The 'trade' in children

Fausty links to an article in the Telegraph, which quotes from the Mail, about what would appear to be malpractice by a doctor working for children's social services.


On 7th March I posted about this subject and that of Hollie Grieg, from which:

"Without in any manner denigrating the importance of the Hollie Grieg case, it should also be remembered that week after week Christopher Booker, in his regular Sunday Telegraph columns, reports on the injustices of child protection courts - examples here, here, here, and here - in which judgements are handed down purely on assertions made by social services, assertions which parents are unable to question."

I ended that post thus:

"That the Hollie Greig case - and that of the child protection courts - leaves a nasty taste in the mouth cannot surely be denied. If questioned no doubt the powers that be will inform us that all decisions, both judicial and social, are taken with wisdom - yet there is an unpleasant smell starting to emanate."

If Dr Hibbert is guilty as alleged, then it must call into question all evidence that has been presented in child protection cases in which he has been involved. In that earlier post I asked some pertinent questions relating to what has actually happened to the 8,000 children taken into care each year for the past three years. Do the maths - that is 20+ children a day taken into care. 


Returning to Christopher Booker, his column for tomorrow deals with instances where the 'right' report has been bought. A random trawl of 126 cases found that two thirds of them were “poor” or “very poor” in quality; that 20 per cent of their authors had no proper qualifications; and that no fewer than 90 per cent of the authors were not practising psychologists but appeared to earn their livings, wholly or partly, from writing reports for social workers. As with Hibbert, this finding must also call into question the evidence presented in those 126 cases.


I don't know about an unpleasant smell starting to emanate - it has already become overpowering, fanned by the inactivity or interest of 649 MPs.




Update: Richard North posts on this problem - go read!

It is a mad, mad, mad world,

well country actually, in which we live - and, dare one say, corrupt to the core. I am indebted to fellow bloggers Richard North, Julia M via Orphans of Liberty,  Quiet Man, IanPJonPolitics and Fausty for articles which demonstrate the fact that we have allowed ourselves to be governed - in one form or another - by idiots.


Richard North, EU Referendum, picking up on an article in the Sunday Telegraph delves deeper and finds that the ST figure is but the tip of the iceberg. Whilst the story may be apocryphal, perhaps the political elite have not heard of the story involving King Canute, which according to Wikipedia informs us that Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws". Indeed, it is not only the power of kings that is empty and worthless - but also that of politicians with their belief they can control nature.


From Julia M, via Orphans of Liberty, we are alerted to this story - one also blogged by Quiet Man - of a 7-year-old child being accused of uttering a racist remark. Just what planet are those in authority, who are involved in the actions taken, from? It must be one on which common sense is not a requirement on attaining adulthood.


IanPJonPolitics writes on the case of Hollie Grieg and in particular the circumstances surrounding Robert Green (do follow all IPJ's links). From IPJ and a press release we learn that Robert Green has been a most robust and valued campaigner on behalf of Hollie Greig and her mother Anne, in seeking justice for the wrongs inflicted upon Hollie, exposing the lack of a duty of care from those in positions of trust, the perjury of Grampian Police and highlighting the nefarious nature of the legal system and the Establishment in both Scotland and England. I understand that in the case of Robert Green's arrest and subsequent detention certain legal processes were not followed to the letter, which leads one to question just how safe is anyone who dares to challenge the state? Once those in authority can 'bend the law' for their own ends then totalitarianism has truly arrived.


Last, but not least I come to this post by Fausty on the reported sacking of Judge Napolitano from Fox News for an 'inappropriate' broadcast, one in which he asks a series of "What if" questions.

Whilst this video (well worth watching) is aimed at a United States audience, just substitute Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats; Cameron, MilibandE and Clegg, for the American references and then apply Napolitano's "What if" questions. I would add a few "What if" questions. What if we, the people, rose up and slaughtered our entire political elite and what if we then instituted in place of our representative democracy (aka democratised dictatorship), direct democracy? What if, besides instituting a recall system for politicians we also brought in a system whereby bureaucrats in both national and local government could be 'recalled' and placed before a jury of the people to answer for their misdemeanours? What if we made a system of 'Referism' mandatory?

What if we, the people, 'grew a pair'?

Just asking.............




Afterthought: I cannot resist the temptation to paraphrase Enoch Powell - We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting an elected - and unelected - cabal to rule us, to change our nation state, to change our traditions, to change our society and thereby to change 'us'. I repeat, what we need to do is to change 'them' - unfortunately Enoch forgot that bit........

