AIBU to be horrified by the Stolen Children of England

[LivingOnTheDancefloor]

I just watched a French documentary called "England's stolen children" and can't believe this is happening in England. Horrifying, scary, unbelievable, it is like a horror movie...

Basically, social services are taking babies from their parents based on suspicion that abuse might happen in the future, except that the decision is made based on ridiculous things.
A lady had her three children taken from her, including a breastfed baby because she went to the ER for a child's broken ankle and they judged that he must have been beaten by his parents (only based on the ankle). X years later the parents manage to prove the fracture was due to scorbut. And they found out the initial report from the ER says "no sign of fracture".
The judge admitted they shouldn't have taken the children and the parents were innocents. But the children were given to adoption so the parents will never see them again.
That is just one of the stories.
Some women are told while pregnant that their newborn will be taken as soon as he arrives (and thzney do it).
The documentary says it is due to the facts that counties have to reach a number of children given to adoption so they target poor/uneducated parents and find any reason to take their children.
And as fostering costs money to the state they prefer adoption.

AIBU to ask if you heard about it here in the UK? And if yes, what do you think? Could it be true or are they exagerating?

I am really shaken.

www.google.fr/amp/s/researchingreform.net/2016/11/14/englands-stolen-children-controversial-new-documentary-on-forced-adoption/amp/?client=safari

Sorry, no idea how to post links, and I am on my phone

[Natsku]

Urgh sorry you've been getting abuse for the good work you've been doing Spero.

[haystack10]

Spero, so sorry to hear about the personal threat and verbal attack. How worrying, will the police be keeping an eye on this person now? I just wanted to bring up a few points you made yesterday. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I want to make that clear. Because of my own personal experiences and realising that parents (particularly on a low income) have absolutely nowhere to turn when there is injustice, I'm always trying to find if there is actually somewhere/ someone and also why this injustice happens? When you have personally seen under "risk assessment" parents have made many complaints to the authorities and similar "risk" reasons then even I as a lay person can see that's very wrong. The common assumption is that there is usually some other factor causing concern but in my friends' case, there really wasn't. When you notify other agencies including nspcc, mp's, ministers, ombudsman with evidence of not only wrongdoings but children being put at risk and physically harmed by the actions of SW's and the complicity of the Guardian then something is going on. This is fact, not a conspiracy theory. Which brings me to what I wanted to ask: (dons crash helmet) the different view of the Lianne Smith case given on the PAIN site was from someone who was in the courtroom, why do you not believe even in the possibility of that version as opposed to mainstream media? Have to admit, to believe this version would be to disbelieve the evidence of the eldest daughter which also seems wrong. But my question is why do you completely disbelieve the PAIN version an the UK Column version who claim they have actually discussed the case with Lianne Smith in person? Who was incidentally Lianne Smith was a childrens sevices manager herself. UK Column believe that she had been revealing the wrongdoings of SS and then found herself and partner on the receiving end. Now I know it seems fantastical to most people but when you've seen the evinence I've seen, there is doubt. If you or any other MN's reply to me can you please give me more than just, they are all a bunch of malignant conspiracists, that doesn't tell me anything. Also, how do you know the ex SW was mentally ill? In one of my previous posts I explained how the SW reported my friend as having long term mental ill health. Despite a doctor's letter confirming never had mental ill health, this false evidence remains in reports to this day. So how do you know for certain that the ex SW has mental ill health? Magic changes wrote that she sonds lucid, plausible and has a remarkable memory for dates and events. On her own admission she has twice been sectioned under the mental health act. Also, deluded. Well she would sound deluded when she's saying things that people don't want to hear or dare not believe. As for being sectioned, she claims this was done deliberately. Hogwash, you're all saying. But remember, my friend has been labelled mentally ill despite a doctor's letter saying never. DeriArms is horrified by the "conspiracy stuff" and says its a distraction from any meaningful dialogue but look at the other side. Victims might feel that the meaningful dialogue should be about their children who have been taken, I know I would. Spero, I'd also like to point out that re the speeding up of adoptions, for my friends that would have been less concerning than the fact they're in that position from false reports in the first place. It makes no difference if your children are being wrongly taken, how long it takes! They are being taken and no one will help! There is oppression in this country, harm being done to children by the state. That should be the meaningful dialogue. The victims can't really take part in the meaningful discussions because they no longer believe in anything except injustice and grieving for their lost children. Thank you Spero for reading and anyone else.

[Spero]

The first point I have to make is that I am not omniscient. I could be wrong. That is always possible.

