is a newly registered company established
by Kent County Council's Chief Executive, Peter Gilroy. He has declared
the existence of this company on the senior officers' Register of
Interests, and that it will not be trading until after he has left the
employment of Kent County Council. KCC holds no other information
regarding this company, and as the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does
not oblige public authorities to CREATE information to satisfy requests
for information, KCC will not impinge on the Chief Executive's rights of
privacy, to ask for additional information about his personal
commitments outside of his employment.’

[non-sheep]

Found this , how interesting

Peter Gilroy is a director NLGN, also chair of the project board NRUC
http://www.nruc.gov.uk/index.html national register for unaccompanied children


http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/Compa...9&cs=QHLv0KX60

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/Compa...6&cs=QFCy4BsYQ

also spokesman for the society of local authority chief executives

Summary
Description

The New Local Government Network (NLGN) was founded in 1996 by a group of senior local government figures whose aim was to make local government more relevant and credible to local people.

A not-for-profit making, independent think tank, NLGN seeks to transform public services, revitalise local political leadership and empower local communities. NLGN is also the primary advocate of New Localism.

NLGN works closely with individual local authorities, national agencies, central government and the private sector to promote ideas about how our objectives can be achieved in practice. NLGN has also been a key proponent of directly elected mayors, something reflected in the ongoing work of our Mayoral Forum.

In 2001, NLGN established an Innovation Network, creating a space for ambitious local authorities to experiment with new ideas, share learning and influence public policy across all levels of government.

NLGN works with key agencies and opinion formers to shape and support the development of modern local government where it matters most - on the ground, in local communities.

NLGN was awarded ‘Think Tank of the Year, 2004/5' by the political and cultural journal, Prospect.
Duport report confirms

Duport report shows

Stakeholder ID 1081000

Name PETER GILROY

Date of Birth 19th April 1954

Nationality BRITISH

Address BAKERS FARM BARN LADHAM ROAD, GOUDHURST, CRANBROOK, KENT, TN17 1LS

Company Statistics Total Solvent 1

Name NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT NETWORK

Number 03598256

Net Worth 287

Position APPOINTMENT OF COMPANY DIRECTOR

Occupation CHIEF EXECU

[non-sheep]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/9470/response/24839/attach/html/ 3/FOI%2058786%20Common%20Purpose%20III%20TB%20draft%20170409%20ver3.pd f.html

APPLYING COST LIMIT (SECTION 12)
Financial Accounting
10th Floor

102 Petty France
Point 1.41
London
SW1H 9AJ
T: 020 3334 4314
E: [email address]
www.justice.gov.uk
Mr. John Walker
[FOI #9470 email]
Our Ref: FOI/09/58786/DO
23rd April 2009
Dear Mr. Walker
Request for information
Thank you for your correspondence of 17 March 2009 in which you asked for the
following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
1) The names and ranks/grades of all employees in the MoJ who are
Common Purpose graduates
2) The total expenditure by the MoJ on Common Purpose courses for each of
the years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008 and 2009 to date together with a copy of the invoice for each
Common Purpose course paid for by your organisation
Your query was passed to my team on 27 March 2009 because I have responsibility
for answering requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) which
relate to expenditure across the Ministry of Justice as a whole.
I am sorry to inform you that I will not be able to answer your request in full.
For part 1) of your query, I can confirm that the Department has access to the
information you are seeking, but I am unable to disclose it. This is because the
information is the personal data of another person, and disclosure would be unfair to
that other person who is the subject of the data. For part 2) of your query we are also
unable to supply copies of the invoices for the same reason, as the names of those
attending the courses are shown.
Section 40(2) of the FOIA states that personal data relating to third parties (i.e. a
party other than the person requesting the information) is exempt information if one
of the conditions in Section 40(3) is satisfied. It is my view that disclosure of this
information would breach one or more of the Data Protection Principles in the Data
Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

