Adoptions. Cumbria County Council.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Under Freedom of Information.

Please can you provide me with statistics on the amount of Looked After Children who were placed for forced adoption, without the consent of their birth parents, by Cumbria County Council Children s Services for 2008?

How does this compare with the figures annually from 2003 to 2007?

Can you please also provide me with information, as to how many of these adopted children, still have contact with birth families? How many of these adopted children were considered, first, for placement with extended family?

Yours faithfully,

Lorna Stewart.

Freedom Of Information,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000-REQUEST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

REFERENCE: FOI 2009-385

Dear Ms Stewart

Thank you for your request for information regarding adoption statistics
for Looked After Children for 2008, which was received 14 September 2009.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires that we deal with requests
such as this promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth
working day following the receipt of the request; in this case the date is
12 October 2009. If there are costs involved in providing you with the
information a member of the Information Team will contact you.

Yours sincerely,

Corporate Information Team

Adult and Cultural Services

Cumbria County Council

Lower Gaolyard . The Courts . Carlisle . Cumbria . CA3 8NA

Telephone: (01228) 221234 E-mail: [1][Cumbria County Council request email]

This e-mail contains confidential information (which may also be
legally privileged) and is intended solely for the use of the
intended named recipient.

If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any part of this message or its
attachments. If you have received this message in error please
notify the originator immediately by using the reply facility in
your e-mail software.

Incoming and outgoing emails may be monitored in line with
current legislation.

All copies of the message received in error should be destroyed.
Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the original
author. This email message has been scanned for viruses, and
declared to be virus free at the point of exit from Cumbria
County Council's network.

http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Cumbria County Council request email]

S Smith (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp5G_TyMgIA

Forced adoption of babies and small children is common place right across the country , children are being taken by the very people who we pay to protect them.

How can it be right for anyone be arrested under a blanket offence?

Freedom Of Information,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Stewart

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000-DISCLOSURE

REFERENCE: FOI 2009-385

Please find attached a response to your request for information.

Yours sincerely,

Corporate Information Team

Adult and Cultural Services

Cumbria County Council

Lower Gaolyard . The Courts . Carlisle . Cumbria . CA3 8NA

Telephone: (01228) 221234 E-mail: [1][Cumbria County Council request email]

This e-mail contains confidential information (which may also be
legally privileged) and is intended solely for the use of the
intended named recipient.

If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any part of this message or its
attachments. If you have received this message in error please
notify the originator immediately by using the reply facility in
your e-mail software.

Incoming and outgoing emails may be monitored in line with
current legislation.

All copies of the message received in error should be destroyed.
Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the original
author. This email message has been scanned for viruses, and
declared to be virus free at the point of exit from Cumbria
County Council's network.

http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Cumbria County Council request email]

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Well here we have it. According to Cumbria County Council Forced Adoptions do not exist. Well, try telling that to all those parents who have had their children stolen by secret family courts by the use of false allegatons and Social Workers who commit perjury. yes Perjury. Forced Adoptions do exist, and if the person who answered my FOI request is so ignnorant to this FACT, then get an education. What a joke. Where do these people bury their heads?

Dear Freedom Of Information,

YOU STATE THAT FORCED ADOPTION DOES NOT EXIST. THIS IS NOT TRUE. I CANNOT BELIEVE THE IGNORANCE BEHIND YOUR STATEMENT. IF, AS YOU STATE, A JUDGE MAKES THE DECISION, EVEN WHEN PARENTS DO NOT CONSENT, THEN WHAT IS THAT, OTHER THAN FORCED ADOPTION. MANY THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES N THE UK HAVE BEEN ROBBED OF THEIR CHILDREN, AGAINST THEIR WILL, FOR NO GOOD REASON, BASED ON FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND OFTEN, SOCIAL WORKERS LIES AND PERJURY WHICH IS COMMONPLACE IN THE SECRET FAMILY COURTS. YOUR COMMENT THAT FORCED ADOPTIONS DO NOT EXIST IS OFFENSIVE TO MANY WRONGED FAMILIES WHO HAVE LOST THEIR CHILDREN FOR NO GOOD REASON, OTHER THAN CORPORATE FRAUD. I WOULD SUGGEST YOU DO SOME RESEARCH IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ME. www.justiceforfamilies.com Look up Forced Adoptions.I can prove that Forced Adoptions do exist, that they are Human Rights abuses, and that this is a well known Fact.

I would adise that you take back the comment, as it maks you look very silly.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Dear Freedom Of Information,

As you have not left a signature on your reply, I am unable to addres you by name. For the person who answered my freedom of information request. I suggest you take te time to study and get to a full knowledge of the campaign to abolish Forced adoptions, which you state, and I quote. "Forced Adoptions do not exist".

Take a look at this then, then try and tell me Forced Adoptions do not exist. http://www.forcedadoptions.com/introduct...
Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Dear Freedom Of Information,

A WORD OF WARNING

from Lord Denning, rated (by some) as the finest judge of the 20th century. In his book ‘WHAT NEXT IN THE LAW’ he wrote about ‘Abuse of Power’.

“ Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy.”

I believe Cumbria County Council Childrens Services and the Cumbrian Family Courts should take this warning seriously given that on average 28 Forced Adoptions occur every year in their county.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Adult and Cultural Services

Corporate Information Team  Lower Gaolyard

The Courts  Carlisle  CA3 8NA  Fax 01228 606706

Tel 01228 221234  Email [Cumbria County Council request email]

1 October 2009

Your Reference:

Our Reference: -385

Email: [FOI #17940 email]

Dear Ms Stewart

- DISCLOSURE

REFERENCE: -385

The Council has completed its search for information relating to adoption statistics for Looked After Children which we received on 11 September 2009.

The Council information within the definition of your request.

The information has been provided by the Directorate:

Question 1

Please can you provide me with statistics on the amount of Looked After Children who were placed for forced adoption, without the consent of their birth parents, by Cumbria County Council Children's Services for 2008?

Answer 1

Forced adoption does not exist. The Judge grants an adoption order when it is in the interest of the child and having considered whether or not there is consent from birth parents.

On average 28 children are adopted each year, there have been 3 cases in the last 4 years where the birth parent's have requested and consented to adoption. The rest have not consented and the Judge has made the decision

Question 2

How does this compare with the figures annually from 2003 to 2007?

Answer 2

Please see response above

Question 3

Can you please also provide me with information, as to how many of these adopted children, still have contact with birth families?

Answer 3

All children now have some indirect contact arrangements via the “Letterbox” this has increased over the years since 2003. The Letterbox is the confidential exchange of information between the birth family and the adopters. There are occasionally circumstances where no contact would be arranged.

Question 4

How many of these adopted children were considered, first, for placement with extended family?

Answer

Before adoption becomes the plan, the Council would always consider members of the extended family for all children.

Most of the information that we provide in response to Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests will be subject to copyright protection. In most cases the copyright will be owned by Cumbria County Council.

However the copyright in other information may be owned by another person or organisation, as indicated on the information itself.

You are free to use any information supplied for your own non-commercial research or private study purposes. The information may also be used for any other purpose allowed by a limitation or exception in copyright law, such as news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for example by publishing the information in analogue or digital form, including on the internet, will require the permission of the copyright owner. Where the copyright owner is the Council you will need to make an application under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005.

For information where the copyright is owned by another person or organisation you must apply to the owner to obtain their permission.

If you have a complaint about the way we have responded to your request or wish us to review our decision please write to:

Customer Services

Cumbria County Council

FREEPOST NWW6059A, The Courts, Carlisle CA3 8NA

Tel: 0800 121 8800 E-mail: [email address]

If you are not satisfied with the Council's internal review of your complaint you have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner:

FOI/EIR Complaints Resolution

Information Commissioners Office

Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

http://www.ico.gov.uk

Yours

Building pride in Cumbria

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

HISTORY

This sorry story dates back to the six years 1960-1966 when I was a Kent County Councillor and a mother came to me for help because social workers had taken away her son, Trevor, aged 12 (and of near-genius IQ) because he got bored at school and played truant! She was denied all contact and when I asked where he was and if, as the mother's elected representative, I could at least see him myself I was told to mind my own business! I found him at a special private school (owned by the deputy leader of the Labour Party at the time) that was charging exorbitant fees more than 3 times those charged at ETON or HARROW! Young Trevor informed me that the boys were paid the sum of one shilling (5p) when required to sleep with any of their ‘over affectionate’ teachers at this very ‘special’ children's home! Eventually after acrimonious debates in the Council chamber and a court action he was returned to his mother and I was asked to help many other parents whose children had been removed for absurd reasons.

I applied in court for the discharge of care orders. I called the parents and sometimes the children themselves as witnesses in court against my own Council and I never lost a case so I was not best popular with my colleagues and the social workers! However after 6 years of neglecting my language school (then in Ramsgate) I decided not to stand at the next election as I really had to earn my living and look after my family so I reluctantly gave up the battle for a time.

In 2004 there was suddenly a lot of publicity when it was admitted that thousands of children had been wrongly taken from mothers who had been diagnosed with Munchausen’s Syndrome, meaning that mothers who took their children to hospital too often were deliberately hurting them to draw attention to themselves. This was one of the absurd notions of the now discredited Professor Meadows which had no scientific basis that could possibly justify attributing the syndrome to so many unfortunate women. Worse still was his completely unproved theory that two cot deaths in the same family were 70 million to one! Hundreds of women were condemned for murder. Their surviving children and babies born subsequently were taken away and given for adoption by strangers. Only later was it realised that genetic factors made it far more likely for cot deaths to repeat in the same family than elsewhere and odds reduced to about 60 to 1.

