David Miliband has
adopted a second child in the U.S., it has emerged.
The Foreign Secretary, who is on paternity leave, is understood to have been
present at the birth of the boy, named Jacob.
Mr Miliband cancelled a sensitive meeting with the Saudi foreign minister just
hours before the start of a state visit by the kingdom's ruler yesterday.
Friends said he was forced to pull out by Jacob's early birth at an
undisclosed location in the U.S.
The Foreign Office said the cancellation had nothing to do with mounting
criticisms about the lavish welcome being offered to King Abdullah despite the
state's human rights record.
Mr Miliband's office refused to provide any details on the adoption, citing
security and privacy reasons.
He and his wife Louise reinforced the message in a letter to news
organisations requesting that their privacy be respected.
Almost three years ago, the Conservatives questioned the way the couple
handled the foreign adoption of their first son Isaac.
In a statement, the Foreign Secretary's office said: "David and Louise
Miliband are pleased to announce the adoption of their second son, Jacob.
"They are delighted by the new arrival and Mr Miliband will now be taking a
period of leave. They ask the media to respect their privacy during this
time."
The Foreign Office would not say how much notice the Saudi government was
given of Mr Miliband's decision not to attend what was supposed to be a
landmark Two Kingdoms conference, promoting strong economic and political
ties.
But a spokesman said yesterday that notice was given "before today".
Foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal pulled out as well, citing protocol
reasons.
Mr Miliband was replaced by Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells.
A Downing Street spokesman said: "I'm not going to get into any details
regarding the Foreign Secretary's personal circumstances. The Prime Minister
was aware of the situation."
Mr Miliband and his wife were present at the birth of their first child in
December 2004.
A Government inquiry cleared Mr Miliband, then a junior education minister, of
claims backed by the Tories, that the couple had used his position to
"fast-track" the paperwork for the adoption.
Those wanting to adopt newborns in Britain face a wait which can stretch into
years while they are vetted by adoption agencies or their local authority.
Critics say the process, which includes police and health checks and
interviews with a social worker, is too bureaucratic.
Mr Miliband has said that his wife, a violinist with the London Symphony
Orchestra, has "adoption rights in the U.S." as she has dual citizenship.
There, couples pay up to £20,000 for a healthy white baby.
Last night, adoption experts said the Milibands, both in their forties, may
have benefited from easier adoption rules in the U.S.
Professor Kate Wilson, of the University of Nottingham, said: "Because of the
age factor they probably wouldn't even be approved in the UK as adopters.
"Additionally, it is not so easy to adopt babies in Britain as the supply of
infants is very limited now."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Comment by Jack Frost. Author " The Gulag Of The Family Courts".
It is interesting to note, that according to the article above, " Most of the
4,000 children adopted in Britain, each year, come from council care and it is
estimated that only a few hundred of these are less than six months
old."........Think about this for a moment.
This goes completely against the reason for the initiative announced by Tony
Blair, in 2000.
Blair announced the massive government funded initiative, to provide a home
for those children who had been in long term care. And if you examine the
local authority's statistics; many of the children in long term care are
black/ethnic and disabled children. Of course, to be in long term care, one
would assume that the children would have been in care for a number of years,
and would not be under 6 months old......And indeed, there are a huge number
of children who have been in long term care. And as you would expect, many are
aged over 10 and many are black/ethnic and many are disabled.
I have described the corruption and irregularities that has taken place in my
book; the adoption agencies are often charities, though a number are not. The
agencies receive £20,000, for every couple they find, who will adopt a child
from the council's pool of children in care......And very conveniently they
pick up £20,000........Then ignore those children who have been in long term
care,,,,But instead adopt a fit white baby or toddler....And the council's own
figures prove this has been happening..........This is a huge scam!
And how has been allowed to happen?
Because social workers ( who are local government officials) are not required
to register their outside interests. members of Parliament and elected
councillors are strictly monitored and MUST register their outside interests.
Local government officials have been involved in assisting their friends in
the adoption & fostering agencies. Many are directors and trustees of these
agencies. This huge 'conflict of interests', would never be countenanced in a
commercial company. If this happened in a commercial company, the directors
and managers would be jailed for fraud. In local government it is tolerated
and encouraged, because,.....................local government is protected by
New Labour.
So the agencies pick up £20,000 and take away a fit white baby. The local
authority also receives huge financial rewards and other incentives, for
meeting 'targets'. And all the while their activities are concealed in the
Gulag Of The Family Courts and the Guligans continue to milk the system,
because there is no independent scrutiny or accountability..
Meanwhile, grandparents are jailed in secret, because the Guligans are too
fearful of the truth getting out to the public, the press, and the wider
world. Whilst simultaneously, the Blair/Brown Labour Government, tells us that
the jails are so full that they have had to release murderers and sex
offenders, early. Many of these convicts we have been informed, are illegal
immigrants. Obviously, there is always space in the jails, for good old
fashioned UK pensioners; many who have served in the military and whose only
crime was that they made contact with the press or tried to contact their
grandchildren. Which is precisely why we should ensure that the information is
sent abroad. The threats and imprisonment are no different from those the
Burmese public face. Except, the international press keeps us informed of what
is happening in Burma. In the UK, the Guligans have been using the wretched
Family Courts, to conceal the corruption.
End.
Best wishes
Jack Frost
