Social Services are a child trafficking programme for the peado elite
Services are known to take children from the most vulnerable people who
just need a little help whilst the children are put in government run
care homes for the elite to abuse.
Why was the
elite allowed to visit these care homes to take the children to abuse
and even murder? Why were people like Jimmy Savile allowed to visit
these places to abuse children?
was the reason the SS (Social Services) were put in place to kidnap
children from the poor and vulnerable to put in care homes. It is
basically a legal child trafficking programme.
tale a look at times the SS messed up big time and has proven themselves
to be more sinister than what people think they are:
Why the explosion in child-snatching is big business
reader sends me photographs of an advertisement placed on the back of
local buses by Norfolk and Suffolk county councils. “New challenge,” it
reads. “Have you thought of fostering? If so you can earn £590 a week.”
are interesting about this, one general, one specific. For a start, it
shows what mind-boggling sums are now available to councils whose social
workers take children into care. I have quoted before advertisements
offering foster carers £400 a week for each child. But £590 a week means
that a foster home looking after three children taken from their
parents, which is not uncommon, can now earn almost £100,000 a year. In
addition are the lavish fees charged by fostering agencies to make the
arrangements, almost invariably run by ex-social workers.
have no idea what a big business fostering has become. When one such
firm, National Fostering Agency, representing 175 local authorities
after being launched by two ex-social workers in 1995, was placed on the
market by Rothschilds in 2012, it was sold by its “venture capital”
owners Sovereign to a “private equity” firm, Graphite Capital, for a
staggering £130 million.
specific point, however, is that of all the councils that feature in my
files as seizing children from their parents for what seem like
questionable reasons, Norfolk and Suffolk are high on the list. In one
of the most controversial cases I have reported, it was Norfolk’s social
workers who were eventually forced to hand back a baby to its parents,
after they had twice travelled to France to take the child into foster
care in England. Having been thwarted in their plans, when a judge ruled
that they had no legal right to do so, they seized several more
children from different members of the same family who, to justify their
removal, now face many charges of criminal abuse.
year the children’s department of this same council, Norfolk, received
the most damning report possible from Ofsted, failing it as “inadequate”
(the lowest rating) on every one of the five counts on which social
workers are judged, from “quality of provision” to “leadership and
children’s minister, Edward Timpson, may last week have launched yet
another initiative to speed up the rate at which children are adopted.
But even he only mentions 6,000 children waiting for adoption, compared
with the record 68,000 currently in care in England and Wales alone.
It is hardly
surprising when fostering has excited the interest of venture
capitalists as one of the most lucrative industries in the country, that
the number of children social workers take from their parents into care
has, in the past five years, well over doubled, to 28,000 a year.
What then happens to too many of these children in “care” is just another part of this very disturbing picture.
‘It was an amazing moment’: Social
worker gloats on Facebook over breaking up a family and revelling in the
‘massive rollicking’ the judge gave the parents
Condon, 41, bragged about the power she felt at breaking up the family
and revelled in the judge giving the parents a ‘massive rollicking’.
even referred to the solicitor in the case complimenting her ‘fine
nails and shoes’ before saying she was about to ‘do the mammoth grim
task’ of removing the youngsters from their home and signing off with
mother reported Miss Condon’s comments to Essex County Council after
spotting them on the social worker’s Facebook page, which was open to
the public and gave enough information to identify the family.
Health and Care Professional Council found Miss Condon guilty of
misconduct and the local authority decided not to renew her contract.
MP Simon Burns yesterday questioned the leniency of the punishment,
saying: ‘There are some very difficult cases … where there are no
winners and it seems incredible that someone in a position of trust and
responsibility should post information on Facebook … to gloat is totally
case of ‘Family A’ was heard at Chelmsford Crown Court on May 9 last
year. Miss Condon, who has a young daughter, posted comments the night
before, speculating about whether the judge ‘might question my zero
tolerance to domestic violence’.
next day, after the case ended, the senior social worker who qualified
in 1999, wrote: ‘Just experienced His Honour Judge [sic] give parents a
massive rollicking. It was an amazing and extraordinary moment in my
career and he complimented my court evidence.’
added: ‘Me and [unnamed person] are reflecting on how the solicitor
commented on [how] fine nails and shoes appear to be a requirement of
our team lol. Any way of [sic] now to do the mammoth grim task fingers
senior manager used Google to look for evidence and found the comments,
despite not being a Facebook friend of Miss Condon’s. He reported that
Mr. and Mrs. A were ‘upset and angry’.
Condon claimed she thought a privacy setting on her account meant her
entries could only be read by her friends. But the committee noted that
even if this were true, around 70 of them were not involved in social
care and the family were identifiable.
week the committee concluded her conduct fell ‘seriously below’
expected standards as the postings were ‘disrespectful and demonstrated
Condon, who now works for the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
according to a friend, declined to comment. Essex council has apologised
to Mr. and Mrs. A for her conduct.
adore our son and we’ve never smoked in front of him… now we just
want him back: Parents speak out after judge rules boy, 2, should be
placed for adoption because of their habit
whose two-year-old son was taken from them because of their smoking has
pleaded for his return and claim they had switched to e-cigarettes to
try to keep their child.
accused social workers of stealing the blond, blue-eyed toddler because
he is ‘so adaptable’ and claim that a ‘pack of lies’ has been told about
them by child protection authorities.
visitor told the Family Court in Hull she had seen a ‘cloud of smoke’
over the child and that she had ‘difficulty breathing’ on her visit.
that the parents were oblivious to the problem, even though their child
had been prescribed an inhaler to help his breathing.
due to have a ‘goodbye’ meeting with their son – identified only as AB –
later this month. But in their first interview, the parents, who are
appealing against the adoption ruling, have denied ever smoking in front
of their son.