APPLYING COST LIMIT (SECTION 12)
For part 2) of your request, I have identified individual payments to Common Purpose
UK by the Ministry of Justice and its predecessor bodies. The MoJ was established in
May 2007 as a merger between the former Department for Constitutional Affairs
(DCA) and parts of the Home Office, namely the National Offender Management
Service (including Her Majesty’s Prison Service) and the Office for Criminal Justice
Reform. Information is provided for the financial years ending 31st March for 1998/99
to 2008/09 except that:
Ø data prior to April 1998 is no longer retained;
Ø data for Her Majesty’s Prison Service (HMPS) prior to 2005/06 is held locally and
can only be collated at disproportionate cost; and
Ø information is excluded for all years for the National Probation Service
(comprising 42 local boards and trusts), the Scotland Office, and all Non
Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) as this information could only be gathered
at disproportionate cost. Information from these organisations can be separately
requested if required.
Section 12 of the FOIA makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for
information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit,
which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of
one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the Department holds
the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information.
As your request is widely framed, I estimate that it will take us in excess of 3.5
working days to determine appropriate material within the scope of your request, and
locate, retrieve and extract that information from operational level for all bodies
currently excluded as per the above list. In addition to this, the invoices held for
information prior to 2005 are archived off site and it is anticipated it would exceed the
cost limit to retrieve and review copies of this information to provide transaction
descriptions, bearing in mind the time already spent in collating the information
included in Appendix A.
You may wish to narrow the scope of your request in order to try and bring it within
the cost limit, by being more specific about which information you wish to receive, for
example, you may wish to narrow the scope of your request by asking for a narrower
time period or a smaller section of the MoJ.
You should however be aware that if you break your request down into a series of
smaller requests, we might, depending on the circumstances of the case, decline to
answer if the aggregated cost of complying exceeds £600.
As part of our obligations under the FOIA, the Ministry of Justice has an independent
review process. If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may write to request an
internal review. The internal review will be carried out by someone who did not make
the original decision, and they will re-assess how the Department handled the
original request.
If you wish to request an internal review, please write or send an email to the Data
Access and Compliance Unit within two months of the date of this letter, at the
following address:
Data Access and Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Ministry of Justice

APPLYING COST LIMIT (SECTION 12)
1st Floor, Zone 1C
Post point 1.41
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
e-mail: [email address]
If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply
to the Information Commissioner’s Office under Section 50 of the FOIA. You can
contact the Information Commissioner’s Office at the following address:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Internet: https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx
Yours sincerely
Tracy Barker
Head of Financial Accounting

APPLYING COST LIMIT (SECTION 12) Appendices
APPENDIX A
Details of payments made to Common Purpose UK by the Ministry of Justice (limited by the
caveat included in the attached letter):
Invoice DATE
Transaction Detail
Transaction
Amount
Department for Constitutional Affairs and Her Majesty’s Court Service only:
1998/99- 2005/06
04/04/00
*
£1,468.75
09/01/01
*
£2,996.25
30/01/01
*
£2,996.25
12/03/01
*
£79.00
23/01/02
*
£4,230.00
05/04/02
*
£998.75
24/06/02
*
£940.00
24/06/02
*
£940.00
24/06/02
*
£940.00
10/07/03
*
£4,406.25
20/08/03
*
£329.00
15/09/03
*
£4,406.25
04/08/04
*
£587.50
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
£4,641.25
21/01/05
Spring 2005/06
05/10/05
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
£4,641.25
Matrix 2005/06
19/12/05
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
£4,641.25
Matrix 2006
19/12/05 (not a
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
£4,641.25
duplication)
Matrix 2006
31/01/06
* One attendee of a Common Purpose training
£4,641.25
programme (unnamed on records)
10/02/06
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
£1,116.25
Profile Programme 2006
23/02/06
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
£4,641.25
Spring Matrix Programme 2006
09/03/06
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
£4,641.25
Spring Matrix Programme 2006
23/03/06
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
£5,698.75
20:20 June 2006 Programme
TOTAL
£64,621.75
* Invoice has been archived and details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Invoice DATE
Transaction Detail
Transaction
Amount
National Offender Management Service and Her Majesty’s Prison Service:
2005 and 2006
02/02/05
*
£2,820.00
04/03/05
*
£1,175.00
06/04/05
*
£4,641.25
18/04/05
*
£1,116.25
27/04/05
*
£587.50
16/05/05
*
£3,525.00
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
19/05/05
Navigator Programme
£1,175.00
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
19/05/05
Matrix Programme
£1,145.63
31/05/05
*
£3,337.00
14/06/05
One attendee of Common Purpose Focus Programme
£1,410.00
27/09/05
*
£3,525.00
30/09/05
*
£2,820.00
05/10/05
*
£2,820.00
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
30/11/05
Matrix Programme
£4,641.25