So why do I think I am right to be very wary of UK Column, Brian Gerrish and Hemming etc? Why do I think that people who allege that Liane Smith was a victim of a corrupt system and her partner was murdered in prison are delusional?

General point: I have now spent since 2011 reading and worrying about this issue. Since 2014 I have dedicated considerable amounts of my time to researching, travelling, talking, thinking etc. I have collected many of my thoughts here childprotectionresource.online/forced-adoption/

If you read that you will see that I acknowledge many of the concerns about the system that some of the conspiracy theorists share. But what is very different between them and I is what we think the causes are.

And this really matters. Because if you devote your energies to seeking to prove that social workers carry about a list of the blue eyed babies they wish to steal, you are distracted from the real and serious issues about the speeding up of care proceedings, the lack of support and resources for families, the governments' narrative that adoption is the best (and only) way.

More specific explanations. I have watched a two hour video of Carol Woods. Yes, she sounds quite lucid. But the things she is saying are insane. She has also been sectioned at least twice. To believe that she is not mentally ill I would have to believe that an entire system of mental health professionals were 'in' on some kind of conspiracy to lock her up to prevent her speaking the truth. And yet, were so stupid that they release her and allow her to go on YouTube and reveal to the world what they were doing?

This is not how repressive states act. People who attempt to reveal what they are doing 'disappear' and are killed. They certainly don't get to publicise what the State is doing.

I am in contact with someone who has been in the court throughout the entire Marie Black trial and who sends me constant emails about the injustice of those proceedings. Marie Black is entirely innocent and has been 'fitted up' for daring to defy social workers.

this person also sends me emails about how the State monitors her phone and have been interfering in her attempts to find love online by erasing all messages from suitable romantic partners and replacing them with only messages from old men.

I am afraid the reality is that some people are mentally ill and quite seriously delusional. The stories they tell are believable because sadly many people do have bad experiences with professionals - have been treated unkindly or unfairly.

But - based on my experience and my research - I am very firmly of the view that any narrative that the system is engorged with some huge 'Common Purpose' fuelled corruption is false. The emails I get from those who want to believe otherwise are usually along the lines of those sent by Richard Black. They do not inspire me to reject the conclusions of now many years of hard work and genuine attempts to keep my mind and my eyes open.

[Spero]

Re Liane Smith in particular.

Two versions of events. Which sounds more believable?

VERSION A Liane Smith was a social worker manager. She was going to whistle blow about corruption in the system so her partner was arrested on the false evidence that he had sexually abused her eldest daughter. She then travels in fear to Spain where she murders her two youngest children in effectively a 'mercy killing' to stop them going into the evil care system.Her partner is then murdered in prison to silence him.

VERSION B Liane Smith was a social worker manager. Like many women before her, she fell in love with an extremely dangerous paedophile who molested her eldest daughter. That daughter complained to the police and her partner was arrested, tried and convicted. He then committed suicide in prison. Liane Smith travelled to Spain and killed her children to support her narrative that they were at risk from an evil system. This presumably was to distract herself from the reality of her terrible truth; that she had created an opportunity for a paedophile to abuse her daughter and now had two children with him.

I know what one I think is more credible. Hint. It's not the first one. To believe the first one you now have to believe that this corruption spreads throughout the entire child protection system in the UK and the criminal justice system of both the UK AND Spain. I am afraid I don't buy it for one second.

[conserveisposhforjam]

It's so sad and so common that men seem to be abusive to women based on whether or not they find them sexually attractive. What that has to do with anything I don't know....

Well it's all he's got isn't it? He can't compete on anything else. Education, wealth, personality, achievements.... And they learn quite early on that it's irrefutable - 'I don't want to fuck you anyway'. No-one can say 'well that's not true'.

And if you're a massive misogynist you probably think it's quite a good insult. Given that women are just sitting around waiting for your penis to notice them...

[Spero]

Of course. That's why I hope I try to be at least measured in my responses. His email clearly comes out of a lot of personal pain. No one who had other reliable resources would be sending this kind of crap around over email.

But I think it shows there is a risk we have all internalised this message that a woman's worth comes from whether a man wants to stick his penis in her or not. He thinks its a legitimate insult and expects me to be wounded and upset by it. Really sad on every level.

[conserveisposhforjam]

I'm 100% positive we've internalised that! My dd on the other hand...

[MagicChanges]

I'm glad to hear that the police took this matter seriously Spero and it seems handled it in a sensitive and competent manner. Have you any idea who he is or how he has found out about you. I suppose that's one of the pitfalls of social media, it does make it easier to get hold of someone's personal details.

