Fran Lyon has left the country

[milliec]

Message withdrawn

Ok maybe a Q&A thread then NoName but still no reason to attack the poor girl-as someone has previously said we are a parenting forum to help support each other & have healthy discussion. Fran needs our support as a mother-to-be & MN-er pure & simple,albeit one with a particularly horrendous situation. I would object to any MN-er being attacked in this way (& often do!!)

yeah right except when its me!

ok here i am;

Gawd Another apology-

Sorry COD

AND sorry anti-cod!!

Posen, why do you need to be convinced? If you're not, you're not, but really your peace of mind isn't the most important thing here, particularly if you have to achieve it by asking Fran really intrusive (another word would be rude) questions. Particularly when you are doing it under an anonymous name (even your Mumsnet name would be better than nothing).

I don't think Fran is under any obligation whatsoever to satisfy the public as to her credibility. It wasn't her fault that social workers decided to take this course of action and just because she has made their terrible decisions public doesn't suddenly entitle every Tom, Dick or Harry to question her to the nth degree.

Quite Elizabeth!

My perception was that posen was trying to define, by questioning Fran, what the true situation is regarding Fran Lyon and the Social Services.

I appreciate that there are many on here who support Fran wholeheartedly and without reseve.

Some people however reserve the right to ask questions in an endeavor to know the full facts before they 'weigh in'

I don't think posen's questions were rude Elizabeth, fan has stated that she is open and honest about her past, be it medical or emotional, so why should a question regarding any of this be deemed intrusive?

NoName we all had questions & reservations & anyone who wants to get answers only has to look at research provided on previous threads. We haven't blindly accepted anything that was said there has been much interesting debate on this subject.But this is re-hashing old territory for Fran & now she has managed to get settled in another country to enjoy the last weeks of her pregnancy I personally feel she shouldn't be harrassed, she should be given the support we would give any MN-er. Being intrusive is one thing but downright accusatory is another. (However I'm sure she will be back on later to answer in her own eloquent fashion I am not speaking for her. )

I also feel remarks about her location are just fishing for info Scandanavia has not been mentioned before on here (correct me if I'm wrong) other than by people who seem to be testing the water.

Someone earlier on did mention and showed a link to an article, I think, that claimed that Fran went to Sweden....
not getting involved, just think that that would be why people are talking about scandinavia.

Yes 3 &, you're right & when I asked that poster where this journal was from & how reliable it was as I'd never heard of it before - not being arsey genuinely interested I love finding new sources of news- they didn't reply.

Presumably got called away as we all do!

"I don't think posen's questions were rude Elizabeth, fan has stated that she is open and honest about her past, be it medical or emotional, so why should a question regarding any of this be deemed intrusive?"

Imagine being on the receiving end of those types of question yourself from hostile strangers who won't even identify themselves but are quite happy to persuade you to publicly lay bare your medical and emotional history in order that they can be "convinced", nonametoday.

I think you'll find that "instrusive" is an accurate way to describe those type of questions.

I'd also add that its quite possible that there are people with a direct interest in Fran's case who may not be on her side however, either reading or posting on this thread.

I think circumspection in questioning would be a good thing under those circumstances.

This is the Journal that was mentioned. I assume it is just a regional newspaper from the North East.
Theoldstraighttrack then posted today that today's Journal said Fran had left Sweden.
I would like to know more about Theoldstraighttrack and what his/her motives/connections are here, if any, because s/he has only posted on Fran Lyon threads as far as I can see.

If Fran is indeed in Sweden then the info is out there now, so I don't really see why it shouldn't be mentioned. But if she isn't we don't really need to know. Whatever keeps her safe.

This is an open forum though and not everyone will be of the opinion that this is a one-sided situation. If people make their personal details public, then it is inevitable that some people will question any inconsistencies in what has been said, and some will do that in a way that is not considered acceptable to all. But that is still their right, in the same way as it is the right of Fran, and anyone else, to not answer said questions.

Am not going to comment on the case itself, but I will say this much.

I find it strange that someone who is going through all this and who has only recently moved to another country already has regular access to the internet so as to post on mumsnet. Especially considering Fran has not disclosed her location, presumably to remain safe, why would she then put that at risk by posting on open internet forums where it would be extremely easy to trace her whereabouts?

Someone posted on a previous thread that they thought that it wasn?t Fran posting. I?m inclined to agree with that.

I am definitely not hostile, but I do have reservations about frans version of events, and like she has said herself, she has chosen to publicise her story and is using (i believe rightly) the public eye (medis/message boards etc) to do this. she therefore leaves herself open to questions of this nature. I just want to get to the bottom of what she's saying. I have said repeatedly that regardless of the actual truth of the matter re her version i still don't think her baby should be taken away, i think it's awful!

Well bossybritches, I didn't mention Scandinavia or anywhere else.

If you truly believe all your questions have been answered and you are comfortable with your decision to support Fran, then anyone elses concerns should not impinge on your decision.

If Fran is as open and honest as she purports to be, then she will surely have no concerns in revealing the information that she says Social Services have and she herself has stated that she gives her consent for that information to be made public.

