LIST OF ABUSER COUNCILLORS & MP's

Labour Councillor (Northampton/Northamptonshire), and former School Governor, Alec Dyer-Atkins – Convicted and jailed for 2 years in 2003 for downloading more than 42,000 pictures and films described in court as “Horrifying images of child abuse”. Dyer-Atkins was a member of an international paedophile ring called `The Shadows Brotherhood` which was successfully penetrated following stirling work by Britain’s National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU). Commenting on the conviction of the depraved Labour Party beast, NHTCU Deputy Head, Mick Deats said: “This man had some of the worst images on his computers that officers from this unit have ever viewed”.

Tory Party General election candidate, Michael Powell - Convicted and jailed for 3 years for downloading hardcore child porn.

. Tory Party Councillor (Wickbar/Bristol) Roger Talboys - Convicted and jailed for 6 years for multiple sex attacks on children.

. Tory Party Vice-Chairman of Welsh Conservatives, Andrew Baker - Received a banning order for stalking women.

. Tory Party MP (Billericay) Harvey Proctor - Stood trial for sex offences of a sado-masochistic nature against teenage boys, and was forced to resign.

. Tory Party Councillor ( Stratford-upon-Avon ) Christopher Pilkington - Convicted of downloading hardcore child porn on his PC. Placed on sex offenders register and forced to resign.

. Tory Party councillor ( Coventry ), Peter Stidworthy - Charged with indecent assault of a 15-year old boy.

. Tory Party Mayor ( North Tyneside ), Chris Morgan - Forced to resign after being arrested twice in 2 weeks, for indecent assault on a 15-year old girl, and for suspicion of downloading child porn.

. Tory Party MEP, Tom Spencer - Caught smuggling drugs and porn through customs.

. Tory Party councillor and former Mayor (Wrexham), Michael Morris - Convicted and put on probation for 2 years, for the indecent assault of another man, which was captured on CCTV.

. Tory Party Liaison Manager on the London Assembly, Douglas Campbell, who’s job includes running the Tory GLA website - Arrested for allegedly downloading child porn. He is currently suspended while the Police investigation continues.

. Labour Councillor (Newton Aycliffe) Martin Locklyn - Convicted and jailed for 15 years for sexually abusing 3 14-year-old boys.

. Labour Councillor (North Lincolnshire) David Spooner - Convicted and jailed for 1 year for masturbating in front of 2 young boys.

. Labour Mayor (Westhoughton/Lancashire) Nicholas Green - Convicted and jailed for 10 years for 3 rapes and 13 counts of indecent assault against little girls between the age of 6 and 10. He raped one woman on her wedding day.

. Labour Mayor (Todmordon) John Winstanley - Convicted and jailed for rape and threats to kill. After raping and threatening to kill his terrified victim, Winstanley then ordered the woman to go on all fours before urinating on her.

. Prominent Labour Party activist Mark Tann (who has met Tony & Cherie at Party functions) recently got a 15-year sentence for raping a 4-year old girl on 2 separate occasions.

. Labour’s current Parliamentary Candidate (Reading East) Tony Page - Has 2 Convictions for Acts of Gross Indecency` in public toilets.

. Labour Mayor (Burnley) Mark Swainston - Convicted of sex offences in public toilet.

. Entire Labour Party conspired to conceal the activities of Labour Party activist and serial child-molester Mark Trotter, who died from AIDS before he could be convicted.

. Labour Councillor (North Yorkshire) Raymond Coats - Court appearance for indecently assaulting a woman.

. Labour MP (Rhonda Valley) Chris Bryant poses in his pants on the Internet to advertise himself for casual gay sex encounters. Describes himself as “Horny as bu**ery” and says, “I’d love a good long f**k”.

. Labour Councillor (Manchester), George Harding - Charged with indecent assault on a girl of 12.

. Labour MP Ron Davies was mugged by a Rasta on Clapham Common while cruising for gay sex. He was photographed again by the media recently, engaged in some `man-on-man` action in a field off a motorway. “I was only looking for badgers” he said.

. Labour Councillor (Durham), Derrick Payne - Arrested by Police following a sex attack.

. Labour MP, Joe Ashton - Caught up in a Police raid while frequenting a brothel. Tried to lie his way out of the scandal.

. Labour Councillor (Shropshire), Derek Woodvine - Arrested by Police in anti-porn operation.

. Labour Councillor (Basildon), Tony Wright - Forced to resign after being caught using his council computer to download porn.

. Labour MP (Sheffield), Clive Betts - Suspended from Parliament for 7 days after being caught forging immigration papers to extend the stay of his Brazilian rent-boy gay lover.

* Senior clerk Phillip Lyon, who arranges the weekly Prime Minister’s Question Time for Tony Blair, was arrested after vice cops raided his Commons office.Lyon, 37, is accused of making indecent images of children.

* The Labour Party in Calderdale has been plunged into a crisis as their lead candidate, and former Mayor of Hebden Royd, Stewart Brown, has been arrested on suspicion of child porn offences.

Labour Councillor and Deputy Council Leader (Northumberland), John Whiteman, who was also a senior member of the local police authority – Convicted and fined in 2002 for soliciting a prostitute in the red light district of Middlesbrough. The court heard Whitman was arrested in his car as Police discovered him in a “state of undress” with a lady of the night he had just paid £35 for sex. He subsequently resigned from the council.

Labour Councillor (Stoke/Staffordshire), Michael Barnes, put forward a motion in July 2004 to change the constitution of Stoke-on-Trent Council. The proposed amendments were designed to prevent the City’s two British National Party councillors from chairing any committees, so as to `protect` the good citizens of Stoke from the beastly BNP types they’d voted for in huge numbers to represent them. As Mr Barnes explained to the local paper, the move was “to prevent the BNP from exerting more influence”, and was “in the best interests of the people of Stoke-on-Trent”. A few months later, in November 2004, the civic-minded and virtuous Councillor Barnes appeared at North Staffordshire Magistrates Court, to face seven different charges relating to child pornography

Labour Councillor (Durham), Derrick Payne – Arrested by Police following a sex attack

Labour Councillor and former Mayor (Halton/Cheshire), Liam Temple - Convicted in 2004 of `Inciting a child under 16 to commit an act of gross indecency` after the 58-year old Labour pervert had attempted to molest a 12-year old girl. During the case, the brave youngster told the court via a video link: “He said if I let him touch me he would give me money”.

