Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 3 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Bonds/Liens lodged against Court Officials
To Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service by Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended) 12 August 2009
Mr Green (Recorder) Medway Family County Court
To Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service by Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended) 10 August 2009
Judge Polden - Medway County Family Court
To Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service by Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended) 10 August 2009
Clerk to the Courts powers
To Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service by L : Turnbull 11 April 2010
Judge Cox Medway County Family Court
To Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service by Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended) 10 August 2009
CIVIL LIBERTIES ABUSE ??!!DEMOCRATIC??!!
To Information Commissioner’s Office by Julie Shrive (Account suspended) 6 July 2009
Crown Court trials without jury
To Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service by M Bimmler 5 June 2010
The General Treaty for the Renunciation of War 1928 [Kellogg-Briand Pact]
To Ministry of Justice by brian ovens 23 March 2010
Are Judges allowed to put pressure on families to give up their children for adoption?
To Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service by Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended) 8 September 2009
How many former L.A.C Children have had their children removed by social services,
Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
Waiting for an internal review by Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service of their handling of this request.
From: Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended)
28 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
How many former L.A.C Children have had their children removed by
social services, using the factor that the parents had previously
been in care and or abused as children and therefore are posing a
future risk of possible emotional abuse?
And why it seems to be becoming a common factor,what does define a
future risk of possible emotional abuse given the fact that there
is no possible way of detecting whether anyone poses a future risk
of possible emotional abuse, and why this is being used for the
excuse to also remove the children of former victims of domestic
violence and child abuse.
Why are the Judges condoning this abuse of families and children,
through their lack of accountability to the Public and protection
of the staff, behind closed doors?
Yours faithfully,
Mr D Ferguson
From: Customer Services (CSHQ)
29 June 2009
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email. You will need to contact Data Access and
Compliance Unit either through their external email inbox at
[email address] or by writing to them at the following
address, Data Access and Compliance Unit, Information Directorate, 6th
Floor, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ.
It is likely that DACU will ask you to submit a formal request.
Regards
Benny Stone
Customer Service Unit
show quoted sections
From: Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended)
24 July 2009
Dear Customer Services (CSHQ),
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wh...
please forward this FOI request to the compliance unit as you have
for the requester quoted above (Officer Benny Stone)on the 30th
June 2009.
Yours sincerely,
Mr D Ferguson
From: Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended)
9 August 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty's Courts
Service's handling of my FOI request 'How many former L.A.C
Children have had their children removed by social services,'.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ho...
Yours faithfully,
Mr D Ferguson
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
19 August 2009
Dear Mr Ferguson,
Thank you for your e-mail. Can you please provide the response to your
original request so we may deal with your request for an internal review
of this response. If known can you quote our reference number on future
correspondence with us.
Regards
Paul Hunt
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, 6.25, London SW1H 9AJ
[HMCS request email]
show quoted sections
From: Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended)
21 August 2009
Dear Paul Hunt ,Data Access & Compliance Unit,
It seems clear from other posters request , that your department
never answer FOI directly, why is is?
Please refer to the previous emails already sent to your offices,
or the www.whatdotheyknow.com site for details of this request as
well as other misdirected FOI that have also been ignored by your
department.
Yours sincerely,
Mr D Ferguson
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
21 August 2009
This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.
Thank you for your e-mail.
If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written ackowledgement
shortly.
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Fax: 0203 334 2245
E-mail: [HMCS request email]
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Ms S Foster (Account suspended) left an annotation (25 August 2009)
House of Lords - Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust. Baroness Hale of Richmond. Judgement
34. There is, so far as the parties to this case are aware, no European jurisprudence questioning the principle of freeing for adoption, or indeed compulsory adoption generally. The United Kingdom is unusual amongst members of the Council of Europe in permitting the total severance of family ties without parental consent. (Professor Triseliotis thought that only Portugal and perhaps one other European country allowed this.) It is, of course, the most draconian interference with family life possible.
Although kinship placements are supposed to be the preferred option in this country, only 1 per cent. of social worker-instigated placements ended up with kinship carers, compared with 45 per cent. in Denmark, for example(EVIDENCE given in parliament June 16th 2008 by Tim Loughton MP shadow minister for children)
Mr B Gerrish (Account suspended) left an annotation (29 August 2009)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...
Will be interesting to see if Medway Family Court takes any notice of Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wall's criticisms, the latter ordered his comments to be circulated to family courts and adoption agencies across the land.
(Could his comments be referring to the Law of the Land)
The Lords appear to recognize that there is a clear difference between the LAW and legal child kidnap; there cannot be Lawful child kidnap.
Mr B Gerrish (Account suspended) left an annotation (29 August 2009)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...
correct link
From: Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended)
25 September 2009
Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,
Please state why there is such a delay in responding?
Yours sincerely,
Mr D Ferguson
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
25 September 2009
This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.
Thank you for your e-mail.
If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written ackowledgement
shortly.
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Fax: 0203 334 2245
E-mail: [HMCS request email]
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
28 September 2009
Please can you provide us with a reference number so we can check the
status of your request
Regards
Data Access and Compliance Unit
6TH floor 102 Petty France.
Post point 6.25
London
SW1H 9AJ
Email [email address]
show quoted sections
From: Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended)
29 September 2009
Dear Data Access & Compliance Unit,
You are well aware that your department never supplied a reference
number and this FOI request was placed on 28th June 2009.
Compliance with the FOIA law has been completely ignored.
Yours sincerely,
Mr D Ferguson
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
29 September 2009
This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.
Thank you for your e-mail.
If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written acknowledgement
shortly.
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Fax: 0203 334 2245
E-mail: [HMCS request email]
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended) left an annotation (11 October 2009)
This is what happens if you ask questions that they dont want to answer you either get the run around or they put you in their new Fixated Threat Assessment Centre
dont believe it ! Google Maurice Kirk
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Wilson, A (Account suspended) left an annotation (17 August 2009)
In 2007,local authorities in England applied for 8,173 care orders. 7,624 orders were made. 336 applications were withdrawn, 290 "no orders" decisions and 21 orders were refused.
In other words, the judgement of the social workers working for the council was so good, they were only refused by the judge 21 times (0.27%)
More importantly 93% of the time the judge merely rubber-stamped the care orders.
Link to this