These cases were in the Criminal Courts so they got fully reported and this provoked me to write to the Daily Mail detailing some of my experiences on Kent County Council all those years ago. They published my letter and I was surprised subsequently to receive several requests from mothers and parents trying to recover - and in some cases just to contact - children snatched from them by Social Services. I am now comfortably off, my 7 children are adult and I am in my seventies, with the time and still with the energy to once again take up the battle with Social Services!

Ian Josephs Abolish Forced Adoptions. Just for info.

T Quinn (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdSfzXL66...

There must be thousands of families whose children have been taken for adoption without their consent, its just so wicked

Complaints, CCC s,

1 Attachment

Good afternoon

Thank you for contacting us with your complaint. It has been logged on our
complaints system under reference CCC/03883-09 . Cumbria County Council is
committed to providing high quality services; we welcome all feedback from
our customers and take all complaints seriously. Your complaint is at
Stage 1 of our Complaints procedure. (Please see attached leaflet for
details of our Complaints procedure)

Your complaint is being dealt with by the Head of Culture.

We aim to deal with all complaints within 10 working days from receipt of
complaint. If we are not able to provide a response to your complaint
within this timescale we will contact you and let you know when you can
expect a response.

Many thanks

Customer Services Team
Cumbria County Council
Tel: 0800 121 8800
<[1]mailto:[email address]>

This e-mail contains confidential information (which may also be
legally privileged) and is intended solely for the use of the
intended named recipient.

If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any part of this message or its
attachments. If you have received this message in error please
notify the originator immediately by using the reply facility in
your e-mail software.

Incoming and outgoing emails may be monitored in line with
current legislation.

All copies of the message received in error should be destroyed.
Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the original
author. This email message has been scanned for viruses, and
declared to be virus free at the point of exit from Cumbria
County Council's network.

http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Dear Complaints, CCC s,

You should consider the following.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTqsiGgu0...

Please view the above videos re Forced Adoptions.

You have stated that Forced adoptions do not exist.??

You have also provided information on stats. 28 children a year, in Cumbria, are placed for Forced Adoptions, based on the data you have provided. A very small percentage are voluntarily handed over for adoption by birth families, the rest cerca 25 children a year are removed from birth families and placed for Forced Adoptions. One can only assume that the 25 children a year forcibly adopted, against parental wishes, are to meet targets, even though such targets have been scrapped by the new legislation and allegedly, financial incentives, for reaching such targets has been removed.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

To: Complaints, Cumbria County Council, Child Protection??
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Adoptions. Cumbria County Council.

Dear Complaints, CCC s,

You should consider the following.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTqsiGgu0...

Please view the above videos re Forced Adoptions.

You have stated that Forced adoptions do not exist.??

You have also provided information on stats. 28 children a year, in
Cumbria, are placed for Forced Adoptions, based on the data you
have provided. A very small percentage are voluntarily handed over
for adoption by birth families, the rest cerca 25 children a year
are removed from birth families and placed for Forced Adoptions.
One can only assume that the 25 children a year forcibly adopted,
against parental wishes, are to meet targets, even though such
targets have been scrapped by the new legislation and allegedly,
financial incentives, for reaching such targets has been removed.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

A Freeman

29 September 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Having been appalled at the amount of abuse I have found having
stumbled across this and other sites, I was rather hoping that
things had changed over the years, sadly it appears not.

Please provide all information that has lead to this decline in
children services and answer the following FOI requests.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_...

Can you please provide details of how many complaints received
about unlawful practices of Judges and Council SS Legal Team
(children social services) , barrister's etc Cafcass Legal teams
etc , regarding Children taken into ‘care’ by Kent County Council.

Relatives who put themselves forward are considered guilty until
proven innocent, and demands are made that they jump through
assessment hoops, when the House of Lords made it quite clear that
grandparents only have to be good enough parents. The system as it
stands is no better than a 'child trafficking ring.'

It is appalling that in Family Court’s so many children are being
taken into care based on mere opinion of – so-called professionals
and placed for adoption with strangers rather than relatives.

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.

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 16th June 2008
by Tim Loughton MP shadow minister for children)

Thank you.

Peace be with you.

A Freeman

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

SS are trying the propaganda route to gaining public confidence and support. Behind the scenes we all know it will generate more referals, mainly malicious which will cost children and families dearly. This is simply to generate more snatches, aim = ...'More adoptions, especially as Cafcass is being crippled because they are paving the way for Coram to take over the cases they say they can't handle'.

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

And this is how MP's think they can respond to those raising concerns.

Greg Mulholland MP 06 October at 14:43 Report
Your comments are stupid and offensive. I do not wish this sort of thing posted on my FB page. I am deleting you from my friends list and putting a permanent block on you. Please do not attempt to contact me again for any reason whatsoever.

This is the way MP's think they can respond!! They do not serve the elected, they serve themselves and are very arrogant

Dear Complaints, CCC s,

A Freeman

29 September 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Having been appalled at the amount of abuse I have found having
stumbled across this and other sites, I was rather hoping that
things had changed over the years, sadly it appears not.

Please provide all information that has lead to this decline in
children services and answer the following FOI requests.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a_...

Can you please provide details of how many complaints received
about unlawful practices of Judges and Council SS Legal Team
(children social services) , barrister's etc Cafcass Legal teams
etc , regarding Children taken into ‘care’ by Kent County Council.

Relatives who put themselves forward are considered guilty until
proven innocent, and demands are made that they jump through
assessment hoops, when the House of Lords made it quite clear that
grandparents only have to be good enough parents. The system as it
stands is no better than a 'child trafficking ring.'

It is appalling that in Family Court’s so many children are being
taken into care based on mere opinion of – so-called professionals
and placed for adoption with strangers rather than relatives.

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.

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 16th June 2008
by Tim Loughton MP shadow minister for children)

Thank you.

Peace be with you.

A Freeman

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

From: DHMail@dh.gsi.gov.uk
To: reefers1@hotmail.co.uk
CC:
Subject: Response to your Query : - Ref:DE00000443714 - RE: 'Uppity' parents who challenge the authorities 'risk having children taken away'
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:21:12 +0100

DE00000443714
Dear Ms Banks,
Thank you for your email of 10 September to the Department of Health about Family Courts. I have been asked to reply.
After considering your letter, we have forwarded your correspondence to colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families where the staff are better able to answer your concerns. They will reply to you directly.
If you wish to write to them, the contact details are:
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BT
Tel: 0870 000 2288
Website: www.dcsf.co.uk
Email: info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk
I hope this information is helpful. I am sorry I could not be of more assistance on this occasion.
Yours sincerely,
Lisa Sutton
Customer Service Centre
Department of Health

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Dear Lisa Sutton

Thank you for your email to me in response to the comments I made regarding the
news story. I felt I had to respond to offer you an insight into how Children,
Schools and Families deal with complaints from parents who know their
child/children have been failed in the duty of care owed to them by their Local
Authority.
My son was given a Statement of Special Education Needs in July 1994 when he was
7 years old. He went from mainstream school to special school provision in
September 1994.

Educational Psychologists diagnosis, emotional behavioral difficulties.

Having spent the 1st 18 months from birth, fighting for his life in 4 different
hospitals , with many further hospital stays and appointments, it was hardly
surprising, what he had experienced in his early years. He also stopped
breathing on numerous occasions yet he was never and has never been given a
brain scan.

I wrote my 1st letter of complaint to the Special Education Needs Department in
1996 quoting how unhappy I was that the Special Education Needs of my son were
not being met according to his Statement of Special Education Needs. What that
letter led to was a catalogue of failures. The failures by the Health,
Education, and Social Services Authorities in the duty of care they owed to my
son according to Special Education Needs Law, led them to not only waste
thousands of pounds of Tax Payers money but also emotionally damaged my son
further, along with my family unit.

My 2nd letter of complaint written in February 2000, was sent to various
professionals including Politicians and The Local Government Ombudsman.
Eventually my letter was acted on as a formal complaint by the Local Education
Authority. During the investigation I continued to write further letters crying
out for someone to help my sons situation.
In November 2000 the investigation finished, the end result being my complaints
were upheld and 3 recommendations were made. Sadly one of them was not acted
upon which led to me writing a letter back to The Local Government Ombudsman in
January 2001.

The Local Government Ombudsman have jurisdictions and time limits as to what or
whom they can investigate. They investigated only part of my complaint, taking
them until January 2003, to complete. Quite coincidently, I had written to The
Secretary Of State in November 2002, complaining about the jurisdictions and how
long it was taking The LGO to deal with my complaint.

In trying to obtain a fair and just hearing for my son, the response from
Children, Schools and Families and all the other professionals I have contacted
in the last 10 years is seek legal advice. In trying to do just that I have
discovered even more government bureaucracy.

In July 2008, I created a group on Facebook in an attempt to find help. The
result instead is a fast growing list of members who have suffered similar
experiences.
As a member of the public that reported the emotional abuse and mental cruelty
of a child to many professionals over the years, so far, non of them have cared.
The simple answer being, the perpetrator is not the parent but the Local
Authority so fair investigations are denied.