22-year-old mother said the smell of smoke noticed by the health visitor
‘was not from cigarettes’ but was because ‘the pest control people were
in the adjoining house smoking out pigeons from the chimney’.
they never smoked over their son, adding: ‘We were using e-cigarettes
when social workers said our house was smoky and took him away.’
‘We normally did not smoke in the house but outside. Only occasionally,
if one of us was alone at home, we would smoke in the kitchen with the
window wide open if our son was there.
the case, Louise Pemberton, was told of other factors that put the
child at risk, including that the father could have a drug habit, which
the couple denies. One witness, a nurse, said the couple’s house was
‘squalid’ and another nurse reported seeing used nappies on the floor.
scandal of the thousands of babies stolen by the State: TV agony aunt
DENISE ROBERTSON writes about her lengthy investigation
face was pale and tear-stained; her eyes raw from crying. ‘Please may I
speak to Denise?’ she begged my husband. Fired by desperation, she’d
found my home and rung my doorbell one evening six years ago. I was her
last hope, she said.
magazine and TV agony aunt with a regular slot on ITV’s This Morning, my
job is to give constructive and compassionate advice to those who seek
it. I take my role — and the responsibility it involves — very
So although I
usually make it a rule not to see people in my home, this time, the
woman’s distress was so acute that I invited her in.
Cry Aloud, a lightly fictionalised account of the real stories of the
‘national scandal’ of forced adoption she has uncovered over the years
spilled out. She was a grandmother in her late 40s, whose daughter,
single and unable to cope with the responsibilities of parenthood, had
nonetheless given birth to four children.
been raised with love, kindness and singular devotion by the woman
standing in front of me: their grandmother. They were all under nine and
the youngest was 18 months old. The woman was distraught because she
had been told that her youngest grandchild, a cherubic, blue-eyed
blonde, was to be taken from her.
cared for her since birth, and had applied for a guardianship order for
all of the children. But she’d been told that one child was to be
wrenched from her by social services and forcibly adopted by strangers.
Her three older grandchildren, meanwhile, would remain with her.
perverse and arbitrary logic was driving this reasoning? Why should she
be permitted to raise three grandchildren, but not the fourth?
listened to her story, I could find no sense in it: she was either a fit
parent, or she wasn’t. I resolved to try to help her. But my efforts
could do would stop the process: the machinery of the law ground on
remorselessly, and the little girl was adopted. A toddler was ripped
from the family who adored her and dispatched to a new life with
strangers. I can only hope that they were kind.
For I know
with awful certainty that the child would have been bewildered and
frightened as she said her last goodbye to her family.
And I know,
too, that not a day has passed when her grandmother hasn’t thought of
her with yearning and hope that, one day, they will be reunited.
case epitomises much that is rotten about the adoption system in our
country — a country that purports to be humane and civilised — and it
chills my blood. But the terrifying fact is, it’s far from isolated.
dedicated her book to Nicky Webster, pictured here with son Brandon, and
her husband Mark, a ‘decent and blameless’ couples whose three children
were taken and forcibly adopted in 2005
last year I received 450 letters and emails from desperate families
begging for help after their children or grandchildren had been forcibly
taken from them by the family courts.
were subject to gagging orders and risked prison sentences by talking
to me. Such restrictions imposed by the courts, ostensibly in the
interests of the children, effectively silence discussion about
questionable adoption procedures.
believe forced adoption is a national scandal that must be exposed. To
this end, I have written a novel, Don’t Cry Aloud, a lightly
fictionalised account of the real stories I encounter every day.
it to Nicky and Mark Webster, a decent and blameless couple who appealed
to me for help when their three older children were taken and forcibly
adopted in 2005. I’ve written it in the hope that it will provoke a
reaction; that it will make people care.
Websters’ case, also taken up by this newspaper, proved how innocent
people can become helplessly embroiled in an escalating nightmare. It
began when Nicky took one of her children to hospital with a viral
discovered a fracture in his ankle and, within two days — on the false
assumption that the little boy had been hit — all three of the couple’s
children were taken into care.
When I met
the Websters, I knew they were incapable of harming their children. I
asked a solicitor who had helped me fight for justice in similar cases
to take up theirs. He, too, was powerless. ‘As fast as I amass evidence
in their defence, social services push the adoption proceedings
forward,’ he told me.
It took four
years for the courts to find the Websters innocent of any wrongdoing.
It emerged that their son, after feeding problems, had been put on a
soya milk diet, which had led to a rare nutritional deficiency that
caused his bones to fracture easily. By then, however, the courts had
also decreed that it was too late to overturn the adoption orders
imposed on the Websters’ children: they were not returned to their
before the judgment exonerated them, I campaigned on their behalf to
ensure that their two subsequent children remained in their care. It was
a small victory, and I had hoped it would prove salutary.
Please comment below. The Site is open to the public. Therefore,
consider your comments carefully and do not include anything in a
comment that you would like to keep private. By uploading or otherwise
making available any information to the Author in the form of user
generated comments or otherwise, you grant the Author the unlimited,
perpetual right to distribute, display, publish, reproduce, reuse and
copy the information contained therein. You are responsible for the
content you post. You may not impersonate any other person through the
Site. You may not post content that is obscene, defamatory, threatening,
fraudulent, invasive of another person’s privacy rights or is otherwise
unlawful. You may not post content that infringes the intellectual
property rights of any other person or entity. You may not post any
content that contains any computer viruses or any other code designed to
disrupt, damage, or limit the functioning of any computer software or
from Blogger http://ift.tt/2bIisM2