to think that John Hemming is a dangerous man?

[Spero]

For all the Hemming apologists - please read this.

www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/04/27/hemming-an-abuse-of-privilege/

Sardine - Cote's example was about a woman who killed her children. I am not talking about SID or Professor Sir Roy Meadows. She may be an absolute sweetie pie but her example was an interesting insight into where she puts the rights of the child on the scale.

Khyra's case is a horrible example of what happens when you don't intervene. I am trying to persuade CoteD that SS don't intervene on filmsy or no evidence. They might be too heavy handed, they might get too spooked by particular concerns but there ARE ALWAYS concerns.

I would like CoteD et al to think about when they would have intervened with Angela Gordon and her family. Becuase 'waiting for actual proof' of harm is a bit of a risky strategy when a child is being starved isn't it?

Yukoncher - I hope you can find someone helpful - there are lots of places who offer counselling on a sliding costs scale depending on income or even for free, but I accept waiting lists are long. But you should have got some help at the time, if you didn't I certainly think it is worth asking them what is available now.

Thanks, Sardine. That is obviously what I was saying.

I agree with you re Khyra Ishaq. She was clearly being abused and her death was a failure of SS, like Baby P.

Her case has nothing to do with the women with no history of abuse, whose babies are threatened with removal at birth regardless, such as Fran Lyon.

Goth - As I said to the other SS on this thread, I'd love to hold your hand and educate you myself, but I have better things to do.

CoteDAzur.

I know it was an example. It was a particularly horrible example. Do you stand by it?

So you know everything there is to know about Fran Lyon's case do you? You KNOW there were no concerns 'no history of abuse' no nothing??

You don't know, of course you don't. So raise concerns by all means, but try to distinguish your own prejudices from actual facts.

Doesn't it concern you at all that someone genuinely thought you were Ian Josephs???

Funny isn't it Cote that whenever you are challenged to explain yourself a bit better you get rather sneery and say you can't hold our hands and explain anything?

You are not helping your cause. But I doubt you care.

Why couldn't your colleagues see that Khyra Ishaq was being starved to death in their myriad visits to her home, Spero? Surely they should be able to see signs of starvation. Why didn't they?

Is it not their incompetence that enabled her family to kill her?

The proof was there for them to see. Did they not notice the color of her skin, the sunken eyes, the bony arms? Did they even talk to her?

Wow, signed off at just after nine last night, logged back on earlier and this thread's gone mental. Am going to read it all shortly (by far the most interesting and thought provoking thread I've read on MN), but just wanted to say

Spero and yukoncher thank you very much for your replies to my questions (way up thread). As I said before, it's fascinating and enlightening to hear your inside experiences, Spero, and hearing your experiences yukoncher is harrowing but also enlightening. It sounds like you needed (and should have been given) so so much more support and advice than you received.

You are right Spero. I don't care if you die ignorant (Gasp. Horror. She said "die" again ). You think SS everywhere take newborns away on fortuneteller's stories about possible events of the future. You are wrong.

And I don't have a "cause". Unlike you, I don't have a horse in this race.

"Khyra's case is a horrible example of what happens when you don't intervene."

But SS DID intervene. They didn't do their job properly.

WHY are SS and SW so horrified at the idea that they should be more open and transparent in their dealings with people? What on earth is wrong with that?

The high profile examples that are always brought up on these threads of "look what happens when SS don't intervene you want children to suffer you horrible people" are always cases where SS have been heavily involved with the family and have royally cocked up. I do not understand why they are always brought up. All they prove is that some SW and some SS departments are incompetent (as shown by the enquiries that have followed). Using these examples in this context makes no sense as far as I can see.

Cote - part of the problem was Angela Gordon wouldn't co-operate or let people in her house. Personally I would have got the police round to kick her door down after the second refusal to let SW in but no doubt that would not be acceptable to you because I would be operating on only fears for the future.

Yes, you don't have a horse in the race. You don't have 15 years experience of what really goes on. It is not perfect, not by a long chalk, but it is not a system that IN ANY WAY promotes or enjoys 'babysnatching' on filmsy evidence or no concerns.

JH and IJ are cut from the same cloth. I gain considerable satisfaction from the fact that JH has refused to respond to any question seeking clarification about the nature and extent of his collaboration with Ian Joseph. That tells me all I need to know.

But it is pointless trying to engage with you. You hide behind vague assertions that you can't evidence. I can only hope you might just think for a little about the impact of your ill inrormed opinions on any parents out there who are scared and don't know what to do for the best. If you have helped any into the welcoming arms of JH and IJ I hope you might have it in you to feel a little bit ashamed.

Sardine - the reasons people are concerned about privacy in children's case is that the children want it to be private. There was research about children's reactions to increased media intervention that influenced the government against allowing further reporting.

I suggested much earlier on there could be benefit to more openess when the children were too young to know what is going on.

I wasn't talking about privacy in my last post I was talking about transparency.

With other authorities, when you become involved with them you are carefully told what your rights are, what powers the authorities have, what will happen when and how, and what the penalties are for not complying.