I will continue to highlight such bureaucracy in the hope of preventing other
families suffering in similar ways in future. I will copy and paste my comments
and your email onto my Facebook group and to Children, Schools and Families. I
look forward to any comments that made be made in return.
--------------------

Grisenthwaite, Jim ,

1 Attachment

This email is in response to the Freedom of Information request, FOI
2009-385, received by email on 11 September from Lorna Stewart, and the
subsequent series of emails received from you following the sending of our
disclosure letter of 1 October. Pleased find attached a letter setting
out my findings following my review of the handling of the original
request. If you are dissatisfied with my conclusions you should contact
our Customer Services Team at

Cumbria County Council
FREEPOST NWW6059A
The Courts
English Street
Carlisle
CA3 8NA

Tel: 0800 121 8800
Email: [1][email address]

Yours sincerely,

Jim Grisenthwaite
Head of Culture
<<FOI Complaint Stewart letter 5.10.09.doc>>
Adult and Cultural Services Directorate
Cumbria County Council The Castle CARLISLE CA3 8UR

Tel: +44 (0) 1228 227282
Fax: +44 (0) 01228 607299
email: [email address]

This e-mail contains confidential information (which may also be
legally privileged) and is intended solely for the use of the
intended named recipient.

If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any part of this message or its
attachments. If you have received this message in error please
notify the originator immediately by using the reply facility in
your e-mail software.

Incoming and outgoing emails may be monitored in line with
current legislation.

All copies of the message received in error should be destroyed.
Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the original
author. This email message has been scanned for viruses, and
declared to be virus free at the point of exit from Cumbria
County Council's network.

http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Not much joy from Cumbria Childrens Services. As I would have expected from a department which is failing to protect vulnerable children in care, and an authority in denial about its corrupt practices and failings.

Date: 8 October 2009

Ref: JG/OMG

Dear Ms Stewart

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST FOI 2009- 385

CORPORATE COMPLAINT CCC/03883-09

You emailed Cumbria County Council on 11 September with a Freedom of Information request for information about “Looked after Children who were placed for forced adoption, without the consent of their birth parents, by Cumbria County Council Children's Services in 2008”.

In our response of 1 October you were provided with an answer to the above question and to the supplementary questions you had asked. Our response was based on the statement that forced adoptions do not exist.

You have now challenged the information with which you were provided, your main point of contention being that forced adoptions do exist. I have been asked to review our original response on your behalf.

Having read through the paperwork, I am unable to see how the statistics with which you were provided originally can be challenged. However, it seems that this is an occasion where we will have to agree to differ about what you term a forced adoption.

I am very sorry if our response has inadvertently caused you any distress. The member of staff in Children's Services who provided the answer to your question meant no offence when stating that forced adoption does not exist. That answer was provided in good faith based on the understanding and knowledge that the member of staff has of the adoption system and how it operates in Cumbria. It is important to point out that all of Cumbria County Council's Directorates operate within a legal framework established by the Government of the United Kingdom.

If you have cause to dispute the way in which looked after children are placed for adoption generally, you should take the matter up with your local Member of Parliament and ask that he or she pursues the matter with the appropriate Department of State. Cumbria County Council will continue to operate within the current legal framework for adoptions until such time as that framework is overhauled or altered completely.

Please accept my apologies once again if our original response has inadvertently caused you any distress but I can see no valid reason to recommend that our answer to your request be altered.

Yours sincerely

Jim Grisenthwaite

Head of Culture

Dear Grisenthwaite, Jim ,

http://www.youtube.com/user/thelostpacke...

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Dear Grisenthwaite, Jim ,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhzBaIPpc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI4b3HhZU...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9jlDQpkj...

I would strongly suggest you view the following evidence.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Dear Sir or Madam,

I also suggest you have a look at this link and this story and the comments made by others. The word is out, in the public domain and we will not tolerate corruption and abuse of families. We are coming after all those responsible.

http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/articl...
Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor

Dear Sir or Madam,

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ad.... I will name and shame the departments responsible, including the names of social workers, guardians, etc etc. I have been ignored and fobbed off for 6 years. I will not stop until families get justice and those who have harmed them are taken to task, held accountable and families who have been hurt, by corrupt officials, are compensated. The file is getting larger and the evidence is mounting against corruption in Cumbria and elsewhere in the country.

Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor

Dear Grisenthwaite, Jim ,

The Federal Government wants to give forced adoption victims an apology, but seems very keen to prevent the public finding out exactly what the apology is for, writes Emily Wolfinger
During a meeting at Minister for Families Jenny Macklin's Canberra office on 27 August, the offer of an apology to an estimated 150,000 women and their children who were "unethically" and "unlawfully" separated between 1950 and 2000 was declined by Origins, the official body representing these women.

Macklin's advisor Tracey Mackey phoned Origins NSW coordinator Lily Arthur the next day, asking whether Origins would reconsider accepting their offer of an apology. They declined a second time. But get this: the apology may still go ahead in November. As if it were an afterthought, the Government plans to tack this apology onto the apology to the "Forgotten Australians", those half-million Australians abused as children in institutions. The Forgotten Australians are also upset about this, as they want their apology to be their own — and fair enough. However, it seems the Government is determined to kill two birds with one stone.

Far from being a well-meaning gesture, the offer of an apology is an insulting and deeply disappointing outcome for Origins, who have waited nearly 10 years for a Government response on this issue. They have been campaigning for a national inquiry for even longer, and not once have they asked for an apology. According to the group, it is only through a national inquiry that Australians will learn of the nationwide extent of the crimes acknowledged as "kidnapping" by Family Court Justice Richard Chisholm in evidence he gave at the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into past adoption practices in 1999.

That inquiry only served to reveal the extent of criminal and unethical adoption practices committed in NSW. Origins fears that until all states are held accountable in a national inquiry, Australians forcibly removed from their unmarried mothers in other states will remain in the dark about the circumstances surrounding their adoption. A national inquiry will also provide an opportunity for mothers from all states to tell their stories. Origins says it is very unlikely that any of this will happen if the Government goes ahead with the apology, because such a move would look to many as if some degree of recompense had been made.

It makes no sense at all for the Government to insist on making an apology before Australians even know of the nationwide extent of the crimes to which such an apology would correspond. The Indigenous Stolen Generations had their national inquiry first, and it demonstrated very clearly just what was being apologised for. Why not use the same process for mothers forcibly separated from their children through adoption? Is this offer of an apology an attempt at an easy way out of actually doing something to address the damage caused by Australia's adoption practices? Perhaps, worse still, it is an attempt at a cover-up of the extent of the crimes perpetrated against these women and their babies.

Lily Arthur believes it is. "The reason why they want us to accept an apology is [so that they can] continue to hide the unlawful practices." She says that the Government is trying to cover for the states who are afraid of what a national inquiry could reveal, and in turn, how much it could end up costing them in terms of redress and litigation.

It's not hard to see why the many victims of these criminal adoptions are deeply sceptical of government bona fides on this issue. Beyond failing to fully investigate and acknowledge what happened to these women, the federal and state governments are still misinforming people about the bumper adoption era that occurred from the 1950s to the 1980s and even trivialising what happened. The Victorian Government, for one, attributes the decline in adoptions from the mid-70s to "... a number of interrelated factors: the introduction of government benefits for single parents, increasingly tolerant community attitudes toward exnuptual births and single parenthood, improved contraception [and] the widespread availability of pregnancy terminations".

In fact, while the Supporting Mother's Benefit for single mothers was not introduced until 1973 under the Whitlam Government (and it did not extend to fathers until 1977 under the Fraser Government), financial assistance was actually available to single mothers well before the 1970s, as outlined in a 1956 government publication titled Children in Need by Donald McLean: "To avoid any misunderstanding or any suggestion that the mother was misled or misinformed, District Officers are instructed to explain fully to the mother, before taking the consent, the facilities which are available to help her keep her child. These include...financial assistance to unmarried mothers under section 27 of the Child Welfare Act ..." However, as documented in the transcripts of the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry this fact was largely concealed from mothers.

While that inquiry has put on the public record much that needs to be better understood, there is still much more that needs to see the light of day. An apology, therefore, would be an irresponsibly premature step on an issue already so marked by institutional culpability. Origins want full acknowledgement and accountability first — which they believe a national inquiry would ensure — then suitable redress, and then perhaps an apology.

The other point about government apologies is that they must be done properly, and at the right time — that is, when people want them — otherwise they become devalued. As Arthur also points out, in their eagerness to issue an apology, the Government is reducing the significance of the apology to the Stolen Generations of Indigenous people. "If they are prepared to offer an apology to people who don't want one, what kind of substance does the original apology to the Stolen Generations have?"

So, what were some of the unethical and illegal practices perpetrated against these women? Well, as documented in the transcripts of the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into past adoption practices, they include: the detainment of unmarried women during pregnancy; the immediate separation of mothers and babies following births (many mothers were not allowed to see their babies until they signed adoption forms and many others never met their babies); the use of coercion to solicit adoption consents from mothers (in some cases, mothers were told the adoption papers were discharge forms); the use of mind altering drugs (not administered to married mothers) following births and preceding consents; promises of a 30-day cooling off period to get mothers to give consents when the rights to revoke consent during this period were rarely observed; the absence of any counselling prior to and following adoptions, and the failure to notify mothers of alternative options to adoption (as noted above, many mothers did not know that financial support was available).

It is not surprising then that these mothers suffer a number of mental health conditions ranging from depression to post-traumatic stress disorder. Half of these mothers did not go on to have more children, while the female suicide rate was highest between 1962-72, reaching an all-time high of 13 per 100,000 women in 1967, compared to 4.3 today. This period coincided with the peak in adoptions — nearly 10,000 in 1971-2. Taken together, these facts represent an appalling and poorly understood blemish on our human rights record.

In a press release on the Sunday following the meeting at Jenny Macklin's office, the minister said that she had "begun a dialogue" with mothers separated from their babies. However, when asked whether this means a national inquiry is on the cards, a spokesperson from Macklin's office would not say, sending instead this vague response: "This dialogue will explore what sort of acknowledgement of their experiences would assist their healing process."

