The public and
Parliament are gradually learning about the tragic consequences of the
epidemic of false and incorrect evidence given by ‘public officials’ (
social workers, paediatricians, psychologists, police officers, etc) in
Family Court cases, resulting in children wrongly being taken into Care and
then given away for adoption, to strangers. What isn’t so well known is that
the Family Courts harbour another guilty secret.
A huge number of
innocent and vulnerable members of the public have been, and continue to be
imprisoned, after ‘secret trials’ in the Family Courts. This is
completely wrong, illegal and runs counter to one of the most basic principles
of justice in a democracy; “ justice must be seen to be done”.
On 13 June 2006,
Harriet Harman MP QC, the Justice Minister, in a Parliamentary reply to Sally
Keeble MP ( Northampton, North ) confirmed that “ in the last year,
something like 200 people were sent to prison by the Family Courts, which
happens in complete privacy and secrecy”.
Note the telling
phrase in a Parliamentary reply by the minister, that was meant to be precise!
‘Something like’; because even the Minister does not know the exact
figure. It would appear that counting up to 190 or 220 poses a problem for the
Justice Department. Indeed, neither does the Home Office keep these figures
and deliberately confuses the recording of how many persons have been
imprisoned after ‘secret Family Court trials’. The numbers are far far
greater than Harriet Harman MP admitted in Parliament and even the Home Office
figures of those imprisoned in jails would not include those members of the
public held in police cells after being arrested. Many of these persons would
have been arrested and detained for over 24 hours. Many would have been
subsequently released without charge. Nonetheless they would have lost their
freedom, been aggressively treated and seriously inconvenienced; yet must
remain mute! They are sworn to secrecy, to protect the corrupt system.
The whole purpose
of these summary arrests is to rough up the public at the behest of social
workers or ill informed police officers, to intimidate and frighten the
public. (There are documented cases of such conduct ) . Because they are all
aware that the public are not allowed to inform the press & media of their
experiences.
The true figures
of those imprisoned after a ‘secret trial’ in the Family Courts would
alarm Parliament, the public and the world community generally. Taken together
with the huge number of CCTV cameras, the maintenance of Stasi type files by
over 400,000 ‘public officials’ and the almost continual surveillance
of the public, especially families; Britain is very close to becoming an
official police state under this Labour Government.
It is fundamental
principle of democracy that the ‘rule of law’ is observed by
independent sentinels; universally accepted as the press and media. The
procedures and protocols of the ‘rule of law’ must be open to scrutiny
and reporting. Even the Al- Queida terrorist trials and those at Camp Delta in
Guantanamo Bay, are reported by the press and media. However, such is the
scandal that has enveloped the Family Courts, that fearful that the huge
number of miscarriages of justice will be exposed, were the press to report
the truth about these cases, that it has become routine for those parents,
grandparents and others who question or complain to the press about documented
criminality, breaches of Family Court ‘contact orders’; to be tried
‘secretly’ and then imprisoned. And once imprisoned, all reference to the
‘prisoner’ (parent/ grandparent/campaigner) and the experiences of the
‘prisoner’, including possible further victimisation in prison, also
become ‘secret’. Should the ‘prisoner’ attempt suicide or God
Forbid, commit suicide, this too is covered by secrecy.
In fact, no one
is allowed to know anything about the ‘prisoner’ or how he/she came to
be in prison. The prisoner would be committing a further offence if he/she was
to inform other ‘prisoners’ of the reason for his/her imprisonment. And
it also affects the ‘prisoner’s’ ability to seek an appeal. Because the
Guligans claim that this could result in the identification of the child in
the Family Court case. This clever judicial ploy has allowed huge injustices
to be concealed.
There is a
massive effort made to disguise and conceal what is happening in the Family
Courts and the disclosure of these ‘secret trials’ exposes an
absolutely huge scandal that all concerned with it, wish to conceal. President
Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is considered persona non gratis to a number of
world forums and official government meetings. Were the truth about the
‘secret Family Court trials’ revealed, the UK judicial delegations are
very likely to be face similar exclusion and ridicule. Hence the attempts to
silence all who dare speak out.