The rub is, unfortunately, Social Services cannot disclose the information they have to the general public, despite Fran saying she gives he consent.

Elizabetth, re your point about non supportive people reading this thread, I heartily concur, but that is as an individual who knows only what she has read and seen on the internet and the TV, not someone with a vested interest.

Why would it be difficult to get internet access? Lots of flats come with networking built in, never mind hotel rooms.

Well I think if Fran is expected to be completely open then we should all lay bare our medical histories here and any dealings we've had with social services and our real names. All in the interests of fairness of course. If people don't want to do that they perhaps they could lay off the heavy-handed questioning.

i really am just trying to give her the opportunity to fill in a few gaps which exist for me. i am sorry if it seems heavy handed, but i feel a little fobbed off. fine, we'll see if fran wants to actually address my points clearly, and if not then my position is unchanged; i don't necessarily trust that she is telling us the truth about the whole thing, but actually it doesn't matter because she should still shouldn't lose her baby.

E your point about all of us laying bare our medical histories etc etc is a silly one

Well it is eye opening to see how many positively victorian attitudes towards mental health issues still exist. Can they be trusted? Are they manipulating the truth if they say they now recovered, even if supported by psychiatric reviews? Not if they are female and potential mothers obviously. and heaven help them if they have a physical illness too.
Fran has many times explained that she has angiodema, which is responsible for repeated A&E.

Look, I am not without cynicism in any situation. I am however, aware that in any other situation our justice system would ensure a person would not be assumed guilty before they had committed any crime. And this is not a situation where the SS can or will at any time say 'Oh sorry we made a mistake'. If Fran's child is taken that is it. For life. Without any actual evidence that she is a risk to her child, however you speculate about her past. I believe that is wrong. And that is why I support her. I do believe however she should be entitled to huge amount of support to ensure the welfare of both herself and her child. SS have ensured this cannot happen in the UK.

Posen can you make it clear what it is you feel Fran hasn't answered? I am a bit confused as I got the impression she answered the questions you raised - if not can you make it clearer.

Also to answer the questions about Fran's friends and family in the media - I hope that by posting on here and starting a facebook group and posting this on several other petitions I am being quite public about my support for Fran. I don't know what else I can do, as I doubt my opinion as a friend, colleague and mental health patient would hold much weight even if the media were interested.

No Elizabetth, most people keep themselves to themselves, whether it be their bank balance statement, income, HIV staus, to mention just a few things that most folks keep private.

Fran has chosen to put herself and her situation in the general public eye,and thus generated support for her situation.

If Fran chooses to keep certain aspects of her life private and unavailable to public scrutiny, then I do not see that as a problem, providing she accepts that some people will not necessarily wish to give their support to a 'one sided version'.

That is not to say that there is anything wrong or untrue in the information that has been made available by Fran. That's the big problem isn't, most of us do not know what the truth is..

"E your point about all of us laying bare our medical histories etc etc is a silly one"

Not really. If you think that Fran ought to answer all your intrusive questions, it would be equally fair to say that before you can be trusted with the answers you should reveal something about yourself. I need to be convinced, Posen.

"Fran has chosen to put herself and her situation in the general public eye,and thus generated support for her situation."

Nope, social services threatened to take her child and the only way she could find to fight it was to publicise what was being done to her. Not much of a choice as far as I can see.

"That's the big problem isn't, most of us do not know what the truth is.."

Is it the big problem? I thought the big problem is that social workers appear to be out of control and are not subject to any public scrutiny for their actions. I don't find your and Posen's scepticism much of a problem although it seems to bother the two of you quite a lot, so much so that you both feel that Fran ought to be subject to very intrusive questions to relieve it. This is an internet board, not a court of law. I wouldn't advise anybody to reveal much personal information on the internet because like I said earlier we don't know who is reading it or what use they might try and put it to.

look for gods sake, i fundamentally and firmly believe that she should keep her baby. i have expressly stated that if i were in the same situation as her, i would do what she is doing. i understand her reasons for leaving the country and completely agree with them. i hope with all my heart that things work out for her, and i think the way that her case has been handled is dispicalble, frightening and terrible.

i am only questioning exactly what she has disclosed on this board, i am confused because i think that she has not been completely honest about certain aspects of the case. if i am right and she has concealed information, then i don't blame her, but i also think that through the choices that she has made, she has given me the right to actually ask.

doricgirl, or anyone who fancies helping me here, the questions which i think she has been misleading on are directly related to her admissions in to a & e and whether those admissions are what social services are worried about. akaik she has never said on this board that ss are concerned about these admissions. however it looks l.ike these admissions are exactly what ss are concerned about, and this was said on the trevor mac programme last night. i'm not saying that the admissions aren't genuine, or that she isn't ill.
if anyone can link to exactly where fran actually states that social services may be concerned about her repeated admissions in to a & e i shall shut up. I have also asked teh following question to give fran an opportunity to answer it honestly: how many times have you been amitted to hospital as an emergency admission in the last 4 years? how many times since you found out you were pregnant?