Labour Councillor (Coxhoe/Durham), Les Sheppard – Convicted in 2004 on ten counts of indecent assault on young girls. Jailed for 2 years, and placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years. Teeside Crown Court heard how 71 year old Cllr Sheppard lured his victims into his gold Porsche before driving them to remote spots, where he would submit them to sickening sex attacks. After his arrest, the Labour nonce-case told police “I love women, but you do things which you regret”. Sheppard’s `women` victims were between 9 and 13 years old.

According to media reports, the names of 2 former Labour Cabinet Ministers said to be `Household names` appear on the `Operation Ore` list of subscribers to hard-core child pornography. The same FBI investigation, which led to the arrest of rock star Pete Townshend. So who are they Mr. Blair?

Yusef Azad – One of Ken Livingston’s overpaid left-wing cronies on the London Assembly gravy train – Resigned from his 60K-plus a year job `assisting` Assembly members, after being arrested on suspicion of downloading child porn in 2003.

Labour Councillor (Wokingham/Berkshire), Nelson Bland – Convicted on 16 counts of possession and distribution of hardcore child porn in 2004. Sentenced to community service, placed on the sex offender’s register and ordered to attend rehabilitation classes for paedophiles. Bland used his own teenage daughters computer to hoard his grotesque gallery of child abuse, which was discovered by police during a search of Bland`s home, when they arrested him in connection with the murder of a Nottingham businessman

Labour Councillor and Mayor-Elect (Merton/London), Sam Chaudry – Due to become Merton’s first Asian Mayor, before he was arrested, tried and convicted of multiple sex attacks on young girls in 1999. One of his victims was a 5-year old.

Labour Councillor (Halton/Leeds), Lee Benson – Convicted and awaiting sentence in 2005, after pleading guilty on 12 counts of possession of indecent images of children, featuring youngsters between the ages of 5 and 11. Benson, who has a child of his own, repaid the fools who voted for him by storing his revolting kiddie porn collection on the computer provided for him by the council. Benson has been `suspended` - not expelled - by the Labour Party, which means his name remains on the Labour Party membership list, as well as on the sex offenders register. As to which is the more shameful – take your pick!

Labour Councillor (Bridgend/South Wales), Iestyn Tudor Davies – Convicted, jailed for 7 years, and placed on the sex offender’s register for life in 2005, for repeatedly raping a 9-year old girl

Labour Councillor (Newham/London), Greg Vincent, who was the Election Agent to Labour MP Tony Banks at the 2001 General Election – Convicted and given a 2-year community rehabilitation order in 2003, for possession of hardcore kiddie porn films and photos, featuring children as young as 8. One of the photos the Labour Councillor found so entertaining, featured – as described in court – a girl aged around 10, naked except for a dog-collar, being assaulted and abused while her hands were tied behind her back around a beam. Vincent was also a School Governor

Prominent Edinburgh Labour party activist and election candidate, Rab Knox - Convicted and jailed for 3 years in 2005 for a horrific sex attack on a woman passenger in his taxi cab.

Labour Party Official (North West England Regional Officer, and parliamentary adviser to the Home Office Minister responsible for crime and policing, Hazel Blears), Peter Tuffley – Convicted and jailed for 15 months and placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years in 2006, for the sexual molestation of a 13-year old boy that he had previously `groomed` on the internet. Tuffley was described as a `rising star` within the Labour Party - which is nothing to be proud of either

Labour Councillor (Hornchurch/Essex), Alan Prescott, who was also a senior magistrate – Convicted and jailed for 2 years in 2001, for molesting children at the East London care home where he was the superintendent. Prescott, described in court as a “pillar of his local community” admitted carrying out sex attacks on four teenage boys as they slept in their beds

Labour Parliamentary candidate (Cheadle/Cheshire), Paul Diggert – Subject of a 2002 police investigation into the alleged procurement of underage girls for sexual purposes via internet chatrooms. According to the `Sunday Mirror` (3/11/02), Diggert had admitted to having four underage girls that he was `grooming` for sex. In 2004 Diggert was convicted of making and distributing indecent pictures of children

Labour Councillor (Dagenham/London), Terry Power – Forced to resign in 1999 after being arrested and charged with sex attacks on teenage boys. Details of trial and conviction to follow.

Labour Councillor (Westlands/Worcestershire), Keith Rogers – Convicted, fined, and placed on the sex offender’s register in 2003, after downloading over 2,000 hardcore child porn photos on his computer

Labour councillor Ex-Paston councillor Gilbert Benn (48) A former city councillor was a five-year jail sentence for molesting an 11-year-old boy and threatening the youngster’s mother in a bid to cover his tracks.

Selby Social Services Permit Unsupervised Contact With Dangerous Father

Selby Children & Young Peoples Service, Children’s Social Care are permitting unsupervised contact with a dangerous parent despite years of on-going child protection concerns due to the risks he poses.

The father of the children, who cannot be named to protect the identities of the children, has been permitted to contact the children utilising an social networking site, despite child protection concerns for the children. The family came to the attention of the local authority some years ago due to serious concerns for the safety of both the children and the mother due to domestic violence. A conference with the Local Authority concluded that if the father returned to reside at the family home the children would be placed on the ‘At Risk Register’ and another Child Protection Conference would be convened with a view to placing the children under the care of the local authority. The mother ended all personal association with the father, and secured alternative accommodation for her family to ensure their safety.

The father instigated sporadic and infrequent contact with the children, however this was deemed not in the best interests of the children by a legal advisor after the father failed to return the children at the agreed times, which distressed the children. There were also fears the father had supplied the children cigarettes and alcohol. Following contact from the mothers legal representative the father ceased contact.

However 3 years ago the father had further children from another relationship removed from his care by different authority and those children were subsequently placed with adoptive families due to serious child protection concerns. The father then began harassing the mother of his first family and also one of her children. A complaint was made to the police, and a full investigation was made into the matter. He received a warning from the police and all contact ceased. However he has recently begun contacting the children from his first relationship, whom are in the care of the local authority, by way of utilising a social networking site. This is despite concerns of the mother, whom retains parental repsonsibility of the children concerned.