In early June
2007, Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor and one of Tony Blair’s cronies and
flat mate from his student days, was interviewed by the BBC about the Russian
request for the extradition from the UK, of Boris Bereshovsky, the Russian
businessman who has been given asylum in London. The Russian Government has
provided extradition papers and wishes to have Bereshovsky returned to Russia,
to face trial for alleged huge financial frauds. The BBC reporter asked Lord
Falconer if the British Government would accede to the Russian Government’s
request for Bereshovsky extradition. Falconer replied; “we cannot do that.
The Russians do not have an open system of justice. Justice must be seen to be
done”.
On the 20 June
2007, Lord Falconer announced the results of a ‘public consultation’
into the current banning of the media & press from reporting Family Court
proceedings. This report had already been twice delayed. He announced without
any twinge of embarrassment, that the press were to remain excluded from
reporting Family Court proceedings and that the ‘secrecy’ was to
increase and the penalties for breaching the ‘secrecy’ were to be made
even more draconian. He stated that he based his decision on the responses
from children, to the ‘public consultation’. However, though Lord
Falconer has been challenged to show the evidence; he has not been able to
produce the evidence. This because there is no evidence that the children he
referred to, did voice such opinions. The public consultation ‘organised’
by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, like much about Tony Blair’s
Government, was laced with spin and misleading information. There is
irrefutable evidence that social workers, lawyers and the others involved with
the secret Gulag that is the Family Courts and who benefit from a judicial
system bereft of independent scrutiny and accountability, pulled the wool of
the eyes of a complicit Lord Falconer, to avoid the press and media exposing
the huge Family Court scandal.
And neither can
members of Parliament take up the issues of documented unlawful and criminal
conduct in Family Court cases, reported to them by their constituents. Judges
are not allowed to be criticised by MPs and have established for themselves,
‘no limit to their judicial indiscretions and misbehaviour’. The
salaries of judges are paid out of a pool of money specifically set aside and
known as The Consolidated Fund. Parliament is not allowed to debate this
payment and in addition, judges have a ‘security of tenure’; they are
almost un-sackable.
A recent article
in The Times sought to convey the impression that judges were now
subject to monitoring and being disciplined by the Office for Judicial
Complaints. On closer scrutiny it has become obvious that once again, the spin
machine has been working overtime. None of the judges complained about are
allowed to be identified ( under the Constitutional Reform Act ) and John
Hemming MP disclosed in a letter to The Times, that complaining about a
judge in private proceedings, is a ‘contempt of court’. Well, if
registering a complaint against a judge is itself considered a criminal
offence; so much for the ‘monitoring’!
Which brings me
back to the purpose of this communication? The imprisonment of persons after a
‘secret trial’ in the Family Courts because they have breached an
injunction relating to Family Court secrecy. A number of parents have been
jailed ‘in secret’ after disclosing that the court orders relating to
‘contact’ with their children had been broken by a partner or social
services. How can it be right that a person is imprisoned merely for bringing
to public attention that the law was being defied, ignored and broken? In
Early Day Motion No. 128, tabled before the House of Commons on 18 May 2005,
Teresa May MP (Maidenhead) made a plea “for the presumption of contact and
the enforcement of contact, between separated parents and their children and
also including grandparents and their grandchildren.”
In reply, on 31
May 2005, Parmjit Dhanda MP, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
Children & Families stated, “With regard to EDM 128 on Equal Parenting, I
must clarify that the Government does not support a legal presumption of
contact for parents. The fundamental principle for the Children Act 1989 is
the interests of the child that are paramount, not the rights of the parents.”
This is
preposterous! Parmjit Dhanda MP’s Parliamentary reply has confirmed that the
government is committed to parents not having ‘contact’ with their
children, because this Labour Government is wedded to an ideology that is
anti- parent, has no regard for traditional core family values and is prepared
to encourage the breaking of legitimate court orders. Those members of the
public, who have sought to bring their personal and documented experiences to
the attention of the press and media, have therefore been pounced on and
imprisoned, to silence them.
And it should be
noted that there can be but one reason for the ‘secret trials’ to
imprison members of the public; the whole process, procedures and reference to
earlier hearings would identify a judicial charade played out, once again,
‘in secret’, in a number of cases.
