New thread re Roy Meadow (no Sir!)

[Janh]

Cheeseball, specially for you, yet another thread but without the Sir! (I'll post a link from the 2nd thread).

If what we are doing here is being radical busybodies then I am proud to be one! I am so sorry your husband feels like this and won't help you escape from the burden you are under.

Many of our MPs have now seen some details of Bunglie's case which we have forwarded to them and not one has said "you shouldn't be talking about this, you are breaking the law". Those gagging orders are so wrong and will surely be overturned before long. If you have to wait until they are before you can do something about your own case then so be it - he is wrong to be so angry with you about something that wasn't your fault but you are the one who lives with him and we can't tell you what to do.

If you get a chance do think about ringing Bunglie, you don't have to tell her your name or any details at all but I'm sure it would make you feel so much better (unless the guilt at doing it made you feel worse...)

Aloha - I think that is the best thing all 'round. I am glad that you realise that this is your best course of action. We will all empty our swear boxes to help with the legal expenses. We might even manage to make up a 'mumsnet parcel' for you. What would you like in it? A bar of chocky, bottle of Gin, the latest Hansard reports? (a bit of light reading!).

BBBB, I could think of another meaning for all those B's but Aloha's defense fund (my swear box) would swell!

Don't worry aloha, apparently they have puters inside so you will still be able to use mumsnet!!

Bunglie your wit and verve astounds me XXX

Bunglie, it will get removed quicker if you use the 'contact us' link rather than the link to tech.

SA If I voted Tory next time I think they will get in as where I live the local mp only got in by some 150 votes and the tories only need a 0.2% swing.
But I think my MP should help me no matter what party he is. I think I will vote Monster Raving Loony Party, are they still going?
One thing I will say is that I think if Maggie were still in as a mother I think she would have been more sympathetic......maybe not, Isn't Blair married to a Barrister?
Oh B*er (your defense fund is rising Aloha), I have just realised that I should have posted something, got to dash to catch the post, back later! XX

Why do I always get my 'thoughts' when you have all gone home, after a hard days work, (with the odd glance at mumsnet to keep you sane?).

Having spoken to a solicitor I have been advised that it would be better if they (the solicitor) held off sending an official letter asking if the ap's would not give my dd the letter voluntarily, saying why she was adopted, on her 18th birthday. And I can't ask them until this meeting in a couple of weeks.
I can see the logic. It shows that I am reasonable, and am prepared to try to resolve the situation amicably, all of which I would like to think is true. The problem I have is do I trust them IF they agree. I doubt that they will agree but if I ask them to put it in writing then surely that would show that I did not trust them.
It has been sugested that I go to this meeting with an agenda that I stick to. That I am calm, (raid the valium tabs that morning) and that I am open and receptive to their sugestions and feelings.
Do you think it would be seen as a threat if I took notes?
This agenda, all I really want is to stop the letter and for them to give the children permission to get to know me. Do you think it would be unreasonable to ask if my dd could come with her brother to spend the weekend? I don't have to tell them about my ds sending me any texts. I doubt that he has told them and I do not want to make things difficult for him, but I don't like keeping secrets like this, there has been too much secrecy and I am asking them for honesty and trust. But I can't tell them about my ds contacting me, canI?
I guess therefore that my agenda is;

1. Ask them not to give dd the letter.
2. Ask them to let dd come and visit on her own, so that I can get to know her.
3. Ask them what the children have already been told as to why they were adopted. Can anyone think of anything else? or anything I should not ask? It would be really good if when my ds comes down for his 'fishing trip' if my dd could come as well. They have a close bond and I think that they would both be more natural and relaxed if they were together. I know I want to tell them the truth, and I have a letter, like the one on an earlier thread, written for each of them, just in case I never get the chance to tell them. I think what I want is to get to know them, and then when we are a bit more certain of each other tell them the truth as to what happened and if they want let them see the papers, but I am sure that it will take time for the truth to sink in. Is that too selfish of me, because reading this it is all about what I want. Not what is good for the ap's or my ds or dd. I would really like to work with the ap's but I think if they were sincere and wanted to help me tell them the truth they would not have been so defensive to the point of agression in the last couple of months. They would have acknowledged my letter, wouldn't they? Am I being unfair because this has to be difficult for them. Maryz - you know what adoptive parents feel. I hoped my letter would have put them at ease so they did not feel so threatened. Do you think that they HAVE to believe in my guilt to justify their attitude towards me? They could have been brainwashed by the ss? Will someone tell me what a Quaker believes, are they Christians? In case you have not noticed my brain is working overtime and I want to know what to expect at this meeting so that nothing is a shock and catches me off guard. I can think of no better preperation than you lot! Love Bunglie XXX P.S. Did you manage to get bail Aloha or what are the visiting hours ?

