Help with Social Services and Children in Care ProceedingsFamilies and Social Services
Information Team
Bookmark and Share
Welsh
  • Home
  • About
  • Help
  • News
  • Events
  • Links
  • Search
  • Stories
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Store
  • Donate

'Upping the anti'

Ian Josephs  
'Upping the anti'
by Ian Josephs at www.forced-adoption.com

Response to Guardian Fassit UK feature by Ian Josephs

The Journalist responsible for the articles at the Guardian David Batty defends Social Services in the "Guardian" of October 5th by implying that "Drew", the spokesperson for "FASSIT" has no justification for the allegations she makes when in fact most can easily be proved.

The following are examples:-
1:-Councils ARE rewarded for increasing adoption figures (Kent £21million,Gloucester £12million,) as essential components of public service agreements and these figures were until recently on line;. We have retained copies! They are also rewarded with "beacon status", and "stars" which usually have financial implications;

2:-It is true that the 40% increase in adoptions demanded by Tony Blair was INTENDED to take children out of care. However, the EFFECT of the demand has been to motivate social workers to target very young children and babies whether "in care" or not. Statistics (obtained from answers to parliamentary questions) on the Fassit site show the increase in contested adoptions to be alarming

3:-Comparisons with Nazis who began in "the 30's" by sterilizing the mentally handicapped can be reasonably compared with social services systematically taking their children away for adoption .

4:-Drew does not simply" claim" to know of cases where children have been taken because parents are poor as government statistics confirm 440 recent cases of children taken because parents had "low income" and even Felicity Collier admitted this on radio and declared herself "perplexed"

5:-It is not dangerous to advise parents how to stop social workers bursting into the house often at night uninvited, and it is absurd for Clair Pyper to suggest that this type of visit is for purposes of support!

6:-Clair Pyper claims that "emotional harm" is just as damaging as physical harm which can be seen and proved and this is also absurd; Parents just cannot defend themselves against highly paid self styled "experts" who say their children are "at risk of emotional harm" This concept is so much a matter of opinion and so little concerned with facts that the whole notion unknown on the continent) should be scrapped.

7:-Nobody could deny Drew's claim that children under interim care orders were being advertised "like dogs" in magazines and on line with photos ,birth dates , first names, and character descriptions as anyone can verify this for themselves. What David Batty left out however was the obvious conclusion that the secrecy in the family courts is not imposed to hide the identity of these children that the Councils so blatantly advertise, but rather to PREVENT aggrieved parents who have had their children taken from going to the press or in any way complaining publicly with details about what happened in the court.

8:-David Batty says that Drew "claims" that adoption is a big money industry as though he does not believe it; The government's own statistics admit that lawyers make an average £70,000 a case, and adoption agencies charge councils around £18,000 per placement, whilst the fosterers who take the children pending adoption proceedings are paid in Slough for example £400 per week per child !!

9:-Claire Pyper takes exception because the FASSIT site has drawn public attention to the fact that many physically abused and damaged children are left to die whilst social workers go for easier targets in the form of mothers who are poor or have low IQs. She cannot really deny that this is so as the facts are continually in the public domain.

10:-The most interesting omission from the article is that maybe the reason that the "Guardian" is the only newspaper to robustly defend the Social Services and their adoption policies has something to do with the fact that every week the paper benefits from pages and pages of expensive advertisements placed there by ,,,,,,,,,,Social Services gain it seems that policies are a question of cash !!

Yours sincerely,
Ian Josephs
www.forced-adoption.com

Back

Forced Adoption By Ian JosephsForced Adoption By Ian Josephs
(shortened version) £5.74
To order

Forced Adoption 2nd Edition By Ian Josephs
£11.30
To order