UKCORRUPTFAMILYCOURTS

May 30, 2010

cannock team ( bullies )

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 12:54 pm

is bullying?
Bullying is persistent unwelcome behaviour, mostly using unwarranted or invalid criticism, nit-picking, fault-finding, also exclusion, isolation, being singled out and treated differently, being shouted at, humiliated, excessive monitoring, having verbal and written warnings imposed, and much more. In the workplace, bullying usually focuses on distorted or fabricated allegations of underperformance. Click here for definitions of workplace bullying.

Why do people bully?
The purpose of bullying is to hide inadequacy. Bullying has nothing to do with managing etc; good managers manage, bad managers bully. Management is managing; bullying is not managing. Therefore, anyone who chooses to bully is admitting their inadequacy, and the extent to which a person bullies is a measure of their inadequacy. Bullies project their inadequacy on to others:

a) to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something about it;
b) to avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour and the effect it has on others, and,
c) to reduce their fear of being seen for what they are, namely a weak, inadequate and often incompetent individuals, and,
d) to divert attention away from their inadequacy – in an insecure or badly-managed workplace, this is how inadequate, incompetent and aggressive employees keep their jobs.

Bullying is an inefficient way of working, resulting in disenchantment, demoralisation, demotivation, disaffection, and alienation. Bullies run dysfunctional and inefficient organisations; staff turnover and sickness absence are high whilst morale, productivity and profitability are low. Prosperity is illusory and such organizations are a bad long-term investment. Projection and denial are hallmarks of the serial bully.

Bullying is present behind all forms of harassment, discrimination, prejudice, abuse, persecution, conflict and violence. When the bullying has a focus (eg race or gender) it is expressed as racial prejudice or harassment, or sexual discrimination and harassment, and so on. When the bullying lacks a focus (or the bully is aware of the Sex Discrimination Act or the Race Relations Act), it comes out as pure bullying; this is an opportunity to understand the behaviours which underlie almost all reprehensible behavior. I believe bullying is the single most important social issue of today.

Bullying…
is a form of abuse, and bullies – and unenlightened employers – often go to great lengths to keep their targets quiet, using threats of disciplinary action, dismissal, and gagging clauses. What bullies fear most is exposure of their inadequacy and being called publicly to account for their behavior and its consequences. This makes sense when you remember that the purpose of bullying is to hide inadequacy, and people who bully to hide their inadequacy are often incompetent.

A bully is a person who

  • has never learnt to accept responsibility for their behaviour
  • wants to enjoy the benefits of living in the adult world, but who is unable and unwilling to accept the responsibilities that are a prerequisite for being part of the adult world.
  • abdicates and denies responsibility for their behaviour and its consequences (abdication and denial are common features of bullying)
  • is unable and unwilling to recognise the effect of their behaviour on others
  • does not want to know of any other way of behaving
  • is unwilling to recognise that there could be better ways of behaving.

Bullying is obsessive and compulsive; the serial bully has to have someone to bully and appears to be unable to survive without a current target.

Despite the facade that such people put up, bullies have low self-confidence and low self-esteem, and thus feel insecure. Low self-esteem is a factor highlighted by all studies of bullying. Because such people are inadequate and unable to fulfil the duties and obligations of their position (but have no hesitation in accepting salary), they fear being revealed. This fear of exposure often borders on paranoia.

Bullies are seething with resentment, bitterness, hatred and anger, and often have wide-ranging prejudices as a vehicle for dumping their anger onto others. Bullies are driven by jealousy and envy. Rejection (which cannot be assuaged) is another powerful motivator of bullying.

Bullies are people who have not learned the lesson of consequences, ie that if they behave well there are good consequences (reward), but if they behave badly there are bad consequences (restriction, sanction, punishment, etc). Since childhood, bullies have learnt that they can avoid the unpleasant consequences of bad behaviour through the instinctive response of denial, blame, and feigning victimhood.

How to spot a bully in your workplace
If you have a serial bully on the staff they will reveal themselves by their department showing excessive rates of

  • staff turnover
  • sickness absence
  • stress breakdowns
  • deaths in service
  • ill-health retirements
  • early retirements
  • uses of disciplinary procedures
  • grievances initiated
  • suspensions
  • dismissals
  • uses of private security firms to snoop on employees
  • litigation including employment tribunals or legal action against employees

Pressure bullying or unwitting bullying is where the stress of the moment causes behaviour to deteriorate; the person becomes short-tempered, irritable and may shout or swear at others. Everybody does this from time to time, but when the pressure is removed, behaviour returns to normal, the person recognises the inappropriateness of their behaviour, makes amends, and may apologise, and – crucially – learns from the experience so that next time the situation arises they are better able to deal with it. This is “normal” behaviour and I do not include pressure bullying in my definition of workplace bullying.

Organisational bullying is a combination of pressure bullying and corporate bullying, and occurs when an organisation struggles to adapt to changing markets, reduced income, cuts in budgets, imposed expectations, and other external pressures.

Corporate bullying is where the employer abuses employees with impunity knowing that the law is weak and jobs are scarce, eg:

  • coercing employees to work 60/70/80 weeks on a regular basis then making life hell for (or dismissing) anyone who objects
  • dismissing anyone who looks like having a stress breakdown as it’s cheaper (in the UK) to pay the costs of unfair dismissal at Employment Tribunal (eg £50K maximum, but awards are usually paltry) than risk facing a personal injury claim for stress breakdown (eg £175K as in the John Walker case)
  • introduces “absence management” to deny employees annual or sick leave to which they are genuinely entitled
  • regularly snoops and spies on employees, eg by listening in to telephone conversations, using the mystery shopper, contacting customers behind employees backs and asking leading questions, conducting covert video surveillance (perhaps by fellow employees), sending personnel officers or private investigators to an employee’s home to interrogate the employees whilst on sick leave, threatening employees with interrogation the moment they return from sick leave, etc.
  • deems any employee suffering from stress as weak and inadequate whilst aggressively ignoring and denying the cause of stress (bad management and bullying)
  • “encourages” employees (with promises of promotion and/or threats of disciplinary action) to fabricate complaints about their colleagues
  • employees are “encouraged” to give up full-time permanent positions in favour of short-term contracts; anyone who resists has their life made hell

Institutional bullying is similar to corporate bullying and arises when bullying becomes entrenched and accepted as part of the culture. People are moved, long-existing contracts are replaced with new short-term contracts on less favourable terms with the accompanying threat of “agree to this or else”, workloads are increased, work schedules are changed, roles are changed, career progression paths are blocked or terminated, etc – and all of this is without consultation.

Client bullying is where employees are bullied by those they serve, eg teachers are bullied (and often assaulted) by pupils and their parents, nurses are bullied by patients and their relatives, social workers are bullied by their clients, and shop/bank/building society staff are bullied by customers. Often the client is claiming their perceived right (eg to better service) in an abusive,  derogatory and often physically violent manner. Client bullying can also be employees bullying their clients.

Serial bullying is where the source of all dysfunction can be traced to one individual, who picks on one employee after another and destroys them. This is the most common type of bullying I come across; most of this web site is devoted to describing and defining the serial bully, who exhibits the behavioural characteristics of a socialised psychopath. Most people know at least one person in their life with the profile of the serial bully; most people do not recognise this person as a socialised psychopath, or sociopath. I estimate one person in thirty is either  a physically-violent psychopath who commits criminal acts, or an antisocial whose behaviour is antisocial, or a sociopath who commits mostly non-arrestable offences. For an in-depth insight into serial bullying, click here.

Secondary bullying is mostly unwitting bullying which people start exhibiting when there’s a serial bully in the department. The pressure of trying to deal with a dysfunctional, divisive and aggressive serial bully causes everyone’s behaviour to decline.

Pair bullying is a serial bully with a colleague. Often one does the talking whilst the other watches and listens. Usually it’s the quiet one you need to watch. Usually they are of opposite gender and frequently there’s an affair going on.

Gang bullying is a serial bully with colleagues. Gangs can occur anywhere, but flourish in corporate bullying climates. If the bully is an extrovert, they are likely to be leading from the front; they may also be a shouter and screamer, and thus easily identifiable (and recordable on tape and video-able). If the bully is an introvert, that person will be in the background initiating the mayhem but probably not taking an active part, and may thus be harder to identify. A common tactic of this type of bully is to tell everybody a different story – usually about what others are alleged to have said about that person – and encourage each person to think they are the only one with the correct story. Introvert bullies are the most dangerous bullies.
Half the people in the gang are happy for the opportunity to behave badly, they gain gratification from the feeling of power and control, and enjoy the patronage, protection and reward from the serial bully. The other half of the gang are coerced into joining in, usually through fear of being the next target if they don’t. If anything backfires, one of these coercees will be the scapegoat and sacrificial lamb on whom enraged targets will be encouraged to vent their anger. The serial bully watches from a safe distance. Serial bullies gain a great deal of gratification from encouraging and watching others engage in conflict, especially those who might otherwise pool negative information about them.
Gang bullying or group bullying is often called mobbing and usually involves scapegoating and victimisation.

Vicarious bullying is where two parties are encouraged to engage in adversarial interaction or conflict. Similar to gang bullying, although the bully may or may not be directly connected with either of the two parties. One party becomes the bully’s instrument of harassment and is deceived and manipulated into bullying the other party. An example of vicarious bullying is where the serial bully creates conflict between employer and employee, participating occasionally to stoke the conflict, but rarely taking an active part in the conflict themselves.

Regulation bullying is where a serial bully forces their target to comply with rules, regulations, procedures or laws regardless of their appropriateness, applicability or necessity. Legal bullying – the bringing of a vexatious legal action to control and punish a person – is one of the nastiest forms of bullying.

Residual bullying is the bullying of all kinds that continues after the serial bully has left. Like recruits like and like promotes like, therefore the serial bully bequeaths a dysfunctional environment to those who are left. This can last for years.

Cyber bullying is the misuse of email systems or Internet forums etc for sending aggressive flame mails. Serial bullies have few communication skills (and often none), thus the impersonal nature of email makes it an ideal tool for causing conflict. Sometimes called cyberstalking.

In environments where bullying is the norm, most people will eventually either become bullies or become targets. There are few bystanders, as most people will eventually be sucked in. It’s about survival: you either adopt bullying tactics yourself and thus survive by not becoming a target, or you stand up against bullying and refuse to join in, in which case you are bullied, harassed, victimized and scapegoated until your health is so severely impaired that you have a stress breakdown (this is a psychiatric injury, not a mental illness – see health page for details on stress, or the PTSD page for details on psychiatric injury), take ill-health retirement, leave, find yourself unexpectedly selected for redundancy, or are unfairly dismissed.

The majority of cases of workplace bullying reported to the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line and Bully OnLine involve an individual being bullied by their manager, and these account for around 75% of cases. Around a quarter of cases involve bullying and harassment by peers (often with the collusion of a manager either by proactive involvement or by the manager refusing to take action). A small number of cases (around 1-2%) involve the bullying of a manager by a subordinate. Serial bullies like to tap into hierarchical power, but they also generate their own power by simply choosing to bully with impunity and justifying or denying their behaviour with rationalisation, manipulation, deception or lying.

In a case of bullying of a manager by a subordinate, it’s my view that as bullying is a form of violence (at the psychological and emotional lever rather than the physical) it’s the responsibility of the employer, not the individual manager, to deal with violence at work.

