non-sheep
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 176
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Ask yourself a question, then answer: Why is the Family Court so secretive? It is clearly not designed to protect the
identities of the children as entire communities are made fully aware, by child protection officers, school principals,
teachers, even through themselves putting two and two together, of what is occurring before, during and after the "case" is
heard. Who is Section 97 Paragraph 2 of the Children Act 1989 C.41 /actually/ protecting, if not the chidren? This section of
the Act claims to protect the identities of children by banning the publication of any materials that may identify the
children themselves (a moot point since the children are already known), solicitors, judges, barristers, social workers,
psychologists, police (or rather more accurately, corporate enforcement) officers, to name but a few; people who do not want
to be identified with Britain's largest and most well-protected, secretive and insidious child trafficking ring.
It is through actions of people such as but not limited to these, that families that have done nothing wrong to anybody,
least of all their own children, are forcibly separated and the children are decamped to contract care (because that is what
they are, let's be realistic here; at £400+ per child per week, they aren't doing it out of love), and the parents are left
to rot in the mire not of their making. Unable to speak out about the "case" even after it has finished not only because
nobody with influence seems to be listening, but also because of the perpetual threat of jail without charge or trial. But
what they are left with is far, far worse than any jail cell. What they are left with is inconsolable grief that one human
being (and I use that term loosely) can do this to another.
That's nothing compared with the danger the children suddenly find themselves in.
Having been ripped from their loving parents' arms, these children are dumped into the laps of people with pound signs in
their eyes. The only condition of their contract seems to be to make sure the children are fed and clothed; beyond that,
alive. No consideration given to their happiness or willingness to carry on living apart from their parents, no consideration
from the outset of the process to snatch them, given to their wishes and feelings. And of course, there is the childrens'
problem of explaining to their school friends why the only times their parents show up at the school, providing they're not
prohibited by court order from doing so, is at parents' evenings and school plays. Which in itself brings up the problem of
bullying. Kids can be very cruel to one another, and they'll use the slightest excuse. Being in care is gold.
And what is the reason for these children being put into care in the first place?
The Act brought in new definitions of abuse. Let's not beat around the bush here, there are cases where abuse is obvious, and
we're not protecting or condoning child abuse by parents or anybody else - which is the point of this letter - in the form of
physical, sexual or mental/emotional abuse, however the new forms included something called "risk of [whatever] harm". The
Act brought crystal ball predictions into the mix. And a very, very large door, left wide open to abuse. Which was
immediately taken advantage of. But that's not the whole. It is only a piece of the puzzle.
Some bright spark decided it might be a great idea to lock down the Family Court for such child protection cases using
Section 97, so the wider public would be kept unaware of what was actually going on. In a nutshell, parents are denied their
own voice during hearings, they are not allowed to bring their own witnesses, lay or expert, and the single judge makes
decisions which affect entire families based on the assertions of those involved in the child "protection" industry and
cherry-picked and very highly paid single expert witnesses.
What makes the system fail miserably as far as the parents are concerned is the fact that the entire legal presence in that
courtroom are Family Panel affiliated - all the solicitors, barristers and even sometimes the judge. All specifically trained
and instructed by each other and Government policy in how to proceed to separate families forever. The anchor of a lot of
cases is "risk of emotional harm". This phrase has no legal definition, yet family court judges and others in the racket use
it with impunity. What they also do with impunity is to dispose of that annoying little thing called basic human rights. No,
you don't have the right to freedom of expression, or the right to live securely in your own home with your family, nor do
you have the right to freedom of association, or the right to protest your innocence in a court system where you are guilty
until, heaven forbid, you can actually prove your own innocence. Your own solicitors, having already been paid by the
Criminal Law Association out of the Taxpayers' pocket, have no further incentive to work for you; they do, however, have
plenty of incentive to work for the Local Authority in making sure you lose your case. Their membership on the Family Panel
depends entirely on their making the money flow. That same Family Panel is the one that writes referrals for well-behaved
solicitors so they can get work in the Family Court - criminal law solicitors won't touch Family Court with a barge pole.
It's the rules.
When they've done their damage, the real abuse begins. Emotionally-wrecked children are snatched from the arms (literally) of
their emotionally-wrecked and tortured parents, and sent to live with complete strangers. These strangers are the ones we all
warn our children about. We don't know what they're doing to our children - they could be locking them in small windowless
rooms when they get too difficult to handle, or drugging them, smacking them, shipping them off to kiddie whorehouses,
burying them in shallow graves, or selling them. Who knows?
The children know and the contract carers know. Whether or not the child "protection" workers know is a mystery, but if they
do they're keeping awful quiet about it for some reason. It does make us wonder if CPS are protecting their own backs because
they know precisely what is going on and all hell would break loose if it got out that children in care are getting beaten,
starved, raped, sold and murdered on a regular basis - with a mortality rate among children in care three times higher than
children not in care, the question should be asked of everyone involved in the Family Law industry and asked in ever louder
voices until satisfactory answers are given, as to what the hell they think they're doing with our children.
Of course, we hear stories about Chinese children being stolen to order - and Romanian, African, even American children. What
the media is silent about is the forced adoption that goes on in Britain. This is where the Care System goes one step further
and cuts off all contact between children and families already separated, and sends the children to live permanently with a
surrogate corporate parent so they can wash their hands of them.
This is one step too far in a system that already goes too far in destroying families to fulfill the Marxist dream of the
destruction of the family and the domination of the State in all our lives - even if it means breeding an entire generation
of criminals, which must surely be the endgame as the freedoms we were born with continue to be eroded through enforced
ignorance of them, and the increasingly complex system of commercial maritime law disguised as the Law of the Land being laid
down in its place. |
|
non-sheep
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 176
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another common Purpose pervert
http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/
NEW CARE SYSTEM ABUSE SENSATION: HOW EXACTLY WOULD VETTING & BARRING HAVE CAUGHT THIS MAN, MR BALLS?
The Slog has argued for over a year now that Britain's Care System is compromised by paedophiles already in it. Over that time, Liverpool, Staffordshire and Plymouth have been identified as areas where it is felt to be rife.
While the madness of 12 million citizens being vetted and barred continues, a new case in Liverpool suggests yet again that dangerous predators are already in the system.
Matthew Byrne faces 32 charges of rape, assault by penetration and false imprisonment.
He is accused of sex attacks on seven different women, and in some cases is alleged to have beaten the women with a cane, gagged, and throttled them for sexual pleasure - says the Liverpool Echo.
Byrne ran the Young Person’s Advisory Service, working with children as young as 10, and was an area organizer for the shadowy organization Common Purpose. CP hastily removed Mr Byrne’s name from their list of area organizers once the charges were announced.
Byrne is another potential case of a senior care-system position being used to indulge in various perverted practices. He is also a classic case in having high connections:
Heseltine and Cameron (above) with Big Cheese
This is how it happens, Ed Balls. Secretive Courts, secretive organisations, gagging orders and cover-ups. Please, please close down your Twitter account, get off your ample bottom - and do something. A lot less V & B security blankets, and a lot more real police work, if you please.
The Slog has devoted many articles over time to this problem. While some conspiracy theories in this area are lunatic fringe to say the least, the history of false imprisonment and trumped up charges against parents is a long one. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