The mother has contacted the local authority, who refuse to accept the seriousness of the child protection concersn despite a well documented history. The local authority have a legal duty to safeguard all children from the ‘Possibility Of Harm’, under Every Child Matters and the Children Act 1989, yet are mismanaging the matter, which has now been referred directly to the Department For Children, Schools and Families by the mother due the seriousness of her concerns for the children’s safety.

Selby Social Services Ignore & Breach Data Protection Act 1998

In February 2009 a Manager of Selby Social Services, Children Social Care, was served with a letter re Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 requesting the Local Authority cease processing data, which was both distressing and damaging to a particular family. Section 10 of the DPA clearly states:

10 Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress

(1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons—


(a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and

(b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted.

Once such correspondence has been served upon the Local Authority they then have a timeframe of 21 days in which to respond in writing to the request to cease processing data, as stated in Section 10 (3) of the Data Protection Act 1998:

(3) The data controller must within twenty-one days of receiving a notice under subsection (1) (“the data subject notice”) give the individual who gave it a written notice— .

(a) stating that he has complied or intends to comply with the data subject notice, or .

(b) stating his reasons for regarding the data subject notice as to any extent unjustified and the extent (if any) to which he has complied or intends to comply with it.


Refusing to respond to the letter and continuing to process such data even after a reasonable amount of time has passed is breach of the act, however Selby Children's Social Care conveniently state they lost the S.10 letter, despite it being hand delivered to the manager in question, and that person signed a receipt to state they had received the notice. The processing of distressing and damaging data has continued by Selby Children's Social Care to the present time. It is shocking to think a Local Authority continue to process distressing data for 13 months ago after the family have requested they cease doing so due to the adverse affect this causes them.

However S.10 (4) of the Data Protection Act 1998 goes on to state:

4) If a court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice under subsection (1) which appears to the court to be justified (or to be justified to any extent), that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice (or for complying with it to that extent) as the court thinks fit.

It seems legal action can be taken by the Information Commissioners Office against any authority who refuse to adhere to such notices.

It is without doubt that Selby Children's Social Care have breached Section 10 (1), (3) & (4) of the Data Protection Act 1998.

What a shame such steps have to be taken when over-zealous Local Authorities will stop at nothing and ignore Statutory Laws and Acts to enable them to continue to behave illegally, in a bid to gather potentially damaging information which they wish to utilise in a Family Court Care Proceedings with the sole aim of securing a vulnerable child for forced adoption.

Local Authority's clearly have no regard for the Laws & Acts if this country, nor do they have any regard for the damage and distress they cause to families whilst they pursue performance indicators. It is high time this government and the legal system woke up to the fact that lives are needlessly being systematically destroyed.

Costs re Child Contact Cases within the last 5 years

North Yorkshire County Council (Social Services Corrupt kiddy snatchers): Tim Yeo Accuses Council Of Kidnapping A Young Baby

North Yorkshire County Council (Social Services Corrupt kiddy snatchers): Tim Yeo Accuses Council Of Kidnapping A Young Baby

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

Tim Yeo Accuses Council Of Kidnapping A Young Baby

Click on the URL link to watch the Youtube Video.

Thank you to Tim Yeo MP for speaking out and exposing such corrupt practices within childrens social care services in the UK.

Andrea Pecherek (Chartered Psychologist, Sheffield))

Andrea Pecherek - Chartered Psychologist, Sheffield.

Quite a nice lady upon first meeting, but there is a drker deeper side to this one. She says in her own words & I quote "My time is expensive". What a remark to make a parent who is being assesed for care proceedings! Well Ms Pecherek your time is being well paid for, at the rate of £100 per hour by the legal services commssion and by North Yorkshire County Council.

Ms Pecherek's only qualifications are an Open University Psychology degree attained in the 1970's (well out of date) and she then practised as a Child Educational Psychologist. She now lists her expertise as writing hundreds of court reports on parents as an Independent Expert Witness. There is nothing in Ms Pechereks CV to suggest she has any clinical qualifications at all, so how can she protray herself and an expert in adult psycholgy? She certainly does not have a Ph.D She is not able to diagnose any adult as diagnoses are given by Psychitarist only, yet Ms Pecherek often writes diagnoses in her reports, soemthing she is not qualified to do.

Ms Pecherek uses Freudian theories when these are now well over 50 years old and have been superceeded by others. Freudian theories are largely based on sexual frustration, so I wonder if Ms Pecherek is trying to tell us something, a Freudian slip on her part maybe?

Ms Pecherek writes reports based on the Local Authorities biased, opinionated files re the parent, which she does not check to ascertain if the details are factually correct. She may make recommendations for reunification for the children to be returned to their parents in court, yet she neglects to ensure these critical recommendations are written into the children's care plans. This then permits the local authority to ignore her recommendations. Having a duty as an Independent Expert Witness, one would expect her to ensure this step is taken and that the Local Authority adhere to the recommendation in the best interests of the child(ren), however this matter is regularly an neglected as an oversight on all parties. This leaves the Local Authority to keep the children in their care long-term, alnguishing in foster care (they utilise the Permanence Plan), severing contact with the parents, when the children actually have a right to contact.

Ms Pechereks CV is listed below (please pay attention to where she lists that she has prepared over 800 reports for the courts & at what expense?):

ANDREA PECHEREK
B.A., B.Sc., M.Sc., AFBPS

PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERTISE

Professional Qualification
Chartered Psychologist

Areas of Expertise

• Child Protection
• Assessment of children and families
• Attachment
• Family Dynamics
• Learning Disabilities
• Adoption & Fostering

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE

Experience in Specialist Area

I have been working in the field of Child Psychology since 1981 first as a generic educational psychologist later moving to a specialist area of child and family assessments. Prior to this I was a teacher of children with special educational needs.

In addition to my role as offering independent psychological assessment and advice I have worked both within the field of educational psychology and child and adolescent therapy (community health).

