A response to the BBC
Radio 4 “Woman’s Hour” programme broadcast on Saturday, 1 December 2007
I am sure many will have heard the BBC Radio 4, Woman’s Hour programme, which
featured a segment concerning the disturbing phenomenon of social workers
accusing a mother- to- be, of abuse or inability to look after a baby and
intervening within hours/days after the birth of the baby and removing the child
into council care. In some of these cases, the actions of the social workers has
been based on a hunch, against the advice of the mother-to-bee’s doctor and
sometimes the removal of the child has been affected without a Court Order.
The presenter of the programme, Jane Garvey, once again confirmed the now widely
held view, that the BBC is the government’s tame mouthpiece and apologist for
departments that have been abusing their position, victimising the public and
been getting well paid and honoured, in the bargain. All the while these
government departments have been assured that their working practises have been
shrouded in opacity, unscrutinised and unaccountable. And as a final measure to
repel all borderers and ensure that they remain above and beyond criticism and
sanction, threats are made, directly and by innuendo, against members of the
public and elected representatives of the people.
The Woman’s Hour programme on 1 December 2007, confirmed yet again, that The
Pravda’ Syndrome was alive and nourished in the BBC, despite the valiant efforts
made to disguise it. Pravda was the official media organ of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union (1918-1991) and the Central Committee of the Communist Party
ensured that the editorial content never strayed from its ideology and
propaganda, laid down by its founder, Leon Trotsky.
My antenna was alerted to The Pravda Syndrome, as I listened to the Woman’s Hour
programme and noticed how differently Jane Garvey treated her two guests. The
first was John Coughlan ( President of the Association of Directors of Social
Services), the local authority spokesman for social workers. The other being
John Hemming MP
( Birmingham, Yardley), who has often raised in Parliament and outside, the
precipitate, pre-emptive, unwarranted and often unnecessary and illegal
intervention by social workers, in the lives of ordinary members of the general
public..
Click on link; Taking Babies into Care
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/2007_48_mon.shtml
John Hemming MP had made it very clear that the forcible removal of a baby from
its mother, within 15 days ( sometimes 15 minutes) of its birth, was illegal,
unlawful, inhuman and beset by the gravest concerns and implications, yet this
is not uncommon in the UK. As if on cue, John Coughlan reverted to type and
withdrew into the carapace that all the guilty social workers retire to. He
repeated what is now the usual mantra; “……we are only following the judge’s
Orders……everything we do is in the best interests of the child…… I am not
allowed to discuss an individual case”. There never was any suggestion that ‘an
individual case’ gagged as a result of Family Court proceedings, was to be
identified and discussed. The programme was concerned with the general conduct
of social workers who were forcibly taking babies from their mothers, soon after
birth and then using the excuse of the secrecy associated with Family Court
proceedings, to conceal their activities.
John Coughlan was not merely being disingenuous, he was well aware that many
social workers have been providing incorrect information and false evidence in
Family Court cases. It is the result of such false and incorrect information,
that the judge’s have been issuing their Orders to forcibly remove children and
place them in care. And it is precisely to shield documented fraudsters and
those social workers of little professional discipline and even less integrity,
that his association and the food chain of Guligans have been making ever more
efforts to avoid transparency and the press reporting the truth about the
disreputable Family Courts. The argument that the secrecy of the Family Court
proceedings is to protect the identity of a child is easily demolished in one
sentence.
Even those parents who had the case against them dismissed and who were awarded
costs against a local authority and whom along with the children, wish to be
identified and wish to tell their stories, are not allowed to have their
experiences publicised.
What further proof is required to show that what is taking place in the Family
Courts, is sheer utter corruption of a system of justice, much better described
as, injustice.. The sole purpose of the secrecy is to avoid identifying the
villainy of the social workers and other public officials, on whose evidence and
opinions the cases has reached the Family Court.
It was noticeable that Jane Garvey turned to John Hemming MP at one point in the
programme, after he had eloquently explained the conduct of social workers, and
as if to impugn his partiality whilst campaigning for justice for the victimised
parents and children, in a coded rebuke remarked, “ You do have a record in this
area……”…! Indeed, John Hemming does have a very wide record of experiences in
this area. Though Jane Garvey was not alluding to such a record. She had other
things on her mind!