People who are bullied find that they are:

  • constantly criticised and subjected to destructive criticism (often euphemistically called constructive criticism, which is an oxymoron) – explanations and proof of achievement are ridiculed, overruled, dismissed or ignored
  • forever subject to nit-picking and trivial fault-finding (the triviality is the giveaway)
  • undermined, especially in front of others; false concerns are raised, or doubts are expressed over a person’s performance or standard of work – however, the doubts lack substantive and quantifiable evidence, for they are only the bully’s unreliable opinion and are for control, not performance enhancement
  • overruled, ignored, sidelined, marginalised, ostracised
  • isolated and excluded from what’s happening (this makes people more vulnerable and easier to control and subjugate)
  • singled out and treated differently (for example everyone else can have long lunch breaks but if they are one minute late it’s a disciplinary offence)
  • belittled, degraded, demeaned, ridiculed, patronised, subject to disparaging remarks
  • regularly the target of offensive language, personal remarks, or inappropriate bad language
  • the target of unwanted sexual behaviour
  • threatened, shouted at and humiliated, especially in front of others
  • taunted and teased where the intention is to embarrass and humiliate
  • set unrealistic goals and deadlines which are unachievable or which are changed without notice or reason or whenever they get near achieving them
  • denied information or knowledge necessary for undertaking work and achieving objectives
  • starved of resources, sometimes whilst others often receive more than they need
  • denied support by their manager and thus find themselves working in a management vacuum
  • either overloaded with work (this keeps people busy [with no time to tackle bullying] and makes it harder to achieve targets) or have all their work taken away (which is sometimes replaced with inappropriate menial jobs, eg photocopying, filing, making coffee)
  • have their responsibility increased but their authority removed
  • have their work plagiarised, stolen and copied – the bully then presents their target’s work (eg to senior management) as their own
  • are given the silent treatment: the bully refuses to communicate and avoids eye contact (always an indicator of an abusive relationship); often instructions are received only via email, memos, or a succession of yellow stickies or post-it notes
  • subject to excessive monitoring, supervision, micro-management, recording, snooping etc
  • the subject of written complaints by other members of staff (most of whom have been coerced into fabricating allegations – the complaints are trivial, often bizarre [“He looked at me in a funny way”] and often bear striking similarity to each other, suggesting a common origin)
  • forced to work long hours, often without remuneration and under threat of dismissal
  • find requests for leave have unacceptable and unnecessary conditions attached, sometimes overturning previous approval. especially if the person has taken action to address bullying in the meantime
  • denied annual leave, sickness leave, or – especially – compassionate leave
  • when on leave, are harassed by calls at home or on holiday, often at unsocial hours
  • receive unpleasant or threatening calls or are harassed with intimidating memos, notes or emails with no verbal communication, immediately prior to weekends and holidays (eg 4pm Friday or Christmas Eve – often these are hand-delivered)
  • do not have a clear job description, or have one that is exceedingly long or vague; the bully often deliberately makes the person’s role unclear
  • are invited to “informal” meetings which turn out to be disciplinary hearings
  • are denied representation at meetings, often under threat of further disciplinary action; sometimes the bully abuses their position of power to exclude any representative who is competent to deal with bullying
  • encouraged to feel guilty, and to believe they’re always the one at fault
  • subjected to unwarranted and unjustified verbal or written warnings
  • facing unjustified disciplinary action on trivial or specious or false charges
  • facing dismissal on fabricated charges or flimsy excuses, often using a trivial incident from months or years previously
  • coerced into reluctant resignation, enforced redundancy, early or ill-health retirement
  • denial of the right to earn your livelihood including preventing you getting another job, usually with a bad or misleading reference

A favourite tactic of bullies which helps them evade detection is to undertake a “reorganisation” at regular intervals. This has several advantages:

  • anyone whose face doesn’t fit can be organised out through downsizing (redundancy) or transfer
  • ditto anyone who challenges the reorganisation
  • ditto, their job can be “regraded” or “redefined” to the person’s disadvantage
  • each reorganisation is a smokescreen for the bully’s dysfunctional behaviour – everyone is so busy coping with the reorganisation (chaos) that the bully’s behaviour goes unnoticed
  • the bully can always claim to be reorganising in the name of “efficiency” and therefore be perceived by those above as a strong manager

However, there is never any cost-benefit justification to the reorganisation – no figures before and no figures after to prove the reorganisation has brought benefits.

me?

There are many reasons how and why bullies target others, and the reasons are consistent between cases. There are many myths and stereotypes such as “victims are weak” which I deconstruct on my myths page. Bullying often repeats because the reasons that bullies target their victims don’t change, hence this section also answers the questions “Why do I keep getting bullied” and “Why do bullies continue to bully me?”.

1)  do bullies select their 

The bully selects their target using the following criteria:

  • bullies are predatory and opportunistic – you just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; this is always the main reason – investigation will reveal a string of predecessors, and you will have a string of successors
  • being good at your job, often excelling
  • being popular with people (colleagues, customers, clients, pupils, parents, patients, etc)
  • more than anything else, the bully fears exposure of his/her inadequacy and incompetence; your presence, popularity and competence unknowingly and unwittingly fuel that fear
  • being the expert and the person to whom others come for advice, either personal or professional (ie you get more attention than the bully)
  • having a well-defined set of values which you are unwilling to compromise
  • having a strong sense of integrity (bullies despise integrity, for they have none, and seem compelled to destroy anyone who has integrity)
  • having at least one vulnerability that can be exploited
  • being too old or too expensive (usually both)
  • refusing to join an established clique
  • showing independence of thought or deed
  • refusing to become a corporate clone and drone

Jealousy (of relationships and perceived exclusion therefrom) and envy (of talents, abilities, circumstances or possessions) are strong motivators of bullying.

2)  that trigger bullying

Bullying starts after one of these events:

  • the previous target leaves
  • there’s a reorganisation
  • a new manager is appointed
  • your performance unwittingly highlights, draws attention to, exposes or invites unfavourable comparison with the bully’s lack of performance (the harder you work to address the bully’s claims of underperformance, the more insecure and unstable the bully becomes)
  • you may have unwittingly become the focus of attention whereas before the bully was the centre of attention (this often occurs with female bullies) – most bullies are emotionally immature and thus crave attention
  • obvious displays of affection, respect or trust from co-workers
  • refusing to obey an order which violates rules, regulations, procedures, or is illegal
  • standing up for a colleague who is being bullied – this ensures you will be next; sometimes the bully drops their current target and turns their attention to you immediately
  • blowing the whistle on incompetence, malpractice, fraud, illegality, breaches of procedure, breaches of health & safety regulations etc
  • undertaking trade union duties
  • suffering illness or injury, whether work related or not
  • challenging the status quo, especially unwittingly
  • gaining recognition for your achievements, eg winning an award or being publicly recognised
  • gaining promotion

3)  qualities that bullies find irresistible

Targets of bullying usually have these qualities:

  • popularity (this stimulates jealousy in the less-than-popular bully)
  • competence (this stimulates envy in the less-than-competent bully)
  • intelligence and intellect
  • honesty and integrity (which bullies despise)
  • you’re trustworthy, trusting, conscientious, loyal and dependable
  • a well-developed integrity which you’re unwilling to compromise
  • you’re always willing to go that extra mile and expect others to do the same
  • successful, tenacious, determined, courageous, having fortitude
  • a sense of humour, including displays of quick-wittedness
  • imaginative, creative, innovative
  • idealistic, optimistic, always working for improvement and betterment of self, family, the employer, and the world
  • ability to master new skills
  • ability to think long term and to see the bigger picture
  • sensitivity (this is a constellation of values to be cherished including empathy, concern for others, respect, tolerance etc)
  • slow to anger
  • helpful, always willing to share knowledge and experience
  • giving and selfless
  • difficulty saying no
  • diligent, industrious
  • tolerant
  • strong sense of honour
  • irrepressible, wanting to tackle and correct injustice wherever you see it
  • an inability to value oneself whilst attributing greater importance and validity to other people’s opinions of oneself (eg through tests, exams, appraisals, manager’s feedback, etc)
  • low propensity to violence (ie you prefer to resolve conflict through dialogue rather than through violence or legal action)
  • a strong forgiving streak (which the bully exploits and manipulates to dissuade you from taking grievance and legal action)
  • a desire to always think well of others
  • being incorruptible, having high moral standards which you are unwilling to compromise
  • being unwilling to lower standards
  • a strong well-defined set of values which you are unwilling to compromise or abandon
  • high expectations of those in authority and a dislike of incompetent people in positions of power who abuse power
  • a tendency to self-deprecation, indecisiveness, deference and approval seeking
  • low assertiveness
  • a need to feel valued
  • quick to apologise when accused, even if not guilty (this is a useful technique for defusing an aggressive customer or potential road rage incident)
  • perfectionism
  • higher-than-average levels of dependency, naivety and guilt
  • a strong sense of fair play and a desire to always be reasonable
  • high coping skills under stress, especially when the injury to health becomes apparent
  • a tendency to internalise anger rather than express it

  • the target is selected using the criteria above, then bullied for months, perhaps years
  • eventually, the target asserts their right not to be bullied, perhaps by filing a complaint with personnel
  • personnel interview the bully, who uses their Jekyll and Hyde nature, compulsive lying, and charm to tell the opposite story (charm has a motive – deception)
  • it’s one word against another with no witnesses and no evidence, so personnel take the word of the senior employee – serial bullies excel at deception and evasion of accountability
  • the personnel department are hoodwinked by the bully into getting rid of the target – serial bullies are adept at encouraging conflict between people who might otherwise pool negative information about them
  • once the target is gone, there’s a period of between 2-14 days, then a new target is selected and the process starts again (bullying is an obsessive compulsive behaviour and serial bullies seem unable to survive without a target on to whom they can project their inadequacy and incompetence whilst blaming them for the bully’s own failings)
  • even if the employer realises that they might have sided with the wrong person in the past, they are unlikely to admit that because to do so may incur liability
  • if legal action is taken, employers go to increasingly greater lengths to keep targets quiet, usually by offering a small out-of-court settlement with a comprehensive gagging clause
  • employers are often more frightened of the bully than the target and will go to enormous lengths to avoid having to deal with bully (promotion for the bully is the most common outcome)

Contact us for strategies to counter the serial bully’s tactics of deception or how to deal with a gagging clause.

There are many myths, misperceptions and stereotypes that bullies and their supporters, apologists and deniers disingenuously use to hide the facts listed above and to further victimise those targeted; click here for insight to counter these tactics.

Acts of harassment usually centre around unwanted, offensive and intrusive behaviour with a sexual, racial or physical component. Measures to identify and proscribe acts of harassment derive from the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act and the law of assault. More recently, the Disability Discrimination Act (1996), the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) and the Protection from Harassment Act (1996) have also influenced attitudes towards harassment. Significantly, the Protection from Harassment Act accords emphasis for the first time on the target’s perception of the harassment rather than the perpetrator’s alleged intent.

At present, if one is being bullied and is white, British, able-bodied and the same gender as the bully, one is not currently covered by discrimination law. Ironically, one is thus discriminated against by not qualifying under existing discrimination law. Whilst the DTI like to quote the Protection from Harassment Act as the way to deal with bullying at work, the Act is designed to deal with stalkers, not an incompetent manager criticising a subordinate in a work environment.

Under the previous Conservative government, the DTI similarly quoted the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act as the way to deal with bullying. To my knowledge not a single case of workplace bullying has been resolved by either act – or is ever likely to be.

Definitions of harassment and bullying vary and there is much overlap. The essential differences between harassment and workplace bullying are as follows:

Harassment Workplace bullying
Has a strong physical component, eg contact and touch in all its forms, intrusion into personal space and possessions, damage to possessions including a person’s work, etc Almost exclusively psychological (eg criticism), may become physical later, especially with male bullies, but almost never with female bullies
Tends to focus on the individual because of what they are (eg female, black, disabled, etc) Anyone will do, especially if they are competent, popular and vulnerable
Harassment is usually linked to sex, race, prejudice, discrimination, etc Although bullies are deeply prejudiced, sex, race and gender play little part; it’s usually discrimination on the basis of competence
Harassment may consist of a single incident or a few incidents or many incidents Bullying is rarely a single incident and tends to be an accumulation of many small incidents, each of which, when taken in isolation and out of context, seems trivial
The person who is being harassed knows almost straight away they are being harassed The person being bullied may not realise they are being bullied for weeks or months – until there’s a moment of enlightenment
Everyone can recognise harassment, especially if there’s an assault, indecent assault or sexual assault Few people recognise bullying
Harassment often reveals itself through use of recognised offensive vocabulary, eg (“bitch”, “coon”, etc) Workplace bullying tends to fixate on trivial criticisms and false allegations of underperformance; offensive words rarely appear, although swear words may be used when there are no witnesses
There’s often an element of possession, eg as in stalking Phase 1 of bullying is control and subjugation; when this fails, phase 2 is elimination of the target
The harassment almost always has a strong clear focus (eg sex, race, disability) The focus is on competence (envy) and popularity (jealousy)
Often the harassment is for peer approval, bravado, macho image etc Tends to be secret behind closed doors with no witnesses
Harassment takes place both in and out of work The bullying takes place mostly at work
The harasser often perceives their target as easy, albeit sometimes a challenge The target is seen as a threat who must first be controlled and subjugated, and if that doesn’t work, eliminated
Harassment is often domination for superiority Bullying is for control of threat (of exposure of the bully’s own inadequacy)
The harasser often lacks self-discipline The bully is driven by envy (of abilities) and jealousy (of relationships)
The harasser often has specific inadequacies (eg sexual) The bully is inadequate in all areas of interpersonal and behavioural skills


Bullying within social work

At around 10% of over 4000 cases, social workers and social services employees are the third largest group of callers to the UK National Workplace Bullying Advice Line after teachers (20%) and healthcare employees (12%) and before workers from the voluntary sector (6-8%). In each case, the bully is a serial bully with a history of bullying and harassment. At least 50% of bullies in the caring professions are female, demonstrating that bullying is not a gender issue.

Attracted to the profession for the opportunities for power and control over vulnerable clients, and similar opportunities for power and control over employees committed to their clients, the serial bully can usually be recognised by their career progression: shortly after joining the profession, s/he puts as much distance as possible between him/herself and the actual clients by getting him/herself promoted up the managerial ladder, often using the fast-track approach.

The serial bully, especially the female, has an overwhelming narcissistic and attention-seeking need to portray herself as a wonderful, kind, caring, compassionate person but is oblivious to her aggression, dysfunction and inappropriateness of her behaviour. Click here for the full profile.