I have also acted in the area of Children Act Consultant with particular reference to psychology and Child Protection.

I have been a member of the Sheffield Area Child Protection Committee Training Group and as such shared responsibility for devising, writing and delivering multi-agency training on aspects of Child Abuse including identification, protocols, psychological implications and remediation.

From 1992 to 1997 I was employed as a Child Protection (Children Act) specialist psychologist, and continue to offer lectures, training events and consultation in this field. More recently, I have produced guidelines on issues pertaining to children and domestic violence. I also offer training events to foster carers on issues concerning child development, child sexual behaviour and behaviour management.


From 1999 to 2004 I was a member of the Sheffield adoption panel to which I continue to offer support on a consultative basis.

From 1993 to 1997 I was Honorary Secretary of the British Psychological Society’s Division of Educational and Child Psychology. I also sat on the BPS Professional Affairs Board. I have been the lead author of a recently published document for the BPS on The Psychologist as Expert Witness and am currently on a reconvened working party looking to revise the guidelines under the auspices of the Professional Affairs Board of the British Psychological Society.

In 2006 and 2007 I am presenting training events for the Central Law Training Agency on ‘Psychological Assessments of Children and Families’. This covers the nature of psychological interviewing and testing; assessment of adults with learning difficulties and the implications for the Courts; Attachment – its meaning and relevance in planning for children.


REPORTS

I have prepared in excess of 800 reports on a regular basis for the family courts for the last 12 years.

QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING & RESEARCH

Qualifications & Training

B.A. (Open University) 1973 Psychology and Education
B.Sc. (Leicester University) 1980 Psychology
M.Sc. (Sheffield University) 1981 Educational Psychology
Cardiff University Bond Solon accredited Expert Witness (2004)

I attend at training events and conference pertaining to my work for the Courts. The most recent training events which I have attended are:

• The Disability Rights Act (February 2003)
• Parents, Children & Psychology, the International Perspective (Paris, January 2004).
• Contact post adoption – issues and research (Nottingham April 2004)
• Hidden Harm Conference – drugs, alcohol and child protection (Sheffield March 2004)
• Sheffield ACPC Annual Conference – Adult mental health and child protection (September 2005)
• Post adoption contact (Nottingham 2005)
• Domestic Violence (Nottingham 2006)
• Child Psychology issues for the twenty first century (Bournemouth 2006)
• Working with families experiencing trauma (London Institute of Therapy 2006)

MEMBERSHIPS & PUBLICATIONS

Professional Memberships

 British Psychological Society Division of Educational and Child Psychology
 Society for Expert Witnesses
 British Association for Adoption and Fostering





Publications & Presentations

‘Counselling: Aspects and Issues’, written jointly with Dr. H. Cowie (1991) recently translated into 3 languages.

Contributions to edited texts and publications the most recent being a chapter on ‘Living in non-nuclear families’ in Psychology in Action (ed. Sigston et al)

Regular book reviews for professional journals.

British Psychological Society guidelines on The Psychologist as Expert Witness 1997 (currently in review)

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

 I have full enhanced CRB clearance.
 I hold personal professional indemnity insurance.
 I hold a clean driver’s license.

The Corrupt Tactics Cafcass Utilise

Having had experience of Cafcass one would think that there would be confidence in such a supposed independent public organisation? You are very very wrong. Firstly the prof is in that OFSTED themselves have deemed them to be failing. Hardly surprising Cafcass are seeking to blame excessive case loads. The following are extracts taken from OFSTED damin report of Cafcass, York.

Inspectors evaluated private and public law reports, case files, complaints records,human resources files, duty systems and Cafcass work at court. They surveyed the views of Cafcass staff, adult service users, children and young people. Because the service area did not provide sufficient opportunities to directly observe practice with service users, inspectors saw only a very limited sample of Cafcass practice

Just what where you hiding from OFSTED Inspectors then Cafcass?

The overall effectiveness of the Cafcass North Yorkshire and Humberside service area is inadequate. While to some extent the service area meets the Cafcass statutory functions and resources are deployed effectively to ensure that this is sustained, the leadership team is very new and minimum standards are not met in key areas of service delivery to children and families.

There are weaknesses in many aspects of management and service
provision to children and families. Case planning, assessment, intervention, direct
work, complaints handling, equality and diversity and the overall promotion of
improved outcomes for children and young people are inadequate. While duty
systems have been introduced to manage cases on the waiting list they do not yet
offer a direct service to children and families whose cases have not been allocated.
The area has only recently recognised the complexities and challenges involved in
managing a large group of staff who work from home and are geographically
dispersed.

Prior to the inspection the leadership of the service had not accurately assessed the amount of change required to achieve sustained improvement in service delivery to children and families. The service area has now assessed appropriately that its most significant weaknesses are in the effectiveness of its performance improvement and the accountability of its staff and managers.

Cafcass (York) acknowledge failures re performance, improvement and accountability.

Cafcass do not appraise the situation at dispute correctly and seek instead to simply read social services (bias and factually inaccurate) files. There is a common theme appearing whereby Cafcass reports are simply reworded extracts of social services files and reports of so-called Independent Expert Witnesses.

Engagement with service users is very weak, particularly their influence on improving service design and delivery.

At least OFSTED can acknowledge Cafcass do NOT work with service users.

Cafcass dig themselves an even deeper hole by knowingly providing the family courts with factually inaccurate reports. Some even go as far as to state the children have Attachment Disorders' which have never even been diagnosed by a healthcare professional. Such diagnoses should only ever be made a child psychiatrist whom specialises in the condition. Many of these claims are overly exaggerated by Cafcass to secure the final orders requested by other parties. It is such a shame for the children that their lives are blighted by endless lies, many of which will remain on file and follow them into adulthood.

Cafcass Guardian Ad Litems are NOT qualified to make any such diagnosis as they are nothing more than glorified social workers, as they are registered with the General Social Care Council. This conduct should be regulated by Cafcass management, whom refuse to register parental concerns and complaints. Those who do dare to complain are classed as hostile, aggressive and even vexatious by Cafcass.

While robust human resources action has been taken with those staff who have been assessed as in need of performance improvement, that action is unnecessarily limited to a focus on compliance and it is not yet effective. Capacity to improve is inadequate.

