Vicky Haigh in Ireland

[johnhemming]

In my view not an acceptable way to treat a pregnant woman.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8500531/The-police-hunt-is-on-for-Vicky-Haigh-though-she-is-not-a-missing-person.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8485742/Vicky-Haigh-flees-the-babysnatchers.html

I would be very interested to hear the views of Mr Hemming's and his fan club about this case.

I note the interesting article in today's Times. Victoria Haigh was found to have 'manufactured' allegations about sexual abuse and 'caused' her daughter to repeat them.

the child now lives with her father.

Nice work! to what extent was Ms Haigh encouraged to make this up by Mr Hemming and his associates?

And did they just for one single solitary second stop to think about the impact this would have on the child?

Of course, that latter is a rhetorical question, I already know the answer. But I would be genuinely interested to an answer to the first.

False allegations also does no favours to those claiming abuse whose allegations are genuine.

Did they pause to consider that at all or were they so caught up in their ego tripping that nothing else mattered?

'do no favours'

I too wonder if John will be back on this thread

or

will he even continue too have an interest

I would really love to hear from the poster, forget who, can't be bothered to search, who likened Hemming to Nelson Mandela.

Please come back John! Give us your insight and views. Another bit of a bruising run in with Wall LJ again eh?

At least Elizabeth Watson has the courage to say she is sorry for what she has done. She has got a nine month custodial sentence. And what do you risk Mr Hemming?

o and in the absence of any other response I will have to assume that the answers to my questions above are
a) a great deal
b) not at all

I too saw the recent Times article and remembered this thread.
Are you coming back John Hemming?

I would be really interested on your view of this case now.

Oooo! Just been tweeted that an unidentified Labour Mp has called for him to resign due to his abuse of parliamentary privilege over this case.

I am sure he won't, just as we won't ever see him on this thread again to explain how on earth he got mixed up in this one.

Does anyone really think that JH will actually admit that he was wrong, about this case, or the countless others where he continues to peddle his dangerous views about Children's Services and the court process.

He is, in my humble opinion, a very dangerous man.

What?!? You will be saying there's no Santa next.

I believe he'll be back just as believe I wont regret this packet of fruit pastilles I am about to down in one.

But I had hoped that one or two of his acolytes might be tempted to come on and defend him. I am genuinely interested in trying to figure out how their minds work and how they twist everything to fit their world view. Difficult to spin this one though.

Spin they will Spero...

For the record - I would never say that Santa did not exist, but there again, I also think there may be fairies at the bottom of my garden

In the interests of balance, Mr. Hemming responds here:

johnhemming.blogspot.com/

I've never read his blog before.

He does well to avoid the issue of the wrecking of the father's reputation, and the hate campaign towards social workers.

I read a bit further down the page and found myself surprised to be agreeing with him about gang culture in relation to the recent riots - that was until he predictably brought it all back to being the fault of social workers having too much power. He does, however seem to concede that if intervention is warranted it should be done at an earlier stage - I guess we will disagree at what point is is warranted.

I love his blog! According to him, the courts real motive behind imprisoning those who record court hearings, is to save the revenues of the transcription services.

he also asks would it be right to remove Victoria Haigh's baby at birth?

Hmmm. Lets see. as she is the kind of woman who thinks it is perfectly fine to emotionally abuse her seven year old in the vilest kind of way, by coaching her to say that her dad sexually abused her - yes, actually I do.

Yet again he manages to make NO MENTION AT ALL of the child involved and the harm that was done to her.

As I understand it, the child is on the register because of the previous finding of abuse against Ms. Haigh. Mr. Hemming advised her to leave the country so as to prevent an assessment taking place.

And he pops up again here:

My favourite bit is "Rusty: Legal Expert"

I couldn't get that link to work so out of boredom curiosity I googled John Hemming You Tube and found an interesting interview where he is asked what the problem is with Social Services in light of Birmingham having serious problems and being investigated.

His reponse is that experts are paid by Local Authorities thus do what Local Authorities say and if they disagree with Local Authorities they don't get paid.

This was within 10 secs of the interview starting.

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. If I'm acting for a parent, we instruct an expert and get it paid on the parents' publicly funded certificate.

He consistently says inflammatory things which have no basis in reality. All he does is pander to the looney conspiracy theorists and I think he does real harm to a lot of vulnerable people. I agree, he is dangerous.