Look for high staff turnover, high sickness absence, high levels of grievance and disciplinary action, frequent “reorganisations” to remove “troublemakers” (ie anyone capable of exposing and calling to account the serial bully), etc. All of this is subsidised by taxpayers and donors.

Bully OnLine is a gold mine of insight and information on bullying which identifies the different types of harassment and bullying, and exposes the main perpetrator, the serial bully. Everyone knows at least one person in their life with the profile of the serial bully. Click here to see …who has this behaviour profile in your life?

Have a look through this web site to recognise the bullies and bullying in your life … start with Am I being bullied? then move on to What is bullying? To find out what you can do about bullying, click Action to tackle bullying. Have a look at the profile of the serial bully which is common to bullying managers of the serial kind, harassers, stalkers, rapists, violent partners, abusers, pedophiles, even serial killers of the organized kind.

If bullying and harassment have caused injury to your health, commonly diagnosed as “stress”, see the page on injury to health and the one on the psychiatric injury of trauma, a collection of symptoms congruent with the diagnostic criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD.


Advertisements

Adoption move defended by council chiefs

Adoption move defended by council chiefs
by JAMES BENSTEADLast updated: 10/02/2007 00:00
SOCIAL services chiefs have defended their decision to place a toddler for adoption with a couple who were later convicted of neglecting and sexually assaulting her.
The child, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had been with the couple for less than a year at their home in Midway when she was taken semi-conscious to Burton’s Queen’s Hospital.
A trial at Derby Crown Court, which ended last week, was told by the woman that she heard a bang in the bathroom and found the then two-year-old girl lying motionless on the floor.
Instead of calling an ambulance, the 40-year-old rang her husband to return from work and it was he who made the 999 call shortly after his return.
Doctors examining the child at Burton’s Queen’s Hospital found genital injuries consistent with a serious sexual assault, described by one expert as the worst she had seen in more than 20 years of dealing with child abuse cases.
Both parents, who can also not be identified and had never been in trouble before, gave conflicting stories when interviewed by police, but each denied two counts of sexual assault on a child and three counts of cruelty against a child.
The trial jury convicted the 39-year-old man of both charges of sexual assault, and his now ex-wife, 40, of two charges of cruelty, relating to her failure to seek immediate treatment for the injuries and causing the baby a serious head injury, probably by shaking it. They are due to be sentenced on March 12.
Although the couple live in South Derbyshire, the girl was placed with them by the adoption agency at Staffordshire County Council after they had failed to conceive a child and an expensive round of IVF treatment had failed.
In September, 2004, following a series of tests and ‘rigorous’ checks, the adoption team placed a child in the couple’s care ahead of an official adoption being finalised in May 2005.
The court heard that, just two days after the horrendous events of August 6, 2005, the couple were also due to take in another child — their victim’s biological sister.
A county council spokesman said: “When people apply to be considered as adoptive parents, the council is responsible for undertaking preparation and assessment in accordance with regulations and statutory guidance.
“The assessment is considered by an adoption panel which makes a recommendation to the adoption agency.
“A review concluded that this was a well-conducted adoption assessment where events followed a proper sequence, the work complied with Department for Education and Skills (DfES) standards and good practice in place at the time.
“Naturally, we are saddened to hear of cases such as this and we would wish to point out that the council does everything in its power to safeguard children as much as possible.”

.”http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Adoption-move-defended-by-council-chiefs.htm

May 29, 2010

figures that show approx 3 children + are removed per week from staffs ss as they usually do not allow children to remain at home on an ico

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 9:24 pm

Dear Ms Barlow,

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Thank you for your request for your clarification.

Over the last two years (1st March 2008 to 28th February 2010) there
have been 384 children subject of an interim care order. We cannot
confirm however how many of these were contested as this level of detail
would only be recorded in individual case files and it would take
considerably longer than 18 hours to search for this information which
would exceed the statutory cost ceiling.

Staffordshire’s policy is in-line with the Working Together Safeguarding
Children’s Guidance that children would only be taken away from parents
if it was felt that they would be suffering abuse, neglect and their
welfare was at risk.

If you have any queries or require any further information please do not
hesitate to contact me.

In the first instance if you have any comments relating to how your
request has been handled by our authority, please contact Philip Jones,
Head of Information Governance, Information Governance Unit, 1a Bailey
Street, Stafford, ST17 4BG.

If you have any further comments relating to how your request has been
handled by our authority, please contact the Information Commissioner,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours Sincerely
Regards
Gemma Allen
Access to Information Officer
Information Governance Unit
Law and Governance Directorate
Staffordshire County Council
1A Bailey Street
Stafford
ST17 4BG
Telephone: 01785 278568

As i suspected about bullying within Staffordshire Local Authority

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 9:18 pm

Dear Sir or Madam,

1) How many employees of Staffordshire County Council have made an
official complaint of harassment and bullying at work during the
past six years?

2) How many of these complaints were upheld in favour of the
complainant?

3) How many of those which were not held in favour of the
complainant went on to Appeal?

4) How many of those that went to Appeal were found to favour the
complainant?

5) How many complainants went on to the ‘The Local Ombudsman’?

6) How many of those were found to favour the complainant i.e.
found maladministration by officers/employees of Staffordshire
County Council

7) How many complaints went on to an Employment Tribunal?

8) How many of these were found to uphold the complaint?

Yours faithfully,

Joan Clarke-Marsh

Dear Ms Clarke-Marsh

Thank you for your request for information, which was received on 15th
June 2009.

We have completed the search of our records, please find answers to the
questions you asked below:

2004/5: <5 members of Staff made an official complaint of harassment and
bulling, non of which were upheld, non of which the complainant appealed.

2005/6: <5 members of Staff made an official complaint of harassment and
bullying, <5 were upheld, non appealed.

2006/7: <5 members of Staff made an official complaint of harassment and
bullying, <5 were upheld, <5 appealed non of which non were upheld. Non
went to tribunal.

2007/8: 9 members of staff made an official complaint of harassment and
bullying, <5 were upheld, <5 appealed, <5 of which were upheld. Non went
to tribunal.

2008/9: 10 members of staff made an official complaint of harassment and
bullying, <5 were upheld, <5 appealed, non of which were upheld. Non went
to tribunal.

Unfortunately we could not answer questions relating to 2003/4 as this
predates the available casework records.

With regards to your questions 5 and 6, the Local Government Ombudsman
publishes details of complaints forwarded to them on there website,
Therefore this information is exempt from release under section 21
(Information accessible to applicant by other means) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

[1]http://www.lgo.org.uk/CouncilsPerformanc…

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, we have a responsibility to protect
the identity of third parties. Accordingly where the figures are of a
small number we have stated <5 so that individual cases cannot be
identified.

If you have any queries or require any further information please do not
hesitate to contact me.

In the first instance if you have any comments relating to how your
request has been handled by our authority, please contact Philip Jones,
Head of Information Governance, Information Governance Unit, 1a Bailey
Street, Stafford, ST17 4BG.

If you have any further comments relating to how your request has been
handled by our authority, please contact the Information Commissioner,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours Sincerely

Gemma Allen

Access to Information Officer

Information Governance Unit

Law and Governance Directorate

Staffordshire County Council

1A Bailey Street

Stafford

more corruption and bullying

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 7:55 pm
STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
HOME CUISINE ENVIRONMENT INSURANCE HORSES LEGENDS LAW NEWS PRODUCE RIGHTS SITE INDEX TRANSPORT WHISTLEBLOWING

If you look at Staffordshire County Council’s website, you might be persuaded the location is a friendly place to live, visit, invest or work in.

To help you make up your mind, and perhaps achieve a more balanced view, we would like you to take a look at the motley bunch shown in these pictures kindly supplied by a local action group.  You may also like to read the allegations concerning this Council’s dealings with Mr John Challinor, a local businessman:-

Victim – John Challinor

This is a brief outline of Staffordshire County Council’s determination to destroy one man and his business.  When that Council’s court actions failed or faltered they resorted to using their own powers. They took direct action and removed everything they could lay their hands on in a week, causing accidents and failing to keep a proper inventory. They spent over £250,000 in a week. £15,000 on security and took thousands of pounds worth of valuable machinery and materials and either sent it for scrap or sold it for a pittance to their own contractors.
1.    The owners or operators of land at Woodside obtained a Certificate of Lawful Use in 1994 from the Borough Council. This was supported by the then Borough Councillor Len Bloomer. This CLU stated that :-

1.  The use of [The Site] as a plant hire contractor’s yard including the repair, maintenance, storage and distribution of associated equipment and vehicles, such vehicles not exceeding ten in number.
2. The use of [The Site] for the storage, distribution and general trading of materials recovered for (sic) demolition and construction sites for recycling, such storage of materials not exceeding 4 metres in height.”

Councillor Len Bloomer

2.         There are also Environment Agency exemptions registered in relation to The Site and the adjoining Woodland and a Waste Management Licence.

3.          The County Council after two attempts to have the CLU revoked issued an Enforcement Notice in 1997 which was supported on Appeal in 1999. A further appeal was made by Mr Challinor and prepared by Harry Wolton QC but this was lost and never pursued by the instructing Solicitors. Mr Challinor has always considered that one cannot enforce on what is Lawful and the disagreement centred on the Council’s view that “recycling did not include a process step” and that materials from construction and demolition sites were waste so the CLU did not allow the importation of mixed materials and soils.

It should be noted that the Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 648 states” recycling” means the reprocessing in a production process of the waste materials for the original purpose or for other purposes including organic recycling but excluding energy recovery.

4.         However as a result of ill heath the land was leased to another Company and Mr Challinor as a result of personal problems later moved to live into the cottage at Woodside in 2001.

5.         The County Council then proceeded to issue 19 indictments in 2001, they got this wrong and withdrew 11 in Dec 2001 and on 17 Dec 2003 withdrew the rest offering no evidence.

6.         The County Council obtained an injunction in 2002 and made an application to commit Mr Challinor to prison for allegedly breaching that injunction in September 2002. When this came to court in 2004 they withdrew the proceedings!

7.         Prior to withdrawing the proceedings County Council Officers provided copies of their statements to a third party for use in other proceedings (divorce).

8.         The County Council also applied to extend the injunction to the Woodland next to Woodside in 2002. That application failed in 2004.

Mr Farmer

9.         However because of their frustration with the Courts they decided to by bypass the courts and take direct action.

10.    Mr Walker the newly appointed Enforcement Officer visited the site 4 times prior to 7 April 2003.  He was asked to meet with Mr Challinor’s sisters who were also executors/beneficiaries of the estate.

11.   No attempt was made to meet them and the next thing that happened was the Direct Action organised by Mr Walker who was assisted by Mr Martin Webb. This was organised in secret and no warning or notice given.

12.  Mr Challinor who suffers with heart and stress problems, of which the Council were aware as a result of other legal action, lives alone at the Cottage. He was woken early on Monday 7 April 2003 to find the Cottage surrounded by a 8 Police Officers including the Tactical Response Team, Security Officers, Council Officials, a video camera man and an Ambulance and contractors. NO NOTICE was given as required by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

13.     From the moment the security officers arrived, Mr Challinor was followed on the site at a distance of about 15 meters. Whilst he was in the cottage 3 Security Officers positioned themselves possibly 15 meters from the front door. He was followed by these uniformed Officers 24 hours a day wherever he walked on and off the site, onto the next door property and through the Woodland. When he went off the site in a vehicle he was followed in unmarked cars, by plain clothed Security Officers on Monday 7th April and Tuesday 8th April 2003. On each of these occasions he was in a friend’s car.

Martin Webb

14.       It should be noted that the Surveillance was authorised by a County Council Officer Mr Doug Walker who is also the individual responsible for planning and executing this Direct Action and it is “suggested” the person who obtained a warrant from the Magistrates Court to enter the land. This is a breach of correct procedure. It is clear from a Police letter that they were not consulted about this covert surveillance off the site and a letter from Mr Walker suggests he took advice from the Security Consultants which one can only assume were the firm who undertook this security. The bill sent to Mr Challinor for the provision of this surveillance and security for £15,140.00. It seems he is expected to pay for having his Human Rights violated!

These same security officer along with Martin Webb tried to drag a lorry driver out of his cab bruising and injuring his arm. The driver made a complaint regarding the assault to the Police but was later encourage to drop it!

15.     At no time was Mr Challinor informed that he would be followed on or off the property. On Monday night he called the Police to complain about the Officers trespassing and the surveillance. On Tuesday after intervention by the Police the Council agreed to stop the covert surveillance however they are attempting to charge Mr Challinor for that surveillance lasting a week but he is not aware that it continued. Mr Challinor gave no assurances in relation to this surveillance and considered the request inappropriate and demeaning.

16.          Friends who visited him were questioned and had their car registration numbers recorded and other friends who stayed with him on the property during the week were also followed when walking around the property or into the Woodland.

17.      Even the Environment Agency came to observe the activities but even knowing about the licences registered with them and CLU they seemed powerless to intervene. They did not want to be involved.