Why do these Cafacss employees retain their positions? Given their responsibility to assess a parents capacity to change if they are struggling to parent, this seems frankly odd that Cafcass officers themselves are deemed incapable of change.


Cafcass rarely provide children with wishes and feelings packs, as they are required to be law. Leaving many courts without an accurate account of the child's true wishes and feelings, for which purpose the booklets are intended. This is in breach of Cafcass National Standards. Is it any wonder this organisation is failing nationally if they are simply not inputting the work required. The child(ren)'s voice is being supressed by a national organisation created by the government to ensure their voices are heard, in addition to the organisation being created by the government to assist the family courts. This is simply NOT happening, the only people Cafcass are assisting is themselves and Social Services (Local Authorities).

Many Cafcass Guardian Ad Litems are self-employed and choose what hours they work, often rudely interrupting families at weekends and in thye evenings, which is unneccessary and inappropriate. Being self-employed they are going to want to support Social Services to needlessly snatch children to secure Best Value Performance Indicators, they would not want their income to dry up would they????

Worse of all Cafcass York, have ben known to instruct solicitors (Mr Philip Andrew Goodall of Harrowells, York) whom has judgements against him name imposed by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for misuse of clients funds and whose own practice was forcibly closed by the Law Society due to the misuse of funds by the partners. Hardly the type of legal representative whom should be instructed to advocate and act for a national public office?

The above is clear evidence of :
PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
PERJURY
MALFEASANCE OF OFFICE
MALADMINISTRATION
This is not conduct befitting an officer of a National Government Organisation!

Where is the accountability now as NO action has ever been taken against this corrupt Cafcass officer - Mr Alan Bradley.

How social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoption

National disgrace: The number of babies taken from their mothers and put up for adoption is rising sharply


For a mother, there can be no greater horror than having a baby snatched away by the State at birth.

The women to whom it has happened say their lives are ruined for ever - and goodness knows what longterm effect it has on the child.

Most never recover from this trauma.

Imagine a baby growing in your body for nine months, imagine going through the emotion of bringing it into the world, only to have social workers seize the newborn, sometimes within minutes of its first cry and often on the flimsiest of excuses.

Yet this disturbing scenario is played out every day.
The number of babies under one month old being taken into care for adoption is now running at almost four a day (a 300 per cent increase over a decade).

In total, 75 children of all ages are being removed from their parents every week before being handed over to new families.

Some of these may have been willingly given up for adoption, but critics of the Government's policy are convinced that the vast majority are taken by force.

Time and again, the mothers say they are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Of course, there are people who are not fit to be parents and it is the duty of any responsible State to protect their children.


The baby snatchers: Now teenage mother faces battle with social services to keep newborn child

I had to flee Britain to stop my baby being snatched by the State

MAIL COMMENT: The shameful secrecy of the adoption system

But over the five years since I began investigating the scandal of forced adoptions, I have found a deeply secretive system which is too often biased against basically decent families.

I have been told of routine dishonesty by social workers and questionable evidence given by doctors which has wrongly condemned mothers.

Meanwhile, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been given to councils to encourage them to meet high Government targets on child adoptions.

Under New Labour policy, Tony Blair changed targets in 2000 to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent to 5,400 a year. The annual tally has now reached almost 4,000 in England and Wales - four times higher than in France, which has a similar-sized population.

Blair promised millions of pounds to councils that achieved the targets and some have already received more than £2million each in rewards for successful adoptions.

Figures recently released by the Department for Local Government and Community Cohesion show that two councils - Essex and Kent - were offered more than £2million "bonuses" over three years to encourage additional adoptions. Four others - Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Cheshire and Hampshire - were promised an extra £1million.

This sweeping shake-up was designed for all the right reasons: to get difficult-to-place older children in care homes allocated to new parents. But the reforms didn't work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, social workers began to earmark babies and cute toddlers who were most easy to place in adoptive homes, leaving the more difficultto-place older children in care. As a result, the number of over-sevens adopted has plummeted by half.

Critics - including family solicitors, MPs and midwives as well as the wronged families - report cases where young children are selected, even before birth, by social workers in order to win the bonuses.

More chillingly, parents have been told by social workers they must lose their children because, at some time in the future, they might abuse them. One mother's son was adopted on the grounds that there was a chance she might shout at him when he was older.

In Scotland, where there are no official targets, adoptions are a fraction of the number south of the border, even allowing for the smaller population.

What's more, the obsessive secrecy of the system means that the public only occasionally gets an inkling of the human tragedy now unfolding across the country.

For at the heart of this adoption system are the family courts, whose hearings are conducted behind closed doors in order to protect the identity of the children involved.

Yet this secrecy threatens the centuries-old tradition of Britain's legal system - the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

From the moment a mother is first accused of being incapable as a parent - a decision nearly always made by a social worker or doctor - the system is pitted against her. There are no juries in family courts, only a lone judge or trio of magistrates who make decisions based on the balance of probability.

Crucially, the courts' culture of secrecy means that if a social worker lies or fabricates notes or a medical expert giving evidence makes a mistake, no one finds out and there is no retribution. Only the workings of the homeland security service, MI5, are guarded more closely than those of the family courts.

From the time a child is named on a social services care order until the day they are adopted, the parents are breaking the law - a crime punishable by imprisonment - if they tell anyone what is happening to their family. Anything from a chat with a neighbour to a letter sent to a friend can land them in jail. And many have found themselves sent to prison for breaching court orders by talking about their case.

As High Court judge Mr Justice Munby told MPs last year: "It seems quite indefensible that there should be no access by the media, and no access by the public, to what is going on in courts where judges are, day by day, taking people's children away."

However, it is not only secretive and publicly unscrutinised family courts that are creating an injustice in our adoption system. There is a more worrying factor involved. Look at the official figures. Why are they so high? Is it really true that more mothers are becoming potential killers or abusers? Or are the financial bonuses offered to councils fuelling the astonishing rise in forced adoptions?

