Jason Biddulph - M6 protester
Stan Mould
against the care order made by the appalling Judge Donald ('Jabba the
Hutt') Hamilton of Birmingham County Court, which resulted in he and his
wife, Sam, having five of their six children taken in the 'care' of
Birmingham Social Services. Four of the children were placed with
elderly foster parents in Warwickshire.
Jason and his wife, Sam and his mother Ann yesterday removed two of
their children from the foster parents who were 'looking after' four of
his children at their school. One child was not there because he was
'naughty' by not filling his potty on time and so was left alone in the
house while both foster parents took the other three children to school.
Interestingly, whilst on holiday with the foster parents, one child who
has problems with encopresis (faecal soiling), did so. Not only was she
made to clear the soiling up herself (she is about 6), she was then made
to sit apart from her siblings and foster parents for the rest of the
day and not allowed to join in any activities. Passers-by and other
holiday makers were told she must sit alone because she had 'made a
mess' and was not worthy of joining in with the rest of them. It seems
that bowel problems are something of an issue with the foster parents.
Jason and Sam had discovered where the children were some months ago and
being so distraught at their loss, had taken to going to the school in
the mornings or afternoons just to catch a glimpse of them all.
They were warned not to torture themselves in this way, but obviously
things must have become too much for them. The three people went to the
children's school yesterday and removed two of the children of the three
that were there. In the commotion, the eldest was grabbed by teachers
and removed. Ann Biddulph was held down by three staff members and
arrested later by the police.
Jason and Samantha managed to remove Daniel and Chelsea and went to
Great Yarmouth, where they were caught by the police last night. All
three will be returned to the West Midlands this weekend. It looks as
if they can kiss goodbye to any chance of return of the children, and
their freedom for a while as well.
Jason has an 8 month suspended sentence from his incident when blocking
the M6, and Samantha has outstanding charges for abducting her youngest
daughter, Sophie, on a previous occasion, and for assaulting a social
worker who provoked and taunted her outside court..
So, yet again, we see people driven to distraction by a lousy, rotten,
secretive and corrupt family law system and a judge with the manners of
a public school lout who was so obviously prejudiced against the parents
that a complaint has been made to the Lord Chancellor.
Whilst what they did was wrong, any parent will confirm it was also
entirely understandable.
Richard Miller
"Stan Mould" <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PTnt7.7777$iG3.7...@news1.cableinet.net...
> Jason Biddulph was the guy who stopped the M6 in May with his protest
> against the care order made by the appalling Judge Donald ('Jabba the
> Hutt') Hamilton of Birmingham County Court, which resulted in he and his
> wife, Sam, having five of their six children taken in the 'care' of
> Birmingham Social Services. Four of the children were placed with
> elderly foster parents in Warwickshire.
>
Your posting demonstrates that (assuming the reports to be accurate) these
foster parents were entirely inappropriate and should not be allowed to
foster.
What it does not explain is why the care order was made in the first place.
Is there any reason to believe that the children would have been in less
harm if they had remained with their parents? I don't know the answer, I am
just asking. Also, why was one of the children *not* taken into care?
This sort of background would be very useful to assist in coming to views
about the case overall.
Richard Miller
scoff
> Whilst what they did was wrong, any parent will confirm it was also
> entirely understandable.
But what is not understandable is why they were removed from the parent's in
the first place!
Was a previous child not killed while in the care of the parents? or is that
from another hard luck story! I can't remember...they are getting so
frequent!
As for the Foster parents, is this not a separate issue? Nothing to do with
the plight of the parents, just thrown in there to add a sense of pity!
So what is your question? Or were you just alerting us to the fact you have
nothing better to do, other than post your drivel to these news groups, as
if anyone gives a shit?
John Hill
wrote:
>
>But what is not understandable is why they were removed from the parent's in
>the first place!
>
>Was a previous child not killed while in the care of the parents? or is that
>from another hard luck story! I can't remember...they are getting so
>frequent!
>
IIRC the child died, not quite the same thing.
>As for the Foster parents, is this not a separate issue? Nothing to do with
>the plight of the parents, just thrown in there to add a sense of pity!
>
>So what is your question? Or were you just alerting us to the fact you have
>nothing better to do, other than post your drivel to these news groups, as
>if anyone gives a shit?
Wanker.
JH
ok
John Hill <jo...@recruitcrm.co.uk> wrote in message
> >So what is your question? Or were you just alerting us to the fact you
have
> >nothing better to do, other than post your drivel to these news groups,
as
> >if anyone gives a shit?
>
> Wanker.
>
> JH
JH, Why don't you say what your question was instead of this childish
reply?? (assuming it was originally your post about Biddulph)
Ok
Cynic
> So what is your question? Or were you just alerting us to the fact you
have
> nothing better to do, other than post your drivel to these news groups, as
> if anyone gives a shit?
I have no idea of your family position. If however you ever have children
that you love, and they are one day removed from you by force of law, you
may start to "give a shit".
I, too would like to know the reasons that the children were removed in the
first place. I have seen and heard of too many cases where children have
been removed completely unnecessarily to immediately assume that the reasons
were good and justified - but OTOH I cannot assume without details that they
were not justified.