Politics in our country is rotten to the core......

.....because honesty and openness, principle and honour amongst politicians appear to be characteristics that are most noticeable by their absence. Let us consider three examples which have occurred during the last 48 hours.


1. Yesterday Richard North, EU Referendum, posted on a statement by Cameron, one which in a related post I intimated meant that he, Cameron, had misled the House of Commons. Today, Richard North posts yet another example of the duplicity of Cameron who presents a new 'initiative' when that 'initiative' is anything but. There are other examples of Cameron introducing 'policy', policy that is in effect putting in place 'programmes' that originate from the European Union. The most obvious examples are HS2-Trans European Network-Transport and the Big Society - European Year of Volunteering 2011.


2. Jack Dromey has been 'censured' by the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges (the irony of that title escapes the minds of MPs, obviously!) That the report issued by that committee finds that whilst Dromey did wrong, the fact he was a new MP with a heavy workload is sufficient for him to be 'excused'? The man is an astute political operator - you don't become one of the hierarchy in a trade union without so being and it has to be remembered that as Mr. Harriet Harman he has no doubt enjoyed many moments of 'pillow talk'.  So Dromey 'apologises' for the error of his ways a fiddle he hoped he would get away with and all is forgiven? The report of their findings can be read here and it is worth dwelling a moment on the MPs comprising that committee whilst bearing in mind the Daily Telegraph Expenses findings, the brief details being placed in brackets:


Rt hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair) - (Kevin Barron claimed London flat in 2004-05 as his second home with a monthly mortgage interest of £1,509, which rose to £1,791 in 2005-06. It increased in 2007-08 to more than £2,000)
Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) - (Sir Paul Beresford, who works up to three days a week as a dentist, designated his west London property, which includes his surgery, as his second home on his parliamentary allowances)
Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole) - (Annette Brooke pays £1,124 a month rent for a flat in London and makes few other claims. One was £149.95 for a vacuum cleaner)
Rt hon Tom Clarke MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) - (Tom Clarke designated the Sloane Club in Chelsea as second home, and claimed about £1,500 a month while in London. Claimed £400 a month for food)
Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) - (Geoffrey Cox QC made monthly mortgage interest payments of £1,750 in 2005-06 and 2006-07. This was his only regular claim)
Matthew Hancock MP (Conservative, West Suffolk) - (Entered Parliament in May 2010)
Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) - (Oliver Heald's second home is a flat in south London. Has spent £5,258 on refurbishing his bathroom as well as £2,891 on new windows. Bought three lavatory brushes in as many years)
Julie Hilling MP (Labour, Bolton West) - (Entered Parliament May 2010)
Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) - (Entered Parliament May 2010)
Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) - (Alan Whitehead claimed mortgage interest payments of up to £730 per month on his second home in London. Also claimed £1,942.98 for a replacement boiler)


3. When Cameron and Clegg usurped power, following the results of the 2010 General election, they subsequently produced a document/manifesto entitled: "The Coalition - our programme for government". From page 27 of that document:

"We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters  to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents."

Aha, everyone thought - at last we can have some control over these people. Not so, I'm afraid, as what was a deliberately loosely worded political promise (and what political promise is not loosely worded in a manifesto, or anywhere else come to that?) results in we the people having virtually no power on which to recall any MP who it is felt has questions to answer.


From Fausty's blog we learn that:

"All of them agreed (as did the Committee), that the government's recall bill, if implemented, would have the opposite effect on politics to what its proponents purport to want. It would cause further deterioration in confidence in the democratic process."

Today the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee held a hearing into the Recall Bill (video on Faustys blog).

So what has happened in the last 48 hours (which is no different to what has happened for yonks now) is that (1) a Prime Minister has tried - or intends trying - to pass off initiatives as his own, when in fact all he is doing is pre-empting legislation which will be imposed, at some time in the not too distant future, on our country from Brussels. In other words, he has lied to/misled the country; (2) an MP has been caught taking money which he did not declare (and I accuse, knowingly) - judged by some whose own behaviour is questionable; and (3) two politicians contrived to mislead the public by presenting a promise they had no intention of keeping.