Staffordshire C.C. enforcement officer – Doug Walker

18.      On Friday 11th April 2003 Mr Challinor was taken by one of his sisters to the Doctor who immediately had him admitted to hospital for tests in connection with his heart condition and blood pressure.

19.      During the course of this week the Council removed all the property from Woodside, including recycled soils, machinery, materials, blue bricks and equipment leaving the business that operated from the site devastated. They did not arrive on site with any plans of the site, survey equipment or in particular the area of the site covered by the Certificate of Lawful Use, that area was cleared also.

20.          They moved 863 loads of the soil and recycles materials to a nearby site, Lodge Covert which had permission for only 120 loads per week. The restriction, imposed by the County Council, was for highway safety reasons and yes you guessed it there were three accidents there that week. It seems we have a system where planning officers can breach planning conditions but not others.

21.          In addition they took all the materials, stock and machinery and vehicles. Without notice they sold 5 machines for a pittance to one of their own contractors and they rest including excavator buckets, pitch-pine timber, generators  and brass fittings was supposedly sent for scrap. Nothing paid for the scrap of course! And no inventory.

Staffordshire C.C. director Ron Hilton

22.          The County Council were authorised by members and encouraged by the very same Councillor Bloomer, to spend in the region of £60,000 (their estimate) and they ran up a bill of over £250,000 which they are now trying to reclaim from Mr Challinor.

23.          Finally the notice placed on the site at the end of the action effectively prevents business operation even on the CLU area.

24.          Since this action the County Council have written to all contractors who use the site threatening them with criminal action and to impound their vehicles if they return.

25.          The County Council have also asked the Borough Council to step in and take Enforcement Action as their action has been called into question in the Courts.

26.          In addition to all of this the County Council issued and Enforcement Notice on the Woodland. That was quashed by the Planning Inspectorate but the Council have indicated they intend to have another go!  Have they never heard about Estoppel?

27.          More recently at the request of the new neighbour Mr Challinor cleared a Public Right of Way that was also a vehicular right of way to the property. Again the County Council threatened criminal proceedings via Mr Murphy, a year ago and sent a Mr Murphy up to the property. The Council according to the neighbours encourage them to obstruct this right of way but have now said it is a private matter? This was then followed by a further threat of criminal proceedings.

Mr M Murphy at Woodside

Your Council Business Community Education Environment Health Leisure Transport
Latest Additions
Council Election Candidates
Bethany Trust Report
Statement of Accounts 2003/2004
Council Tax Information
Children & Families Strategies
Quick Links
Working for the Council
Libraries on-line
Trading Standards
Consumer Warnings
Development Control
Staffordshire Tourism
Publications Scheme
Staffordshire Gateway
Access Team Leaflet
Selling to the Council
Blue Badge Application
Other Recent News
Get Involved
Decision-Making in the County Council

Council Government And Democracy |  Housing |  Jobs |  Legal Services |  Search Results |  Social Issue

Contact us Find us |  Site Map |  A to Z index |  Privacy Policy |  Accessibility

What cost to the country malice?  Unreasonableness, Injustice?

IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING RELOCATING TO STAFFORDSHIRE YOU MAY WANT TO KNOW MORE OF THE ADMINISTRATION THAN THE COUNTY COUNCIL WILL LET ON :

COMMENT: INSTITUTIONALISED DISCRIMINATION IS APPARENT

Until the safety net is restored with a fully functional Monitoring Officer, so that members may know the true scale of the impropriety within the Planning and Legal departments, ratepayers money will continue to be squandered to cover up the facts, money going to preserve the jobs of professional staff unwilling to admit their mistakes and keen to hang in there for an enhanced early retirement.

Members who challenge officers on any issue will find themselves the subject of embarrassing rebukes, formal letters from officers reminding them of their duties, etc.  The plain fact is, the officers work for the Members and the Members represent the electorate.  All too often we find cases where officers have accused Members of impropriety in public, to eliminate these members from the decision making process.  It works because the Member so accused is then forced to declare an interest and excuse himself.  This tactic is adopted when an officer is about to be exposed and is a last resort.  However, these tactics are also contrary to the Council’s constitution, where such public accusations hardly boost public confidence in the integrity of the Council.  It’s got to stop!

THIS SITE CONTAINS MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS COUNCIL’S UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR – With thanks to Action Groups across the country for the supply of real case history and supporting documents.  We hope you enjoy the content and that it helps you in your fight for justice.

*THAT THE PUBLIC MAY KNOW*
This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated.  Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts.  However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided.  All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide.  Horse Sanctuary UK Limited.

‘Social Services in Staffordshire and their policy of “forced adoptions” are to blame for this,’ she writes.

Heartbreaking last letter from murder-charge mother: ‘They’re trying to take my children. I’m giving them a wonderful holiday before events you will start to read about…’
By PAUL HARRIS
Last updated at 7:52 AM on 29th May 2010
Add to My Stories
Gently holding her baby son, Lianne Smith is a picture of proud parenthood.
Hours later, the boy and his sister were dead and their mother had tried to kill herself.
The haunting photograph, apparently taken by Mrs Smith’s five-year-old daughter Rebecca, was included in a package which was posted from Spain to England.
It arrived only yesterday and is revealed exclusively in the Daily Mail. The fugitive mother compiled an album of their ‘wonderful holiday’ together on the Costa Brava, then sent it off with a farewell letter before allegedly smothering Rebecca and 11-month-old Daniel with a plastic bag almost two weeks ago.
Hours left to live: Baby Daniel Smith in his mother Lianne’s arms
The package leaves little doubt that the tormented teacher mapped out every last detail of her actions, and was fully in control until the end.
Crucially, a line in her letter pinpoints the exact moment  –  and the reason  –  she decided to put her plan into action.
She reveals that ‘an attempt was made to take my children’  –  so she intended to give them ‘a short and wonderful holiday before events you will start to hear about in the press’.
Smiling and apparently untroubled: Lianne Smith poses for the camera
Mrs Smith, 43, who is accused of her children’s murder, sent the package to a publicist she had contacted through the internet after the arrest of her partner Martin Anthony Smith.
He became one of Britain’s most wanted men when he fled with her to Spain more than two years ago to avoid child sex charges.
The former TV ‘psychic’ was taken from the flat they shared in Barcelona on May 8, and extradited to Britain shortly afterwards.
Ice-cream treat: Rebecca prepares to tuck into a sundae
Mrs Smith, a former child protection expert with Cumbria County Council, refused to believe he was guilty  –  and hoped publicity over her plight would allow her to keep custody of her children while she fought the allegations on his behalf.
In an anguished telephone interview with the publicist, she sobbed: ‘I really don’t know how I’ll cope.’
On May 14, she was panicked into fleeing Barcelona after what she described as ‘an attempt to take my children’. It is thought that Spanish social workers had tried to contact her.
Enlarge
She headed for Lloret de Mar, the resort where she and Smith spent three weeks after they arrived in Spain. The neatly written letter gives the clearest indication yet that she intended to end her life alongside her children.
According to experts, it was the work of someone who strives to maintain control over the situation in which she finds herself  –  ‘at whatever cost’.
The last trip to the beach: Five-year-old Rebecca Smith and her 11-month-old brother Daniel crawl happily in the sand together near the family’s Costa hotel
She put her Barcelona home address at the top and dated it Sunday May 16.
By that time, she was already staying in the beachfront hotel where the children’s bodies would be discovered less than 48 hours later. Crucially, she already speaks about them in the past tense.
Without explaining why, she says she packed essentials for only three days.
The letter from Mrs Smith, who lived in Lichfield, Staffordshire, before fleeing to Spain, coldly shifts responsibility for what happened.
Enlarge
Epitaph to a lost son and daughter: Extracts from the letter sent back to England by Lianne Smith
‘Social Services in Staffordshire and their policy of “forced adoptions” are to blame for this,’ she writes. Foretelling her own death, she adds: ‘If we were only dealing with the police and court system I would still be here for Martin.’
The final line appears to have been added as an afterthought. It makes certain that the exact location of room 101, where the bodies would be discovered, was identified.
‘Our hotel is the MIRAMAR,’ she writes. ‘Our room is the 1st floor far right.’ As it turned out, no one needed a guide like this to find them.
Mrs Smith survived to alert the authorities herself despite apparently using the same plastic bag which smothered the children on herself. This was followed by a further suicide attempt when she slashed her wrists.
Tender moments: Daniel plays with a banana next to the bed where he died and Rebecca enjoys a ride on the swings
What looks certain now is that the children’s deaths were not the result of any single, overwhelming moment of torment  –  but the culmination of a desperate, carefully calculated escape Mrs Smith had been planning for days.
Chillingly, the evidence suggests she took the pictures, wrote the letter, got the film developed  –  then put the rest of her plan into action.
The letter was written in blue roller-ball on two sides of A4 paper. It was sent in the same package as the set of colour prints, negatives, two blank Lloret de Mar postcards and rough copies of passport identity pages. It bore three Spanish stamps and was marked ‘Urgent’.
In one of the photographs, an envelope just like the one that arrived can be seen on Daniel’s bed, with a pen and paper nearby.
Enlarge
In another, also apparently taken by Rebecca, Mrs Smith is seen smiling and apparently untroubled.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282341/Spain-murder-charge-mother-Lianne-Smiths-letter-toddler-deaths.html

May 28, 2010

Why do they want to put our baby on the protection register?

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 9:00 am
daniel-hale

Why do they want to put our baby on the protection register?
Daniel Hale and fiancee Francesca Douglas
A BEDMINSTER couple say they have been told their first baby will be on the Child Protection Register – before she has even been born.
Daniel Hale, 25, says he and fiancée Francesca Douglas, 20, are having their names unfairly “dragged through the mud” by Social Services.
Miss Douglas is not due to have the baby girl whom they have already named – Taylor – until June 17.
The couple say they were visited by a social worker out of the blue and now have what should have been the happiest and most exciting time of their life thrown into turmoil.
Mr Hale says he and his girlfriend, who live at Glyn Vale, are being penalised for their childhoods.
He said he spent much of his childhood with a foster family while Miss Douglas comes from a broken home, living separately with her mother and then father.
Mr Hale said: “She seemed very interested in our backgrounds.
“She basically said everybody who had been in care was more likely to abuse their child. They seem to be penalising us for our childhoods which has to be wrong.
“We are nice people who want to bring up our daughter like normal parents. We have everything in place ready for her.
“We are looking forward to the birth but worrying how many other people will be in the room with us to make sure what we are doing is correct.
“If I had ever been cruel or violent towards a child I would understand but it just seems that mine and my partner’s name are being dragged through the mud for no reason.
“I do think it is sensible to have systems in place to protect children at risk but only if they need protecting. It feels like I am being accused of child cruelty before the child has even been born.
“From my experience, Social Services are part of the problem, not the solution.”
Francesca said: “I had a problems as a child and she said my emotions could cause me to see myself in my child and then I would start abusing her.
“The way I was brought up makes me desperate to be a good mum but I feel like I have been branded a bad mum before I am even a mum.
“They are ruining what should be one of the most exciting times of our lives. I have been very upset.
“Until you have done something to be a bad parent, you don’t warrant being treated like this.”
The Child Protection Register, commonly refereed to as the ‘At Risk’ register, is a confidential list of children and young people in an area believed to be in need of protection.
A spokeswoman for Bristol City Council said: “We can confirm we have had contact with this family, but can’t discuss details of an individual case.
“If there are concerns about risk to an unborn child, we always try to work co-operatively with the parents. However, the safety of the child is our primary concern.”
BRISTOL City Council’s Children and Young People’s Services has a duty to ensure every child is safe from harm and neglect and, where possible, brought up by their own family.
However, safeguarding children is co-ordinated by the Bristol Safeguarding Children Board (BSCB), a local multi-agency partnership made up of education, health, police, social care and associated services.
Anyone can make a referral about a child.
It could be a police officer, teacher, midwife or member if the public and each contact will be followed up by Social Services.
A case conference will be held with anyone who could provide information. Parents or prospective parents have the right to attend but also have the right not to attend.
After the information is assessed, the decision whether to put the child/unborn child on the Child Protection Register will be made.
Having a case conference does not mean your child will definitely be placed on the register.
The register is designed to help parents.
An assessment will be made after three months and then each six months. A child can be taken off the register at any time and is automatically removed when it reaches the age of 18.

May 27, 2010

Do You Trust Social Workers ? Take a look at this lot !