"if Maggie were still in as a mother I think she would have been more sympathetic" - oh, Bunglie - I think Blair is more maternal and sympathetic to women than she ever was!

I think you could - calmly - mention, as 4), that your case was, after all, dismissed - that the children were only adopted because they had been away from you for so long - that they were only away from you for so long because most barristers refused to take your case because they knew it was hopeless for the prosecution - that you did nothing wrong and that the children are entitled to know that.

And also - as 5) (or earlier) - that your letter to them was not meant as any kind of threat and you can't understand why they keep being so defensively aggressive.

They probably will see it as a threat if you take notes but as they haven't behaved logically yet so there's no reason to expect them to start now.

I've just thought of a 6) too - they have not stuck to the letter of the open adoption agreement so far (as far as scheduling visits is concerned) so why are they telling you to?

(But maybe all that is a bit hostile...)

Hi Bunglie DO TAKE NOTES don't let them intimidate you, then you'll have a real record of the meeting and what was agreed.

You are not selfish, you are just seeking to right a terrible wrong done to you and your children. Your children deserve to know the truth, whatever the adoptive parents think. IMO the APs' reaction is more about their own fears and feelings than that of your kids.
I think you are right, and that they are clinging to your 'guilt' to justify their own behaviour.

Yes, Quakers are Christians and believe there is 'that of God in everyone' so should in theory be respectful and forgiving. Guess Quakers come in all shapes and sizes like the rest of us though and don't always live up to it.

Ok, I've had a chat with that nice Mr Meadows and I am clearly barking and deserve all sorts. However, in my last days of freedom, before I am banged up for obviously causing my son's nosebleeds and therefore being evil, I would just like to say - do you really think the aps will agree to any of your requests? If not, why go? I think they've had enough of a hold over your life and it might just be nice to say, no, actually, I've had enough and won't dance to your tune anymore. Just a thought Bunglie.
Quakers are Christian. Quakers actually have a very distinguished history as social reformers and prison reformers and of defying the law and judges for what they thought to be right (the term quakers comes from a judge's sneering at a Quaker in the dock who told him that he should tremble in the face of the Lord, or something like that) - but I think these ones are the more radical, dare I say, provisional branch of the Quakers!
What matters now is you and your children. The rest are peripheral.
PS Bunglie and Postsue, I totally understand how those wicked doctors made you doubt yourselves. This evening I asked my dh, 'Our son did have nosebleeds as a baby, didn't he?" and I know perfectly well he did. It plays tricks with your mind.

aloha, i've been secretly videotaping your house and I can tell by the conversation you had with your husband that it was really him that was trying to murder your ds. In fact you are entirely innocent, but we're going to send you to jail for a while anyway, take your children away and send your dh there too.

Seems reasonable Sofia. I expect this conversation will be deleted immediatly and we'll be banned from talking about it too?

Bunglie, I've got a meeting with an ex-very high up person at the General Medical Council soon ... any points you want me to make/questions you'd like him to answer? Seriously?

And on the subject of Southall... while that nice Prof was busy pointing the finger at Sally Clark's dh, he was simultaneously enrolling premature babies in a trial of new ventilators which didn't work very well so fewer of the babies survived. And strangely many of the parents didn't recall having all the risks explained to them before their babies were enrolled in this trial. But the GMC's investigated and cleared him so that's OK. Because parents of babies with nosebleeds are clearly dangerous nutters, while paediatricians are gods who must never be questioned, even when their dearly-held theories result in death.