It should be remembered that John Hemming MP is the foremost member of
Parliament, campaigning for the rights of parents and grandparents who have been
falsely accused, who have lost their children, been denied contact with their
children in Care, had Court Orders ignored and disobeyed by social workers and
suffered the vicious onslaught at the hands of the unaccountable, unscrutinised
and unpublicised activities of social workers and other public officials, who
have been hiding behind specious claims of secrecy. The comment by Jane Garvey
was uncalled for; though it explains succinctly, that the BBC staff who briefed
the recently arrived Woman’s Hour Garvey, about John Hemming’s background, were
not about to miss a trick.
There was, as you no doubt have guessed, no such mention, concerning John
Coughlan record. The BBC was its usual obsequious self; deferential and ensuring
that this public sector employee, John Coughlan, like the rest of the local
government officials, was allowed to ramble on unchallenged and not held to
account. The Pravda Syndrome was running wild. So nothing unusual there.
By way of contrast, those who watched the recent ITV programme, on 26 November
2007, at 8pm, hosted by Sir Trevor Macdonald and which focussed on the mother-
to -be, Fran Lyon, who was informed that her baby was to be taken from her by
social workers, 10 minutes after birth, would have noticed a stark difference.
In the ITV programme ( click on
http://www.fassit.co.uk/inquiry_team_videos.htm ) there was no stilted
reservation about disclosing information that the public are entitled to know.
The ITV programme included Denise Robertson, the TV Agony Aunt, revealing
candidly that she received 5/6 letters a week from mothers who feared social
services and who approached her for advice. Denise Robertson announced
unequivocally, that her advice to young girls with medical or psychiatric
problems, was that they should not confide in the medical services, because at a
later date, perhaps many years later, they would very likely have their children
forcibly taken into Care and then possible adoption, purely on the basis of
their seeking help many years before. The message this gives to female rape
victims and mothers suffering from post natal depression, is, ‘ don’t go to the
authorities for help’, it will rebound on you.
But getting back to the Woman’s Hour Programme on 1 December 2007. Had Jane
Garvey referred to John Coughlan’s ( President of the Association of Directors
of Social Services) record, as she blithely did about John Hemming MP, she would
indeed have opened up a can of worms. That she didn’t requires that I now set
the record straight.
All John Hemming MPs’ experiences, mutterings, writings and connections, viz a
vie the subject of social workers and public officials involvement with
families, child care and the Family Courts are known, has been reported, is in
print or can be easily accessed. John Hemming is an open book. John Coughlan and
his social worker friends and colleagues on the other hand, are quite a
different matter: utterly opaque. However, I will piece together what is not
widely known about John Coughlan, the Association of Directors of Social
Services ( soon to change its name to the Association of Directors of Children
Services) ) and social workers and the deliberate confusion these individuals
have managed to create using quasi official positions that have even confused
the media.
The Association of Directors of Social Services( ADSS) is a membership group
that consists of the directors of social services from all the local authorities
and councils around the UK. It is in fact a self serving union of these senior
officials with a specific but unwritten purpose; to pursue the interests of this
union and protect the social workers in their departments. To this end, if a
social worker or a local authority comes under criticism, the ADSS immediately
comes to the aid of the director of that local authority, because ultimately,
the media & public’s criticism will focus on the director of that local
authority. Since the director is likely to be a member of ADSS, the whole
panoplay of media contacts and quasi official positions is rolled out. To the
public, the whole event appears to be official. In actual fact it is the usual
smoke & mirrors of the public sector. A Putinesque election. A pretence at
transparency whilst draconian opacity rules. A supposedly customer responsive
public sector, which ensures that the mechanisms for comparison and
accountability, are denied. Huge conflicts of interest which benefit the social
workers and local government officials are wrapped in confusion and the usual
opacity and double speak.
So what might Jane Harvey have referred to as John Coughlan’s record, but which
she obsequiously didn’t?
Jane Garvey might have mentioned any one, or all of the following:
1……..John Coughlan’s members and all social workers come within the group known
as local government officials. All local government officials are members of the
giant union, UNISON. Unison is a major financial contributor to the Labour
Party. This is a very important point because it directly links an agency of
state, which has massive arbitrary powers of intervention into the ordinary
lives of families, with a dominant political party and a particular ideology.
This identifies a role that is deliberately difficult to separate from Labour
politicians. In fact, often they are actually the same persons at different
stages of their own development.
2………Is ADSS ( soon to be ADCS), John Coughlan’s organisation, officially paid
for by the government?