Clearly the Federal Government wants this issue to go away, but that isn't about to happen any time soon. Arthur says that mothers like her won't go away until the so-called past adoption practices — or, as she calls them "abduction practices" — are seen for what they were.

Next year will mark 10 years since the Final Report into past adoption practices in NSW, titled Releasing the Past, labelled those practices "unethical" and "unlawful". It will also mark 15 years since Origins was founded and first started campaigning for a national inquiry. It is time that the Federal Government allowed the country to face the reality of this part of Australian history and set up a national inquiry. National inquiries have been instigated for much less serious reasons than the theft of over 100,000 children.

These mothers want their children to know the full truth. They are not asking for much.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Dear Complaints, CCC s,
Please have this for information. I work with John Hemming MP. I have been promised yet another EDM on this subject in Parliament very soon. I have already made reference to forced adoptions and corrupt practice on my recent visit to Westminster committee room 10. I also told them how children are being abused sexually, in foster care provision in our county.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=33...
Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Dear Complaints, CCC s,

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ad...

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Complaints, CCC s,

Good afternoon

Thank you for your email.

Regards

Customer Services Team
Cumbria County Council
Tel: 0800 121 8800
Email: [1][email address]

show quoted sections

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #17940 email]

If you find WhatDoTheyKnow useful as an FOI officer, please ask
your web manager to suggest us on your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail contains confidential information (which may also be legally
privileged) and is intended solely for the use of the intended named
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any part of this message or its attachments. If
you have received this message in error please notify the originator
immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software. Incoming
and outgoing emails may be monitored in line with current legislation. All
copies of the message received in error should be destroyed. Any views or
opinions expressed are solely those of the original author. This email
message has been scanned for viruses, and declared to be virus free at the
point of exit from Cumbria County Council's network.
http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[FOI #17940 email]
3. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=33...
4. http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/
5. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...

Complaints, CCC s,

Good afternoon

Thank you for your email.

Many thanks

Customer Services Team
Cumbria County Council
Tel: 0800 121 8800
Email: [1][email address]

show quoted sections

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #17940 email]

If you find WhatDoTheyKnow useful as an FOI officer, please ask
your web manager to suggest us on your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail contains confidential information (which may also be legally
privileged) and is intended solely for the use of the intended named
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any part of this message or its attachments. If
you have received this message in error please notify the originator
immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software. Incoming
and outgoing emails may be monitored in line with current legislation. All
copies of the message received in error should be destroyed. Any views or
opinions expressed are solely those of the original author. This email
message has been scanned for viruses, and declared to be virus free at the
point of exit from Cumbria County Council's network.
http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[FOI #17940 email]
3. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ad...
4. http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/
5. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/about...

Dear Complaints, CCC s,

Ms Chadwick left an annotation (13 October 2009)

This may be useful;

Bullying, Bungling, Social Services.

Did you know that they:- Falsify reports and twist facts.

Did you know that they:- Claim meetings have taken place that have not.

Did you know that they:- Alienate children from their natural family to make adoption quicker.

Did you know that they:- Blackmail grandparents into looking after children without support.

Did you know that they:- Have meetings in secret without notifying those involved.

Did you know that they:- Shut out family members who are willing to help.

Did you know that they:- Take control and you have no recourse.

Did you know that they:- Still get away with this despite authorities being made aware of the problem.

Did you know that they:- Remove children from families without good reason.

We continually receive complaints, concerns, worries and fears from families about Social Services and how they operate. We have highlighted this to the UK Parliaments but the damage to children is continuing.

Members of the Equal Parenting Coalition of Scotland England and Wales

www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Dear Mrs Stewart-Taylor,

I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your e-mail. I am sorry
for the delay in my reply.

We are grateful to you for getting in touch and for making us aware of your
concerns about the family courts system. I am passing your message on to the
Shadow Justice Minister, Henry Bellingham, so that he can look into the points
you raise.

Yours sincerely,

Lara Moreno Perez
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear Complaints, CCC s,

For Information. I have exhausted the complaints procedures of all the authorities responsible for child trafficking in the UK. Namely CAFCASS and Social Services, aided and abetted by the Police.

I have raised the issue in person to every Mp in Parliament. Produced the evidence. Finally they are starting to listen, it has taken me six years to get them to listen. Our case has gone to the EU Courts, via the French President, as I could get no UK representative to do it. Cover UP goes all the way to the EU.

This is my response from David Cameron.

Dear Mrs Ivana Taylor

I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your e-mail. I am sorry
for the delay in my reply.

We are grateful to you for getting in touch and for making us aware of your
concerns about the family courts system. I am passing your message on to the
Shadow Justice Minister, Henry Bellingham, so that he can look into the points
you raise.

Yours sincerely,

Lara Moreno Perez
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Dear Freedom Of Information,

This request is overdue a response. You can say that, by law, the authority should have answered promptly. If they have not given you a legal reason why they need extra time (more details), then you can say they are breaking the law to have not replied by 9 October 2009.

Dear Freedom Of Information, Yours sincerely, ivanataylor
(optional)
What are you doing?
I am requesting an internal review (what's that?)
Anything else, such as clarifying, prompting, thanking

Contact WhatDoTheyKnow | Built by mySociety ... and you | Dedicated to Chris Lightfoot

The above is for information, can you please tell me when I can expect a response to my FOI request that is now well overdue.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

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 Cumbria County Council's handling of my FOI request 'Adoptions. Cumbria County Council.'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ad...

Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor

Complaints, CCC s,

2 Attachments

  • Attachment

    Re Freedom of Information request Adoptions.Cumbria County Council..html

    9K Download

  • Attachment

    Re Freedom of Information request Adoptions.Cumbria County Council..html

    8K Download

Good morning

Thank you for your emails (see attached). They have been received and
logged on our records.

Regards

Customer Services Team
Cumbria County Council
Tel: 0800 121 8800
Email: [1][email address]

This e-mail contains confidential information (which may also be
legally privileged) and is intended solely for the use of the
intended named recipient.

If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any part of this message or its
attachments. If you have received this message in error please
notify the originator immediately by using the reply facility in
your e-mail software.

Incoming and outgoing emails may be monitored in line with
current legislation.

All copies of the message received in error should be destroyed.
Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the original
author. This email message has been scanned for viruses, and
declared to be virus free at the point of exit from Cumbria
County Council's network.

http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Freedom Of Information,

2 Attachments

Dear Ms Stewart

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - REQUEST REFERENCE: FOI 2009-385

I am writing to address the concerns raised in your e-mails of 19 October
2009.

In your e-mail of 17:40 you said:

"Can you please tell me when I can expect a response to my FOI request
that is now well overdue?"

Our records show that we provided you with a response to your request on 1
October 2009 (copy attached).

In your e-mail of 17:43 you said:

"I am writing to request an internal review of Cumbria County Council's
handling of my FOI request."

Our records show that an internal review of your request was carried out
by Jim Grisenthwaite and the results reported to you by letter on 8
October 2009 (copy attached).

As a result of the above the Council now considers your request closed.

If you disagree with the Council's decision you now have the right to
appeal to the Information Commissioner:

FOI/EIR Complaints Resolution

Information Commissioners Office

Wycliffe House,

Water Lane,

Wilmslow,

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Corporate Information Team

Adult and Cultural Services

Cumbria County Council

Lower Gaolyard . The Courts . Carlisle . Cumbria . CA3 8NA

Telephone: (01228) 221234 E-mail: [1][Cumbria County Council request email]

This e-mail contains confidential information (which may also be
legally privileged) and is intended solely for the use of the
intended named recipient.

If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any part of this message or its
attachments. If you have received this message in error please
notify the originator immediately by using the reply facility in
your e-mail software.

Incoming and outgoing emails may be monitored in line with
current legislation.

All copies of the message received in error should be destroyed.
Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the original
author. This email message has been scanned for viruses, and
declared to be virus free at the point of exit from Cumbria
County Council's network.

http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Cumbria County Council request email]

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

In Cumbria 98% of Adoptions over the last 4 years have been Forced on the parents against their wishes " Forced Adoptions', where a judge destroys and separates children from their natural parents, often based on bogus medical and other non evidence based, manufactured accusations and psychiatric reports.

If a judge splits a family, which seams nationally to be the case in 98% of adoptions, why are local authorities in denial that forced adoptions are at an all time high within their Counties to meet targets?

Dear Freedom Of Information,
Sam Hallimond commented on your link:

"I think they should get their facts straight!! Cases drag on so that time
scales can be reached, and the children removed on a technicality!! To speed the
process up you need to remove residential assesment etc......What happens with
the families that spend 12 weeks just asking for residential assessment, and all
the time getting told "You don't need residential assessment, the care for your
child is NOT at question"! Why the f..k am I in here in the f..king 1st place???
Wake up MP's, read the cases you have, see the real cause of controlled court
pace."

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor Be careful in dealing with a man who cares nothing for comfort or promotion, but is simply determined to do what he believes to be right. He is a dangerous uncomfortable enemy, because his body, which you can always conquer, gives you little purchase upon his soul. Gilbert Murray. This also applies to women. I am one of those women.

Dear Freedom Of Information,

Be careful in dealing with a man who cares nothing for comfort or promotion, but is simply determined to do what he believes to be right. He is a dangerous uncomfortable enemy, because his body, which you can always conquer, gives you little purchase upon his soul. Gilbert Murray. This also applies to women. I am one of those women.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Be careful in dealing with a man who cares nothing for comfort or promotion, but is simply determined to do what he believes to be right. He is a dangerous uncomfortable enemy, because his body, which you can always conquer, gives you little purchase upon his soul. Gilbert Murray. This also applies to women. I am one of those women.