The Family Court
proceedings to take a child into Care are themselves flawed and packed with
legal irregularities that necessitate ‘secrecy’. However, the
maintenance of the ‘secrecy’ can only be achieved by draconian threats
of immediate imprisonment. In order to execute the threats of imprisonment, it
has become necessary to conduct ‘committal proceedings in secret’.
Though the absence of the press and independent observers from such trials
invalidates the democratic process and confirms a gag on the press and the
freedom of speech. In truth this is a renegade court, living up to its
reputation of disrepute.
A few days ago,
it was reported through the ‘grapevine’, because that is the only way
these incidents come to light, that a grandmother had been imprisoned after
one of these ‘secret trials’. The grandmother had challenged a decision
of the Family Court to take her grandchildren into Care and had informed the
press. That was sufficient reason for her to be rushed through one of these
kangaroo courts and be imprisoned, like many others before her. It is well to
remember that the government has repeatedly announced that the prisons are so
overcrowded that even illegal immigrants, who have committed murder and rape,
could not be housed in our jails. Though somehow there is no end of space in
the jails for grandmothers who inform the press of documented Family Court
criminality. And whilst illegal immigrants who commit murder and rape are
tried in an open court where the press are present, the UK grandmother is
rushed into prison, after a ‘secret trial’ in a kangaroo court. No
prizes for guessing what is going on then!
This then was
the catalyst for my campaign.
Are you pleased
that our fellow citizens are being treated like this and that they have
absolutely no recourse to the public and Parliament being made aware of their
plight? Are you sanguine that this could not happen to you? Don’t be so sure!
Remember, even members of Parliament have absolutely no way of knowing what is
going on in the secretive Family Courts and Harriet Harman MP QC, the Justice
Minister, the Minister in charge of the Family Courts, admitted in an article
she wrote in the Mail on Sunday on 4 June 2006 “ I have concluded that it
is now impossible to defend a system from accusations of bias and
discrimination, if it operates behind closed doors. Even as Minister for
Family Justice, I find the rules make it hard for me to establish what is
going on.”
So faced with
a situation that the judges and the Guligans in the Family Courts believe is
beyond challenge; what are we to do?
We know
Parliament cannot assist us. The Minister herself has admitted as much.
We know the
judges are leaning back on their chairs and laughing their socks off.
We know that the
social workers, paediatricians and other ‘public officials’ paid out of
the public purse, aware that the public are cornered and ‘done up like a
kipper’, are therefore motivated to continue in their ways and are subject
to no independent accountability or scrutiny. They have created a gulag of
complete opacity.
We know that the
usual political response of ‘using one’s vote to affect a change’ makes
not a blind bit of difference; for the reasons given above and that local
government officials threaten and intimidate elected representatives of the
people anyway. (See Eric Pickles MP’s speech to the House of Commons on 2
March 2006. Adoption Bill Debate & Essex County Council were intent on seeking
a custodial sentence for County Councillor Barry Aspinell on 29 April 2005,
because he went to the aid of his constituents in Brentwood. Essex…..Read
“The Gulag of the Family Courts” Book 1…..ISBN
9 781430 316350)
There is though something each of us can do, that will send a
clear message!.
We can serve
notice that should there be any further imprisonment of persons after a
‘secret trial’ in the Family Courts, then we will begin the process of
registering our intention to be considered ‘conscientious objectors’.
(We are not against ‘committal proceedings’ being brought against
persons who it is alleged have broken the law. However, ‘committal
proceedings’ must be in an open court, accessible to independent scrutiny,
the press and media)
What you ask is a
‘conscientious objector’ and what effect will registering have?
A ‘conscientious
objector’ (CO) has normally been associated with someone who refuses to
serve in the armed forces during war time conditions, on the grounds of
conscience. In World War 2 ( 1939-45 ), those who registered as
‘conscientious objectors’ were generally not involved in forward fighting
positions. Most were employed on farms and factories in the UK. Some though
were First Aid medics in forward positions. Some were actually imprisoned.
‘Conscientious
objectors’ though are not necessarily only those who refuse to take up
arms, although they could be that as well. Pacifists are persons who
absolutely refuse to bear arms. I am not suggesting such a course. A
‘conscientious objector’ might disagree with the government decision to go
to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, but would robustly insist on bearing arms to
defend the United Kingdom.