I imagine he's a parent whose child has been stolen by social workers and adopted. I do from time to time go on the "Stop Forced Adoption" site and have been astonished at the venom that has been unleashed in my direction, especially since they discovered I am a retired social worker. I actually do feel a fair amount of compassion for parents in this situation as I have never come across abusive/neglectful parents who were not treated in a similar way in their childhood, though sadly they are unable to make the connection because they are largely unable to understand abstract concepts. I'm not saying of course that all parents who were abused will go on to repeat that pattern, indeed many will thankfully go in the opposite direction.

I am currently in debate (I use the term loosely) with Tim Haines who it turns out is quite a nasty piece of work who doesn't like anyone putting up counter arguments to his conspiracy crap, and resorts to personal insults. He says I'm a troll and I honestly don't know what a troll is!!

I know you will be careful not to give out any of your personal details on social media, but the trouble is with 192.com it is possible to find someone's address if you know their name. So do report anything suspicious to the police.
The video of Carol Woods (how on earth did you cope with listening to a 2 hour video.........) about 5-10 minutes is of course up on "Stop Forced Adoption" which I am told is the JFF site. It is very strange as when people have a psychotic mental illness with delusions, they usually don't sound lucid and have the sort of recall that she has - their speech is often rapid and difficult to understand - not the case with her - very unusual, but as you say there is no doubt that she is suffering a psychotic illness. Of course I am being told I must think I'm a psychiatrist etc. I saw her on a video about a year ago and I hate to say this as it sounds judgemental, but I decided she was mentally ill just by looking at her and this was confirmed when she started talking.

I don't know anything about the Liane Smith case. Sounds very sad. I'm wondering if MN will end this thread as I think they do at a certain point?

[Spero]

Yes police were great and very kind. I wouldn't hesitate to go back again if I was worried. Richard Black has some kind of proxy IPN address so I couldn't trace him but he hasn't sent anything abusive since.

I am no expert and I can't diagnose someone who is mentally ill but I don't think that being lucid can automatically disqualify you from being delusional. My frequent emailer writes very clearly and persuasively - but the things she says cannot possibly be true.

For e.g. is she is convinced that she is under surveillance as a person of interest in whistle blowing on a corrupt state, to the extent that the state will mess about with her internet dating and block her phone periodically. I would have thought if the state was as dangerous and corrupt as she continues to allege, it would be quicker and cheaper just to have her killed. But no, the almighty and powerful state is out to get her - it just can't stop her sending emails to almost every identifiable conspiracy theorist I know.

I am sure Christopher Booker for e.g. would be a bit alarmed if he knew she was forwarding his email chains to me.

The video I saw of Carol Woods made me feel very uneasy. She had a hat on and dark glasses throughout. She was never challenged by Brain Gerrish, just urged to say more and more. I wonder what her presentation would have been if she had been challenged on some of the more baroque things she was saying. She was only just a few weeks off the section when interviewed if I recall correctly.

Again, they allege that the state would go to all that trouble to lock someone up on a fake section BUT would do nothing to stop them spilling their guts all over YouTube when they got out?? Makes no sense to me.

[Memoires]

I have tried to play the CW video on youtube, but it won't run - in fact, none of hers do - do you know if they're about to be cut, or something?

[Natsku]

Being lucid and remembering dates etc. definitely doesn't disqualify someone from being delusional. My ex has been diagnosed with delusional disorder and even in the middle of a delusion he is very lucid and very believable.

[offrambling]

Spero in your post yesterday you wrote in version B, that you would have to believe that corruption spreads throughout the entire child protection system in the UK and the criminal jusyice system of both UK and Spain. But this is incorrect. Liane Smith did kill her children in Spain and is imprisoned in Spain. No corruption there. If the partner did commit suicide in prison, no corruption there. The child protection was only in one area of the UK, therefore not the entire child protection system in the UK either. If the partner was murdered that again would be just one prison. So a gross exaggeration on your part. Are these the exaggerations sometimes used in court? You also state in B that he commited suicide before the Spain murders when in fact it was after. So now we have a smaller catalogue of "errors" and as I understand it you have recognised there are some injustices but not widespread.

[offrambling]

You also stated about Carol Woods, that you would have to believe that an entire system of mental health professionals were in on some kind of conspiracy to lock her up, when in fact only one is needed. The repressive states you mentioned where people are killed. Maybe in UK it is simply label them mentally ill, place in mental hospital for a while. This is probably sufficient to quieten most people but Carol has been brave enough to speak out.