These COVER UP authorities have not heard the last from me.

Cumbria County Council

Link: [1]File-List

4th November 2009

Case Reference Number INF0273204

Dear Ms Taylor

Thank you for your copied correspondence regarding Adoptions.

The information you have provided will be retained on our files for
information only.

Should you wish us to look into this matter further we would ask you to
contact our Helpline on 08456 30 60 60, or if you prefer to use a
'national rate' number 01625 54 57 45, quoting the above reference
number.  One of our advisors will then be able to discuss the matter with
you and explain the options available to you.

If you wish to make a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
you can find details of how to do this on our website at:

[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Yours sincerely

B McNally

Case Reception Unit

Information Commissioner's Office

show quoted sections

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/rad6C0E3_files/filelist.xml
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Ms Wilson (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Watch the CON-servative party and others appear to come to the rescue and raise this issue suddenly next year in order to get more votes. Dont be fooled they are all defacto and in this up to their necks and will use any issue to fool the sheeple.

What are any of them doing about this NOW - NOTHING

J Webb (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Brian Gerrish

Presentation: Child Stealing by the State

Uncovering a conspiracy between public authorities, Social Services, the Police, courts and Government to unlawfully take children from their parents, and pass them into a frightening and often abusive Social Services system. This system is so powerful that local councillors cannot challenge their own Social Services departments about their actions.

Synopsis

In Britain today, a secret court system is stealing and trafficking people’s children. The author Jack Frost summed it up in his book “Gulag of the Family Courts”. Other journalists have described it as – “Child Stealing by the State”.

When a small community newspaper, ‘the UK Column’, was set up in Plymouth to expose massive public sector fraud and corruption, the volunteers had no idea of what was to come. They were shocked at reports of child stealing sent in by parents from across Britain.

In the beginning it was hard to accept some stories as true. Some mothers and fathers appeared traumatised. Could their claims be believed? And then the first mother with evidence arrived in the UK Column office. Ring files of letters, emails and court documentation. The evidence was overwhelming – lies, false evidence, perjury, false psychiatric assessments, kidnapping, psychological pressure, police threats, blatant collusion of defence and prosecution legal teams against the parent, failure to prosecute the perpetrators of medical incompetence and child abuse, and blatant victimisation of the innocent parent – the mother.

Most distressing of all was that the courts had taken absolutely no notice of the child’s own wishes - there existed a brutal conspiracy between public authorities, Social Services, the Police, courts and Government. That conspiracy still exists, and so does the evidence.

In the latest case brought to the UK Column, a young Down’s syndrome girl was repeatedly raped and abused, causing physical injury. The abusers were known and identified by the girl, but no charges were ever brought. Instead her mother who fought to protect her daughter and seek justice was committed to a psychiatric unit. Are these cases mistakes, or failures of the care and family court system? The facts suggest otherwise, and they are reinforced by ‘template’ cases reported from across the UK, Europe and the USA. The events are planned and orchestrated, with support and common purpose at the highest levels.

Within secret family courts, under the total control of a single Judge, who knowingly or unknowingly relies on false evidence, children are being unlawfully taken from their parents, and are passed into a frightening and often abusive Social Services system. This system is so powerful and secretive that not even elected councillors can challenge the actions of their own Local Authority Social Services department. The child snatch cases are gagged under family court confidentiality rules and data protection. The victimised parents and children are denied justice in a corrupt and circular appeal process, which is also held in secret.

In helping parents and children tell their stories, the UK Column has received no less than four injunctions, preventing detailed reporting. In one recent court case, regarded by those present as biased against the mother, the court used the Peter Wright MI5 ‘Spycatcher’ official secrets act case as the precedence case to prevent the mother publishing her story of child kidnap. When other parents reported that SS officials were like emotionless ‘little robots’, the truth began to unfold. Hear the full truth at AVIII.

Wilson, A (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

http://www.notbornyesterday.org/scandal,...

Some strange goings on down Plymouth way, it seems - where earlier this month (October 2009) three police cars and five police officers were required to remove five small children from a mother's home in her absence. In my neck of the woods, you'd be lucky to get that kind of turnout for a murder.

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

A letter has just come to me, dated the 12 November 2009 from Bridget Prentice MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.

It is a response to my lobbying MP's re corruption in the Secret Family Court System. She is responding to David Gauke MP the Ref is MC257983

The letter reads as follows.

Dear David

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor , my address is here omitted.

thank you for your letter of 14 October to Jack Straw, about social services and openness in the family courts. I am replying as the Minister responsible for the family justice system in England and Wales. You refer to an earlier letter which my officials have not been able to trace, but I apologise for the delay in responding to you nonetheless.

I am very sorry for the experience that Mrs Stewart-Taylor has had with social services and the family courts regarding her grandchild. In order to preserve the principle of judicial independence, I cannot give opinion on a specific case but I hope that she will find the following general comments helpful.

It has, since 1991, been the policy of successive governments, as set out in legislation, that children should live with their parents wherever possible and that services should be provided to children in need and their families to enable this to happen.

The child protection system is designed to identify families who may be vulnerable and seeks to offer help at an early stage in order to enable children to remain in their family. Social workers must work closely with parents to identify and evidence where change or improvement is necessary in order to enable a family to stay together.

I assure Mrs Stewart-Taylor that local authorities are not given financial incentives to increase the number of children in care or remove children from care of their parents in order for them to be adopted. The decision to take a child into care is never an easy one, and the decision to make a care order is taken by the courts. In every case where a child is taken into care on a care order, the courts will have considered all the evidence and taken the view that the child has been significantly harmed, or would be if they were not taken into care.

where the court makes an order placing a child in the care of a local authority, the authority will continue to work with the family with a view to the child returning home. Happily, the vast majority of children are returned to their parents. for those children who cannot return home to their parents, they have the right to have alternative plans considered to provide them with a permanent home; adoption is only one of the available options of providing this.

The final decision on whether a child should be adopted rests with the courts. Before a court makes such an important decision it must be convinced on the basis of the evidence that this is the best way to meet the child's needs on a long term basis. where the parents/guardians have not given their consent, but it may only do so in limited circumstances. The court would have to be satisfied that the parent could not be found or is incapable of giving consent, or that the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.

The Government does not have, and has never had, a national target to increase the number of children being taken into care. the target on adoption reflected the Government's desire to reverse a long-term decline in the number of children already in care finding a permanent home through adoption. The adoption target ended in March 2006. Similarly, the Government does not set adoption targets for local authorities, although authorities themselves may choose to develop targets with central Government through the Local area Agreement/Local Public service agreement process.

Mrs Stewart-Taylor is also concerned about the ability of parents or families to speak out about their case. The extent to which a parent, child or the media can publish information about individual children is complex and determined by a number of different aspects of legislation. The issue is the need to balance the rights of children to privacy, with the rights of other parties, and those of the media, in relation to freedom of expression.

The government has already taken some action to make family proceedings more open- the media can attend most proceedings, and the rules about disclosure of information have been amended to make it easier for people to seek the help and support they need.

these changes do not yet apply to adoption cases.Adoption is the most difficult and life changing decision a family court can make and needs special consideration. There are concerns that the identity of children and adoptive parents might be exposed, particularly in small rural populations or ethnic community areas. we are therefore considering, along with people most involved in adoption work, how best that these proceedings can be made more open but alongside legislation to ensure that identities are protected.

We will also introduce new legislation that will put the reporting and admission regime for all tiers of family court on the same foundation as that for youth courts. This will allow the media to report the substance of what they witness, but not any information that would lead to revealing the identity of the families involved. The Government will revise the law on reporting restrictions as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I hope that this letter is helpful. I am enclosing a copy for you to forward to Mrs Stewart-Taylor, should you wish to do so.

Kind regards

Bridget

BRIDGET PRENTICE

I would be interested in what anyone thinks about this. It has taken 6 years to get to here. I have been lobbying every MP for many years, repeatedly and finally we get this response.??

Dear Sir or Madam,

A letter has just come to me, dated the 12 November 2009 from Bridget Prentice MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.

It is a response to my lobbying MP's re corruption in the Secret Family Court System. She is responding to David Gauke MP the Ref is MC257983

The letter reads as follows.

Dear David

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor , my address is here omitted.

thank you for your letter of 14 October to Jack Straw, about social services and openness in the family courts. I am replying as the Minister responsible for the family justice system in England and Wales. You refer to an earlier letter which my officials have not been able to trace, but I apologise for the delay in responding to you nonetheless.

I am very sorry for the experience that Mrs Stewart-Taylor has had with social services and the family courts regarding her grandchild. In order to preserve the principle of judicial independence, I cannot give opinion on a specific case but I hope that she will find the following general comments helpful.

It has, since 1991, been the policy of successive governments, as set out in legislation, that children should live with their parents wherever possible and that services should be provided to children in need and their families to enable this to happen.

The child protection system is designed to identify families who may be vulnerable and seeks to offer help at an early stage in order to enable children to remain in their family. Social workers must work closely with parents to identify and evidence where change or improvement is necessary in order to enable a family to stay together.

I assure Mrs Stewart-Taylor that local authorities are not given financial incentives to increase the number of children in care or remove children from care of their parents in order for them to be adopted. The decision to take a child into care is never an easy one, and the decision to make a care order is taken by the courts. In every case where a child is taken into care on a care order, the courts will have considered all the evidence and taken the view that the child has been significantly harmed, or would be if they were not taken into care.

where the court makes an order placing a child in the care of a local authority, the authority will continue to work with the family with a view to the child returning home. Happily, the vast majority of children are returned to their parents. for those children who cannot return home to their parents, they have the right to have alternative plans considered to provide them with a permanent home; adoption is only one of the available options of providing this.