APPLYING COST LIMIT (SECTION 12) Appendices
Invoice DATE
Transaction Detail
Transaction
Amount
National Offender Management Service and Her Majesty’s Prison Service:
2005 and 2006
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
12/12/05
Matrix Programme
£4,641.25
15/12/05
*
£2,820.00
18/01/06
*
£2,820.00
20/02/06
*
£1,175.00
28/03/06
*
£329.00
28/04/06
*
£850.00
22/05/06
*
£100.00
19/06/06
*
£329.00
24/07/06
*
£2,820.00
08/09/06
*
£2,820.00
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
13/09/06
Graduate Connect UK
£329.00
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
14/09/06
Matrix Programme 2006/07
£4,641.25
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
18/09/06
Profile Programme 2006
£1,116.25
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
04/10/06
Autumn Matrix
£3,525.00
* One attendee of a Common Purpose training
15/11/06
programme (unnamed on records)
£2,643.75
One attendee of Common Purpose Training Course:
21/12/06
Matrix 2007 Programme
£4,935.00
TOTAL
£70,633.38
* Invoice has been archived and details could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Invoice DATE
Transaction Detail
Transaction
Amount
2006/07 Ministry of Justice HQ, Her Majesty’s Court Service, Tribunals Service, Wales Office,
National Offender Management Service, Office for Criminal Justice Reform and Office of Public
Guardian:
28/04/06
One attendee of a Common Purpose training
£850.00
programme (unnamed on records)
22/05/06
Attendance of Chairing Event
£100.00
24/05/06
One attendee of What Next Programme
£2,643.75
19/06/06
One attendee of Graduate Connect UK
£329.00
24/0706
One attendee of East Kent Focus 2006
£2,820.00
08/09/06
One attendee of a Common Purpose training
£2,820.00
programme (unnamed on records)
13/09/06
One attendee of a Common Purpose training
£329.00
programme (unnamed on records)
14/09/06
One attendee of the Matrix programme
£4,641.25
14/09/06
One attendee of Navigator 2006 course
£3,525.00
15/09/06
One attendee of the Winter London Navigator Course
£3,525.00
2006
18/09/06
One attendee of Profile Programme
£1,116.25
04/10/06
One attendee of Autumn Matrix Programme
£3,525.00
31/10/06
One attendee to Common Purpose Wales Navigator
£2,350.00
Programme
15/11/06
One attendee of a Common Purpose training
£2,643.75
programme (unnamed on records)
21/12/06
One attendee of Matrix Programme
£4,935.00
16/01/07
One attendee of a Common Purpose training
£1,527.50
programme (unnamed on records)
20/02/07
One attendee of the Matrix Programme
£1,410.00
TOTAL
£39,090.50