John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning to change the adoption system, said yesterday: "I have evidence that 1,000 children are wrongly being seized from their birth parents each year even though they have not been harmed in any way.
"The targets are dangerous and lead to social workers being over-eager. "The system's secrecy hides any wrongdoing. One has to ask if a mother is expected to have problems looking after her baby, why doesn't the State help her instead of taking her child away?"

The MP's concerns are echoed by the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS), a body which advises new mothers. Spokeswoman Beverley Beech insists: "Babies are being removed from their mothers by social workers using any excuse. "We strongly suspect this is because newborns and toddlers are more easily found homes than older children. They are a marketable commodity. "I know of social workers making up stories about innocent mothers simply to ensure their babies are put up for adoption. "Suitable babies are even being earmarked when they are still in the womb. "One baby was forcibly removed in the maternity ward by social workers before the mother had even finished the birth process and produced the placenta."

Her words may be emotive. But are they true? Six months ago, I wrote an article about a young couple - who must remain anonymous because of family court law -fighting for the return of their three-year-old daughter. She was taken within weeks of birth and is about to be adopted.

Astonishingly, a judge has issued a Draconian order gagging them from revealing anything, to anyone at all, which could identify their daughter until her 18th birthday in 2022.

Immediately after the article was published, I heard from 35 families whose children were forcibly removed. The letters and e-mails continue to arrive - coming from a wide range of families across the social classes (including from a castle in the heart of England).

An e-mail from one father said: "Please, please help, NOW. We are about to lose our son . . . in court tomorrow for final disposals hearing before he is taken for adoption ... we have done nothing wrong."

Another father calling himself "James" rang to say his wife's baby was one of eight seized by social workers from hospital maternity units in one small part of North-East England during one fortnight last summer.

A Welsh man complained that his grandson of three weeks was earmarked for forcible adoption by social workers.

The mother, a 21-year-old with a mild learning disorder, was told she might, just might, get post-natal depression and neglect her son. To her great distress, her baby was put in the care of Monmouthshire social services within minutes of birth.
The grandfather said: "Our entire extended family - which includes two nurses, a qualified nanny and a police officer - have offered to help care for the baby.
"I believe my grandson has been targeted for adoption since he was in the womb."

A Worcestershire woman told how her daughter's baby was snatched away by three police officers and two social workers who came to the door of her house.
The girl has now been adopted. The mother's failure? She was said to be too young to cope. Yet - a little over a year later - she had another baby, a boy, whom she was allowed to keep, in the same home and with the same partner. Why on earth did she have to lose her little girl? The grandmother emotionally explained: "All the family came forward to offer to help look after my granddaughter, and all of them were told they were not good enough. "The social worker told us to forget her. He said: 'She is water under the bridge.' "We think they wanted her for adoption from the beginning."

No wonder she, and thousands of other parents, want a shake-up of the heart-breakingly cruel adoption system which has ripped apart so many families - and which continues to do so.


By SUE REID
Last updated at 23:10 31 January 2008

North Yorkshire County Council :: Openly Local

This is the amount of money it cost North Yorkshire County Council to kiddy snatch! Can North Yorkshire County Council truely justify these costs to at the expenxe of the council tax payer? Do you really want them squandering your hard earned money in this way for them to simply fulfill Best Value Performance Indicators?

Court Services spending £597,000
Expenditure on Social Services spending £201,406,000

North Yorkshire County Council :: Openly Local

Posted using ShareThis

Proof Selby District Council Forced Victims Of Domestic Abuse To Endure Continued Violence

Below is an extract taken from the minutes of a meeting of North Yorkshire County Council Safe and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee, June 2006

'A key area raised by the NYCLSP was an issue in the Selby area as there seemed to be a problem for victims of Domestic Abuse accessing legal advice quickly. Another issue raised was Selby District Council's response to women presenting as homeless fleeing domestic violence, victims had been returned to their homes and told they would not be accommodated.'

How are families ever to escape the confines and atrocities of domestic abuse when local government refuse to re-house fleeing victims. This is in clear breach of the governments policies regarding the safeguarding victims and children from Domestic Violence. Selby District Councils policy of refusal to re-house and returning the victim to the family home, an unsuitable and dangerous environment in which the victim is at great risk of enduring increased violence is highly questionable. Is it any wonder then I ask that this gives Social Services even greater premise to remove any children in such an unsafe home????

SOLICITORS TO AVOID IN NORTH YORKSHIRE

This is a brief list of solicitors that I would NEVER recommend to anyone involved in legal proceedings regarding the care of children, in particular those involving social services:

CROMBIE WILKINSON (YORK, SELBY & MALTON)
SYKES, LEE, BRYDSON (YORK)
BAILEY & HAIG (SELBY)
MAX GOLD PARTNERSHIP (HULL)
HARROWELLS (YORK)
LANGLEYS (YORK)

Avoid these firms at all costs, they will misrepresent you in court, not inform you correctly, not accpet instruction from you as the client, and worst of all they WILL accept and agree the THRESHOLD CRITERIA against your instruction (effectively causing you to agree with the court that you have abused your precious children).

One of the solicitors currently practicing at Harrowells York is Mr Philip Andrew Goodall. He has a judgement and conditions against him imposed by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) for misuse of three quaters of a milliion pounds of clients funds. He shoudl never be trusted with money again, let alone be given a case involving children. He has proved himself to be untrustworthy. DO NOT TRUST HIM HE BATS FOR THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND COLLUDES WITH CAFCASS GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO COMMIT PERJURY.

NHS North Yorkshire and York predicts £8 million deficit

By Nicola Fifield »


FINANCE chiefs at North Yorkshire’s cash-strapped health trust say they are expecting to be £8 million in the red by the end of the financial year in April.

The latest performance figures released by NHS North Yorkshire and York – the body that commissions and funds health services in the county – show the trust has already sunk £4 million into debt this year.

An action plan has been drawn up to reduce expenditure – but health bosses are adamant that the quality of patient care will not be affected by any savings.

Jayne Brown, chief executive of NHS North Yorkshire and York, said an £8 million deficit was “not an acceptable position”, but stressed that it represented less than one per cent of the trust’s total budget. She said the main reason for the overspend was that the trust’s hospitals had been “extraordinarily busy” – particularly during the recent Arctic conditions, when the number of slips, trips and falls rocketed.