Eleni Cordingley Placed child at risk. Swansea
Dwight Mcguire Sexual Abuse. Darlington
David Cookson Sex with mentally ill woman Surrey
Stanley Lansdell Shouting homophobic abuse at child Bradford
Craig Mccoughlin Buying recovering alcoholic alcohol Sheffield
Michael Bird Filming up womens skirts Newcastle
Julie Andrews Obtaining money by deception Unknown
Douglas Makey Sexual Abuse Gravesend
Lynne Greenwood Theft Manchester
Martha Wright Theft from service user Manchester
Rosalind Shaw Misconduct Waltham Forest
Christopher Hardman Conning teenage girls to pose topless Kirklees
Ms C Abuse and neglect of own child Unknown
Tricia Forbes Proffesional misconduct Waltham Forest
Joy Coles Placing children at risk Leicester
Douglas Adams Inappropriate sexual comments Barnsley
Edward Evans Deception Aberdeen http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1576910?UserKey=
Verona Reeves Failing to disclose convictions Birmingham
Richard Clasby Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshire
Alan Rhodes Breach of codes of conduct Leeds
Kevin Mence Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshire
Mrs X Biting own child Unknown
Catherine Watt Health,safety,financial and management failings Clydebank
Darren Macdonald Placed children at risk Fife
Karen Taylor Failed to adhere to employers abscence management procedures Glasgow
Catherine Forrest Dishonesty and plagerism Glasgow
Patricia Higgins Failed to adhere to employers reporting practices Glasgow
Kevin Glancy Possessing child porn Edinburgh
Jackie Mclhargey Ran stolen car factory Unknown
Alan Man Accused of using inappropriate and degrading language to young client Glasgow
Margeret Gribbon Accused of 12 counts of misconduct Clydebank
Derek Horrobin Running 3 licensed premises with violence and underage drinking Moray
Heather Clark failing vulnerable familes Aberdeen
Niamh Duigan Possessing class A drugs and 2 counts of offering to supply Manchester
Tracy Dawber permitting indecent images of children to be made and one charge of sexual assault on a child under 13 SEFTON
Lynda Barnes found guilty of hiring a hitman to kill her husband. Bath and North East Somerset
Andrew Walker forming an inappropriate personal relationship with a person who used services. Rotherham
Jacinta Hofstetter caused distress and anxiety to a child and placed other children at unnecessary risk of harm. Brent
Stephen Dent Assaulted 12 yr old autistic child Croydon
Carole Baptiste deliberately breaching an inquiry summons Haringey
Paul Collett Misconduct after sending mother to see prophet in Nigeria Southampton
David Holder behaving inappropriately towards three women colleagues. Gloucester
Rod Ryall Charged with 13 sex offences against teenage boys Calderdale
John Donnelly Failed to provide appropriate care to vulnerable adults to their detriment Lanarkshire
Michael Wrenn lied about taking taxis to work to fraudulently claim more than £4 Oldham
Lorraine Brimelow suspended for six months after taking a child under the care of Stoke-on-Trent City Council back to her own house. Derby
Andrew Bennett allowed ‘rapist’ to slip through net in litany of failure Dundee
Thomas Ritzler slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREY
Daniel Bester suspended for not reporting a colleague who slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREY
Alan Carr formed an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable child in care. St Helens
David Crank a string of indecent assaults against a schoolboy Tameside
Michael Carroll indecent assault on a 12-year-old boy Lambeth
Unknown seven-year campaign of sexual abuse of his partner’s young daughter unknown
Unknown abused his three-year-old son unknown
Andrew Forbes McLauchlan dishonesty Sussex
Ruth Hughes prolonged and repeated” breaches of the code of practice for social workers Nottingham
Frederick Goudy five counts of sexual assault. Reading
David Michael Kendrick assaulting two boys in his care Staffordshire
Gordon Wateridge indecently assaulting teenage children. Jersey
Unknown sexually abused a minor Unknown
Venetia Tsiaka inviting a mother and her children into her home to conclude a formal meeting. Warrington
Brian Morris involved in domestic violence Bournemouth
Tom Watt sexually assaulted women Buckinghamshire
Adesola Adeniji-Smith Dishonesty Islington
Paul Derek Girdlestone possessing and distributing indecent images of children Hampshire
Wladyslaw Piotr Kiczma carried out inappropriate physical examinations of children Birmingham
Egbert Elijah Hall pursued two vulnerable women who used services. Brent
Rawle McCarthy worked whilst temporarily excluded from the Social Care Register Haringey
Frederick Keith Stockdale physically restricted a person who used services in a way that breached official guidelines Sunderland
Eogain Gallagher breached the code of practice. West Sussex
Mr Mncedisi V. Apleni found guilty of rape Essex
Neil Gabriel convicted in 2007 of indecently assaulting a 10-year-old girl Cambridgeshire
Mark Wooldridge found to have had sexual relationships with two vulnerable women who used services and were allocated to him. Somerset
Martine Boyd forming an inappropriate personal relationship and for failing to disclose information to her employer.   Bedfordshire
Jacqueline Mullins’ failing to store and maintain records containing sensitive information. Rotherham
Virginia Leckie forming an inappropriate relationship and for dishonesty. Hounslow
Stephen Douglas formed an inappropriate personal relationship with a woman described as ‘extremely vulnerable’ Northumberland
Hilary Sampson breached the profession’s code of practice. Derbyshire
Jean Stearn breached the Code of Practice Blackpool
Geoffrey Casey Making false allegations to police, nspcc and social services about a couple Witney
Mr Andrew Atkins forming an inappropriate and personal relationship with a person who uses services Leeds
Mr Richard Watkins breached the Code of Practice London
Theresa Guy forming a personal relationship with a foster carer Colchester
Ms Rosemary Arnold. breached the Code of Practice Portsmouth
Mrs Evelyn Mnene breached the code of practice
John Bennett maintaining a grossly offensive website as well as possessing indecent photographs of children. Lincoln
Anna Orlinski. physically restraining a child on two occasions. Gateshead
Mr Steven McGarry. failing to declare previous criminal convictions Barrow-in-Furness
Eric Charlesworth inappropriate touching and physical contact with service users. Rugby
Laura Lee driving with excess of alcohol and failing to declare the conviction to Wolverhampton
Eleni Cordingley Placed child at risk. Swansea
Dwight Mcguire Sexual Abuse. Darlington
David Cookson Sex with mentally ill woman Surrey
Stanley Lansdell Shouting homophobic abuse at child Bradford
Craig Mccoughlin Buying recovering alcoholic alcohol Sheffield
Michael Bird Filming up womens skirts Newcastle
Julie Andrews Obtaining money by deception Unknown
Douglas Makey Sexual Abuse Gravesend
Lynne Greenwood Theft Manchester
Martha Wright Theft from service user Manchester

Eleni Cordingley Placed child at risk. Swanseahttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/01/27/110556/conduct-swansea-social-worker-struck-off-for-poor-judgement.htmDwight Mcguire Sexual Abuse. Darlingtonhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/26/113650/former-darlington-social-worker-struck-off-over-us-child-abuse.htmDavid Cookson Sex with mentally ill woman Surreyhttp://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2049682_sex_offender_social_worker_struck_offStanley Lansdell Shouting homophobic abuse at child Bradfordhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/07/social-worker-struck-off-for-abusing-trans-child/Craig Mccoughlin Buying recovering alcoholic alcohol Sheffieldhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6515763/Social-worker-struck-off-after-buying-whisky-for-rehab-patient.htmlMichael Bird Filming up womens skirts Newcastlehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/michael+bird.htmJulie Andrews Obtaining money by deception Unknownhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/09/29/112705/jailed-social-worker-struck-off-after-admitting-25000-fraud.htmDouglas Makey Sexual Abuse Gravesendhttp://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/4637776.GRAVESEND__Social_worker_struck_off_after_allegedly_sexually_abusing_two_girls/Lynne Greenwood Theft Manchesterhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Greenwood+release.htmMartha Wright Theft from service user Manchesterhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/04/08/111238/social-worker-struck-off-for-stealing-4000-from-service-user.htmRosalind Shaw Misconduct Waltham Foresthttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Rosalind+Shaw+conduct+hearing.htmChristopher Hardman Conning teenage girls to pose topless Kirkleeshttp://www.lgcplus.com/news/social-care/social-worker-struck-off-over-porn-ruse/5004811.articleMs C Abuse and neglect of own child Unknownhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/baby-p/6606365/Heroin-addicted-social-worker-struck-off-over-cover-up-of-own-childs-abuse.htmlTricia Forbes Proffesional misconduct Waltham Foresthttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2008/02/15/107296/Social-worker-struck-off-social-care-register.htmJoy Coles Placing children at risk Leicesterhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/09/social-worker-struck-offDouglas Adams Inappropriate sexual comments Barnsleyhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Barneley-social-worker-struck-off.5995217.jpEdward Evans Deception Aberdeen http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1576910?UserKey=Verona Reeves Failing to disclose convictions Birminghamhttp://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2010/01/20/birmingham-social-worker-struck-off-after-failing-to-declare-conviction-65233-25646050/Richard Clasby Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshirehttp://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/Social-worker-is-struck-off.5228172.jpAlan Rhodes Breach of codes of conduct Leedshttp://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-174210551.htmlKevin Mence Sexual Abuse Cambridgeshirehttp://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/Social-worker-struck-off-after.5468025.jpMrs X Biting own child Unknownhttp://www.theratbook.com/Articles/Article/social_worker_struck_off_after_biting_sonCatherine Watt Health,safety,financial and management failings Clydebankhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Darren Macdonald Placed children at risk Fifehttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Karen Taylor Failed to adhere to employers abscence management procedures Glasgowhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Catherine Forrest Dishonesty and plagerism Glasgowhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Patricia Higgins Failed to adhere to employers reporting practices Glasgowhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Kevin Glancy Possessing child porn Edinburghhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Jackie Mclhargey Ran stolen car factory Unknownhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Alan Man Accused of using inappropriate and degrading language to young client Glasgowhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Margeret Gribbon Accused of 12 counts of misconduct Clydebankhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Derek Horrobin Running 3 licensed premises with violence and underage drinking Morayhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Heather Clark failing vulnerable familes Aberdeenhttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Niamh Duigan Possessing class A drugs and 2 counts of offering to supply Manchesterhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-work-blog/2009/12/manchester-social-worker-due-i.htmlTracy Dawber permitting indecent images of children to be made and one charge of sexual assault on a child under 13 SEFTONhttp://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/southport-news/southport-southport-news/2009/11/20/sefton-council-social-worker-on-child-porn-and-abuse-charge-101022-25209653/Lynda Barnes found guilty of hiring a hitman to kill her husband. Bath and North East Somersethttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6529831.eceAndrew Walker forming an inappropriate personal relationship with a person who used services. Rotherhamhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Rotherham+social+worker+found+guilty+of+misconduct+and+removed+from+register.htmJacinta Hofstetter caused distress and anxiety to a child and placed other children at unnecessary risk of harm. Brenthttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release-14-07-09.htmStephen Dent Assaulted 12 yr old autistic child Croydonhttp://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/courts/Social-worker-guilty-assault-autistic-boy-12/article-1709299-detail/article.htmlCarole Baptiste deliberately breaching an inquiry summons Haringeyhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-135326/Social-worker-guilty-Climbie-inquiry-absence.htmlPaul Collett Misconduct after sending mother to see prophet in Nigeria Southamptonhttp://tbjfansuk.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/paul-collett-guilty-of-misconduct-after-sending-woman-to-see-tb-joshua/David Holder behaving inappropriately towards three women colleagues. Gloucesterhttp://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/gloucester/headlines/Social-worker-guilty-misconduct/article-1636369-detail/article.htmlRod Ryall Charged with 13 sex offences against teenage boys Calderdalehttp://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Former-Calderdale-social-services-chief.5681482.jpJohn Donnelly Failed to provide appropriate care to vulnerable adults to their detriment Lanarkshirehttp://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/2009/07/19/exclusive-secret-list-of-rogue-social-workers-booted-for-crime-corruption-and-porn-78057-21531865/Michael Wrenn lied about taking taxis to work to fraudulently claim more than £4 Oldhamhttp://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/online_archive/?courts=5&name=misconductLorraine Brimelow suspended for six months after taking a child under the care of Stoke-on-Trent City Council back to her own house. Derbyhttp://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Social-worker-took-child-home/article-1370931-detail/article.htmlAndrew Bennett allowed ‘rapist’ to slip through net in litany of failure Dundeehttp://news.scotsman.com/dundee/Social-worker-allowed-39rapist39-to.5910966.jpThomas Ritzler slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREYhttp://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2064447_colleague_of_underage_sex_social_worker_suspendedDaniel Bester suspended for not reporting a colleague who slept with a 14-year-old girl. SURREYhttp://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2064447_colleague_of_underage_sex_social_worker_suspendedAlan Carr formed an inappropriate personal and sexual relationship with a vulnerable child in care. St Helenshttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+barred+following+relationship+with+woman.htmDavid Crank a string of indecent assaults against a schoolboy Tamesidehttp://www.wilmslowexpress.co.uk/news/s/461/461764_jail_for_pervert_social_worker.htmlMichael Carroll indecent assault on a 12-year-old boy Lambethhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/care-worker-had-paedophile-record-1104540.htmlUnknown seven-year campaign of sexual abuse of his partner’s young daughter unknownhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6678045/Paedophiles-continued-as-social-workers-because-of-watchdog-failings.htmlUnknown abused his three-year-old son unknownhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6678045/Paedophiles-continued-as-social-workers-because-of-watchdog-failings.htmlAndrew Forbes McLauchlan dishonesty Sussexhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6678045/Paedophiles-continued-as-social-workers-because-of-watchdog-failings.htmlRuth Hughes prolonged and repeated” breaches of the code of practice for social workers Nottinghamhttp://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Notts-social-worker-banned/article-341472-detail/article.htmlFrederick Goudy five counts of sexual assault. Readinghttp://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2029387_care_worker_pervy_fred_guilty_of_sex_assaultsDavid Michael Kendrick assaulting two boys in his care Staffordshirehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3265321.stmGordon Wateridge indecently assaulting teenage children. Jerseyhttp://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/excare-worker-abused-kids-on-uk-isle-20090821-esd9.htmlUnknown sexually abused a minor Unknownhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Mr+X+release.htmVenetia Tsiaka inviting a mother and her children into her home to conclude a formal meeting. Warringtonhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news_release_260509.htmBrian Morris involved in domestic violence Bournemouthhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/New_release_31-03-09.htmTom Watt sexually assaulted women Buckinghamshirehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release_20-03-09.htmAdesola Adeniji-Smith Dishonesty Islingtonhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/media_release_18-03-09.htmPaul Derek Girdlestone possessing and distributing indecent images of children Hampshirehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Media_release_26-01-09.htmWladyslaw Piotr Kiczma carried out inappropriate physical examinations of children Birminghamhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/25112008news.htmEgbert Elijah Hall pursued two vulnerable women who used services. Brenthttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20081107.htmRawle McCarthy worked whilst temporarily excluded from the Social Care Register Haringeyhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080930.htmFrederick Keith Stockdale physically restricted a person who used services in a way that breached official guidelines Sunderlandhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/20080912.htmEogain Gallagher breached the code of practice. West Sussexhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news01092008.htmMr Mncedisi V. Apleni found guilty of rape Essexhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/18082008.htmNeil Gabriel convicted in 2007 of indecently assaulting a 10-year-old girl Cambridgeshirehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/20080813.htmMark Wooldridge found to have had sexual relationships with two vulnerable women who used services and were allocated to him. Somersethttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080710.htmMartine Boyd forming an inappropriate personal relationship and for failing to disclose information to her employer.   Bedfordshirehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/news20080714.htmJacqueline Mullins’ failing to store and maintain records containing sensitive information. Rotherhamhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+cautioned+for+failing+to+maintain+and+store+records.htmVirginia Leckie forming an inappropriate relationship and for dishonesty. Hounslowhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+removed+from+register+for+dishonesty+and+inappropriate+relationship.htmStephen Douglas formed an inappropriate personal relationship with a woman described as ‘extremely vulnerable’ Northumberlandhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+removed+from+Register+following+relationship+with+vulnerable+client.htmHilary Sampson breached the profession’s code of practice. Derbyshirehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Social+worker+suspended+from+register+after+inappropriate+relationship.htmJean Stearn breached the Code of Practice Blackpoolhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+Blackpool.htmGeoffrey Casey Making false allegations to police, nspcc and social services about a couple Witneyhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+removed+following+conduct+hearing+in+London-Dec3.htmMr Andrew Atkins forming an inappropriate and personal relationship with a person who uses services Leedshttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London-nov26.htmMr Richard Watkins breached the Code of Practice Londonhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+suspended+following+conduct+hearing+in+London+-+Nov2.htmTheresa Guy forming a personal relationship with a foster carer Colchesterhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London+18oct.htmMs Rosemary Arnold. breached the Code of Practice Portsmouthhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London+August.htmMrs Evelyn Mnene breached the code of practicehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+10.7.07.htmJohn Bennett maintaining a grossly offensive website as well as possessing indecent photographs of children. Lincolnhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+removed+following+conduct+hearing+in+London.htmAnna Orlinski. physically restraining a child on two occasions. Gatesheadhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+Newcastle.htmMr Steven McGarry. failing to declare previous criminal convictions Barrow-in-Furnesshttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London.htmEric Charlesworth inappropriate touching and physical contact with service users. Rugbyhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+Birmingham.htmLaura Lee driving with excess of alcohol and failing to declare the conviction to Wolverhamptonhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/2007+archive/Social+worker+admonished+following+conduct+hearing+in+London2.htmEleni Cordingley Placed child at risk. Swanseahttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/01/27/110556/conduct-swansea-social-worker-struck-off-for-poor-judgement.htmDwight Mcguire Sexual Abuse. Darlingtonhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2010/01/26/113650/former-darlington-social-worker-struck-off-over-us-child-abuse.htmDavid Cookson Sex with mentally ill woman Surreyhttp://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2049682_sex_offender_social_worker_struck_offStanley Lansdell Shouting homophobic abuse at child Bradfordhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/01/07/social-worker-struck-off-for-abusing-trans-child/Craig Mccoughlin Buying recovering alcoholic alcohol Sheffieldhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6515763/Social-worker-struck-off-after-buying-whisky-for-rehab-patient.htmlMichael Bird Filming up womens skirts Newcastlehttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/michael+bird.htmJulie Andrews Obtaining money by deception Unknownhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/09/29/112705/jailed-social-worker-struck-off-after-admitting-25000-fraud.htmDouglas Makey Sexual Abuse Gravesendhttp://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/4637776.GRAVESEND__Social_worker_struck_off_after_allegedly_sexually_abusing_two_girls/Lynne Greenwood Theft Manchesterhttp://www.gscc.org.uk/News+and+events/Media+releases/Greenwood+release.htmMartha Wright Theft from service user Manchesterhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2009/04/08/111238/social-worker-struc