Come election time the voters are asked to place their trust in representatives who maintain that they will govern in the best interests of the country - that they do not and obviously have no intention of so doing becomes more obvious by the day. So just why the hell do we, the people, continually re-elect these bastards back time and time again? Are we so blind that the Labour Party, comprising politicians that got us into the present financial problem, are now as equally popular as the present Coalition, if opinion polls are to be believed? Are we so blind that the present Coalition is equally trusted when the three examples above show they are no better than the last lot of thieves/conmen they replaced? Having shown that they lack any sense of honesty and openness, principle and honour, why have we not attached them to the nearest lamppost? Why when local authorities impose draconian measures have we not meted out similar punishment? Are we that cowed?

Is not Cameron acting as a dictator, not just in his attitude to Salmond and the question of Scottish Independence, but in every action he takes? He can decide whether Fred Goodwin retains his knighthood? Where is the people's voice in that decision? Salmond decides that he wants a referendum on Scottish Independence and wishes to set the question(s) put - is that not a decision for the people? Cameron decides to intervene in the pay of top executives in the private sector - is that not a decision for the shareholders of those companies?

Our politicians extract money from our earnings by force, not having given any indication why that money is needed and on what it will be spent; they decide to engage in wars and then 'cry tears' every Wednesday at PMQs over the lost lives of our servicemen, all without the express consent of the people; they decide to loan our money to the IMF, at a reduced rate of interest from that which has to be paid for the initial loan, without asking for our agreement; they instigate procedures, funded by our money, but then are 'shocked' when they don't work; they decide who can and cannot vote in the Scottish referendum; we could well be deprived of plastic bags when visiting a supermarket - and our 'government' cannot but comply; and finally we have a Conservative MP, Bernard Jenkin, stating that there is a "ferociously negative" public perception of politics; that action needed to be taken, as it was "not in the public interest to keep reinforcing that narrative". If anything demonstrated that these bastards believe they are a 'class apart' and that they believe in the present system of democratised dictatorship, then it is surely that statement!

Just who the hell do these politicians think they are? I am fully aware that we British are supposed to be slow to anger - so will someone please light a fire under their backsides?

Wheels within wheels

Fausty today posts the question whether it has been noticed how militarised the United Kingdom is becoming. She also asks the obvious question whether Theresa May is acclimatising us to being 'policed' by the military; does she and the other politicians temporarily in charge of our democracy realise what they're doing and if so, why are they doing it? If not, why are the cretins still in charge?


That the future of our nation is no longer in the hands of our politicians is best explained by referring to two related posts by Ian Parker-Joseph; this, first published in 2009, from which:

"The EU idea of European Defence is more akin to that of the old Soviet Union’s, that of ‘taking care’ of internal dissenters, keeping the people harnessed, civilian interrogation methods, militarisation of the police, smudging the lines between civilian and military and the use of the military in internal scenarios."

and this published in 2010, from which:

"Lets go back in time a bit. Back to the days when Tony Blair ruled supreme in the UK, and not long after the horrendous events of 9/11. The UK, like most other western nations started to implement a flood of anti-terror legislation. But who wrote it? (it is all virtually identical in just about every country), and who checked to see if it was being implemented properly."

Do read both posts as they are, with anything that IPJ publishes, informative and they lay bare information that never gets to appear in our supine MSM.


Theresa May, who like her colleagues is but one of Les Marionettes de Bruxelles, knows damn well what she does and why she does it. As to why, as one of the cretins, she is where she is can only be explained by the fact that the public have not the faintest idea what is happening behind their backs - political 'transparency' only goes so far, after all.

Why 'government' costs so much.........

From Fausty's comments:

"Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of nowhere. Parliament said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Parliament said, "How does the night watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Parliament asked, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Parliament said, "How are these people going to get paid and administered?" So they created the following positions, two time keepers and three payroll officers, and then hired four human resources consultants and five health and safety executives.

Then Parliament said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired fifty people including administrative officers, assistant administrative officers, legal secretaries and a chief executive on £250,000 per annum.

Then Parliament said, "We have had this in operation for over one year and we are £25,000,000 over budget, we must cutback the overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman. "

To which my comment - which appears to have been lost in the ether - was that 'we' allowed it to happen.

There is a better way people! More of which later - at the weekend........

Cameronspeak

As we all know David Cameron made a speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet last night, one entitled ‘Foreign Policy in the National Interest’- the text of which can be found here. A number of bloggers have passed comment on this speech amongst whom are Richard North, Fausty, The Purple Scorpion and Quiet Man.