A
‘conscientious objector’ might be someone who has become thoroughly
disaffected with the government of his/her country because a situation has
developed that has effectively excluded or marginalized the person and it has
become obvious that that there is no recourse for official redress, change or
to put a stop to the victimisation.
1…….
‘Conscientious objectors’ might be persons who fundamentally disagree with
a system of government that is manifestly unjust, which victimises them or
others, which has shown itself completely unresponsive to their plight and
there has been no way to seek redress through complaint or the courts, as in
the case of children being forcibly taken from their parents and either given
to foster carers or placed with strangers for permanent adoption. Or parents
who have valid court orders awarding them ‘contact’ with their
children, but these court orders are not enforced. Indeed, they are encouraged
by the judicial system itself and the local authorities, to be breached and
ignored. Or ‘contact’ by the parents with their children has been
discouraged or made so infrequent, as to be effectively stopped, or actually
be officially curtailed by a court order. You are welcome.
2…….’
Conscientious objectors’ might be persons who having become aware of 1
above, are also aware that there is no avenue of redress to even bring their
plight to the attention of the press & media. Unlike any other group of
persons in the country who could mobilise and seek to influence change; those
who have been through any part of the Family Courts have been so effectively
silenced, that even identifying official criminality to the press and media,
is itself subject to immediate imprisonment. The Family Courts actually pose a
continuing threat to the mere identification of the plight of members of the
public. You are welcome.
3………’Conscientious
objectors’ might be persons who having become aware of 1 & 2 above have
also discovered that the BBC, which is obliged under statute to be the
‘public service broadcaster’ & ‘keep the public informed’ and which
receives a levy of £3.2 billion annually, from the collection of the TV
licence fee; has completely abrogated its responsibilities in favour of
toadying up to the present government. Instead of broadcasting programmes that
identify the restrictions on freedom of speech, the illegal ‘secret Family
Court trials’, the wilful gagging of the press, the huge anomalies and
irregularities in conduct and performance of public sector employees and in
particular, local government; the BBC has almost completely ignored all of
these.
The BBC has
continued to focus its attention on competing with the commercial TV and radio
stations, exposing the failings and scandals of the private and commercial
sectors, broadcasting programmes about corruption in Kenya, pollution in
Bhopal, discrimination in Pakistan, paedophilia in the Catholic Church, etc.
The corruption under its nose is embarrassing for the BBC, because of its
linked ideology and cultural empathy. When the BBC has covered the Family
Courts, it has approached it from the angle of ‘the drama of parents who
are about to or who have lost their children’. So the public’s right to
expect that a scandal of such proportions, their plight and the salient
issues, such as the ‘gagging of the press’, the ‘breaches of our
democratic rights’ would be covered by the BBC; has been treated
dismissively and ignored.
Never has the BBC
focussed on the issues that have caused the drama and the tragedies. Though
abroad, the BBC is a veritable tiger. At home it is a tame pussycat!
If you too feel
this way; you are welcome.
4……. .‘Conscientious
objectors’ might be those who harbour a number of different major
grievances against the government and the system and are convinced that they
are being deliberately and systematically ignored. They might feel that the
plight of the parents and children, victimised in the Family Courts, just tips
them into joining this campaign. You are welcome.
The possible focus of ‘conscientious objectors’ activities.
‘
Conscientious objectors’ might consider a number of different options.
1…..‘
Conscientious objectors’ could serve notice that they will no longer take
part in local elections because local government officials, who are themselves
concealing their ‘conflicts of interest’, are involved in directing and
intimidating elected councillors. Such allegations have been made by a number
of elected councillors. This has been evidenced. See above. There are other
serious anomalies.
In addition,
local government officials (social workers, town hall officials etc) are not
required to complete a register of their ‘outside’ interests. Whilst
simultaneously, members of Parliament and elected councillors are required to
complete a register of ‘outside’ interests. This anomaly has allowed
local government officials to have interests they have not disclosed, yet be
involved in planning and decision making that could benefit them and which
included the ‘outside interests’ they have not disclosed..
For example:
(a) ………Liz
Railton (Director of Childrens Services. Essex County Council & Michael
Anthony Sharpe, Essex County Council Adoptions Manager were both listed at
Companies House as directors and trustees of the British Association for
Adoption & Fostering (BAAF). Railton and Sharpe were responsible for adoption
& fostering and implementation of adoption & fostering policy in Essex.