[DeriArms]

Louise Tickle has written about this issue in today's Guardian:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/13/breaking-up-families-councils-child-adoptions

Sorry, not sure how to make a proper link from my phone.

[Manumission]

Yes I read that Deri. The family lawyer she quotesnis clearly not Spero

[DeepanKrispanEven]

You also stated about Carol Woods, that you would have to believe that an entire system of mental health professionals were in on some kind of conspiracy to lock her up, when in fact only one is needed.

Not so. For someone to be sectioned and kept under section wrongly, it would indeed require a number of mental health professionals to collude or to take leave of their senses all at the same time.

[Spero]

But this is incorrect. Liane Smith did kill her children in Spain and is imprisoned in Spain. No corruption there

Sorry. I am confused. I thought Liane Smith killed her children to save them from the horrible, evil corrupt UK system that murdered her partner. So a bit weird her Spanish defence lawyer wasn't running this? Maybe even to get her a lighter sentence on the grounds that she was a wee bit mentally ill?

But no. She got done for murder. Which it was.

But you cannot have your cake, eat it and then expect me to marvel at the cherry on top. If Liane Smith's partner was NOT a paedophile, if he did NOT abuse her daughter, if he was in fact murdered in prison as punishment for Liane Smith whistle blowing, then the Spanish criminal justice system is just as complicit as the UK system.

Grow up. You do nobody any service whatsoever by giving any kind of credence to this absolute nonsense.

[Spero]

I can indeed confirm that I am not the family lawyer that Louise Tickle quotes - but I am interested as to why that person did not have the courage of their convictions and allowed his/her name to be used.

I wonder if it is Marie Clare Sparrow, the barrister who appeared on the 'debate' panel after the French documentary with Ian Josephs and the fragrant Florence.

[offrambling]

Spero why do you admit there are injustices yet tell us we should give no credence to the possibility of injustice in this case? Maybe your eyes and ears are not as open as you want us to believe. Firstly we have the gross exaggeration of the"entire"systems and then we should not give "any kind of credence to this absolute nonsense". This is the dismissive side of family court lawyers parents usually see, isn't it ? Add to that the "grow up" comment shows your disdain of anyone who questions your opinion. Because that is all we have isn't it, your opinion but stated as though it is absolute fact. Exactly as it is within the Family Court, opinions without facts. An associate of mine is at this moment packing to travel abroad to visit his brother who has had to flee the UK. The brother and his wife have had their first baby removed under the usual most used grounds "risk of future emotional harm". Before you start on your usual conspiracy rant of Hemmings & Co., this young couple have bravely done this alone. They have sold everything and left the country. They are not under the radar and they are living and working abroad. Furthermore, they have had another baby. The family has been fully assessed in the authorities of that country deem the parents fully capable of raising that child, in that country. This is very different to the image you portray of parents fleeing, under the radar, living in caravans, sent there by Hemmings. The couple's new baby will be raised in the foreign country and it's sibling is being raised by strangers in the UK. You don't mention these cases do you, Spero, where parents are legitimately raising new families in other countries, NOT in caravans and approved as fit parents by the authorities? Incidentally, the job of raising the first baby was never offered to any of the extended family, so there goes another myth. I believe all the injustices will one day be brought out into the open. As the saying goes Spero, you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people, all of the time.

[Manumission]

I don't think spero is trying to fool anyone. I think she's passionate, good at job and belivers everything she says to be completely accurate.

I've realised what it is about this subject that niggles me slightly (besides so much certainty, which always makes me nervous).

Or I should say I've remembered. Twenty years ago in a social science lecture (possibly a specific course/module about children and families) we were taught that child protection practice always swings in a pendulum from overly cautious to overly optimistic and back again.

I vividly remember a time-plotted graph with famously tragic cases (Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford, Riki Neave) marked on it showing how they provoked a swing back towards caution each time.

This seemed to be the orthodoxy then. Has it been disproved?

[Thisjustinno]

I know several families in this country who SS have assesses as able to look after some of their children but others are in care or put up for adoption.

Going to another country and being permitted to keep one child doesn't mean SS were wrong to remove one or more in the UK.

[Manumission]

Rikki Neave.

[Manumission]

Sorry I should clarify.

What I mean is, is current thinking that CP/SW has been refined so that it has outgrown the pendulum model? (Obviously to an extent the pattern would be historical fact.)

[offrambling]

Manumission I feel the pendulum is now firmly embedded in the "rather than support, remove" end.

[offrambling]

Thisjustin how is it possible to be such bad parents that you have a child removed from its family permanently and yet other siblings remain at home?