The final decision on whether a child should be adopted rests with the courts. Before a court makes such an important decision it must be convinced on the basis of the evidence that this is the best way to meet the child's needs on a long term basis. where the parents/guardians have not given their consent, but it may only do so in limited circumstances. The court would have to be satisfied that the parent could not be found or is incapable of giving consent, or that the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with.

The Government does not have, and has never had, a national target to increase the number of children being taken into care. the target on adoption reflected the Government's desire to reverse a long-term decline in the number of children already in care finding a permanent home through adoption. The adoption target ended in March 2006. Similarly, the Government does not set adoption targets for local authorities, although authorities themselves may choose to develop targets with central Government through the Local area Agreement/Local Public service agreement process.

Mrs Stewart-Taylor is also concerned about the ability of parents or families to speak out about their case. The extent to which a parent, child or the media can publish information about individual children is complex and determined by a number of different aspects of legislation. The issue is the need to balance the rights of children to privacy, with the rights of other parties, and those of the media, in relation to freedom of expression.

The government has already taken some action to make family proceedings more open- the media can attend most proceedings, and the rules about disclosure of information have been amended to make it easier for people to seek the help and support they need.

these changes do not yet apply to adoption cases.Adoption is the most difficult and life changing decision a family court can make and needs special consideration. There are concerns that the identity of children and adoptive parents might be exposed, particularly in small rural populations or ethnic community areas. we are therefore considering, along with people most involved in adoption work, how best that these proceedings can be made more open but alongside legislation to ensure that identities are protected.

We will also introduce new legislation that will put the reporting and admission regime for all tiers of family court on the same foundation as that for youth courts. This will allow the media to report the substance of what they witness, but not any information that would lead to revealing the identity of the families involved. The Government will revise the law on reporting restrictions as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I hope that this letter is helpful. I am enclosing a copy for you to forward to Mrs Stewart-Taylor, should you wish to do so.

Kind regards

Bridget

BRIDGET PRENTICE

I would be interested in what anyone thinks about this. It has taken 6 years to get to here. I have been lobbying every MP for many years, repeatedly and finally we get this response.??

This is NOT what happened in our case, and clearly even the minister has no idea about the level of corporate corruption, fraud and maltreatment that we have endured. Or perhaps our Ministers are in denial. When will we get any justice from the ministry of injustice and when will departments stop lying and passing the book? I am now writing a book about Cumbrian Authority corruption, naming and shaming all those concerned and sighting all info I have gathered, including the sexual abuse of children in care of Cumbria. This will be published in the Spring. You have had your chances to put things right and failed. I can prove everything and will be pulling no punches.

Your freedom of information response is well overdue and you are not even lawful, this has been duly noted and publicized.

Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor

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 Cumbria County Council's handling of my FOI request 'Adoptions. Cumbria County Council.'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ad...

I am dissatisfied by your response, as you are in total denial that forced adoptions exist, despite the mounting evidence nationally to the contrary.

I would like you to review your response.

The truth is going to come out, one way or the other. I have given you more than an adequate chance to put this in order.

http://protectfamily.ning.com/forum/topi...

I suggest you have a look at this link.

I will not stop this until we get a full apology in writing admitting that Cumbria got it wrong in the case of Jade Astrid Taylor Jan 2003-September 2003.

I will continue to name and shame social workers until I get the apology. We need our names cleared so we can get back to the place we were before the department so rudely and abruptly invaded our right to private family life, violating our Human Rights section 8.
Heads are going to roll unless we get justice.

I hope I have made my position very clear. If you would like to challenge me, please do so.

Yours faithful

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor.

Freedom Of Information,

1 Attachment

Dear Mrs Stewart-Taylor

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - REFERENCE: FOI 2009-385

We are writing in response to your email dated 24 November 2009 in which
you "request an internal review of Cumbria County Council's handling of my
FOI request."

Our records show that an internal review of your request was carried out
by Jim Grisenthwaite and the results reported to you by letter on 8
October 2009 (copy attached).

As a result of the above the Council now considers your request closed.

If you are dissatisfied with the Council's internal review you must now
contact the Information Commissioners Office:

FOI/EIR Complaints Resolution

Information Commissioners Office

Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Corporate Information Team

Adult and Cultural Services

Cumbria County Council

Lower Gaolyard . The Courts . Carlisle . Cumbria . CA3 8NA

Telephone: (01228) 221234 E-mail: [2][Cumbria County Council request email]

This e-mail contains confidential information (which may also be
legally privileged) and is intended solely for the use of the
intended named recipient.

If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any part of this message or its
attachments. If you have received this message in error please
notify the originator immediately by using the reply facility in
your e-mail software.

Incoming and outgoing emails may be monitored in line with
current legislation.

All copies of the message received in error should be destroyed.
Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the original
author. This email message has been scanned for viruses, and
declared to be virus free at the point of exit from Cumbria
County Council's network.

http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
2. mailto:[Cumbria County Council request email]

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

I have written to Bridget prentice several times in the past, and it is the same reply. Is the woman delusional?

Once a care order has been applied for its granting is almost automatic and children cannot be got out of care without a bitter battle, the policy of children living at home if possible is ignored, children are not listened to and accounts made up of what they want, and adoptions are entirely automatic, the courts ignoring the parent's solicitor's evidence.

Got cases like this at the moment.

perhaps someone should ask for a meeting with David Gauke or Bridget Prentice,

Richard

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Date: 8 October 2009

Ref: JG/OMG

Dear Ms Stewart

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST FOI 2009- 385

CORPORATE COMPLAINT CCC/03883-09

You emailed Cumbria County Council on 11 September with a Freedom of Information request for information about “Looked after Children who were placed for forced adoption, without the consent of their birth parents, by Cumbria County Council Children's Services in 2008”.

In our response of 1 October you were provided with an answer to the above question and to the supplementary questions you had asked. Our response was based on the statement that forced adoptions do not exist.

You have now challenged the information with which you were provided, your main point of contention being that forced adoptions do exist. I have been asked to review our original response on your behalf.

Having read through the paperwork, I am unable to see how the statistics with which you were provided originally can be challenged. However, it seems that this is an occasion where we will have to agree to differ about what you term a forced adoption.

I am very sorry if our response has inadvertently caused you any distress. The member of staff in Children's Services who provided the answer to your question meant no offence when stating that forced adoption does not exist. That answer was provided in good faith based on the understanding and knowledge that the member of staff has of the adoption system and how it operates in Cumbria. It is important to point out that all of Cumbria County Council's Directorates operate within a legal framework established by the Government of the United Kingdom.

If you have cause to dispute the way in which looked after children are placed for adoption generally, you should take the matter up with your local Member of Parliament and ask that he or she pursues the matter with the appropriate Department of State. Cumbria County Council will continue to operate within the current legal framework for adoptions until such time as that framework is overhauled or altered completely.

Please accept my apologies once again if our original response has inadvertently caused you any distress but I can see no valid reason to recommend that our answer to your request be altered.

Yours sincerely

Jim Grisenthwaite

Head of Culture

Dear Freedom Of Information,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK4MqqJ0hnM

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Dear Freedom Of Information, For Information

FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

Chris Davies MEP
North West

Saturday 19 December 2009
Yvonne Stewart-Taylor
21 Park Avenue
Windermere.
CUMBRIA
LA23 2AR

[email address]
01539446580

Dear Chris Davies,

I have written to you a couple of times at least and never get a response. Are you interested in the scandal affecting the UK in the secret family courts?

I have been involved in politics since I was 18 when I became a young liberal. I chaired the local party in Windermere for 5 years. Stood for election on Town, District and County Councils. Served 17 years on the Town council.

I have raised the issue of the secret satanic family court corruption for the last 6 years, lobbying and putting the word out, supporting other falsely accused parents( I am a McKenzie Friend working for Parents Against Injustice and Families for Justice with John Hemming MP) Henry Bellingham MP and others are now taking up the challenge to reform the system and attempt to make it decent. You will remember Tim Yeo MP and what he has said. The word is finally out.Parents and grandparents who have had their children stolen by the state to meet adoption targets. Child Kidnap and trafficking, and destruction of healthy families is a multi million pound industry in the UK and USA,where they have a parallel system and has been since 2000. A decade of professional decadent living at the expense of innocent family destruction.It looks like Tony and George have set working class families up to be exploited. This is a social engineering, deliberate program used by the Fabians, in Australia, "The Lost children".

No point Gordon Brown apologizing when his own government are still at it.

Despite my bringing this scandal to the attention of all Mep's at least three times in the last 12 months and all MP's on numerous occasions last 6 years, no one seems to care. so long as their own families remain intact.

I wonder, how many of our "so called leaders" actually care about anything other than their own prestige, power and money. I wonder how many fear or respect their Creator? I know that God made families for a purpose, a divine purpose and that any mortal who destroys an innocent family as part of his career is in for trouble later, as God will not be mocked. I see the whole picture, not a fraction of it.

For humanities sake, can you please do something about the corruption at the top which is stealing children and feeding pedophile rings ? If you do not believe me, their is enough evidence out there. Enough children have been raped by foster parents, abused drugged and neglected. The truth is out and has been for some time.

It is long overdue that decent leaders stand up and be counted and put an end to the human misery that so many corrupt professionals are profiteering from.