APPLYING COST LIMIT (SECTION 12) Appendices
2007/08 Ministry of Justice HQ, Her Majesty’s Court Service, Tribunals Service, Wales Office,
National Offender Management Service, Office for Criminal Justice Reform and Office of Public
Guardian:
02/04/07
One attendee to Common Purpose training session
£4,935.00
The KNOW
02/04/07
One attendee to Common Purpose training session
£4,935.00
The KNOW
25/07/07
One attendee of the York Focus Programme
£3,055.00
05/07/07
One attendee of the Profile 2007 Programme
£1,151.50
17/08/07
One attendee of the Autumn Focus Programme
£3,084.38
18/09/07
One attendee to Common Purpose Wales Navigator
£3,525.00
Programme
26/09/07
One attendee of the Matrix Programme
£4,964.38
03/10/07
One attendee of the Navigator Programme
£3,525.00
19/10/07
One attendee of the Navigator South Coast 2007
£1,000.00
27/11/07
One attendee of the Matrix Prorgamme
£4,964.38
21/12/07
One attendee of the Matrix Programme
£4,964.38
18/01/08
One attendee to Common Purpose Merseyside Matrix
£4,964.38
29/01/08
One attendee of the Matrix Programme
£4,964.37
29/01/08
One attendee of the Matrix Programme
£2,496.87
28/01/08
One attendee of the Matrix Programme
£3,525.00
30/01/08
One attendee of The KNOW
£4,964.38
30/01/08
One attendee of the Profile Programme
£1,175.00
19/03/08
One attendee of the InsideOUT course
£1,468.75
TOTAL
£63,662.77
2008/09 (year-to date) Ministry of Justice HQ, Her Majesty’s Court Service, Tribunals Service,
Wales Office, National Offender Management Service, Office for Criminal Justice Reform and
Office of Public Guardian:
20/05/08
One attendee of a Common Purpose training
£4,230.00
programme (unnamed on records)
28/05/08
One attendee of the Focus Programme
£1,500.00
30/05/08
One attendee of the KNOW Programme
£4,700.00
03/06/08
One attendee of the Profile Programme 2008
£1,175.00
04/06/08
One attendee of the Navigator Programme
£2,937.50
11/06/08
One attendee of the Navigator Programme
£2,937.50
11/06/08
One attendee of the Navigator Programme
£2,937.50
03/07/08
One attendee of North Staff Focus
£1,762.50
10/07/08
Credit Note
-£1,762.50
02/10/08
One attendee of Leading Beyond Authority
£293.75
Masterclass
21/10/08
One attendee to InsideOUT
£2,937.50
03/11/08
One attendee to InsideOUT
£2,937.50
11/11/08
One attendee to Common Purpose RealEdge
£4,112.50
06/01/09
One attendee to The KNOW
£5,175.00
20/0109
One attendee to Tyne & Wear Meridian 2009
£5,175.00
TOTAL
£41,048.75

[non-sheep]

New Local Government Network , some very interesting names

NLGN is governed by Board Members. Representing a broad base of experience in local government, the Board Members’ commitment has helped to make NLGN the respected organisation that it is.

Individual board members represent NLGN at conferences and seminars. They also head-up project teams and contribute intellectually to NLGN publications and debates within the local government media.

NLGN Chair:
Iain Roxburgh
Senior Associate Fellow, Local Government Centre, Warwick Business School and former Chief Executive of Coventry City Council



Board Member:
Sir Steve Bullock
Directly-elected Mayor, London Borough of Lewisham



Board Member:
John Foster
Chief Executive, London Borough of Islington



Board Member:
Peter Gilroy
Chief Executive, Kent County Council



Board Member:
Gavin Jones
Chief Executive, Swindon Borough Council



Board Member:
Pauleen Lane



Board Member:
Ben Lucas
Managing Director, 2020 Public Services Trust at the RSA



Board Member:
Professor Steve Martin
Professor of Public Policy & Management & Director of the Centre for Local & Regional Government Research, Cardiff University



Board Member:
Amanda McIntyre
Director of Employment Related Services Association (ERSA)



Board Member:
Robbie Owen
Partner and Head of Major Projects, Bircham Dyson Bell LLP



Board Member:
Helen Randall
Head of the Public Sector Commercial Department, Trowers & Hamlins LLP



Board Member:
Jane Roberts
Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and Director of Quality and Performance, NHS Islington



Board Member:
Nick Sharman
Managing Director, Local Government, Amey



Board Member:
Gerry Stoker
Professor of Politics and Governance, University of Southampton



Board Member:
Paul Walker
Chief Executive, Hartlepool Borough Council

[non-sheep]

Could it be that Councils are not only 'common purpose' led but are also operating through the LSP (Local Strategic Partenrship) that have well placed graduates , especially for 'childrens services'

Why does for instance Kent County Council childrens board not have an elected member such as all the other boards i.e. police, climate change etc

This seems rather strange, why would they want it to be only officer led?

Most councillors have not got a clue about the LSP and of course you will have a few placed on the main board, but only those who wont rock the boat or their gravy train.

[TonyGosling]

What exactly are you doing non-sheep with all these posts??
The site is down so let's discuss why/how/what we can do eh?

[non-sheep]

no problem Tony

apparently it wont be for much longer

you may or may not find this of interest

UK Column Hits The Streets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIjkrx14YHM