3……….It is noticeable that there is a whole plethora of such supposedly
autonomous groups, yet they appear to be government funded and claim some
official standing. It is noticeable that they often experience a process of
metamorphosis……Then, hey presto! They reappear, almost intact but under another
name. Sometimes the members move seamlessly between supposedly stand- alone
charities and other quangos. Whatever they do, they always manage to convince
the media and others of their ‘standing’; though remarkably little is known
about them and public scrutiny and accountability are as anathema, as is public
scrutiny of the recent Russian election.
4………(a)……..Elizabeth Railton, was the Director of Social Services ( Children’s
Services) for Essex County Council, until about mid 2006, when her contract was
not renewed. This member of ADSS was severely criticised by the public in the
press, her department was under almost continuous criticism in the press by
elected councillors and was even mentioned in these terms, in the House of
Commons.
(b)……..Liz Railton, as she was known, presented a false and incorrect report to
the General Scrutiny Committee ( GSCC) of Essex County Council on 14 December
2004. This was immediately reported by a number of Essex residents, to the
chairman of the GSCC. No action taken by the chairman, County Councillor Tom
Smith –Hughes. There are suspicions that he was mugged!
(c )…….Liz Railton was the chair of the Essex Child Protection Committee( ECPC)
which then morphed into the Essex Safeguarding Children Board( SCB) in about
early 2006. On this committee sits Dr. Geetha Kugan; a consultant paediatrician
who is also the Designated Doctor for Child Protection, for North Essex. It so
happens that Dr. Geetha Kugan has been documented and reported for falsely
accusing a child and her mother and beseeching the Child Protection
Investigating Team to become involved, to begin unnecessary medical treatment
and Care Proceedings.. Dr. Kugan signed a 4 page letter in support of her 2
colleagues, Dr. Aloke Agrawal and Dr. RN Mahesh Babu, when in fact she knew the
allegations to be untrue, had never examined the child’s medical files and had
never seen or communicated with the child or her parents. Despite the wealth of
evidence, Liz Railton took no action to suspend or remove Dr. Geetha Kugan from
the ECPC. Even today, Dr. Kugan sits on this prestigious child protection
committee ( SCB)
(d)………..Local government officials, unlike elected councillors and members of
Parliament, are not required to complete a register of their outside interests.
This allows local government officials to have interests in companies and
entities, without disclosing them, whilst engaged in policy and initiatives that
could advantage them. I became aware, after making some detailed enquiries, that
Liz Railton was simultaneously the senior official in the council’s child care
department and also a director and trustee of the charity, the British
Association for Adoption & Fostering( BAAF). This identified a serious conflict
of interests. I also discovered that the council’s Adoption Manger, Tony Michael
Sharp, was also simultaneously a director and trustee of BAAF. This was and
still is very relevant, because it has been learned that Essex County Council
has been meeting and exceeding its adoption targets; but in so doing has been
skewing the original intention and terms of reference of the adoption initiative
initiated by Tony Blair in 2000. Suffice it to say that the more the council
assists with adoptions of very young white fit babies, the easier it has been to
get huge sums of financial awards and other awards. The disadvantaged are the
black/ethnic children, disabled children and the older children in council care.
They have been left on the shelf and their interests have not been given the
same priority. This is clearly visible, from the council’s own statistics.
( e) ……….Liz Railton’s department obstructed and misled a serving member of
Parliament, Eric Pickles MP ( Brentwood & Ongar), when he tried to assist his
constituents, ‘The Brentwood Low IQ Couple’, in early 2005. Essex County Council.
For full details of this incident, see Hansard. The adoption Bill Debate.2 May
2005.
Reading between the lines and the information available, Essex County Council
were getting ready to take legal action against Eric Pickles, for carrying out
his legitimate political duty. The whole point of the efforts of Liz Railton’s
department was to threaten by innuendo and misinformation, to seek to frighten
off an elected representative of the people.
(f)……….Liz Railton’s department, as ever, aided and abetted by the Law &
Administration Department of Essex County Council, tried to stop County
Councillor Barry Aspinell ( Brentwood) from going to the assistance of his
constituents, The Brentwood Low IQ couple. They served Councillor Aspinell with
an injunction and in court on 29 April 2005, the council’s legal representative
was heard discussing seeking a custodial sentence for Councillor Aspinell. The
Judge, Judge Gypps dismissed the case and told Councillor Barry Aspinell he was
free to go and do his political duty.
(g)……….Later in 2005, Liz Railton’s department, using the council’s machinery,
reported County Councillor Barry Aspinell to The Standards Board for England.