My Master is Jesus Christ, NOT Satan. I abhor secret societies and their satanist sinister agendas. All the way to the top goes Corruption and abuse of power. Ordinary people have no say and no way to fight back. Our leaders pay lip service to democracy. We have no human rights and neither do our children. We are socially controlled and indoctrinated by Lucifarian values. The Jesuit Order is at the head of all this and I do not find it surprising that many Catholic Priests sodomize young boys. The purer the better.

I am fully aware that some have lost their lives for saying less, but as I have said. I have one master Jesus Christ, and I serve him and only Him, for Eternity. I cannot sit back, knowing this is going on and remain silent.

Yours sincerely,

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

By section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911, perjury is committed when:-

a lawfully sworn witness or interpreter
in judicial proceedings
wilfully makes a false statement
which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, and
which is material in the proceedings.

The offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment and/or a fine.

A conviction cannot be obtained solely on the evidence of a single witness as to the falsity of any statement. There must, by virtue of section 13 Perjury Act 1991, be some other evidence of the falsity of the statement, for example, a letter or account written by the defendant contradicting his sworn evidence is sufficient if supported by a single witness.

Perjury is regarded as "one of the most serious offences on the criminal calendar because it wholly undermines the whole basis of the administration of justice":- Chapman J in (R v Warne(1980) 2 Cr. App.R. (S) 42). It is regarded as serious whether it is committed in the context of a minor case, for example a car passenger who falsely states that the driver did not jump a red light as alleged, or a serious case, for example a false alibi witness in a bank robbery case.

In most cases, an offence of perjury will also amount to perverting the course of justice. If the perjury is the sole or principal act, then it will be normal to charge perjury. If the perjury is part of a much more significant series of acts aimed at perverting justice, then a charge of perverting the course of justice would be more appropriate.

A charge of perverting the course of justice cannot be brought simply to avoid the requirements of corroboration of the falsity of the evidence as required by s.13: (Tsang Ping Nam v R 74 Cr. App. R. 139 PC).

Perjury by a prosecution witness

Proceedings against a prosecution witness for perjury will depend on an assessment of the material effect of the perjured evidence. If a wrongful conviction is believed to have occurred because of the perjured evidence, a prosecution should follow, unless there are exceptional circumstances. If the witness has lied to protect his or her own interests rather than with an intent to pervert the course of justice, a prosecution may be unnecessary.

Perjury by a defendant

If a defendant is convicted despite giving perjured evidence, the decision to prosecute must take note of the sentence imposed for the original offence. If you think a conviction for perjury is unlikely to result in a substantial increase in sentence, then the public interest probably does not require a prosecution.

Consider also the possible consequences to the original conviction of an acquittal of the defendant on a charge of perjury arising out of the earlier proceedings. You should, therefore, be satisfied that the evidence of perjury is exceptionally strong before instituting proceedings.

Evidence of premeditation is an important factor in coming to a decision on whether or not to prosecute. If the defendant's lies have been planned before the hearing as opposed to arising on the spur of the moment during cross-examination, the public interest in prosecuting will be stronger.

Where a defendant is acquitted, wholly or partly because of false evidence given by him or her, a prosecution for perjury might be appropriate. Where there is clear evidence of perjury, which emerges after the trial, and which goes to the heart of the issues raised at the trial, a prosecution for perjury may be appropriate. A prosecution should not be brought, however, where it may give the appearance that the prosecution is seeking to go behind the earlier acquittal: see dicta by Lord Hailsham L.C. in (D.P.P. v Humphrys [1977] AC).

Perjury by a defence witness

The decision to prosecute a defence witness for perjury partly depends on whether the defendant in the earlier trial was convicted:

If the defendant was convicted, and there is no clear evidence of collusion, a prosecution would not usually be appropriate;
If the defendant was convicted and there is clear evidence of collusion between the witness and defendant to give perjured evidence, a prosecution may be appropriate. Where it is in the public interest to prosecute for perjury others involved in fabricating false evidence with the defendant, then the defendant should also be prosecuted, except in exceptional circumstances;
In the event of an acquittal, in the absence of clear evidence of collusion, the evidential test for a prosecution is unlikely to be met. Where there is clear evidence of collusion, and where the perjured evidence is sufficiently material to the case, then careful consideration should be given to a prosecution.

Offences akin to perjury

There are a number of offences akin to perjury in the perjury act 1911 which, should be considered, including:-

false statements on oath made otherwise than in a judicial proceeding: s.2;
false statements etc with reference to marriage: s.3;
false statements as to births or deaths: s.4;
false statutory declarations and other false statements without oath: s.5;
false declarations etc to obtain registration etc for carrying on a vocation: s.6;
subornation of perjury: s.7.

These offences may overlap with other criminal offences, such as forgery or deception. The more flagrant the breach of the appropriate section of this Act, the more likely it will be that the defendant should be prosecuted for an offence under the Act as well as any other offences that arise.

Where the false evidence is tendered in written form under:

Section 9 Criminal Justice Act 1967, an offence is committed under section 89 of that Act
Section 5 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, an offence is committed under 106 of that Act

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Search Create Account or Sign In
QuickList (0) Subscriptions History Upload Home Videos Channels Shows New!

Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new windowKnow Your Enemy (Jesuits and the Vatican)

Subscribe
Unsubscribe zackmcnell
27 April 2009

(more info)
(less info) Want to Subscribe?
Sign In or Sign Up now!
"The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power, power in i...
"The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power, power in its most despotic exercise, absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man [i.e., the Black Pope, the Superior General of the Jesuits]. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms [sic] and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses."
Napoleon I (i.e., Napoleon Bonaparte; 1769-1821; emperor of the French)

The world is controlled by the Jesuits, Black Nobility, and the Vatican. The Jesuits are a military organization not a religious order. The vatican and the Jesuits are not Christianity. The New World Order is controlled by elite jesuits and the black pope Adolfo Nicolas. The world bankers are NOT top of the food chain. They all follow the jesuit order and follow the supreme jesuit general aka black pope Adolfo Nicolas. The other jesuit elites are Adolfo's 6 generals which is known as his assistance. Adolfo directs and guide the white pope and tells him what to do and say. The white pope is not a christian. When Jesuits and the Vatican say they believe in God they are referring to Lucifer as the God. Christians have been fooled for centuries that the Vatican is pure and good when the Vatican and the Jesuits have destroyed sovereign nations across the globe. The illuminati was created by the Jesuits in the 1700's because at that time Jesuitism was banned in 80 countries. People at that time knew the Vatican was corrupt and desired world dominance. A lot of ppl are now learnin about the new world order but they are being taught the fake jew banker world order. Yes i know world bankers have great power but they all follow the vatican. Think about it, every world leader goes to and respects the Vatican no matter what religion they believe in. The black pope Adolfo and his 6 generals control the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican Bank(richest bank in the world), space laws, maritime laws, other jesuits, jesuit teachings in the Vatican, Knights of Malta, illuminati, black nobility, CIA, FBI, other secret services, Council of Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, IMF, multiple world banks, FED, and the trilateral commission. The illuminati, Bilderberg, CFR, IMF, etc is told what to do and is given ideas form the Jesuit Elite, The Jesuits also sank the titanic to kill the elite who opposed the idea of the FED in order to create the FED. The Jesuits were the ones that came up wit the idea of the UN. Alex Jones is a fraud and a half truther. He was hired by the Vatican to do alternative media because the Jesuits knew ppl were eventually gonna find out about the nwo so if you cant stop the truth from coming out then the next best thing is to control the way the truth is heard by putting NWO doublle agents in alternative media. Alternative Media has been hijacked and is now corrupt. You can still go to infowars but remember you are being told only certain things about the NWO. This is why Alex never talks about knights of malta, pope, roman catholic church, vatican, and the jesuits. His own sister goes to a jesuit school! So the REAL NWO is a jesuit world order not a jew world order!

http://www.spirituallysmart.com/index...
http://www.spirituallysmart.com/jesui...
http://vaticanassassins.org/jesuitnwo... Category: Education
Tags: new world order jesuit alex jones pope vatican one government age illuminati obama deception truth real fake white black nwo nau international monetary fund cfr adolfo nicolas nicholas federal reserve income tax 911 inside job
URL
Embed

CustomiseLoading...
More From: zackmcnell
Loading...
Play All Stop Autoplaying | Play Next Play Next QuickList(0) 1 Clear | Save
Related Videos