She said: “The hospitals have dealt with many more patients than we could have predicted when we were drawing up spending plans.

“We have also seen escalating costs of secure forensic mental health services, continuing care and prescribing.”

She said NHS North Yorkshire and York was looking at ways to make savings while still offering excellent health care services.

One such initiative is a new scheme called Telehealthcare, which aims to save money by cutting the number of hospital admissions required by patients with long-term conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure.

Under the scheme, 100 electronic units will be installed in people’s homes over the next 12 months, each with devices to take readings such as blood pressure, oxygen levels, weight and temperature.

This information will then be automatically sent to a monitoring centre, where any problems or abnormalities in a patient’s condition can be identified and treated at an early stage – before a hospital admission is required.

Coun James Alexander, chair of York’s health overview and scrutiny committee, said he was keen to make sure the overspend did not have an adverse impact on patient care.

He said: “Most patients tell me their personal experience of the NHS is excellent medical care, but I am already planning to meet some patients on Thursday who say that savings are reducing the medical care they receive.”


http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/4873784.NHS_North_Yorkshire_and_York_predicts___8_million_deficit/

SIX solicitors involved in a scandal at a former Hull law firm fined for accounting breaches

Lawyers fined after crooked cashier flees to USA

Date: 19 April 2005
By Jane Charnley


SIX solicitors involved in a scandal at a former Hull law firm were yesterday fined for accounting breaches and another was reprimanded – but a colleague accused of fraud who fled to the United States escaped justice.

The Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal cleared the seven solicitors of deliberate dishonesty.

Kevin Rooney, who worked as a cashier for the law firm, Carrick Carr Wright, which is now closed, paid himself an unauthorised bonus to buy a luxury holiday villa.
But while he jetted off to the US, his former bosses were left to face the tribunal, where they had to admit breaches of solicitors' accounts rules, because as partners, they were liable, even if they were unaware what was happening.

The seven strenuously denied dishonesty, saying they had no idea of Rooney's actions.

The firm, one of Hull's biggest, with offices in Saville Street and branches in Beverley and York, was taken over by the Law Society in August 2002 amid suspicions of dishonesty, leaving some of the partners in serious financial difficulties.
Rooney, of Hedon, near Hull, could not cope with running the finances of a big legal practice and broke a series of rules.

The partners were cleared of any deliberate deception, but Rooney was "effectively described as a thief" and barred from working as a clerk if he ever returns to Britain.

Geoffrey Williams, for the Law Society, claimed the seven knew the firm was heading for disaster. By the time it was taken over it had liabilities of more than £1m. He also claimed the partners knew Rooney was crooked but he was allowed to keep his job.

But the partners insisted they were not directly to blame, and the tribunal accepted their accounts.


John Wright, 58, of Sutton, near Hull, was fined £7,500.
Philip Goodall, 47, of Selby, £3,500.
Michael East, 56, of Hornsea, £3,500.
David Prescott, 38, also of Hornsea, £3,000.
Paul Scott, 45, of York, £2,500.
Malcolm Grassam, 54, of Beverley, Grassam £1,000.
Jonathan Carr, 56, of Hull, was reprimanded.


Senior partner Wright, was a former chairman of the local law society.
Since the firm's collapse he went into voluntary insolvency, had to sell his home, and lives in rented accommodation.

Later, Stott said he was delighted to have been vindicated of any dishonety or impropriety.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Lawyers-fined-after-crooked-cashier.1002221.jp

Carrick Carr partners lose human rights court battle

SOLICITORS MISUSE OF CLIENTS FUNDS, LOSE HUMAN RIGHTS BATTLE

Naomi Rovnick

Four-partner Yorkshire firm Carrick Carr & Wright has been shut down after improperly paying nearly three quarters of a million pounds - half of it client money - into the office account


The firm’s partners have lost a High Court battle where they claimed the Law Society should not shut their practice down as this would infringe their human rights.
The Law Society intervened in the practice, shutting it down, taking the partners’ practising certificates away, freezing their bank accounts and closing the client account.

Carrick Carr, based in Bradford and Hull, has now been shut down. The four partners in the firm are senior partner John Wright, Philip Goodall, Michael East and David Prescott.

The partners applied to the High Court to have their practising certificates restored, contending “the decision to intervene infringed their human rights, in particular, the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions”, the judgment states.

According to the judg ment, the Law Society investigation into the practice discovered that there had been around £725,000 wrongly paid into the Carrick Carr office account. It also found that nearly half of this money had been wrongly transferred back into the client account at some point.

The judgment mentions: “Improper transfers from client to office account of £397,364.40, other improper payments into the office account so that the total is £725,116.83 which is to be offset against £339,756 of office account money wrongly paid into the client account.”

In the High Court, the four partners blamed a Mr Rooney, a cashier at Carrick Carr for 20 years, for significant breaches of the firm’s account rules over seven years. But the judge found there was “no evidence that Mr Rooney gained personally from his activities at the expense of the firm. This means the partners have gained.”
A Law Society intervention agent said the partners could not be contacted as the firm had been shut down.

The High Court ruling, handed down by Mr Justice John Behrens, represents a major victory for the Law Society, which is fighting various battles on this issue.
The society is currently appealing another High Court decision made against it in July which said its “draconian” method of shutting corrupt solicitors may contravene their right to personal property enshrined in the 1998 Human Rights Act.

The case, brought by sole practitioner David Holder, who had £200,000 missing from his client account, is being appealed by the Law Society.

Sex Pest Was Given A Council Reference

David Kay sentenced to four years in jail after conviction for sexual activity with a child

By Joe Willis


A 63-YEAR-OLD youth worker who had a history of inappropriate behaviour with young girls was able to get a job working alongside vulnerable teenagers because social services bosses failed to disclose his past.

Sex pest David Kay was sentenced to four years in jail last month after being convicted of three charges of sexual activity with a child while in a position of trust.

Kay was able to get a job working with young people because North Yorkshire Social Services failed to pass on the fact he had a history of improper behaviour towards teenage girls.

Last night, officials said a social services manager had resigned after details of the blunder came to light.