This could have resulted in Councillor Aspinell being debarred from political
office and other additional penalties could have ensued. The Standards Board
dismissed the case.
(h)………..There are other matters we are not supposed to know about, which
involved Essex County Council’s social Services department making complaints
against the press, to gag them. As if the disreputable Family Courts were not
enough; even the press reporting the conduct of social workers and Liz Railton’s
department outside of court, is considered too risky. But notice how it is dealt
with. Not a full frontal legal action, but the more convenient gagging. The
reason the members of the ADSS fear legal action in the courts, is because they
fear what will be disclosed in an open court and which the press & media will
report. If the ADSS could spend all their lives in the disreputable Family
Courts, they would. Ensuring that the full gag on the press and free speech
would be complete and absolute.
(h)………Then quite recently, after hearing a rumour in the West Country, about 6/9
months ago, I decided to follow up a lead. And Bingo! I discovered that
legislation had been passed in October 2003, that placed a duty and
responsibility on elected councillors, to assist their constituents in the area
of child care. The title of the informative publication issued by the government
is “ a councillors guide to being a good corporate parent” .
Click on the link:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/educationprotects//upload/ACFC03E.pdf
But if elected councillors have a duty to assist their constituents, how is it
that the senior officials of local authorities and members of John Coughlan’s
ADSS have been involved in misleading their elected councillors and keeping them
away from carrying out their political duties? Why did Liz Railton’s department
take the action I have identified in (e), (f) and ( g) above? Why have members
of the ADSS been allowed to thwart enacted legislation?
There is also compelling evidence that Essex County Council in particular, and
local authorities around the country generally, have willingly adopted policies
that deliberately mislead and misinform their elected councillors, so that they
will face no interference from these councillors. They have created a councillor
free zone, to carry out their nefarious child care activities. Though the public
have been denied the right to assistance from their elected councillors and the
public have legislation on their side, to seek the involvement of their elected
councillors. ( For a specific incident that was witnessed and documented, read:
“ The Gulag Of The family Courts”…Book 1….ISBN 9781430 316350 …..By Jack Frost )
(i) ……..Which then led to astonishment, when it was disclosed in the Queens
Birthday Honours List in June 2006, that Liz Railton had been awarded the CBE(
Commander of the British Empire) . This is a very high honour. But how on earth
was this achieved, in the light of what I have disclosed above ( and more
besides) ?
So I wrote to Lord Hanningfield ( Leader of Essex County Council ) and the Head
of Law & Administration. Both replied thus; “ No one from Essex County Council
nominated Liz Railton for an award”……….Now this becomes very interesting!
So who did nominate Liz Railton for an award that resulted inn her receiving the
CBE in June 2006? I wonder if John Coughlan and his friends at the ADSS know!
John Coughlan and his friends in ADSS also know the following;
5………That the General Social Care Council admitted in 2005, when there were about
70,000 registered social workers, that it had registered 375 ex-convicts as
social workers. Now there are approximately 90,000+ social workers; so how many
ex-convicts are now employed as social workers? Are any employed in child care
and have any given evidence in Family Court cases? The authorities will not
respond to these questions. Though such information would be pertinent to
persons who have lost their children in the Family Courts or who have been
denied contact with their children. How has it come to be accepted in a court of
law, that persons of doubtful character have been allowed to give evidence that
has not been questioned? It can only happen in the disreputable Family Courts.
6……… That the General Social Care Council admitted in 2005, that it allows
‘social workers to register in other names’! So if a person has a criminal
conviction or has been banned from working abroad, one assumes he/she is able to
change his/her name and register in the new name. When asked about this, the
GSCC will not respond.
Though such information would be pertinent to persons who have lost their
children in the Family Courts or who have been denied contact with their
children. How has it come to be accepted in a court of law, that persons of
doubtful character have been allowed to give evidence that has not been
questioned? It can only happen in the disreputable Family Courts
7……….I am aware that the General Social Care Council and local authorities have
been involved in protecting social workers who have been of doubtful character
and worse, from being traced and challenged. The following is a case in point:
In late 2005, A grandmother complained to local authority X and named a social
worker for falsely accusing her daughter of abuse. Her daughter had had her
children taken into care. The X local authority then carried out an
investigation, they said and informed the grandmother that the social worker had
been found guilty of Gross Misconduct and sacked.