May 24, 2010

Well.well,well Peter Traves vindicated again ( and yes he still will not accept any responsibility ) even after his sudden departure

Boss of Staffordshire social services defends team in Spanish murder ordeal

May 24 2010 by Emma McKinney, Birmingham Mail
Add a comment
Recommend
THE boss of Staffordshire Social Services has denied any blame over the two children found dead in a Spanish hotel room.
Court officials say Lianne Smith, 43, has confessed to suffocating her children Rebecca, five, and Daniel, 11 months, at the resort of Lloret de Mar last Tuesday.
On the same day the children were discovered dead, their father Martin Smith, who was on Britain’s Most Wanted list after skipping bail in January 2008, was extradited back to Britain to face charges of having sex with a girl under 16.
Lianne Smith is believed to be on suicide watch in jail in Girona, Spain, and to be eating and drinking very little.
A Girona police spokeswoman said: “She tried to commit suicide before police arrested her.”
Staffordshire Police have said the force had originally attempted to trace Mrs Smith and her daughter after they left their Lichfield home in 2007, but failed to do so. It is understood Staffordshire Social Services had been monitoring the family.
Peter Troves, whose staff face a police probe over the matter, quit as head of the department three weeks ago. He said: “At the time there was nothing to indicate the family would abscond.
“We believe our action was appropriate given our understanding of the case at the time. At no time was the daughter at risk here – our social workers did a good job.”
Mrs Smith has told officials she suffocated the children to prevent them from being taken into care when her husband was sent back to Britain.
Mr Smith appeared before Carlisle magistrates last Wednesday charged with 13 sexual offences and one of jumping bail.
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/staffordshire-news/2010/05/24/boss-of-staffordshire-social-services-defends-team-in-spanish-murder-ordeal-97319-26505561/

May 15, 2010

CHILD SNATCHING CONFERENCE IN STAFFORD MAKES THE TELEGRAPH

Britain’s child snatchers are a scandal

The UK’s system of forced adoption requires the Government’s urgent attention, says Christopher Booker

Published: 6:15PM BST 15 May 2010
Is any human instinct more fundamental than the love of a mother for her children? Last week I reported how Maureen Spalek from Liverpool had been arrested and held in a cell for 24 hours for sending a birthday card to her son, one of three children taken away from her by a family court, despite its agreeing that she was “an excellent mother”.
In Runcorn magistrates’ court on Wednesday Mrs Spalek was told she must return for a pre-trial hearing, before her criminal charge of sending a birthday card goes for trial at a Crown Court. Last month, Mrs Spalek was one of 200 mothers who gathered in Stafford to set up a group known as Child Snatching by the State. They were addressed by Ian Josephs, a businessman based in Monaco, who has championed the cause of parents whose children were unjustly removed by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s.
Related Articles
All our ministers are ‘Europe ministers’ now
Chris Huhne will ensure the coalition is soon out of power
As Mr Josephs describes on his Forced Adoptions website, he has dealt with hundreds of such harrowing cases (always being careful to check that there was no evidence of physical or emotional harm to the children). One is that of Sarah White, repeatedly arrested for attempting to contact her “stolen children”, including an instance when she was jailed for a month for waving to her son when she unexpectedly saw him across the street. Two weeks ago, she was again held in custody for five hours, after her brother posted a YouTube video describing her plight.
Julie Cipriani is another mother arrested for waving to her child in the street and forbidden from further contact after reading out in court her daughter’s loving birthday card.
When another mother threatened with having her baby abducted recently fled to Ireland, her family were repeatedly visited by police, demanding to know her whereabouts. She is now receiving much more humane treatment from Irish social services. (Britain is almost the only country in Europe that permits forced adoptions against the wishes of loving parents.)
In the Commons last October, the Tory MP Tim Yeo described a case where Suffolk social workers waited until the father was out of the house to snatch an 11-week-old baby from the arms of its distraught mother, in order to put the child out for adoption. Until recently social workers were set “adoption targets” by the government, as part of a system where it seems they, the courts and the police are too often conspiring to abduct children from loving parents in the name of what amounts to heartless “social engineering”. Few scandals call for more urgent attention by our new Parliament than this.

Published: 6:15PM BST 15 May 2010Is any human instinct more fundamental than the love of a mother for her children? Last week I reported how Maureen Spalek from Liverpool had been arrested and held in a cell for 24 hours for sending a birthday card to her son, one of three children taken away from her by a family court, despite its agreeing that she was “an excellent mother”.In Runcorn magistrates’ court on Wednesday Mrs Spalek was told she must return for a pre-trial hearing, before her criminal charge of sending a birthday card goes for trial at a Crown Court. Last month, Mrs Spalek was one of 200 mothers who gathered in Stafford to set up a group known as Child Snatching by the State. They were addressed by Ian Josephs, a businessman based in Monaco, who has championed the cause of parents whose children were unjustly removed by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s. Related ArticlesAll our ministers are ‘Europe ministers’ nowChris Huhne will ensure the coalition is soon out of powerAs Mr Josephs describes on his Forced Adoptions website, he has dealt with hundreds of such harrowing cases (always being careful to check that there was no evidence of physical or emotional harm to the children). One is that of Sarah White, repeatedly arrested for attempting to contact her “stolen children”, including an instance when she was jailed for a month for waving to her son when she unexpectedly saw him across the street. Two weeks ago, she was again held in custody for five hours, after her brother posted a YouTube video describing her plight.Julie Cipriani is another mother arrested for waving to her child in the street and forbidden from further contact after reading out in court her daughter’s loving birthday card.When another mother threatened with having her baby abducted recently fled to Ireland, her family were repeatedly visited by police, demanding to know her whereabouts. She is now receiving much more humane treatment from Irish social services. (Britain is almost the only country in Europe that permits forced adoptions against the wishes of loving parents.)In the Commons last October, the Tory MP Tim Yeo described a case where Suffolk social workers waited until the father was out of the house to snatch an 11-week-old baby from the arms of its distraught mother, in order to put the child out for adoption. Until recently social workers were set “adoption targets” by the government, as part of a system where it seems they, the courts and the police are too often conspiring to abduct children from loving parents in the name of what amounts to heartless “social engineering”. Few scandals call for more urgent attention by our new Parliament than this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7728931/Britains-child-snatchers-are-a-scandal.html

PETER TRAVES GOING GOING

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 12:29 pm

GONE !!!!!!!!

He had his leaving party 2 weeks ago .

Lets hope Sally Rees now does the decent thing and listens to families and disciplines her staff.

May 11, 2010

Martin Narey Through Vicarious Liability Martin Narey has contributed to the destruction of vulnerable children’s lives through his negligence

PRESS RELEASE 8 SEPTEMBER 2009
“GOVERNMENT FUNDED CHILD ABUSE”

Chief Executive of Dr Barnardos, Martin Narey, employed Neville Husband: Prison officer and notorious child sex offender from Medomsley YOI.

The national press is awash with the disturbing comments from Martin Narey, Chief Executive of Dr Barnardos. He stated: “Take more babies away from bad parents at birth”

Last year Dr Barnardos income topped £215 million. They are responsible for the care of approx 100,000 children. This equates to an income of £215,000 per child per year.

Martin Narey was Governor at both Frankland maximum-security prison and Deerbolt Borstal for young offenders (both in Co Durham), when a known paedophile ‘Neville Husband’ was employed as a senior officer at Frankland and seconded as an officer at Deerbolt. Husband had been forced to leave Medomsley Detention Centre for young offenders after torturing and abusing boys. He was subsequently convicted and is currently serving a ten-year jail sentence. Prior to his conviction Husband was also a Church Minister for the United Reformed Church. Many of the victims have not received justice yet and Husband is due to be released from prison next month.