The mistake allowed Kay to begin a relationship with a vulnerable 17-year-old while working for Cumbria’s Connexions youth advice service.

Last month, the youth worker was jailed for four years.

Kay worked for the North Yorkshire council as a youth justice worker for eight years in the Nineties.

He was sacked for behaving inappropriately with young girls while based in Northallerton.

He was later reinstated, but given a role that meant he did not come into direct contact with children. After being made redundant, he applied to the Cumbrian youth advice service in Workington.

It was there that he began the relationship with the teenager that led to his prosecution.

During the trial, at Carlisle Crown Court, it emerged that Kay got the job in Cumbria after a North Yorkshire official failed to disclose details of his disciplinary record in a written reference.

Bosses at the Cumbrian youth service said they would not have appointed him if they had known about his past.

They have written to North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) demanding to know why details of his disciplinary record were not shared.

Following the court case, NYCC launched an investigation and suspended the unnamed official responsible.

Last night, the authority confirmed that the manager had resigned.

A spokesman said: “As a result of our investigation into the issue, North Yorkshire County Council has strengthened its processes with regard to giving references for staff where there have been conduct or capability issues, particularly relating to safeguarding children or vulnerable adults.

“While there are learning points for us from this case, we are confident that such a reference would not be given now.”

Kay, of High Seaton, Seaton, near Workington, had denied sexual activity with the Cumbrian girl, but was convicted after a trial.

The court heard how the teenager’s mother brought her to Connexions to get her life back on track after she had dropped out of school.

Kay and the girl began exchanging text messages and phone calls, and the relationship became sexual.

In her victim impact statement, the teenager revealed how Kay told her she would not be able to manage at college, that people of her own age were using her, and that she could not trust the adults trying to help her.

He often called her late at night and became angry if she missed his calls.

Kay was suspended after his colleagues became suspicious.

He persuaded the girl to withdraw the allegations against him and it was another three years before she went back to the police.

Greg Hoare, in mitigation, told the court his client was a broken man who had lost his good name and his chance to work.

After sentencing him, Judge Peter Hughes expressed concern that Kay was able to get his job.

He called for a thorough review of the case to establish what mistakes were made and how to ensure that they did not happen again.

Peter Bradley, deputy director of national children’s charity Kidscape, said yesterday that the case was a “huge concern”.

However, he added that the new vetting and barring scheme, due to be phased in next year, would prevent similar cases happening in the future.

Under the scheme, anyone working or volunteering in a supervisory role with children will have to be checked to ensure they do not pose a risk.

Mr Bradley said: “This case is a huge concern, but hopefully in the next year the scheme will bring to light those who pose a risk to children, meaning this does not happen again in the future.”

Kay was placed on the Sex Offender’s Register and banned for life from working with children.

It is an offence for any person in a position of trust to engage in sexual activity with a person under 18 who is in their charge.


http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4670333.Sex_pest_was_given_a_council_reference/

North Yorkshire County Council Chief Executive is leaving to return to his old stomping ground

Marsden returns to North Tyneside

By Jim Dunton



North Tyneside Council is hiring former chief executive John Marsden to return to the authority’s helm as interim replacement for Andrew Kerr.


Mr Kerr announced in November that he was leaving the authority to become chief executive at Wiltshire Council from February.

Mr Marsden, whose appointment has yet to be approved by a full council meeting, left North Tyneside in 2005 for North Yorkshire CC.

Elected Mayor Linda Arkley (Con) said her priority in appointing Mr Marsden was to ensure strong leadership at the council during the recession.

“Our residents expect us to deliver high quality services, but with value for money at their core,” she said.

“To achieve that we need a corporate management team with experience and expertise,” she said.

“John Marsden has both the excellent professional credentials that we need and knowledge about North Tyneside.

“When he worked for North Tyneside previously he supported it in improving from one of the poorest performing councils to one of the fastest improving councils in the country.”

Mr Marsden said he would leave North Yorkshire with mixed emotions because of the dedication of staff and councillors, but added that he was really looking forward to returning to North Tyneside.

“It is an area where I enjoyed working and I still have strong connections to the area,” he said.

North Tyneside’s strategic director for young people and learning, Gill Alexander, will serve as interim chief executive between Mr Kerr’s departure at the end of 2009 and Mr Marsden’s arrival in February

Abusive social worker Stanley Lansdell struck off

A SOCIAL worker who swore at a vulnerable child and sexually harassed a member of his family has been struck off.

Stanley Lansdell of Chester-le-Street, County Durham, used false references when applying for work through a specialist recruitment agency.

And after getting a position with a council in Yorkshire, he went on to verbally abuse a child in his care with cruel taunts and sent the youngster’s cousin perverted text messages.

The 52-year-old was yesterday removed from the Social Care Register after a hearing in London heard these and a catalogue of other allegations relating to his professional conduct.

The General Social Care Council’s conduct committee was told how, after getting a job with Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Mr Lansdell was charged with the care of a 13-year-old boy, known as Child F.

On one occasion he phoned the vulnerable youngster, who had a tendency to cross-dress, told him to “get lost”, swore at him and called him “gay”.

He told Child F that no one would believe him if he made a complaint and that he would be taken into care. The social worker also made highly inappropriate remarks to a member of Child F’s family.

He sexually harassed an 18-year-old woman, who he met through his work with the child, telephoning her in the middle of the night and sending her highly inappropriate text messages.

Mr Lansdell also preyed on another woman, who was in his care. He visited her home on several occasions, staying for more than two hours.

On one occasion he repeatedly told the woman she should not stay in the flat, and invited her to stay with him, telling her she could have a bath at his home.

After a two-day hearing, which Mr Lansdell did not attend, the committee determined he was guilty of misleading his employers and breaching professional boundaries while working for Bradford Social Services between February 2006 and April 2007. The committee agreed he had committed other blunders, such as failing to keep up-to-date files and giving misleading evidence in court.

Mr Lansdell was also accused of verbally abusing a colleague while working in a previous role at Darlington Borough Council, swearing at her and calling her fat.

The committee decided Mr Lansdell should be removed from the social work register immediately, saying he had serious attitude and personality problems and had grossly abused the trust of those he was supposed to be looking after