Some months later, the grandmother learned that the social worker was employed
in Y local authority, next door. She began to make enquiries at Y local
authority. She was deliberately given the run around and misinformed, to throw
her off the track. When she went to the office of Y local authority, at first
she was treated genuinely, until, they realised who she was trying to trace.
Then she was informed that the social worker was out, or not working there, etc,
etc.
The grandmother wondered just what it was that constituted Gross Misconduct. So
she contacted X local authority. What exactly had constituted Gross Misconduct?
They wouldn’t tell her. She then contacted a local newspaper, which was
interested in following up the story. Then the paper and the grandmother were
served with injunctions by X local authority, ’ for disclosing the identity of
the children in the case’! The injunction had on it, the names of the children.
This allegation was completely false. The grandmother had a different surname
from her daughter and had never breathed a word about the names of the children.
Her interest was trying to find out how a social worker who was ostensibly
sacked for Gross Misconduct, could so quickly get a job in the next door local
authority. It was noticeable that on the application for the injunction, the
names of the children had been printed. This was the first time that the
newspaper had been provided with the names of the children. And they had been
provided by the local authority!
This then was when the grandmother contacted me. I made some enquiries and
within a couple of weeks I discovered that the social worker was acting in a
senior capacity and was involved in a case before the Family Courts, in the next
door, Y local authority. I now believe that X local authority had deliberately
misled the grandmother. I suspect that they merely told her that he had been
sacked after being found guilty of Gross Misconduct, to get rid of the
grandmother. And it had worked. Y local authority officials had also played
along to protect the social worker and lead the grandmother, a merry dance.
I then contacted the GSCC and asked how this could happen and what exactly did
the GSCC have on this social worker’s registration. The GSCC would not assist.
All the details of this case was passed at the time, to Eric Pickles MP(
Brentwood & Ongar ), Bob Russell MP ( Colchester ) and Bob Spink ( Castlepoint).
I trust that John Coughlan and the ADSS would dearly love this case to disappear
into the ether. It will not because it is symptomatic of many of the issues
involving the conduct and activities of social workers and their superiors, who
at every turn seek to conceal what is happening. Such incidents could not occur
without a culture of tacit support, at least, from some who are members of the
ADSS.
8……..There are a number of DOCUMENTED cases in which it can be shown that social
workers have ignored Court Orders in relation to:
(a)…… contact between mothers and children in care,
( b) ……Contact between parents and children who have been released for adoption.
( c) …….Children left with one parent, who must not leave the local authority’s
jurisdiction, thus making contact with the non resident parent difficult to the
point of impossible. .
I could go on, because there is much more that is documented, which confirms
that social workers and their senior officials are involved in a policy and
strategy to keep from the public and the press, the activities of a number of
renegade social workers and others, who have played an active part in
irregularities and more, in a number of Family Court cases. On the basis of such
conduct, a huge number of innocent children have been taken into care and then
some given away in adoption, to strangers. The specious secrecy has been used
and continues to be used, to conceal from the public, serious criminality and
irregularities. Jan Garvey was ill prepared or suffering from the BBC contagion;
The Pravda’ Syndrome . John Coughlan thoroughly enjoyed the exercise. But we
have your number John. You don’t fool any of us. Just the BBC.
It remains to be seen whether the BBC can emulate ITV and produce a programme
that justifies the huge income which television viewers are forced to pay the
BBC, to carry out its public service remit. On the basis of the huge Family
Court scandal that the BBC has still failed to reveal, the ease with which John
Coughlan and his cronies ‘get one over the BBC’, at least some part of the TV
Licence Fee, should be distributed to ITV and the many other media & press, who
have been so encouraging and brave in facing the threats and misinformation, yet
continuing to expose the scandal of victimisation by public sector employees,
luxuriating in specious opacity.
…END…
Fassit UK Correspondent
Jack Frost
author of 'The Gulag of the Family Courts...Book1'
ISBN 9 781430 316350
http://www.gulagofthefamilycourts.com/
Please read...
Public awards for dishonourable conduct
Why social workers remove babies from their mothers
Grandmother faces year in prison
Confidentiality and Openness in Family Court
Fassit response to BASW
Adoptions cannot ever be undone?
DCA Phoney Conciliations
New DCA announcement - Social Workers
Harriet Harman the Response
The Labyrinthine links of the 'Little Hitlers'
Open or shut case - NO
The Political Social Workers
Time limits for Compensation in Child Abuse Cases
Adoption Fraud is under challenge
