Awards for all

From Kevin Maguire on Twitter:

"Press Awards very well behaved. So far. Guardian and Sun tables more than a bun throw apart"

Press awards? Awards for what? Reproducing politicians verbiage virtually word for word? Oh, I forgot - just remembered you can train monkeys to do almost anything.


I have no idea if he is present - and if he is, he stands a cats chance in hell of getting an award - but in my book the only journalist worthy of an award for his continual great writing is Christopher Booker.

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!

Justice? How? Where? When?

"The course of justice often prevents it."
Edward Counsel, Maxims

"Justice in the hands of the powerful is merely a governing system like any other. Why call it justice? Let us rather call it injustice, but of a sly effective order, based entirely on cruel knowledge of the resistance of the weak, their capacity for pain, humiliation and misery. Injustice sustained at the exact degree of necessary tension to turn the cogs of the huge machine-for-the-making-of-rich-men, without bursting the boiler."
Georges Bernanos, The Diary of a Country Priest

 Yesterday I posted on the case of Hollie Grieg and the injustices involved in her case. Yesterday a post appeared on the campaign website "Hollie Demands Justice", from which:

"Then there is the case of Jim Boyling, embedded police officer in the Reclaim the Streets campaign. Boyling was undercover, using the name Jim Sutton, between 1995 and 2000 in the campaign Reclaim the Streets, which organised colourful, nonviolent demonstrations against the overuse of cars, such as blocking roads and holding street parties.

But the real damage is done when, as has now been exposed, Police Chiefs authorised undercover officers embedded in protest groups to give false evidence in court in order to protect their undercover status. When Boyling went into the witness box at the trial, he swore under oath that he was Sutton, and gave evidence under questioning from the barrister for the defendants and the prosecution, according to a legal note of the hearing.

As defence lawyers said at the time:

"This case raises the most fundamental constitutional issues about the limits of acceptable policing, the sanctity of lawyer-client confidentiality, and the integrity of the criminal justice system. At first sight, it seems that the police have wildly overstepped all recognised boundaries."

So, someone sworn to uphold the law, is permitted to lie under oath?

Christopher Booker, in his latest column in the Sunday Telegraph, posts the harrowing tale of a mother of two small sons - go read it and then wonder how the law allows social services to make her life a misery, cost her promotion and eventually her job. As Booker writes:

"As the number of children seized by social workers soars to a record level of more than 225 a week, David Cameron merely urges that we must speed up the process whereby only 4 percent of those taken are being adopted – oblivious to the possibility that many should never be removed in the first place."

Who allowed situations such as the above to flourish?  Politicians? True - but they are not the only culprit because we, the people, were complicit too. We, the people have, by our apathy and our disinterest in the actions of our politicians, allowed them to perpetrate all manner of evil upon us - not just in judicial matters - but in matters relating to our society, our nation and its governance, our freedoms, our thoughts, our actions and our speech.

If the course of justice often prevents it, then logically, there is something wrong with our system of justice. If politicians have been allowed, for political ideology, to 'fiddle' with our society, our nation and its governance, our freedoms, our thoughts, our actions and speech, then, logically, there is something wrong with our politicians, our political system and our democracy.

If justice does remain in the hands of the powerful as it surely does, then it is no more than a political tool by which politicians and the 'elite' of our society 'control' we, the people. It must then follow, logically, as free men and women supposedly in a free democracy that there is something drastically wrong with that system of democracy which is currently imposed on us.

It is apparent that we are unable to rely on those we elect to safeguard our nation and its governance, our society and our freedoms - which begs the question what are we to do? It is regrettable that we cannot look to the Lib/Lab/Con to address these concerns; neither, unfortunately, does it appear we can look to the alternative offered, namely Ukip. In respect of the latter party there is no mention in their policies of re-balancing what is obviously examples of injustice. For a party that presents itself as an alternative government - one totally different to the Lib/Lab/Con - not one word have I heard on the subject of Hollie Grieg, nor the matter of children being removed by social services for what can only be described as spurious reasons - coupled with what are draconian restraints imposed on the parent(s).

If there is no justice in a country there can be no country. I am fast coming to the conclusion that a new party will need to be created; one that will promote an alternative system of democracy and which incorporates the element of referism, which hands power to the people so that they can decide the future of their country; one that allows the people to decide what is justice and what is not.

