Panorama - I want my baby back(997 Posts)
This promoting of the idea that SS want to steal babies makes me very uneasy...
That's not a bad idea Spero, or perhaps ask MNHQ how best to go about it? I have to say I was rather hoping without JH domineering these threads, that it might be possible to start looking forward to solutions. I am really glad that has started to happen.
This may be a little premature, but with respect also to support for birth parents, and the issues around post adoption contact, The University of East Anglia has also been very active in researching this area, although sadly I am unaware how far the lessons from such research trickle down into practice. Maybe the MN guide could help that.
One such piece of research here:
Many more on their website:
One such piece of research here:
Many more on their website:
I can't see that it would be an issue with the forum, we're just trying to help each other really.
I wish I could go through and like posts today
Spero, if we start a thread in site stuff for now, we can carry on discussing and ask mn how we would go about suggesting a now topic, and if we also stick a thread in parenting asking for contributions we can also then get it moved if they do set up a new topic? And once its up and running, we can see what mnhq think about having an official 'backing' from them?
We still have a group on Facebook if anyone wants to join us.
Research links would be great. I am woefully lacking in knowledge of recent research, again the problem is getting the information out to people who need it, which is what I hope this could achieve.
Yep, I agree.
More help and support to families in need and less time wasted in useless and silly nonexistent conspiracies
Spero, why do you need MNHQ approval to post in the parenting forum?
Oh sorry I was not clear, I meant get in touch with HQ about possibility of an MN guide, and how best to go about that, not permission to post in the parenting topic!
Because i will be asking for people to join this blog/website whatever - i am vague on the rules but isn't there something about not linking to your own blogs? So it might be seen as 'not the done thing'. I dunno.
But we are reaching the end of our posting limits on this thread, so I assume the next best step is to start a new thread asking for help, ideas, content? Site stuff or parenting?
Sorry, what I mean is that a separate topic in parenting would be a good idea. BUT I thought the idea we are discussing here is something potentially bigger and more generally informative and useful i.e. signposting people to understandable and accurate information about how the system works, who works within it, what you need to do, who you need to speak to, what help is there, what to avoid, what works well, what doesn't.
Getting people like Guardians, midwives, psychologists, SW, lawyers etc to share their stories, along with birth parents who have actually gone through it or are going through it.
Anything to dispel the harmful misinformation that seems to be everywhere now.
So what I would hope for is that people coming to mumsnet for discussion could also find a link to our blog/website and that could broaden out their information gathering.
Yy i agree, just got a little distracted by the lack of an area devoted to this. And that was part of what i said about getting mnhq on board once we know what is happening - if there is an area for asking for advice, they can sticky a link to the blog/whatever it ends up being at the top, and officially back it
I'd say site stuff for now, so we can first see if mnhq want to get behind it, and then go from there. If they dont want to be on board atm, we can start a thread in parenting then (if thats okay) to see if anyone has anything to contribute. And if they do, then we see about separate area etc AND start a thread to ask for anyones contributions
OK, I will start something on site stuff.
One of my twitter people told me to check out Kellie Cottam, so I did and found she was linking to this article on her Facebook.
I am not sure if it is real? There is no journalists name. It seems too incredible, even for the Mail. But if it IS real, this underscores how desperately people need a non biased source of credible information...
OK, I have just put this in site stuff
I hope this makes sense.
I will contact my blogging friends tomorrow to see if they have some time to talk me through setting up a blog.
Anyone who wants to write ANYTHING, let me know. Equally, anyone who has any good links, to research, other blogs, useful cases.
Presumably any number of people can access a blog to edit it? so we can share out the work load once it is up and running.
holly has just sent me a message to say that this IS a real Mail link and it was written by Sue Reid in 2008.
Don't think I will be linking that to the blog.
Spero, I agree with you that all professionals, not just SWs, are potentially prey to the 'how dare you challenge me' type of thinking. I orginally meant to say I was drawing on parallels from the NHS, where this kind of thing has been a factor in inquiry after inquiry after inquiry when things have gone very badly wrong. But decided my post was far too long and chopped it.
Every inquiry into a tragedy or massive fuck-up promises 'lessons will be learned' but they very rarely are, sadly. In the NHS and I'm sure in other public services too. Often they are the same lessons, over and over again. Openness (or resistance) to challenge being one of the key factors.
I wonder if the DM know about this article being posted all over the net under their banner? I strongly suspect the lack of journalist, comments section and basic grammar checks show it to be fraudulent.
I doubt the DM will be quite so infatuated with a certain someone when they sees his blog regurgitated under it's name.
Holly tells me it was written by Sue Reid in 2008. she is still coming out with watered down versions of the same; this is so 'full on' and mad I can't quite believe even the Mail would publish it.
Actually, just re-read purported link; Holly must be wrong. This cannot be 2008, it refers to things that Mr Justice Munby was saying quite recently.
i think it is a fake. the Daily Mail journalist who came on this thread earlier, if you are still reading, do you think you should check this out?
It doesn't seem to be a fake, astonishingly. I tried putting a reasonably unique phrase from it into the Mail Online's search engine, and that article came up. I find it utterly shocking that they seriously published something saying Social Services were earmarking children to be snatched before birth, and that they produced so much anecdotal and totally untested "evidence" simply in order to scare their readers and promote JH's agenda.
Goodness. Just when you don't think it is possible the Daily Mail could sink even further in one's estimation, they manage to pull it off!
I have reported it to the PCC and said there are no facts or sources for the figures. Also pointed out that there is no journo name or comments section; the whole thing breaks most of the Editors Code of Practice [[ http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html]] and therefore I believe their site has been hacked. Also reported it to the DM as otherwise JH and the Hemming Lemmings will soon take over the paper without them realising.
If they have indeed posted this themselves it is disgusting. Really bad grammar too! So many BOLDED words...
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.