Cravings for young boys
Statements given to police by prison officers who worked with Husband suggest suspicions were rife about his cravings for young boys, who he went on to molest in the kitchens he ran.
One statement by an officer who served at Medomsley in 1978, reads: “I don’t know why but all the governors thought very highly of Husband and seemed to look after him.”

As a Prison Governor, Martin Narey either ignored or was grossly negligent by failing to observe Husband’s employment records: That he was arrested in 1967 whilst at Portland young offenders centre for the illegal importation of homosexual pornography. That the case was silenced and Husband was moved to Medomsley Detention Centre where he continued to import pornography direct into the Centre. That he was investigated by the police on numerous occasions but without further actions. That Husband then embarked on his horrific sexual torture of countless young boys. These boys are now men and want their story told.

Victims want their stories told
The victims of Neville Husband formed themselves into a group: justice4survivors. They recently approached award winning working class film director Bill Maloney (who has himself stepped forward as a victim of abuse whilst in YOIs and Borstals back in the 1970s – his whole family were abused in care). Maloney was horrified but not surprised by their stories of abuse and injustice as the hands of the UK Establishment. He decided to work with them to make a hard-hitting gritty documentary ‘Adam Rickwood & The Medomsley Heroes’ without any funding. He stated, “We’re going to let these brave men tell their stories without sanitizing the documentary for the middle-class driven media”. The victims are currently pushing for a public enquiry.

Adam brings the horrors up to date
Whilst researching Medomsley detention centre (now Hassockfield Secure Training Centre) Maloney discovered that as recently as 2004 Adam Rickwood (14), became the youngest prisoner to commit suicide in the UK. Adam’s family and friends all believe that Adam did not kill himself and that there has been a massive cover-up; this is truthfully and emotionally displayed in the documentary. Adam was found hanging in his cell with a broken nose, broken wrist and covered in bruises.

99.9 per cent of young offenders in the UK stem from the lower working classes. As Bill Maloney states in his documentary “You can’t keep bashing our kids like this, we’re not going to allow it any more”.

Now Martin Narey wants to rip lower working class baby’s from their mothers at birth. The effects on Mothers and Fathers and their families for the loss of their babies will be devastating. The huge funds invested into Dr Barnardos each year should be put to helping these young parents, it is immoral to suggest taking these young children into care when the care system continues to abuse them and profit from them. Successful and trusted families from within these peoples’ own culture and communities should be funded to adopt a support role to help ‘bad parents’ by befriending them, gaining their trust and encouraging and motivating them forward, they would also be better placed than an overworked inexperienced graduate social worker to recognise whether a child is in danger or neglected. Further funding should also be supplied to support the education, environment and welfare of the family.

Apparently, Philippa Stroud of the thinktank Centre for Social Justice reacted cautiously to Narey’s comments. “What we recommend is the model of the mother and baby going into care, filling that hole and giving the whole family a chance. “With child protection, all the legislation is actually in place: it’s the implementation that is the issue.” – Even this recommendation would require huge bureaucratic funding. The money needs to be spent at source – at the home and within the family with trusted support and guidance.

Maloney’s outspoken and unsanitised documentaries appear to be too controversial for major broadcast networks, but the public need to know what is happening to their taxes when private security companies such as Serco are looking after our children and receiving approx £178,000 per year per child.

And Dr Barnardos? A charity that has the Queen as it’s Patron and which the majority of the population appear to respect and believe in, acquires its funding of £215,000 per child per year through, government funded fees and grants, property development, donations/gifts and fundraising, and trading.

How is this right?
Unemployed parents receiving statutory benefits receive on average an additional £3,744 per year towards the care of one child (calculating child tax credits together with Child benefit). Plus one off payments in the child’s first year totaling approx £440. Dr Barnardos receive £215,000 per year per child.

Through Vicarious Liability Martin Narey has contributed to the destruction of vulnerable children’s lives through his negligence. He should not be telling us that our children should be abducted at birth.

The trailer for Maloney’s documentary ‘Adam Rickwood & The Medomsley Heroes’ is now available for viewing at: http://www.pienmashfilms.com or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D34cs…e=channel_page
Further information sources:
THE MEDOMSLEY HEROES: http://justice4survivors.com
ADAM RICKWOOD: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20…stice.politics
MARTIN NAREY STATEMENT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20…care-barnardos
MARTIN NAREY CV: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20…ietysupplement
NEVILLE HUSBAND: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north…name_page.html
NEVILLE HUSBAND:http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north…name_page.html

For further information, or to arrange for an interview with Bill Maloney please contact: Tel: 07710 416470 Email: pieandmashfilms@hotmail.com

May 8, 2010

blatant lies were told to the Panel by social workers

Panel Minutes

I had a salutary reminder recently of how useful it can be getting hold of minutes of internal meetings held within the local authority which are not routinely disclosed. Thanks to the Guardian in the case who badgered the local authority to produce the minutes of the Adoption Panel the court was able to see the natural and unvarnished attitude of the social work team towards a parent in the case. I can think of a number of other cases in which these sorts of minutes have been useful. In one instance an Adoption Team Manager gave evidence that a child could be placed for adoption within 6 months. The following day we received the minutes of the adoption needs meeting which showed that her realistic time estimate in relation to the particular child was actually that it would take at least a year to place her. In two other cases the Panel minutes revealed that blatant lies were told to the Panel by social workers (for example, that a child had been injured when they had not and that the care plan approved by the court did not involve a recommendation for direct contact post adoption). Strategy meeting minutes can also be useful in identifying the approach of professionals to a case from the very outset. Running records and documents which follow the trail of internal decision making within the local authority can also be extremely helpful. There is clear case law reminding local authorities of their duties to disclose documents and in theory, according to Munby J, a suitably experienced legal practitioner from the local authority should identify any relevant records from the files and disclose them. When this case was first reported there was a flurry of requests for extensive and arguably unnecessarily burdensome automatic disclosure. Whilst things have settled down it is always worth seeking specific disclosure if you start to get a feeling in your bones that strange decisions have been made or that a social worker has formed a view that does not seem to marry up with your impression of the client.

Cafcass & fact finding

Speaking as one who is having enormous difficulties managing my own caseload I was interested to learn yesterday of a novel approach being adopted in the Stoke area to managing the deluge of cases in which domestic violence allegations are made and which would ordinarily be listed for a fact finding hearing. The pressure on the courts is such that Cafcass Officers are apparently being instructed to express an opinion on allegations and counter-allegations made by parents in order to assist the court and avoid the need for a hearing. In my view this is very dangerous territory. This is an effectively judicial function for which Cafcass Officers have no training and unless they are extremely careful they run the risk of making judgements without having the full facts or the skills to challenge the evidence being presented to them by one or other parent.

Has anyone else come across this approach in other parts of the country? The District Judge in the case in which the issue emerged expressed disapproval of the practice for reasons which will be obvious to family practitioners. He also picked up another important practice issue: the welfare checklist has been deleted from the new style analysis & recommendations pro forma with the obvious danger that the statutory criteria may end up being ignored by those charged with advising the court.

Posted by jacquig at 15:57 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: 

May 6, 2010

Are social services guilty of abusing children while they are still in the womb

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 1:14 am

We all know the witchunts social services lead against you when they see an opportunity for a forced adoption . This can have an adverse effect on the unborn child. Rather than minimise stress they seem to wish to create more for expectant mothers is this tantamount to corporate child abuse ?

Babies in womb feel mothers’ anxiety at only four months

Women who suffer stress during pregnancy transmit their anxiety to their unborn child from as early as 17 weeks, research indicates.
Stress levels in foetuses only four months old — about the time the pregnancy starts to show — rise and fall in line with those of their mothers’.
The findings prompted calls for employers, family and friends to be aware of the risks and offer more help to moth-ers-to-be.
“For the first time, there’s solid evidence to show that an unborn child may be exposed to maternal stress as early as 17 weeks in development,” said Claire Friars, a midwife for Tommy’s, the baby charity.
RELATED LINKS
Premature births rise among low risk group
“What is now clear is that high levels of stress in pregnancy can, in some cases, be detrimental to the health of the baby and to remain as stress-free as possible is certainly important. It is vital that pregnant women are given adequate support and reassurance from their family, friends and employers, to ensure they have a happy and healthy pregnancy.
A recent survey of 1,000 mothers-to-be conducted by Tommy’s found that pregnant women regularly felt stress at work. One in ten said that their employer was unsupportive when they announced their pregnancy and a quarter felt under pressure from employers who expected them to work just as they did before they became pregnant.
The research measured the stress hormone cortisol in the mother’s blood and in the amniotic fluid around the baby.
As the mother’s stress rose, so did that of the baby, according to Professor Vivette Glover at Imperial College London and consultant obstetrician Pampa Sarkar, of Wexham Park Hospital in Berkshire.
“We do not wish to unduly worry pregnant women. It should be remembered that one of the best ways for people to avoid general stress is to lead a healthy, balanced lifestyle,” Dr Sarker said.
“We are all a product of our developmental history. One of the times when we are most susceptible to the influences of our surrounding environment is when we are developing as a foetus in our mother’s womb. We found that the strength of this correlation became stronger with increasing gestational age. We now need to carry out further work to unravel the mechanisms by which maternal stress affects the foetus, both during foetal life and through into childhood.”
The theory behind the effect is that foetal programming is supposed to prepare babies for the life they will experience outside the womb. If the mother faced serious dangers, the baby had to be programmed to be born into a dangerous world. But these hangovers from the evolutionary past are no longer relevant, Professor Glover said.
The research is published in the May edition of Clinical Endocrinology. Professor Glover has previously shown a link between stress in pregnancy and the baby’s IQ. The greater the stress felt by the mother, measured by cortisol levels, the lower the IQ. The babies of stressed mothers were also more likely to be anxious and to show signs of attention-deficit disorder.

Women who suffer stress during pregnancy transmit their anxiety to their unborn child from as early as 17 weeks, research indicates.
Stress levels in foetuses only four months old — about the time the pregnancy starts to show — rise and fall in line with those of their mothers’.
The findings prompted calls for employers, family and friends to be aware of the risks and offer more help to moth-ers-to-be.
“For the first time, there’s solid evidence to show that an unborn child may be exposed to maternal stress as early as 17 weeks in development,” said Claire Friars, a midwife for Tommy’s, the baby charity.
RELATED LINKSPremature births rise among low risk group“What is now clear is that high levels of stress in pregnancy can, in some cases, be detrimental to the health of the baby and to remain as stress-free as possible is certainly important. It is vital that pregnant women are given adequate support and reassurance from their family, friends and employers, to ensure they have a happy and healthy pregnancy.
A recent survey of 1,000 mothers-to-be conducted by Tommy’s found that pregnant women regularly felt stress at work. One in ten said that their employer was unsupportive when they announced their pregnancy and a quarter felt under pressure from employers who expected them to work just as they did before they became pregnant.
The research measured the stress hormone cortisol in the mother’s blood and in the amniotic fluid around the baby.
As the mother’s stress rose, so did that of the baby, according to Professor Vivette Glover at Imperial College London and consultant obstetrician Pampa Sarkar, of Wexham Park Hospital in Berkshire.
“We do not wish to unduly worry pregnant women. It should be remembered that one of the best ways for people to avoid general stress is to lead a healthy, balanced lifestyle,” Dr Sarker said.
“We are all a product of our developmental history. One of the times when we are most susceptible to the influences of our surrounding environment is when we are developing as a foetus in our mother’s womb. We found that the strength of this correlation became stronger with increasing gestational age. We now need to carry out further work to unravel the mechanisms by which maternal stress affects the foetus, both during foetal life and through into childhood.”
The theory behind the effect is that foetal programming is supposed to prepare babies for the life they will experience outside the womb. If the mother faced serious dangers, the baby had to be programmed to be born into a dangerous world. But these hangovers from the evolutionary past are no longer relevant, Professor Glover said.
The research is published in the May edition of Clinical Endocrinology. Professor Glover has previously shown a link between stress in pregnancy and the baby’s IQ. The greater the stress felt by the mother, measured by cortisol levels, the lower the IQ. The babies of stressed mothers were also more likely to be anxious and to show signs of attention-deficit disorder.

May 3, 2010

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 4:00 am

Cafcass ( Crapcass ) Independent?

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 12:55 am

So why is Anthony Douglas Chair of BAAF

Or why do they work in partnership with the 3rd largest Adoption Agency ?