This is a classic
‘conflict of interests’ and had a private commercial company engaged in
such conduct, it would be heavily penalised and the directors could even have
faced imprisonment. No such a possibility faced Railton and Sharpe. Indeed,
there are currently a number of other senior local government officials who
are directors and trustees of BAAF. Anthony Douglas, the chairman of CAFCASS
is a director of BAAF. BAAF sells hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of
books annually to ….local authorities…..Anthony Douglas writes books….which
are bought by….local authorities!
(b) …….Local
government nominates ‘independent councillors to monitor elected
councillors’. And if the councillors ‘misbehave’ (political speak
for offend local government) they are reported to The Standards Board. The
elected councillors could then face suspension, exclusion and even
imprisonment. Now if you hadn’t already guessed; no such monitoring of local
government officials exists. Indeed, the documented criminal conduct of social
workers in the Family Courts is not only tolerated and protected, but those
members of the public who try and raise these concerns are likely to be
targeted and victimised. ( As I might be as a result of this campaign !)
(c)…… Despite
elected councillors having a responsibility in law as ‘corporate parents’
to all the children within their constituency, local government officials have
been evidenced obstructing, intimidating and threatening elected
representatives of the people. In my book “Gulag of the Family Courts”…Book
1, I identify incidents in which Eric Pickles MP and County Councillor Barry
Aspinell were the subject of Essex County Council’s ‘attention’.
Efforts were made to seek a custodial sentence for Councillor Barry Aspinell.
(See: pages 80, 69-70, 255-258).
In a number of
Family Court cases, the judgements have gone against the local authorities,
because of the conduct of particular social workers and the children’s
department. In some of these cases the courts have awarded huge sums of money
against the local authorities. In almost every case the social workers have
not been identified, there has been no disciplinary sanction and the press and
public have been kept in the dark about matters. The elected councillors too
have been required to ‘sign off’ the financial accounts, without being
made aware of what they were signing, or without being allowed to question the
reasons and call for transparent disclosure of all information, including the
sums paid out in court compensation awards.
2……‘Conscientious
objectors’ under the age of 50, who believe they might be ‘called up’
in the event of a military conflict, could decide that unless the very
survival of the UK was in the balance and unless the UK was going to be
attacked/was already attacked by an enemy, they would not respond to the call
to arms. This would have a relevance to Tony Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’,
which convinced Parliament that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction
(WMDs), which could be activated in 45 minutes. As we have since discovered,
this was all spurious hogwash and presented to Parliament, to justify
attacking Iraq. Now the troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan too. The
loss of life and the huge number of injuries to young committed and trusting
servicemen has been built on lies and shallow information whose purpose was to
deceive. It has been very successful.
It is noticeable
that none of the children of those members of the Cabinet, who made the
decision to go to war in Iraq, are involved in the fighting. No member of the
Blair or Brown’s Cabinet has ever put on a military uniform. Tony Blair even
refused to join the cadet force in Fetters School. But of course, they are
committed to sending you and me into armed conflicts. In this, the public in
general have more in common with the Royal Family than with government
ministers. At least it can be said that the future sovereign and his brother
are both serving Army officers.
3……..‘Conscientious
objectors’ could decide to hold their counsel to themselves and make a
decision at the appropriate time. Or even change their minds. The purpose of
this campaign is to ‘signal one’s intent to register as a
conscientious objector’.
What purpose
will this serve and will this worry the government?
The first impact
of this campaign will be to publicise that imprisonment after a ‘secret
trial’ has been taking place in the secretive Family Courts.. It
will focus attention on what is happening in the Family Courts and will result
in the government having to justify the situation. Which will immediately
result in further confirmation that the sole purpose of the ‘secrecy’,
is to conceal the huge judicial scandal and the personal tragedies caused by
those involved with the Family Court industry; the Guligans. It will expose to
the public, the huge number of miscarriages of justice caused by social
workers and other ‘public officials’ giving false evidence in Family
Court proceedings, resulting in children being wrongly being taken into care
and then being given away to strangers, for adoption.
