Child taken from womb? Truth into darkness....

[LakeDistrictBabe]

Ok, the old thread is nearly full. If you read the other three, I don't need to re-write everything again ;)

But you know I am referring to the case involving an Italian mother and the British social services.
Opinions welcome.

I guess the point I am making is that when JH wants to have a pop at me for 'inaccurate reporting' he threatens time and time again to report me to my professional body, even though I have made it abundantly clear that I do not post here as a barrister.

I post here as a human being who has an interest in the child protection system in the UK and half a brain.

But when I want to complain about the behaviour of an elected MP who openly boasts about helping people flee the jurisdiction rather than engage with Social Services, who breaches court orders and puts a vulnerable child at risk and doesn't even have the grace and decency to apologise...

then where do I go? To whom do I complain? Parliament doesn't care. Journalists think he's just a harmless loon who can give them some good copy for their more lurid articles.

I know fairness is nothing to do with life, but this really does take the proverbial biscuit.

LAKE You know, I had to keep going back to the page to get the next letter, cos the damn thing doesn't exactly "roll off the toungue" does it ? Not in English or Italian. I kept going uffa and then getting stuck...

Somebody chose that early on, got attached and point blank refused to give it up despite nobody being able to remember it properly.

And on 1st Dec at 9.34 he said THIS

What is unclear to me is whether the objective of putting her child up for adoption had any influence on the sectioning and C section or not. I will find this out over time, but at the moment this is not proven either way.

So is it still 'unclear' to you?
Do you accept that the actions of various doctors and social workers had nothing to do with non existent adoption targets?

Will you apologise for all the appalling misrepresentations you have made over the past couple of weeks?

I clicked back through to his weblog after reading that again Spero and found a quote from him regarding the inaccurate belief that he was 'for' the badger cull (he isn't apparently)

he said

it does not help when campaigners get their facts wrong on basic things

and I say.... take your own advice Mr Hemming.

I mentioned a while back I was planning on doing something - I still am but have been a bit busy with other things. I got back on task tonight only to find that someone else has already contacted my (lib dem)MP via a public post on Facebook regarding this issue - I don't know whether she is a poster on this thread or a lurker or even if she a MNer at all, but the MP has taken notice and responded (well done both!) asking her to email him with the details. I intend to also follow it up myself with an email to him and I also intend to email other prominent lib Dem MPs (and any female Lib Dem MPs because they are small in number and perhaps more likely to have an interest in a male MP posting on a largely female dominated space about issues that mainly affect women) and will also contact other people in the media who have an interest in this sort of thing.

Can anyone think of a hashtag or twitter thing we could all 'tweet' the same thing about ourselves and to other prominent people to get people to take notice of our concerns? (Sorry I don't really get twitter myself so might have misunderstood how it works) I've got a list of people I'm planning to email.

I know fairness is nothing to do with life, but this really does take the proverbial biscuit.

^That.

Spero. Does the law care about him?
No one should be above the law.

Golddigger - I know Essex County Council are aware he named the child because I emailed them with the screen shots.

I know they were in contact with mumsnet because they locked this thread and told us why.

I know others have spoken directly with Mr Justice Munby's clerk and told him the same.

I know that breach of such an order is a contempt of court, punishable by a fine or imprisonment.

I also know that absolutely nothing has happened to JH and he remains on this thread, speeding his curious mix of untruths and paranoia, even boasting that if he had intended to name the baby he would have used his parliamentary privilege so to do.

Utterly, utterly sickening.

My LibDem MP meanwhile does not even have the courtesy to acknowledge my request for some information about how the Lib Dem party views this behaviour.

And they want to give themselves an 11% pay rise.

Sickening. It is all simply sickening.

Westmorland - i am up for a hashtag but i have tried Twitter and the response from journalists pretty non existent.

I guess 'MP gets it wrong and won't apologise' doesn't have quite the same sexy thrill as 'Freddie Star snatched my baby to meet LA adoption targets'.

I am surprised that mumsnet have let the thread continue, as they have been hot in the past in not wanting to allow themselves to get into potential trouble.

I know that you and others may mock, but I will pray about the problem.
[sometimes it can then seem that God takes a while to enact justice]

The difference between this thread and others golddigger is that most of what is being discussed is cold hard facts with the exception of the contributions of a notable few posters. There is only one poster putting themselves at risk legally and they have openly identified themselves meaning that no fault for their words could be attributed to mumsnet. Mumsnet have taken action to delete anything that could get the site into legal difficulties which realistically over nearly 4000 posts is very little. That a member of parliament is choosing to post on here and in many people's view make a fool of himself is his own choosing and not up to mumsnet to police.

I hope I never mock someone for beliefs they sincerely hold.

I am aware of the saying - the mills of God grind slowly, but they grind exceeding small.

Thanks

I have never heard of that saying. Googled it. Sounds about right!

I just googled too - never realised it was a poem!

Though the mills of God grind slowly;
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting,
With exactness grinds he all.

Fingers crossed.

Spero:So is it still 'unclear' to you?
Do you accept that the actions of various doctors and social workers had nothing to do with non existent adoption targets?

What is clear is that there are adoption targets. Hence you are clearly wrong.

Nice poem that.