Added to
Quicklist
9:58
The Truth About the Jesuits Part 1 of 21,027 views
zackmcnellFeatured Video
Added to
Quicklist
10:07
Alex Jones Exposes the Vatican Part 2 of 21,042 views
ListenToAlexJones
Added to
Quicklist
8:35
Illuminati Jews Exposed : President Obama "Yes ...506 views
unforgiven6000
Added to
Quicklist
11:00
Puppet Masters of the New World Order938 views
zackmcnell
Added to
Quicklist
11:00
Black Nobility & Jesuit World Order pt.1/410,231 views
AnonymousTruther
Added to
Quicklist
9:56
**THE NEW BLACK POPE** THE HEAD OF THE U.S. H...52,640 views
TheForerunner777
Added to
Quicklist
11:00
Jesuit New World Order, Black Nobility, Vatican...1,480 views
zackmcnell
Added to
Quicklist
9:38
Jesuit New World Order, Black Nobility, Vatican...1,659 views
zackmcnell
Added to
Quicklist
7:45
Angels & Demons Demystified: Illuminati and the...3,493 views
anoopkn
Added to
Quicklist
4:45
vatican death portal413 views
railgunn67
Added to
Quicklist
6:15
The Truth About the Jesuits Part 2 of 2689 views
zackmcnell
Added to
Quicklist
1:59
Alex Jones, Pope, President, New World Order907 views
zackmcnell
Added to
Quicklist
9:50
Adolfo Nicolas Address (Part 1 of 2)1,197 views
TomatoJuiceParty
Added to
Quicklist
0:28
The Most Powerful Man in the World!42,257 views
AnonymousTruther
Added to
Quicklist
10:50
Jesuit New World Order, Black Nobility, Vatican...1,247 views
zackmcnell
Added to
Quicklist
6:15
The Truth about the Jesuits pt.2/27,847 views
AnonymousTruther
Added to
Quicklist
11:00
Know The Enemy History9,118 views
AnonymousTruther
Added to
Quicklist
11:00
Jesuit New World Order, Black Nobility, Vatican...2,549 views
zackmcnell
Added to
Quicklist
8:02
Popular Mechanics Debunked39,942 views
EricIndiana
Added to
Quicklist
1:31
Matt Fuller - A Matthew Minute1,184 views
MFCPSK8RLoading...
See all related videos 24 ratings
Sign in to rate1,830 views Like to rate videos and let people know what you think? Automatically share your ratings, favourites and more on Facebook, Twitter and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare. Try Autoshare What is Autoshare? Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services that you choose. Select only the services that you are comfortable with - such as Facebook, Twitter or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Favourite Share Playlists Flag (more share options)
fewer share optionsFacebook Bebo MySpace Facebook Bebo MySpace Twitter orkut Live Spaces Digg StumbleUpon
Like to share videos with friends? Automatically share your ratings, favourites and more on Facebook, Twitter and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare. Try Autoshare What is Autoshare? Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services that you choose. Select only the services that you are comfortable with - such as Facebook, Twitter or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
This video will appear on your blog shortly.
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Thank you for sharing this video!
Saving... Close This video has been added to your Favourites. (Undo) Close This video has been removed from your Favourites. (Undo) closeWant to add to Favourites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Loading...The video has been added to your playlist.closeWant to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Loading...closeWant to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Statistics & Data
Loading...
Sign in to post a Video Response Video Responses (0)
This video has no Responses. Be the first to Post a Video Response.
Sign in to post a Comment
Text Comments (30) Options
Loading...
bill0756 (4 days ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam
Reply Most lately the Jesuits were expelled from Iraq by Saddam Hussein. The Jesuits were simply educating Iraqi leaders who posed a democratic opposition to the totalitarian state. I don't accuse educators of anything else than spreading independent thought and understanding. bill0756 (4 days ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam
Reply The quote by Lincoln against the Jesuits is a fabrication...a lie. It was fabricated by the Know-Nothing party to instigate prejudice against Catholics. Why are Catholics always defending themselves against crap like this? vaticanantichrist (1 week ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam
Reply Vatican is bible prophecy is the Antichrist beast system. Most dont know it because they don't understand bible prophecy. Oh its not mainstream either.

Sad fact is most people dont even know what the seal of God is either. I guess if they did they might actually find out what the real mark of the beast is. truthtrekker (1 week ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam
Reply It's really sad that you can get people this intelligent yet they have somehow been convinced that a virgin had a baby.
All worship is devil worship and forbidden by Nature.
The result, if you do not stop the worship while you are alive, is your death.
Death is eternity in the Sun.
The main pillar of any religion is that you must one day die to go be with your god.
No one said you had to die but your god.
Do not be tricked out of your gift of eternal life by the religious. hdiylove (3 weeks ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam
Reply Thanks for the video. RockyBalboa211 (1 month ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam
Reply Well the jesuits are both good and bad. Their are people in the God's church that are good on the outside yet evil on the inside. leonvoltaire (1 month ago) Show Hide +1 Marked as spam
Reply Correction, Satan's Church! mattandpatti222 (3 weeks ago) Show Hide +1 Marked as spam
Reply That is not Gods church. It is total Pagan worship! sorry! Come out of her my people--REV.!8 RockyBalboa211 (3 weeks ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam
Reply Well what you think is pagan worship I could not find any evidence... If one looks at the bible alot of the catholic teachings make sense.. yet I like to consider myself catholic with the lowercase c which makes up all who love Jesus, then just with the capital C which symbolizes the roman catholic church. mattandpatti222 (3 weeks ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam
Reply You like to consider your self dupped by the Vatican insiders. Look your cult catholic church is so pagen- Mary really is oris to them! she is sun worship! Pope kisses Koran Bible! Jesuits control the white Pope! look at your history of catholics and hitler! Catholic does not save you! being a disiple of Yeshua does! Showing 10 of 30 comments Show More Comments View All 30 comments

Would you like to Comment?
Join YouTube for a free account or sign in if you are already a member.
Like to comment and let people know what you think? Try Autoshare What is Autoshare? Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services that you choose. Select only the services that you are comfortable with - such as Facebook, Twitter or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Try YouTube in a fast, new web browser!Download Google Chrome for PC Search
YouTube Programmes Help Policy Discover
Contact Us Advertising Get Help Privacy Policy YouTube on Your Phone
Company Info Developers YouTube Handbook Terms of Service YouTube on Your Site
Press Room Partnerships Community Help Forums Copyright Notices YouTube on Your TV
Business Blog Content Management Safety Centre Community Guidelines YouTube RSS Feeds
YouTube Blog Creator's Corner TestTube

Add YouTube to your Google homepage Current Location: UK Show locations
Loading...
Current Language: English Show languages
Loading...© 2009 YouTube, LLC

nutty (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Is there any sense at all in this annotation?

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Is there any sense in this annotation??

Relocation and Leave to Remove: A Report by The Custody Minefield

Foreword by Sir Bob Geldof. Published December 2009

I can hardly read the literature on Family Law without simultaneous feelings of an awful sadness and profound rage. Sadness at what has been done to our children and their families and deep rage for our Family Courts and the inadequate practitioners that work within it.

In the near future the Family Law under which we endure will be seen as barbaric, criminally damaging, abusive, neglectful, harmful to society, the family, the parents and the children in whose name it purports to act. It is beyond scrutiny or criticism and like a secret society its members – the judges, lawyers, social and child “care” agencies behave like any closed vested interest and protect each others’ backs.

The court is entirely informed by outdated social engineering models and contemporary attitudes rather than fact, precedent rather than common sense and modish unproven nostrums rather than present day realities. It is a disgraceful mess. A farrago of cod professionalism and faux concern largely predicated on nonsensical social guff, mumbo-jumbo and psycho-babble. Dangling at the other end of this are the lives of thousands of British children and their families.

Here is one more report that empirically nails the obvious fact that to remove a child from their father (in the hugely vast majority of cases), their grandparents and other family, their school and friends, is wholly destructive to a child and its family.

How much longer must we put up with the state sanctioned kidnap of our most vulnerable? Because in effect that’s what “Leave to Remove” amounts to. How much longer do we tolerate the vested interest intransigence of the appalling U.K. Family Justice system? How long before just one of them admit they have got it ALL wrong and apologise to their myriad victims?

This report is important, timely and vital. To accept its findings, which could have and should have, been conducted at any time in the past 30 years, is to accept the awful conclusion that rather than Solomon like resolving our tragically human disputes with understanding, compassion and logical pragmatism the courts have consistently acted against society’s interest through the application of prejudice, gender bias and awful impartial cruelty.

This report proves it. May God forgive them. I won’t.

Bob Geldof (December 2009)

nutty (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

No

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Peter Lloyd Jewell My 9 year old daughters name is Judith Lydia Jewell. She was abducted to New Zealand by a group known as the International Church of Christ. I made the UK Court quite aware that this was gouing to happen and they completely ignored it. Hague Convention does not work and NZ is in complete denial of thier problem. Meanwh...ile my poor beautiful girl is have her mind altered by ICC. I wish to begin an internet campaign to have my daughter released from thier clutches. Can anybody help to show me the ropes..a bit.. Please..

LS Palmer (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

http://www.mediafire.com/?igb0f758y7ed677

Download a real life case study on how children are kinapped by CAFCASS through the secret family courts.

Maggie Tuttle left an annotation ()

There is a demonstration organised for the 4th MAY 2011, meeting at Trafalgar sq at 12 o'clock, we have been donated the black horses and glass carriage carrying a small coffin which will represent the thousands of children stolen by the SS every year and sold via the adoption and foster agencies,your legs and voices need to be there to help save the children,
please contact Maggie 07767710756, or email maggietuttle@btinternet.com for full details.
please march for the stolen children and pass this info on.

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Initial response to this request is the Forced Adoptions do not exist, don't they??

http://www.smh.com.au/national/say-sorry...

I beg to differ from this opinion here is why I do not believe the lies.

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Update, interview with Yvonne Stewart-Taylor on UK Column News Live on 23rd August 2012 25 mins into the News broadcast she exposes what is happening in Cumbria Child protection, speaking about her case, her second cousins raped age 9 and 11 in Foster care Kendal, under the supervision of Susan McConville Team Leader at kendal. The truth is here for all to view and this is an urgent issue. Have alook at it. Also includes another slant than the main stream media on Leanne and Martin Smith case. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Breakthrough, just maybe http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

For years I fought against secret courts breaking up families. At last there's hope

By Sue Reid

PUBLISHED: 23:49, 24 July 2013 | UPDATED: 07:57, 25 July 2013

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I contacted this journalist re a set up case, which was exposed and exposed multi agency criminally behaving police, social workers, and the courts in 2003, it has never made it to the national press, This morning , or any other main streem media. Our case would have ended this secret courts insanity 10 years ago, why was I ignored?

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Some may care to get themselves educated in this matter of corporate misconduct and fraud.
http://families-destroyed-by-corrupt-co....

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org