But hopefully now he might be a little bit closer to being stopped?

Sorry I may have go the link wrong. That may work.

In the case I referenced earlier in the thread he got a bollocking from the judge for (among other things) precisely that lie. Clearly hasn't stopped him.

Follows is a series of allegations I put directly to CAFCASS via an FOIA enquiry. The response was more than helpful, in that they refused to comment as they claimed it wasn't an FOIA enquiry.

Says to me that each and every point was proven by virtue of a complete lack of denial in their response.

1. CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem and/or representative solicitors

instruct or otherwise coerce expert witnesses acting on instruction from all parties, over what to write in their reports to the Family Courts.

1. CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem wilfully misrepresents either by

policy or by choice, the wishes and feelings of the minors whom she is charged to represent.

1. CAFCASS? unstated policy by formative and ongoing doctrine is in

line with CORAM?s stated goal to reap profit by way of removing minors unlawfully from their natural parents and placing them with those wholly unsuited to raising children in any sort of environment.

1. CAFCASS? unstated policy by formative and ongoing doctrine is to

commit serial perjury to meet the goal as stated in point #3.

1. CAFCASS? normal operating procedure, in collusion with Local

Authorities and Family Panel specialist legal practitioners, is in line with Government stated policy to reach targets not to protect children as is the public face of the organisation, but to create and maintain profit at zero-return cost to every single Council Tax payer in the country and the psychological and physical cost to every parent and minor they succeed in separating.

1. CAFCASS? operations are not in line with normal advocacy

procedures of an ostensibly nonprofit-making advocacy service for children, they are more in line with a profit-making service industry at the beckon call of Local Authorities under a private agreement to accelerate the process of removal for financial gain. --

Disclaimers:

I am not John Hemming.
I am not related to John Hemming.
I have no professional relationship with John Hemming.
I have no professional interest in John Hemming.
I am not a solicitor.
I am not a social worker.
I am not a judge.
I am a natural parent.
I am a retired professional (communications technology consultant).

slightly offtopic:

Since the Crown Prosecution Service dropped plans to prosecute David Southall due to "lack of evidence"(!), a firm in South Wales took up the investigation with a view to litigating privately on behalf of his victims, notably a man now in his twenties who suffered brain damage as a direct result of Southall's experiments at the age of four.

This firm has since been the target of attacks by the Establishment to prevent them from completing their investigations, therefore nothing stands in the way of Southall being reinstated to the GMC roll if/when his appeal is heard.

A significant event took place between 2009 and the back end of 2010, during which time an individual sued the firm for obtaining funds from her as well as from the Legal Aid fund. Such was the documentary evidence presented that she won her case against the firm, who subsequently appealed. I do not know how that went, because not long before the hearing I disengaged myself from representing her. This is why:

The individual misrepresented her position regarding whom she had previously engaged as Counsel and why the professional relationship broke down. I later found out that the reason the relationships broke down was manifold but similar across at least two Advocates not including myself. She claimed that she had been charged "over the odds" for services which had not in fact been rendered (they had and she's lucky I only charge for transport which is fully accounted and my clients see the tickets). She tried the same thing with me, where she ran into the problem was that when she presented her case to Trading Standards, I responded by producing my accounts and bank statements proving that not only did I not take any money from her, that I was flat broke and not caring that I was flat broke. Her next trick was to try and say that I was holding her file for ransom, which she was also accusing the previous Advocates of doing - which I had in fact preempted by making a public statement to the effect that I was only too willing to return her file, at her expense not mine. To date, her file still sits in a box in a secured room.

Back to the solicitors: the firm, while tied up and having to spend money fighting this individual and a judgment for fraud, could not spare the manpower or money or time to investigate Southall. A firm which has a judgment against them for fraud would find it very difficult to operate with seized bank accounts while at the same time trying to find the ready cash to afford just satisfaction and pay their staff. They would go under very quickly, and with no other firm ready to step in and take up the reins of the investigation, Southall and his Establishment cronies would be home free - all he'd then have to do is sweet-talk the Appeal Court Judge.

This operation has a double-whammy effect - well it would do if it had worked, because it would have shut down not just the solicitor in Wales, but also another firm which was and remains a problem for the Establishment.