Oh hey! I got retweeted by a nice lady I noticed was very cross about another, but humanly connected matter, and her retweet of my tweet got retweeted by an even bigger tweeter!

Now what do I do ! Don't leave me all flapping in my baby feathers. This guy has thousands of followers. Does one tweet and say thank you, or does one not give away one is so not cool and down with the kidz and has no idea what one is doing on fecking twitter with its stingy character limits.

When adoption targets exist, they are to speed up the adoption process for children already in care.

They are not - as you allege - in place to encourage the 'snatching' of babies from their families.

Would you please answer the question.

Are you now clear that the sectioning of Ms P and her subsequent medical treatment was on the advice of doctors and in her best interests.

Are you clear now that the care proceedings with her youngest child proceeded on the basis that this baby was at risk of significant harm in her mother's care, due to her mother's historic inability to cope with her serious mental illness, evidenced by the fact that the two elder children were removed from her care.

And do you apologise for naming this baby and her sisters on this web site, in direct breach of an order of the court of this land?

Just my view, but I find thanks for re-tweets and such to definitely fall on the 'not cool' side of the line.

But I have less than 200 followers, so don't trust me on that.

When adoption targets exist, they are to speed up the adoption process for children already in care.

They are not - as you allege - in place to encourage the 'snatching' of babies from their families.

It's like being on the magic roundabout here. Anybody dizzy are having seen this one clarified by Spero and others several times already ?

It will just go round and round and round.

I have only two hopes: that anyone reading who might be inclined to accept his nonsense, will think about it and hopefully won't.

And he will get annoyed enough to post something else really, really stupid so that finally others have to sit up and take notice.

Do doctors have adoption targets too? Why would doctors make medical decisions based on adoption tsrgets?

Does JH have a spreadsheet?

Spero: When adoption targets exist, they are to speed up the adoption process for children already in care.

I have already given the link to the Haringey report of their adoption target for the adoption (financial) year of 1st April 2013-31st March 2014.

Here it is again:
www.haringey.gov.uk/index/news_and_events/latest_news/haringeys-adoption-performance-improves.htm

The report is from Haringey's own website so it is about as reliable a report as you will get it says:

"According to the latest August figures, the authority is already ahead of its target (by 2) for 2013/14 with a total of 22 children having been successfully adopted since the start of April - compared to just 14 for the whole of last year."

Given that Haringey refers to having a target one would presume that it has a target.

This document from September 2013
www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/Published/C00000643/M00006465/$$ADocPackPublic.pdf
States:
The increased management attention given to completing the stages of
the adoption process appropriately and expediently had led to significant improvements. The service had already met its annual target of 20 adoptions and now expects to make 30 adoptions by the end of the financial year.

note: "its annual target of 20 adoptions "

Now if we wish to look at essex we can do the same sort of research.

www.essex.gov.uk/News/Pages/National-Adoption-Week-2013.aspx

Essex celebrates the number of children adopted. However, there is no analysis as to whether these are the "languishing in care" children.

I have found in the corporate plan that they have not yet defined their adoption target.

In many ways that is worse as they are asking the practitioners to get more children adopted without a limit at which they have done enough.

Spero refers to "non existent adoption targets?". I have given detailed evidence of the Haringey adoption target and the Essex one is simply currently "more".

However looking to earlier this year one finds:
cmis.essexcc.gov.uk/EssexCmis5/Document.ashx?czJKcaeAi5tUFL1DTL2UE4zNRBcoShgo=0gCeiWZV7jgs8V3TUVok1E0rEwq%2F%2B81a3ncHDIe7x0oX%2BnWQ6FmObA%3D%3D&rUzwRPf%2BZ3zd4E7Ikn8Lyw%3D%3D=pwRE6AGJFLDNlh225F5QMaQWCtPHwdhUfCZ%2FLUQzgA2uL5jNRG4jdQ%3D%3D&mCTIbCubSFfXsDGW9IXnlg%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&kCx1AnS9%2FpWZQ40DXFvdEw%3D%3D=hFflUdN3100%3D&uJovDxwdjMPoYv%2BAJvYtyA%3D%3D=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&FgPlIEJYlotS%2BYGoBi5olA%3D%3D=NHdURQburHA%3D&d9Qjj0ag1Pd993jsyOJqFvmyB7X0CSQK=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNR9xqBux0r1Q8Za60lavYmz=ctNJFf55vVA%3D&WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA%3D

under outcome 3 (on page 14)
4.3.3: % Children in Care who are adopted each
year 11.1% 13.1% ?10%?13.5% ?13% 11% 12% care population
adopted 11.40% Not on track see page 15

So at the time they were looking to get 12% of the number in care adopted. (remember the mathematical error here of looking at a flow compared to a stock).

Hence at the time of the court decision and when the decision was made to force a caesarean on Alessandra Essex had an adoption target.

I don't know why Spero denies this as it is easy to prove with documents from the relevant local authorities.

Do doctors have adoption targets too? Why would doctors make medical decisions based on adoption tsrgets?

Only the ones John suspects of "doing favours" for Essex LA. But I am sure the conspiracy will expand to include any doctors dealing with other LAs if it proves useful in the future.

Please demonstrate how these figures prove that '10,000' children have been 'dragged' from their families and 'needlessly' adopted.

For that is your assertion.