Cafcass, the organisation that looks after children’s interests in the family courts, and children’s charity, Coram, are pleased to announce an innovative partnership between a government agency and a voluntary organisation.
The partnership will operate in South East England and is designed to promote better outcomes for children whose parents are divorcing or separating and cannot agree on contact or which parent a child should live with. Coram will be supporting Cafcass practitioners in a number of ways. The charity will provide specialist additional consultation in child and adolescent psychiatry and adult psychology.
Anthony Douglas, Cafcass Chief Executive says “Cafcass is constantly striving to improve the quality of outcomes particularly for children and young people. We know that our frontline staff will benefit from more supervisory support and that our court reports need to be more analytical with clearer recommendations based on evidence. By working in partnership with Coram we will be harnessing their excellent reputation in the arena of contact – especially in achieving successful sessions with families where there is entrenched discord. This is a unique partnership between a national government agency delivering services in the family justice system and a children’s charity.”
Dr Carol Homden, Chief Executive of Coram, adds, ”Coram has long pioneered practice to develop Contact services that meet the needs of children. We are proud to partner with CAFCASS on this new approach to supporting Family Court Advisors. Children all too often suffer the consequences of relationship breakdown and parental dispute – this work is vital to making the court process work as well as possible for children and that must be the touchstone of our success.”
The media are invited to a contract signing at Cafcass’ offices in Canterbury on Wednesday 2nd April at 3.30pm.The Chief Executives of Cafcass and Coram (Anthony Douglas CBE and Dr Carol Homden respectively) will be signing the contract.
The Cafcass South East area includes Kent, Sussex and Surrey with offices in Canterbury, Chichester, Chatham, Eastbourne, Guildford and Horsham.
To attend this event please contact Takki Sulaiman on 07778 419218 in the first instance.
– ends –

http://www.coram.org.uk/news/view.php?Submit=View&Id=109

HIDDEN AGENDA ? CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ?

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 12:29 am

MESSAGE FOR STAFFORDSHIRE LOCAL AUTHORITY please be law abiding citizens

After exposing that the most nazi branch of this authority advertised children without the mothers knowledge on bemyparent the forced adoption catalogue for BAAF.

Maybe as (per usual) it is up to me to educate the Local Authority on what is lawful or not.

Before advertising children as puppies you need CONSENT yes CONSENT.

We all know that you like to think of yourselves as being ABOVE THE LAW and that you glory in the knowing that you are never faced with any accountability.

But THERE ARE laws and procedures you are ( supposed ) to follow.This may come as a shock to the many of you that are not aware of these owing to your BULLY management team. For the majority of you , you will take no notice anyway.

This is from bemyparent website stating you need CONSENT and how to go about getting it.

http://www.bemyparent.org.uk/info-for-agencies/featuring-a-child/agreement-to-publicity-and-other-consents,326,AR.html

Not how you advertised these children without the mothers knowledge that all have a sudden have DISAPPEARED from the site .

Unfortuately you did not manage to remove the evidence of you CRIME before a campaigner took a screenshot and made a video about it.

Now anyone with a subscription to bemyparent or BAAF will see that this profile no longer exists.

WHERE WILL THEY APPEAR NEXT ?

THE DAILY MIRROR ?

Please seek appropriate consent next time !!!!!

May 2, 2010

Forced Adoption generates Staffordshire Council alot of money £0.306m and £0.308m ?

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 11:10 pm

Thank you for your request for information below.

We have completed the search of our records and can confirm the following:

Prior to 2008/9 Staffordshire County Council used to receive a “Children’s
Services Grant”, which was made up of 5 different amounts, one of which
was for “Adoption Support and Special Guardianship”.

The amount of grant we received in 2006/7 and 2007/8 for this element
(i.e. adoption support and special guardianship) was £0.306m and £0.308m
respectively.

In 2008/9 the Children’s Services Grant ceased and nationally the grant
was put into the general revenue support grant that Local Authorities
receive. From 2008/9 it is not therefore possible to specifically identify
the amount received for adoption support as it is within the County
Council’s general grant figure.

If you have any queries or require any further information please do not
hesitate to contact me.

In the first instance if you have any comments relating to how your
request has been handled by our authority, please contact Philip Jones,
Head of Information Governance, Information Governance Unit, 1a Bailey
Street, Stafford, ST17 4BG.

If you have any further comments relating to how your request has been
handled by our authority, please contact the Information Commissioner,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours Sincerely

Regards

Gemma Allen

Access to Information Officer

Information Governance Unit

Law and Governance Directorate

Staffordshire County Council

Me assisting Staffordshire Council by using their own document in finding information for a FOI request

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 10:57 pm

Dear Ms ,

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Thank you for your request for information.

We have completed the search of our records and I can confirm that we have
found no records which relate to members of staff being training by common
purpose, therefore to the best of my knowledge Staffordshire Council
Council has never used Common Purpose as a training provider.

If you have any queries or require any further information please do not
hesitate to contact me.

In the first instance if you have any comments relating to how your
request has been handled by our authority, please contact Philip Jones,
Head of Information Governance, Information Governance Unit, 1a Bailey
Street, Stafford, ST17 4BG.

If you have any further comments relating to how your request has been
handled by our authority, please contact the Information Commissioner,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Regards

Gemma Allen

Access to Information Officer

Information Governance Unit

Law and Governance Directorate

Staffordshire County Council

1A Bailey Street

Stafford

ST17 4BG

Telephone: 01785 278568

Fax: 01785 278362
Dear Allen, Gemma (L&G),
I refer to how many staff have been trained by common purpose you
deny any knowledge well maybe your own document will assist you in
getting the information.

http://moderngov.staffordshire.gov.uk/(S(atzukmymkf2o1045ojybhb45))/Data/Cabinet/20060315/Agenda/Council%20Workforce%20Development%20Plan.pdf

Or maybe read this

http://staffordshiresocialservices.wordp…

Now please provide the appropriate figures

Yours sincerely,

LONG OVERDUE ?

Filed under: Secret family courts — nojusticeforparents @ 10:42 pm

Mrs Docherty

13 October 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

In the wake of the people speaking out against the abuses of the
secret family courts and forced adoption of children to strangers,
instead of being retained within their real natural families. I
would like to know how your authority compares to others in
fulfilling your responsibilities to families & their children.

(a) How many individuals have been taken to court by your authority
in-order to gag them. To stop them from speaking out about the
injustices they have suffered at the hands of the council
children’s social services and secret family courts. Provide all
records to-date that are held.

(b) How much did these gagging order injunctions cost the rate
payer.

(c) Who is responsible for actioning these enforcement orders by
the council, i.e. who signs the applications for court.

(d) How many parents /relatives/individuals have received further
sanctions for breaking these gagging orders.

(e) Are any of these decisions to gag/sanction taken by unelected
local authority officers responsible for children’s social care,
finance, legal or any other relevant department.

(f) If councillors make these decisions at which meeting(s) are
these discussed.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs Docherty

Link to thisSend follow up

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/gagging_orders_in_secret_family_108#incoming-55371

Angela Wileman

1 October 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Dear Sir or Madam,

Under the freedom of information act I would like to know numerical
statistics in order by year during the period of 1998 to 2008 (or
as far back as you can go) for the following;

1) how many children were taken into local authority care on
interim care orders and emergency protection orders under the
catagory of emotional harm during the above period ? i do not wish
you to include any children for any other catagories of harm/abuse.

2)Out of these children who were taken into care for emotional harm
how many of them were specifically for domestic violence between
their parents? again i do not wish you to include children who had
violence directed at them as that would fall into a different
catagory being physical abuse.

3)Out of these children who were put into care for domestic
violence how many were returned to family or extended family ?

4)Out of these how many children were put on full care orders?

5)of the children put on full care orders how many were adopted
during these periods.

Yours faithfully,

Angela Wileman

Yours faithfully,

Angela Wileman

Link to thisSend follow up

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/looked_after_children_314

Dear Dear Lord Justice Wall – President of the High Court Family Division

Sheena Williams

2 May 2010

Dear Dear Lord Justice Wall – President of the High Court Family
Division

Having forwarded a copy of the following email. I would like to
know if judges are paid for their contributions or if this is done
on a voluntary basis. If paid please provide the sums involved
encompassing all judges and records held.

I would also like to invite you and/or others to attend any of the

‘Child snatching by the State’ events that will be occurring
throughout the country. You are most welcome to put forward the
stance from the family courts perspective and will meet many
families with ‘first-hand knowledge of children’s social services
and the family courts’ who have shown great courage in adversity,
yet still show compassion and understanding for others, safe in
their knowledge that through love there is no separation.

I hope you will forgive this invitation being placed in the public
domain, but feel it is within the best interests of honesty
openness & transparency, in keeping with the justice system fully
engaging with families whose decisions affect so many children &
families lives.

Article – Family Courts ‘jolly good fun’ ?‏

Dear Judge Isobel Plumstead

I am absolutely disgusted to read the following article sent to me
by distraught parents who have had their children stolen by social
services in secret closed family courts; having attended the recent
‘Child snatching by the state’ conference in Stafford.

http://www.bemyparent.org.uk/features/it…

I have no reason to doubt these parents & grandparents accounts/
experiences of social services and the family courts, having
resigned from the Conservative party due to Conservative Kent
County Council taking my own offspring of 4 young granddaughters
for the exact same fate.

Many like myself bitterly regret seeking the advice & assistance of
social services and believe they should come with a government
‘health warning’

Could it be that I was hoping to raise the exact same concerns,
encompassing the lack of support for families by social services
and transparency & accountability within the system?

Forgive me for not finding it ‘ jolly good fun’ to be removed from
the court (without my consent) and my granddaughter’s lives
forever, through fear of social services canvassing for my own
young children. Having been lucky enough to be advised against
being bullied into‘ psychological testing’ by a gentleman who also
attended the conference called Ian Josephs an Ex Kent County
Councillor (Conservative)

You may find his website of interest

http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduct…

Nor do I believe the children will find it ‘ jolly good fun’ when
they realise as adults what has happened to them; many have been
abused within the ‘care’ system and separated from their siblings,
to then be given to strangers rather than blood kin, who dearly
love & care for them.

What I am certain of, is that they will want to know who is
ultimately responsible.

regards

Cllr Sheena Williams ( Independent – Maidstone Borough Councillor)

Link to thisSend follow up

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/article_family_courts_jolly_good#incoming-84164

A COUNCILLOR with a child porn conviction has defended his decision to join a committee, which deals with legislation including rules protecting children.

A COUNCILLOR with a child porn conviction has defended his decision to join a committee, which deals with legislation including rules protecting children.

Councillor Lee Wanger‘s appearance on Stoke-on-Trent City Council‘s licensing and consumer protection committee comes just a month after he said he would not take up the role.

The Tunstall ward member, pictured, had initially told The Sentinel he would step down after concerns were raised by council members about his suitability.

But he said he is taking on the role to serve residents who re-elected him in 2006.

Click here for more

He is adamant that his conviction has no bearing on his ability to serve on the two licensing panels.

He said: “I wasn’t going to join the panels at first, but after seeking legal clarification I was told that there was no reason I could not take up the roles.

“As leader of the Stoke-on-Trent Independent Group, I am entitled to these seats.

“I know some members are unhappy about my decision, but I think this is part of a political campaign against me in the run-up to the local elections.

“I have always voluntarily stayed away from any roles that would involve contact with children and will continue to do so.

“Should a case come to either committee involving a person with previous convictions for sexual offences then I would not sit in on that part of the hearing.”

Mr Wanger was convicted in January 2005 of paying $25 to subscribe to a child porn website in 1999, although he has always maintained his innocence.

He was fined £250 and ordered to sign the sex offenders’ register for five years. The order expired last month.

He said: “My conviction is spent now and I have served my time.

“People in this city do have faith in me as a councillor, and that’s why I was re-elected after my conviction.”

Mr Wanger attended his first committee meeting yesterday.

The committee deals with issues such as licensees selling alcohol to under-18s and assessing whether those applying to become taxi drivers pose a risk to the public.

At yesterday’s meeting, vice-chairman Councillor Joy Garner asked officers whether panel members should be subjected to stringent child protection checks.

In a discussion on competence tests for taxi drivers, she said: “We are taking steps to improve the quality of cars and drivers, but there is legislation coming through dealing with safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.

“How do the Independent Safeguarding Authority checks affect drivers, operators and us as council members?”

Licensing officer Rachel Collier said it would be up to the council’s standards committee whether any council members would need to be registered with the safeguarding initiative.

May 1, 2010

What a Crock of Shit

Filed under: Secret family courts,Staffordshire — nojusticeforparents @ 4:00 pm

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/videolounge/parentscommissioner.htm

I rang this lady up try getting staffordshire social services to listen !

Maybe now there are group of us we will be heard !!

CARE TO SEE MY BUNDLE OF EVIDENCE MISS BAILEY ?

Charlotte Bailey
The Parents’ Commissioner

What will the Commissioner do?

• Listen to parents’ views and understand the range of needs across Staffordshire’s
parents

• To help make sure parents’ needs are met and that there are no gaps in service
provision

• To be a voice for parents at key meetings, influencing decision makers and making
sure that parent’s views are represented

• Make sure there is a plan in place outlining local improvements for parenting support

• Work with all agencies to make sure support to parents is of the best quality it can
be

• To help professionals work with parents in a co-ordinated way

I SHALL RING HER AGAIN NEXT WEEK !

Blog at WordPress.com.