The system under which we live is not a democracy, the justice meted out is not an acceptable system of justice - both democracy and justice have become nothing but an extension of the art of dictatorship.

And we all know how dictatorships end - they get strung up!

So, just who is using their public position to protect themselves?

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The phrase: "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done" is attributed to Gordon Hewart, in Rex v. Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy (1924).


PJC Journal - IPJonPolitics has two further posts, here and here, on the Hollie Grieg case; both of which are required reading. Both posts are required reading as it is stated that documentary evidence exists which shows that the justice system is being manipulated for personal protection and gain by certain individuals in political and public positions.


We are informed that Lady Justice depicts justice as equipped with three symbols: a sword symbolizing the court's coercive power; a human scale weighing competing claims in each hand; and a blindfold indicating impartiality. In the case of Hollie Grieg it would seem that Lady Justice has indeed wielded her sword with coercive power; that the scales perhaps need checking by weights and measures; and that the blindfold appears to have been completely transparent.


In my post yesterday I referred to child protection courts and Christopher Booker who regularly writes about the injustices of those courts. In one of those posts (at least I am sure it was he) Booker wrote about a child who happened to mention to one of her classmates that she had been smacked the previous day. This was overheard by a teacher who promptly reported the matter resulting in the parents having the police and social services 'crawling all over them' ending with the child being taken into care - and, unless I am confusing cases, the father has had to move out of the maritial home.


Now, whilst accepting that any cruelty to a child is not acceptable, are there not degrees of cruelty? Is not smacking a child permitted, providing one does not leave a mark? Would not any sane person accept and agree that a charge of rape warrants just as much, if not more, investigatory effort as that of smacking? Yet this has plainly not been the case in respect of Hollie Grieg.


I would pose two questions to readers, in the hope they may feel moved to become involved in the campaign "Justice for Hollie". Suppose Hollie was your child? How would you feel? Suppose you had been forced to move from your maritial home at the behest of social services? How would you feel?

Juvenile justice

Where children are concerned it could be said that the justice meted out is juvenile in that it beggars belief those adults within (and without) the system can believe it is reasoned.


I would direct readers to a post from PJCJournal-IanPJonPolitics in relation to the Hollie Grieg case, to which is linked that of Robert Green. IPJ's post contains a 40+ minute video which is well worth watching. That the MSM do not, or have been 'requested' not to, cover this case is illustrated by the fact that SKY, who had cameras present waiting for Ryan Giggs, did not want to know about Hollie Grieg. On that point, the remarks by Brian Gerrish in the video are most telling. That not one Scottish MP raises this matter in the HoC, coupled with the fact it is ignored by the MSM, would seem to also confirm the suspicion that an edict of silence exists from somewhere 'on high'.


The accusation of 'cover-up' because of the high-profile people involved in cases of abuse and paedophilia, an accusation made in the Hollie Grieg case, coupled with the accusation that court proceedings appear to get 'shut down' or 'diverted' when a clear connection to the elite arises is not, it seems, confined to this country as a very recent news item shows.


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 judgments are handed down purely on assertions made by social services, assertions which parents are unable to question.


Digressing slightly, a post on Orphans of Liberty relating to a draft bill prepared by the Western Australian Mental Health Commission, leads one to question whether those who can devise such a bill - and those involved in the Hollie Grieg and child protection courts - are fit to live in civilised society.


Both IPJ in his post and Brian Gerrish in the video make reference to how close the UK justice system is becoming to a Soviet system where the state control over people is concerned. This raises questions such as how do we know that children removed from the parental home are cared for properly; how do we know they are still in the UK; if not already fostered, where are they kept if, as reported, an average of over 8,000 children were taken into care each year for the past three years? Do they attend normal schools or is special schooling provided - and if the latter exactly what type of education is provided; does the education provided meet statutory guidelines, or are they being educated to become model european citizens with a common purpose?


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 eminate.


In the words of Henry David Thoreau:

"There is no odour so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted"

A different 'wind of change' required?

Within his Sunday Telegraph regular column, once again Christopher Booker manages to hit three nails on the head. First, he shows how and why the European Union is doomed to fail; second, where he hopes that Edward Heath is indeed in Hell when writing: "If only Edward Heath could look up to see where his hubris has led us to."; and third, where he highlights the draconian attitude of our social workers where the well being of a child is concerned.