TPTB don't like it when we cattle play dirty, but as can be seen they're not above it themselves.

Child snatching is being carried out by government agencies that have an interest in Adoption Agencies, Coram, BAAF and that take happy, healthy, young, bright children from innocent parents in the secret family courts. The court procedures are totally against the Human Rights of the parents and children in many ways, the trials are unfair, they are unjust punishment and torture, there is no right of free speech and no private family life.

The government workers lie in order to stop contact between the parent and children in order to alienate the children from the parent. They stress the parent by making them watch the children?s mental health and security deteriorate while they are being alienated from the parents and have constant court proceedings.

They then instruct a psychologist of their choice who will make the report that they want and will pay them many thousands for doing so. The psychologist will assess the parent and children while they are being alienated in order to find that the family is depressed wth attachment disorders.

They make lots of false but serious allegations against the mother in contact sessions. The allege assault on the social worker, assault on the children, distress of the children if they cry because they don?t want you to leave.

They don?t let you see the children or speak to them. During contadt you are not allowed to take photos or video of the children, your children cannot speak to any friends or extended family. Contact will end if you use a mobile phone in anyway, show any sadness or distress, speak about the children coming home, speak about time frames, wider issues or anything that will give them any idea of why they can?t come home. Then they lie to the children telling them they can?t come home because their parent is ill, or dangerous or angry. If the children still want to come home and wont settle then they move the children to a new home and new school. They then lie to the new foster carer about why the children are in care and make out that the parent is crazy and abusive. The new foster carer can then help alienate the children from their parent.

To get the children in the first place they go through every file they hold on you from every government agency imaginable. They ignore the majority of it because it is positive and pick out any minute details to make a report showing that you are faling to meet your children?s needs whether physical or emotional. They will note there are no stairgates (even though the children are too old to need them), they note a child having headlice, a child sometimes being low in mood, a child arriving at nursery in pyjamas, they route through your medical records to find if you ever took anti depressants and if you did for 2 weeks 7 years ago, they will make out that you have had mental health problems all your life and therefore you cannot meet the emotional needs of your children. They go through your criminal record and if you don?t have a criminal record they give you one by recording that your children had to be removed from you for their protection.

The police assist them a lot. They regularly phone the police telling them that your children are in danger and so you constantly have police knocking on your door. Each time they do they make a report, what they saw when they were standing outside staring through your windows at the children, what state the house is in, how the family seemed, and report back to social services. If the police note nothing unusual then they just report that back and the Social Services put in their report ? Police alerted that mother is suicidal and carried out a welfare check. They fail to mention that it was the social services that called the police.

They respond to a parent who asks for help for stress by pushing them over their emotional edge by using lots of investigations and false reports in order to take the children and put them through court proceedings that 98% of the time end in adoption.

The whole process puts the child in emotional turmoil and causes the children significant harm. Social Services don?t have any evidence so for the next 40 weeks while they keep the children from the mother, they get as much evidence as they can. They particularly like upsetting the mother by making serious but false allegations and lying in Court, making false reports and cancelling contact. They like to make so many rules about contact that it is impossible to follow them without giving your child the impression that you are so much happier that they are not with you and you are happy to only see them 1 hr a week. You will also be happy that they will be adopted. It is impossible.

They cancel contact for the parent not following the rules and tell the child ?If she loved you she would follow the rules. She mustn?t really want to see you.? The child then shows feelings of anger and rejection and you never get the chance to tell the child the truth of what is going on so that they know you aren?t rejecting them and that you are fighting for them but they were stolen by agencies with interest in adoption.

The social services never help you stay together as a family and don?t make any plans to rehabilitate the children to you. They cut off all contact to anyone that might want to take the child and then say that they can?t have the children because there is no real bond. They will fail their 3 day inspection of any family member that wants to get involved unless it is a family member that doesn?t like you and wants to also alienate you from your children. They often find this easy because they target parents that were once in care or that don?t have good family support.

When the children are in care they are often taken to Luxurious venues in the middle of the night. Judges, Lawyers, doctors also attend the same venues at the same time. The children then arrive at contact with bruising around their crotch areas and evidence of serious sexual abuse. If your child has been in care long enough then they cannot blame it on you but otherwise they will. Even if you prove that your child was sexually abused in care they will not return the children to your care. They will put a gagging order on you to protect the foster carer and paedophiles.