There was nothing of substance in Cameron's speech and it is noticeable that the word repatriation of powers appears to have been dropped (as we were informed by Bruno Waterfield) and now the buzz word appears to be 'reform'. There was not one word of any plan for 'reform' - or repatriation - nor any hint of a timescale. Not one word on how differences in the Coalition would be dealt with, neither was there any word on what stance he would take if the cries for 'more Europe, not less' persisted. For someone who told his party not to become obsessed with 'Europe' but now finds himself having to deal with 'Europe', almost on a daily basis, the irony is delightful to behold.

Cameron, like others, continues to use false statistics and arguments in his zeal to remain a member of the EU - witness he repeats 50% of our trade is with the EU; intimating that leaving the EU would make us poorer and subject to rules about which we had no input, citing Norway as an example; letting the public believe that he can bring about change all by himself, whilst ignoring that any change requires the agreement of the other 26 member states. Once again we are told it is his belief that we are better off inside the EU - since when was this man granted what amounts to dictatorial powers to make that decision without asking those he is meant to serve and who fund his salary?

Cameron is delusional although extremely clever and evidence of this is his stated promise that he will do everything possible to reform the EU - do note the caveat 'everything possible'. He can talk to the EU until he is blue in the face and come away with nothing but will then be able to present himself to the British public whilst wringing his hands and telling us that he tried. Not that Cameron is the only delusional political leader as so are Miliband E and Clegg - and it would not surprise me, come the next parliament and whichever one of these clowns is 'in power', that with the continuing march to ever closer union we will be told it is in our interests to join the euro - assuming of course that the EU zealots in Brussels have managed to keep that currency afloat.

The penny appears to have dropped with Cameron

if this report is to be believed as from the tone it appears David Cameron has ceased 'demanding' and now appears to be 'pleading' to be heard. The irony of Cameron now pleading with the 17 eurozone countries is delicious when one realises that this entire problem is one he and Osborne helped create with his insistence that the eurozone countries sort themselves out. How he intends fighting to prevent closer integration of the Eurozone countries leading to anti-competitive regulations when he is now one of the minority countries remains to be seen. If he believes he can pull that off, then I would like to see him walk on water first.

"Stormin' Norman" posts a question I have previously raised:

"Last Monday, I asked in the House of Lords whether an agreement by the seventeen eurozone member states to make agreements outside the Council of Ministers and then to vote in the Council as a bloc for such agreements would constitute a transfer of powers sufficient to trigger a referendum here. Lord Strathclyde, the Government Leader in the Lords, understood my point clearly enough. That was that the eurozone group can always outvote the remaining member states. What we said or how we voted would have no effect on the decisions which they reached.
Tom Strathclyde confirmed that as no treaty amendment was involved, no referendum would be triggered. Now it seems that the Prime Minister has understood the problem. We and the other nine states outside the eurozone have been disfranchised on many of the key questions of taxation and commercial regulation."

Any loss of ability by a country to set it's own taxation and economic policies constitutes a loss of power, treaty change or no treaty change.

One point that I fail to understand in Norman Tebbit's post is his referral to a possible 'third way'. If we are one of the countries forming a minority group within the 27, just how do we try to develop an alternative European architecture to preserve open and free markets in our mutual interest? Off with your head is correct when she writes that the European Union has consistently tried to solve the eurozone crisis by making small and insignificant gestures, which quickly crumble under scrutiny.

Interestingly one of the aims of the European Union, in their wish to create a United States of Europe, has been their attempts to 'kill' any sense of nationalism, yet is that not the card Merkel and Sarkozy are playing in their desire to be 'top dog'? It is, in my view, nationalism that will contribute to the downfall of the EU and I can but echo Fausty:

"There's nothing inherently wrong with nationalism. Countries are nations. Countries' leaders used to act in the national interest, but now work for globalism, even if that works against the national interest.
Corporations write our laws - be they from the EU or from our own government. They write them to reduce competition from the little guy and to garner tax favours or waivers for immigration/settlement laws. These global entities have become too big to fail, and yet they themselves represent the very antithesis of the free market economy.
Your homework for tonight: Explore the true meaning of nationalism and discuss its use as a firewall in a global system. "

Norman Tebbit is correct when he reminds us that the history of this kingdom has been one of having to intervene in our own interest to save the masters of Europe from their follies. First though we leave and when Europe has 'gone up in flames' (be that literal or metaphorical matters not) then once again we can indeed go in and try and set them on the path of recovery (again!).