Panorama - I want my baby back

[BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability]

Anyone watching?

This promoting of the idea that SS want to steal babies makes me very uneasy...

[Spero]

Sausage - I think that is the response he deserves.

[confuddledDOTcom]

He won't give up, will he?

I was talking to a couple today, I don't know what she does but he hadn't heard of JH before and she just said "Yes.... he's a great source of embarrassment to us".

[WestmorlandSausage]

do we think we can get away with writing 'liar liar pants on fire' on community care?

[nennypops]

Two more comments up now, including a response from Hemming.

[NoseWiperExtraordinaire]

Ooh, it's there now!

[Spero]

I wrote a brief piece to explain that JH had chosen to email me one page of a document in the employment proceedings - that showed the opposite of what he wished to prove! - and how inappropriate I thought that was.

Comment vanished in ether apparently.

[NoseWiperExtraordinaire]

Really? That is interesting. I thought no comments yet was a bit odd

[Spero]

Strangely it would seem that no comments are allowed to stay up on that piece...

[NoseWiperExtraordinaire]

Oh curse the links

www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/01/22/social-workers-experts-john-hemming-mp-responds-community-care-readers/

[NoseWiperExtraordinaire]

Just spotted this response by JH to the letter in Community Care.

Finally (?) a shift away from evil social workers, but seems he's not budging on targets!

www.communitycare.co.uk/2014/01/22/social-workers-experts-john-hemming-mp-responds-community-care-readers/

[MinesAPintOfTea]

I've just checked our local library online service and they don't have the DM full edition on there (only business pages when most other papers they have the full paper). Is anyone going near a major library as they usually keep the full paper on microfiche and that would settle the question as to whether this is an altered version.

[Spero]

I certainly don't recall him saying it, nor would he be likely to be the one quoted - he wasn't president of the Family Division in 2008, I think it was Lord Justice Wall then who had the run in with JH in the Nottingham case.

[nennypops]

I suppose it's not impossible that Munby was saying similar things in 2008 to what he's said recently?

[Lioninthesun]

Anyho, I have asked them directly if they stand by this latest version as their own, seeing as it is being tweeted under their name. Will see what they say tomorrow.

[Lioninthesun]

Looks like it Spero. DM didn't seem bothered than someone had changed it, which is even more worrying. I did say to the PCC that it was a bastardised version of the 2008 article, but didn't bother pointing it out to DM, who presumably can see that for themselves
If I had a paper and people were tweeting doctored stories under my name I would be very concerned.

[Spero]

That is really very, very odd.

it refers to things that Mr Justice Munby said very recently. He certainly didn't say those things in 2008! Has someone doctored an older article?

[Lioninthesun]

I cannot believe it, just had an email from DM as below:

Thank you for your email. The article you refer to was published online on 31 January 2008 and in the paper on 1 February 2008. It remains online at www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511609/How-social-services-paid-bonuses-snatch-babies-adoption.html where it can be read in context.

Many thanks for taking the time to share with us your concerns.

Kind regards
Managing Editors’ Office
Daily Mail


They are actually calling this journalism! With no journalist?! Anyway PCC will follow it up. I refuse to click on their link and see that drivel all over again!

[Lioninthesun]

The more complaints the PCC get the more they will look into it though so if anyone else can, please do!

[Lioninthesun]

To be honest I figure this is why there is no journalist name on this piece - he has somehow managed to get it in without the editor seeing it. Hopefully this will shock the top of DM and they will sue whoever put it in under their banner. It doesn't even look edited (all of the errors and numbers in brackets for eg) and looks as though he pulled it from a doc by cut and paste! I doubt DM will argue that anyone in their field 'wrote' it anyway. They would be foolish to try.

[AnywhereOverTheRainbow]

I think putting IJ and JH written articles together under a banner "Why I am scared of Social Services" and going through their myths point by point and dispelling them, would possibly show how outlandish their claims are.

Brilliant idea!! I must do something with all the screenshots I took in two months, right? :)

[Spero]

\well done lion!

I have been asking for 'proof' of this figure for years, he eventually admitted it was a rough estimate based on what he believed the figures were!

i.e. it was a figure pulled out of thin air.

[Lioninthesun]

Please all feel free to complain as well. So far I had an email back questioning why I doubt "John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning to change the adoption system, said yesterday: "I have evidence that 1,000 children are wrongly being seized from their birth parents each year even though they have not been harmed in any way"

• when I pointed out he was not privvy to the information Social Services had relating to the cases due to confidentiality and thus could not possibly claim that they 'had not been hurt in any way'. I also confirmed he should make this figures open, which he has refused to do on several occasions leading me to doubt their validity.
  Feel free to include that bit, they seem to like it

[Lioninthesun]

I have reported it to the PCC and said there are no facts or sources for the figures. Also pointed out that there is no journo name or comments section; the whole thing breaks most of the Editors Code of Practice http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html and therefore I believe their site has been hacked. Also reported it to the DM as otherwise JH and the Hemming Lemmings will soon take over the paper without them realising.

If they have indeed posted this themselves it is disgusting. Really bad grammar too! So many BOLDED words...

[Spero]

Goodness. Just when you don't think it is possible the Daily Mail could sink even further in one's estimation, they manage to pull it off!

[nennypops]

It doesn't seem to be a fake, astonishingly. I tried putting a reasonably unique phrase from it into the Mail Online's search engine, and that article came up. I find it utterly shocking that they seriously published something saying Social Services were earmarking children to be snatched before birth, and that they produced so much anecdotal and totally untested "evidence" simply in order to scare their readers and promote JH's agenda.