The Judges comply with the government agencies by not considering the parents evidence and just rely on the fact that the government agencies have raised a concern by using hearsay evidence and therefore it could possibly true, whereas if the mother?s story could possibly be true the government agency wins on the weighted balance of probability. The mother has to have firm evidence to prove that the government agencies? allegations are false and this is normally impossible to get because the allegations arise while the child is in care when you are not allowed to speak to or see the child.

The lawyers that are supposed to represent you behave as a paperforwarding exercise. They will tell you to admit things you haven?t done by saying ?if you don?t say that then the children will be adopted?. They tell you that you have no right to appeal or to see a barrister. The barrister will even stop you saying that your children were snatched illegally even if they were! The solicitors have adversarial meetings which you are excluded from where they discuss where your case is going and how they are going to help each other get it there.

What is going on in this country is sinister and this needs addressing urgently.

Disclaimers:

I am not under any sort of injunction.
I can and will prove everything I say.

The REAL issue is the secrey of the courts and also the manipulation of statistical information as this cannot be verified. Maybe is a case for the ONS to be involved. CAFCASS are always using the 32 figure to justify their actions.

I now many mother that are not Grandmothers that are denied access to their own grandchilren because they had a son.

Currently we cannot chose the sex of our childen. So mothers will have boys and therefore too have grandchildren
As by implication also denied access to there grandchildren.

SO it is actually in all our interested to have ALL the facts and details brought out into the open.

At which time many on here will have to look into the mirror and ask why they where on the wrong side when history looks back. As if they were on the right side so many more people would have suffered so much less than what is happening curerently

In secret places evil will prevail.

Joan Hunt OXFLAP has used data and twisted to clear the Family courts of BIAS.

Mavis MacClean and Lynne use a figure of 10% to say the Courts are working fine where as in fact 60% are denied access just on the grounds of cost.

I have a uncle that was transported to Aussie , away from his family under a bunch of lies, later he killed himself.

I have a cousin that was adopted at birth much against my uncle and grandmothers will in the 50's. She later came looking for us, when she could unfortunatly her father had killed himself many years before , lost the will to go on.

In secret in the UK many henous act have taken place, that Stalin would havev been proud of. but to are shame it still goes on

Lost packet if you can prove that judges and lawyers routinely meet in luxurious places to have sex with children what the fuck are you doing wasting time on the Internet? Shouldn't you be taking your proof to the police and/or Christopher booker.

I guess these posts show I should be careful what I wish for.

do you think John Hemming feels ANY disquiet that these are his followers?

'instruct or otherwise coerce' -- well which is it? Instruct in the sense of solicitor instructing a barrister? Or a putty in the hands situation?

'wilfully misrepresents either by policy or by choice, the wishes and feelings of the minors whom she is charged to represent.' -- so there are puppets operating here too, coerced into doing things against their choice, with strings pulled by unseen hands?

'CORAM?s stated goal to reap profit by way of removing
minors unlawfully from their natural parents and placing them with
those wholly unsuited to raising children in any sort of
environment.' -- What profit? Where's the money? Who are these people the children are sent to by the child snatchers?

'CAFCASS? unstated policy by formative and ongoing doctrine is to commit serial perjury to meet the goal as stated in point #3.' -- Deceit all round then? The conspiracy widens...

'to reach targets not to protect children as is the public face of the organisation, but to create and maintain profit at zero-return cost to every single Council Tax payer in the country and the psychological and physical cost to every parent and minor they succeed in separating.' -- Again with the profit...

'CAFCASS? operations are not in line with normal advocacy procedures of an ostensibly nonprofit-making advocacy service for children, they are more in line with a profit-making service industry at the beckon call [sic] of Local Authorities under a private agreement to accelerate the process of removal for financial gain.' -- 'Financial gain'?

So there is a vast plot to profit by taking children from loving homes, involving hundreds and maybe thousands of people. And there are Luxurious venues ...

Maybe you should move to Ireland, where systematic abuse of children was covered up for decades, with social workers, doctors and taxpayers all turning a blind eye. And change your name to TheLostPlot.

btw, What is your theory about the murder of JFK?

Never mind JFK, just don't get these boys started on 9/11