Never mind that Christopher Booker should be awarded a Knighthood for his work, one which won't be forthcoming needless to say; he can perhaps console himself that - and long may the day be in coming - when it is his turn to 'look down'.............


Just saying, CB................

Scared To Death

From the Introduction of the book by the same title as that of this post (Authors: Richard North and Christopher Booker):

"In the night, imagine some fear, how easy is a bush supposed to be a bear"
A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1

In the past twenty years, Western society in general and Britain in particular has been in the grip of a remarkable and very dangerous psychological phenomenon. Again and again since the 1980s we have seen the rise of some great fear, centered on a mysterious new threat to human health and wellbeing. As a result we are told, large numbers of people will suffer or die."

To 'dangerous and psychological phenomenon' I would add 'political news releases' (although same thing, really). It cannot have escaped the attention of those with a brain that when times get difficult for governments of all hues, suddenly there is a 'scare' or 'announcement of great concern'. Witness only today, when Cameron should have been skewered by his 'eurosceptic' backbenchers in the HoC (but wasn't - no surprise there, then!) another 'story' 'breaks', that of Fred the Shred being stripped of his knighthood. Ever noticed how, when awkward questions are asked of government, suddenly there is 'something' more important - an 'importance', the level of which is increased with the assistance of what is suppose to be an 'independent' media?


And we are not being 'thought-controlled'? We are not being 'led'? 'Newspeak' doesn't exist?


C'mon people - wise up!

Political principals

Iain Martin writes in the Daily Telegraph, an article of nine paragraphs - and which on first reading I was about to dismiss as nine paragraphs of the usual political written excreta - when it dawned on me that actually it was rather good in that it showed up the lack of principle Cameron - and politicians in general - actually have. With the points raised, Martin shows (although he probably hasn't realised it) how every decision Cameron has made has been for one reason only, namely to maintain his position and grip on power. In a related article in the same newspaper, Christopher Booker likewise shows how a politician, in this case Obama, is concerned only with his career - and therefore, in common with Cameron; to hell with principle.


That the people seem content to allow and continually partake in a system which permits what amounts to the practice of dictatorship, - and this in a system that is supposed to be democratic - beggars belief. It is beyond doubt that both Obama and Cameron are, indeed, Judas Goats leading we, the sheep, to our slaughter both metaphorically and physically. But then sheep are supposedly held to be 'brain dead', are they not?


Where, oh where, is the politician or journalist willing to educate the people and show them how they are being screwed by the political class? Of the former it can be said that Nigel Farage does try - however it would seem he has been handed the wrong script. In the journalistic field the only ones who spring to mind are Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Gerald Warner - and possibly Norman Tebbitt, although doubts remain there.


When the people are safely corralled it is obvious from whence the loudest bleating will come - yup, the sheep!

Their cards are marked

So ends Richard North, EU Referendum, on his post relating to Christopher Booker's column in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph on the subject of the Carbon Plan. Richard writes:

"When we come calling on those who should have known better, those who could have done something and didn't, they cannot say they didn't know or didn't have the opportunity to find out."

And 'come calling' we most certainly will - and it won't just be about the Carbon Plan, either!

An unashamed plug

"The BBC And Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal" by Christopher Booker


H/T: Fausty

Children in Care

We all know that politicians love nothing better than a passing bandwagon on which to jump, but David Cameron's latest attempt takes the proverbial biscuit! Announcing yet another 'pledge' he intends to tackle the adoption system's problems with a number of reforms.What with 'pledges' and 'crackdowns' it is a wonder that politicians have time for anything else - but I digress.

Christopher Booker has written reams of articles, mainly in his Sunday Telegraph columns, about the draconian and dictatorial attitudes of childrens services taking children into care on what appears to be 'spurious' reasons, often coupled with judiciary complicity. I have previously written on this subject, linking to the articles by Booker, here, here, here and here. 

If Cameron wishes to garner votes he might better spend his time looking at those families that have been torn apart by childrens social services - and in so doing tackling another subject that is a 'crime that dare not speak its name'. That MPs have not thought this a subject of concern, unlike their expenses and the rapidity of repayment, shows where their priorities lie!

Just saying................