None of this happens with SS and it makes people very scared.

Spero SS in this country and with Angela Gordon had the authority to get the police to get them entry.

The fact that they did not do that was their mistake. They did not do their jobs properly.

I still fail to see what this case and others like it have to do with anything. Cases which prove that some SW are incompetent being used to prove that SW never do anything wrong? It doesn't make sense. I think that posters think that raising these high profile cases will shut people up, even though they have nothing to do with the issues being discussed.

I don't think JH is dangerous

I think the family courts should be more open
I think forced adoption is wrong

The number of miscarriages of justice in this area is unknown such is the secrecy and you can't reverse adoption (currently)

EldonAve
Have you read Trippy's story? You really don't think JH is actively dangerous?

Family courts are secret to protect children.

Forced adoption is in the interest of the child. It is not in the interest of the child to remain under the care of the state in foster care when they could be adopted. Therefore, if parents won't agree, and can't care for them, forced adoption is the only option.

Adoption will never be reversible, in this country anyway, because we know it would be damaging to children.

I think a lot of people who speak against 'forced adoption' etc are essentially well meaning, kind and good parents, who literally can't imagine the scale of vileness and uselessness that some 'parents' can inflict on their children. Lucky for them. Unless you have met child after child after child who has been mistreated, damaged, and in some cases destroyed :( by this sort of 'parent' you really can't imagine why our child protection services are necessary.

Sardine - so what will greater transparency do to the rights of children for their dirty family secrets to remain private? the two concepts are inseperably linked. You can't have greater transparency without recognising the impact this has on privacy.

I think I will now write to Nick Clegg asking him
a) to confirm what the LibDem policy is with regard to the current system of child protection, specifically with regard to reassurance that it is NOT LibDem policy to encourage people not to co-operate with SS or to leave the country if SS wish to intervene
b) If I can gather sufficient proof to put before him that JH is actively involved in helping people leave the country rather than co-operate with SS, does he think that it is appropriate that JH operates in this way using the title of a Member of Parliament, who stood and was elected as a Liberal Democrat?
c) and if JH continues to act in this way whilst advertising himself to be an MP, and this is not a policy which the Lib Dem party endorses (agreeing that it is likely to put vulnerable children at risk of significant harm), what steps can it take to expell JH from the party?

Sardine - your point about SS not telling people their rights - all I can sensibly comment on is what happens just before SS want to apply to court. in these circumstances they have to send a pre proceedings letter which sets out their concerns, what the parents can do to alleviate said concerns and tells the parents very clearly about their right to immediate and free legal representation. I am not sure what else can be done to make sure parents know their rights.

Spero you are saying that parents who have done nothing wrong and come to the attention of SS do not deserve to be made aware of what is going on, what it all means, what powers SS have, what teh procedures are, who they can complain to if they think something is wrong, and so on and so on and so on?

I get this information when I have contact with nursery, school, my GP, my hospital, the police, everyone. Why should SS not follow the same principles of transparency?

You talk about people getting a letter just before they get to court. Presumably people don't get to court for weeks, months, maybe even years. Are you really saying that one letter at that stage is adequate? That's ridiculous.

Or even ones who have done something wrong.

As a general principle, people should be made aware of how it all works, what it all means. At the moment it's a obaque. This makes people scared. I have already given a lot of good reasons why people being scared of SS is not a good thing for anyone.

I love how much confidence people speak about these cases with, they know for sure that SS really did go in with little proof and try to snatch babies who weren't in danger. It must be true, the parents said so.

We have one side of these stories, we don't hear from SS, not because they don't want to admit they're making a mess and what that parent says is true but because they legally can't.

We're so quick to believe the parents and write social workers off that we're happy to accept what the parents and idiots like JH have to say.

Maybe it's not a brilliant system, maybe they do make mistakes but don't make the mistake of believing everyone who tells their "story" about how hard done by they are. Every abusive parent will tell you one, they all think they're hard done by, by social workers or someone, anyone to take the blame as long as they don't have to.

(Did have to reading through this to see me being quoted, as soon as I saw JH here I thought the same thing)

Something that occurred to me yesterday and annoyed me, he replaced Estelle! What was Yardley thinking? I know she retired but they could have done better than him! Just glad I wasn't voting in the area then.

Um, adoption in this country clearly is 'reversible' ? but only by the adoptive parents. A horrifying proportion of adoptions break down. Unbearably sad.

Confuddled - there are a few cases where judges have made their findings public because they were extremely concerned at the behaviour of social services. The Nottinghamshire case I mentioned where SWs steamed in and removed a baby from a maternity ward without a court order, for instance.

Adoption is not 'reversible' - children whose adoptions break down are not 'unadopted'.

The vast majority of adoptions do not break down. I don't know what your point is, to be honest.

confuddledDOTcom
you warn people not to believe what birth mothers say about SS (because its biased, and abusive parents will try and lie obv.)

However, if someone comes on here telling their story and blaming John Hemming, they're instantly believed by all John Hemming opposers.