The other
implication would affect the government planners, who are apparently in a
continual state of supposed preparedness, we are told; despite the much
publicised Home Office debacles of violent illegal immigrant prisoners
released to re-offend and the billions of pounds of wasted National Health
Service budget, to name but two. . But let us suppose that the planners are
‘on the ball’. It will not come as welcome news that a number of persons
have begun registering their intent to be considered ‘conscientious
objectors’, well in advance of an incident that might require general
mobilisation or participation in some national plan.
There is the
cultivated perception that we, the public, are docile and waiting to be
directed by ‘officialdom’. And to a large extent that is correct. We
have been happy to answer any national call, because we have always assumed
that our leaders have had a commitment to democracy, ‘the rule of law’
and the fundamental judicial principle; ‘justice must be seen to be done’.
Indeed, as I have stated above. Lord Falconer repeated this in early June
2007, in an interview given to a BBC reporter. It has been our understanding
and the covenant between our political leaders and the public, that they would
not ignore evidence of great victimisation or abject neglect of the public and
their families……..Well, you now know that this is not the case.
Ministers and
members of Parliament of all the parties have been repeatedly informed over a
number of years, about what has been happening in the secretive Family Courts.
The Justice Minister has admitted this of her own volition. Yet nothing has
been done to stop the horrendous victimisation. None of the major opposition
party leaders either, have taken up the issues raised. In fact, the jailing of
persons after a ‘secret trial’ has been officially undertaken,
deliberately, to conceal the huge scandal and the miscarriages of justice. The
covenant has been broken.
Hence the reason
for this campaign.
Conclusion:
It is entirely in
the hands of the government and the courts, to have us wind up this campaign.
All they have to do is to stop imprisoning persons after a ‘secret trial’
in the Family Courts. If they wish to imprison persons, then they should
present evidence in an open court at which the press and media have access and
can then report the details, whilst anonymising the identity of the person,
in certain specific cases only. If that cannot be done, it confirms
unequivocally that there is no evidence to justify the imprisonment of the
person. The present situation confirms the operation of kangaroo courts that
are targeting and victimising innocent and vulnerable members of the public,
but ‘in secret’. It would also identify that those involved in this
scandal are social workers, paediatricians, ‘public officials’ and
judges. It must also include the government. The Justice Minister, Harriet
Harman MP QC, having already officially admitted in Parliament, her knowledge
of these ‘secret Family Court trials’.
On reflection:
by Pastor Neumoller (A Victim of the Nazis):
First they came
for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a
communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was
not a trade unionist.
Then they came for ME - and there was no-one left to speak out for me.
Campaign aim:
It is our
intention to record a list of those who wish to register and then bring the
list to the attention of the Prime Minster and the government. Should a single
person from today be imprisoned after a ‘secret trial’, it will trigger
our response and we will begin to compile the list and make a public
presentation of the list to the Prime Minister, sometime in the future.
After giving this
some thought, if you too are in agreement to ‘signal your intent to
register as a conscientious objector’,
please complete the objectors
FORM BELOW
You can decide to
register and not have your registration publicised, or you may decide to
register and have your name on a list that will be publicised. Tick the
appropriate box.
If the Prime
Minister and the government takes the view that they can dismiss such a
petition and allow the ‘secret Family Court trials’ to jail persons, to
continue, I am sure you will agree that others, including the public, the
press & media, other foreign governments and major international institutions,
including judicial institutions, will view this very differently.
Jack Frost
(Author: “The Gulag of the Family Courts”)
http://www.gulagofthefamilycourts.com/
(OBJECTORS FORM)
Campaign to Stop the Family
Court’s conducting ‘committal proceedings in secret’
I unequivocally
and unreservedly disagree with the policy of the Family Courts imprisoning
persons after a ‘secret trial’. It is a fundamental principle in a
democracy that no person should lose his /her freedom, without having first
been tried in an open court in which the ‘rule of law’ applies and
independent observers allowed to witness that ‘justice has been seen to be
done’. In keeping with the stated aims of the campaign, to put a stop to
the Family Court’s conducting ‘committal proceedings in secret’, I wish
to record my sincere displeasure and fundamental disagreement with
‘committal proceedings being conducted in secret’. I am angry and much
disaffected.