O.K. Bunglies read all of your wonderful views and had time to think. I did not sleep at all last night, so I had a doze this morning, (I actually fell asleep watching Hallmark's 'Sue Thomas FBI' - It was all about serveillance, before I fell asleep!)
Just in case I seem a bit more 'odd' than usual today it is because it will be 15 years ago, tommorrow, (13th), since I was arrested and they took my children, so I am a bit of a mess, but am keeping it together with your help, Thank you.
I think it is illegal to tape someones conversation covertly BBBB! Am I right?
I am going because if I don't they can then say I have been unreasonable, offered the hand of 'friendship' and I refused etc. Also If you remeber I actually asked them back at the end of January to meet me so that we could discuss the 'Meadow's situation' like adults. So I have to go really.
I feel better now about taking notes, and definitely will. Do you think rather than see it as a threat it may help keep some degree of stability and calm, because they would not want me to write down anything detrimental?
Eddm - what an offer, thank you but I would love to ask them 100's of things. What I would personally like to know but doubt very much that you can ask is, what is the punishment, IF they are found guilty. Meadows has already retired, and they could only stop people like Southhill from practising on children unsupervised or something? Didn't that happen over the two dr's who were charged with being over zealous in diagnosing sex abuse due to an anal reflex or something like that (Was that Cleavland?). The more I hear about the GMC the less faith I have in them. Their really should be an independant regulatory body for Doctors.
From a Bunglie feeling a bit down and needs cheering up!

Ah Ha!..... Sorry Aloha, That nice Mr Meadow's has probably lured you into a false feeling of security. (You were lucky he ACTUALLY saw you to diagnose your MSPB), never mind dear, now that SA has the video tape (illegal, but never mind!!), and we all know that it was your dh that caused the nose bleeds in your ds, that does not get you off the hook. You see, it works like this; either you manipulated him into doing it or you are not strong enough to stand up against him and prevent him from causing this devestating abuse. You can't win, and now that you have actually seen nice Mr Meadows he can say anything about you and it has credance (Sp?) because he has spoken to you and you probably tried to manipulate him. Don't think that your ds saying "Mummy I love you" will help because he will either be to dominated by your overwhelming need for attention that he will be saying it only to get your attention because he is really neglected and also because he has been 'coached to say it by your dh!! :0
Don't you see you just can't win.
Ahhhh! I've worked it out why men don't get MSBP, they are too 'simple' you have to have a complex personality disorder to have MSBP so that rules out men, they were born genetically without the ability to mult-task.
It's taken 15 years but yes I can now see it.
Oh last bit of bad news Aloha, it is incurable.
So what was it you wanted in your 'mumsnet parcel'? I shall empty the swear bottle at the end of the day for your legal fund, (I'ts contents will probably have doubled). As for your ds, well we will all love him, but I am afraid I can not reassure as to what the ss will do they seem to be keeping things very 'close to their chest' at the moment. Just remember, non of this is your fault, you are mad not bad.
There I am sure you feel a lot better now don't you dear.........
Ooh I am SO SORRY for my sarcasm but I could not resist it and I have found it very theraputic, Thankyou

Now I have come back down to Earth, I have been thinking, Janh sugested that I told them tat my case was dimissed, (criminal). I guess I have always thought that they have known that, but thinking about it there is no reason why they should id there? No one is going to have told them, I just assumed that they would know. Thank you Janh.
Also thanks for this one too JanH. If I point out to them really nicely that they haven't stuck to agreement of contact arranged by the court and say something along the lines of "now that is in the past, let's try to start afresh here and look to the future", that will make them feel a bit guilty, realise that I have always let them have the upperhand (because I have been scared stiff but they don't need to know that) but it will let them see that I am trying to be reasonable and that I genuinly do want to have their help in telling the children the truth. But they are going to have to start being honest with me, something they have not been in the past, but I do think if they have the capacity to believe me and change their attitude then maybe that would be benficial to all, especially the children. I know I am looking for a nice happy ending and 'pigs might fly' but I should at least give them the benefit of the doubt if they themselves don't know the truth? Shouldn't I?

First sign of madness 'Talking to yourself'. Well I think I have done that one anyone know the second sign?

Bunglie what you are describing sounds so ridiculous and surreal and even funny it is quite hard to remember that is what actually happened to real life people. I just give thanks that I never happened to say the wrong thing to the wrong person. Imagine if Meadows or one of his collaborators had worked at a hospital where I'd brought in ds after a fall (say) and innocently told them about the nosebleeds. I'd be in the same position as you now, if not worse, because in most adoptions you never see your kids again.

No NO, you carry on Bunglie, I am quite enjoying it. Your portrait of poor Aloha and her poor dh and ds has had me giggling, sorry I know that it is not a topic to laugh about but you have just hit the nail on the head with that wit of yours.

I think you are working through things wonderfully on your own, but we are here honest

Bunglie, I think that it's an excellent idea to tell them that you were found innocent. Maybe even bring a copy of the transcript. I also think you should bring with you and take while there, notes. It doesn't matter if they find it aggressive. You are at that meeting for you and your children, NOT to make them feel good. You are trying to act in a moral and ethical manner, sticking to the suggestion that you made about meeting them. You are entitled to "run" the meeting and I think you should. Again, it really doesn't make a difference whether they are happy or believe you at the end of it. If they still insist on giving the letter to your daughter, you can prevent them doing so legally. If they agree to not give her the letter, then you have achieved something in a way that gives you the moral high ground. In fact both methods give you the moral high ground, it's just that if they voluntarily don't give it, they too will have a bit (not a lot) of moral high ground.
I think that you should suggest having both your children down to visit you in the near future. Don't ask permission. You could gently remind them that it won't be very long before you don't have to go through them in order to contact your children. Asking permission makes you into something they can control. Suggesting, puts you as their equal and in an ironic sort of way, may actually make them more likely to take you seriously. Having said all of this, I think the lawyer's suggestion has a lot of validity and I wonder if it wouldn't be worth seeing a counsellor of some sort to help you set things up so that you are in control of the meeting. Little tricks of seating (I know yours is somewhat limited) and who talks first, etc. (We've just been at the marriage counsellor this morning...she's sooooo good with my dh - I'm amazed how effective it is and how many hints I can pick up from her on how to deal with him).
I'm really sorry about the sad and angry thoughts tomorrow will bring you, but please try to turn it into a day of celebration at how close you are to having a real relationship with your children.

what's the second sign...talking to lots of people on the internet as if they were your best friends when you don't even know their real names!

Aloha - Its sad but true
Just had another thought! The ap's are probably going to talk to my 'step-monster' before seeing me. I dread to think what she will say, but rather than stoop to their level do you think it would be best to say something like " I'm here to discusss my dd and ds not my mother" - politely! If they should mention her or do you think I should try to discredit her by telling them that she phoned me or something?
What would be best?
I had not thought of this anglr before because I am certain that she will have said things to them over the years. She told my aunt, (who does still speak to me ocassionally and she is the one who sent me the newspaper clipping telling me about Meadows at Christmas - She and my 'step-monster' don't get on she is her siter-in-law) that I had tried to kill my dd and I am going to Broadmoor! My Aunt was actually a witness for me in court and told them what my 'step-monster' was like, but the Judge ignored it saying that she was not in a position to judge our relationship. She has divorced my 'Uncle' now and feels a bit of an outsider so I don't think I could ask her for help now.

Thanks SA I feel almost normal now!
One problem I am not allowed to talk to a counsellor as I would be breaking the courts 'gagging' order But that would have been a great idea.
I am wondering if it would be wrong to try and arrange something with ds for next Sunday (if he's free etc) as I will be in his neck of the woods, or do you think if I did that they may well find out and think I went behind their backs in anycase and therefore I am not to be trusted. I just thought it would be a good opportunity seeing as I has to travel a distance to meet them on the Monday, what do you reckon, cause too many problems?

How about " I'm here to discuss my dd and ds not the opinions held by my fathers 2nd wife" rather than " I'm here to discusss my dd and ds not my mother". Makes it sound less of a relationship, and at the same points out that it's not a personal thing you have against her, and her views are just that, views, not facts.