Last week I heard of yet another over-reaction from the social services. A
6 year-old child told his teacher that his father had chased him with a
broom, trying to hit him. The boy was laughing when he told the story, but
the teacher thought she should tell SS about it "just in case". The family
has been devastated by the resulting furore, and will have to prove that the
child is not being abused (medical checks have already established that the
child is healthy and has no signs of abuse). The parents insist that the
incident was simply the father chasing his child through the house in play,
which the child has confirmed. The SS have explained that the use of a
broomstick in such play activity is entirely inappropriate, and leaves a
question mark as to the true motives of the father. The parents have
fortunately "co-operated" and so it will hopefully fizzle out after a few
months. It will leave behind a legacy though. The parents will never again
indulge in any play activity with their child that could possibly be
misconstrued. The child will learn to keep his mouth shut in future, and
not tell anyone what goes on in private. The child has already become
withdrawn as a result of the strain in the family - which I fully expect the
SS to claim is "proof" of abuse.
--
Cynic
ok
Cynic <none@none> wrote in message
>
> > So what is your question? Or were you just alerting us to the fact you
> have
> > nothing better to do, other than post your drivel to these news groups,
as
> > if anyone gives a shit?
>
> I have no idea of your family position. If however you ever have children
> that you love, and they are one day removed from you by force of law, you
> may start to "give a shit".
I think you too are over reacting, Scoff was merely trying to get the
poster to say exactly what was the point of the posting was it a question?
if so what was the question? or was it really just drivel? god knows we get
enough trolls in here.
Your example of the broomstick is i agree completely ludicrous, it is a
crazy authoritarian system.
Ok
John Hill
>JH, Why don't you say what your question was instead of this childish
>reply?? (assuming it was originally your post about Biddulph)
It wasn't and I did.
JH
Jon
"ok" <o...@ok.net> wrote in message
news:2yXt7.9238$KJ4.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Well, I have never seen Stan Mould post anything that could be called
"drivel" - and I think newsgroup postings occasionally reveal more about how
the real world works, and more about the injustices suffered by helpless
people, than you could ever read in the newspapers. In the case he cited,
the children were badly let down by a system that was supposed to protect
them. No doubt the professionals involved in the case will write up their
reports in such a way as to exculpate themselves.
All too often, children are taken from their parents who love them, and
given to foster parents who are not adequately screened or supervised. The
Anna Climbie case is very much in the news, and let us not forget that she
was abused not by her parents but by an aunt and the aunt's boyfriend. When
that particular public inquiry is over, we can expect even more interference
by social services. It is difficult to imagine how you can improve the
system because it depends so much on the skills and sympathies of individual
social workers.
--
Jon
Jon
wrote:
The problem is they are damned if they do, and damed if they don't...
But the times, such as the Broom stick, don't make the press. Often
these mistakes are prevented from being reported due to the automatic
gagging orders surrounding children. Only if the parents are forcefull
enough to damn the concequenses by going to the press do we ever hear
about these "abuses," often this action is enough to "justify" the
SS'vs as the parents have now proved themselfs to be irisponsible and
against the law.
It is wrong that the system [SS'vs] have so much power, with so few
controls. There is no one watching the watchers.
The odd thing is that a lot of magistrates and GP's actually have a
very low opinion of SS'vs... but as the overiding body of authority
[knowledge] it is very hard, and in-advisable, for a magistrate to
ignore a recomendation put forward by SS'vs. I don't know if this also
plays out with Judges, as I haven't talked to [don't know] any!
One major problem is that there are very few psychiatrists, yet many
psycoligists... often this oligy is deemed to impart wisdom and
understanding where none exists. The training required to be a SS'vs
case worker is limited, and biased and based on false premises. It has
more to do with a feeling, and less to do with fact and case historys.
As the SS'vs can request the court to make judgements based on
assumptions or probability, and even extreemly low posibilitys and
"slim chances", the judgements become self justifying... after all if
SS'vs always get their way, they must be correct!
A Psychiatrist often has to first deal with the problems that SS'vs
have introduced, such as the feeling that something happened to that
child that was somehow the childs fault, the questioning and tests
performed often introduce more problems than the _potential_ abuse or
problems that have occured. Even more disturbing is the fact that a
SS'vs investigation can, as Cynic said, cause a child to refuse to
discuss things to other adults for fear that they will place their
parents in more jeporday... even if their parents are not the cause.
The child also learns that many things the parents do can have other
meanings, to be interprated as the child dictates... a clever
[devious] child will use such power to gain the upper hand in
arguments, a slower child will learn to distrust their parents. In
both cases the child learns that their parents no longer have absolute
control or knowledge, in the worst cases the parents loose all respect
and authority over the child... they are them denegrated by society
and SS'vs as being unfit.
The stupid thing is that the lower skill and knowledge of a
psycoligist or SS'vs case worker is used to determin that there is a
problem, yet the skills, knowledge and experience of a psychiatrist is
needed to find the problem, or even that none really existed!
Often SS'vs come barging in, jumping to conclusions, taking actions
based on false probability, using some un-explained and unquantified
bench mark... With hob-nail boots they trample all over the case,
putting false memorys into people (especially children) and asking
leading questions that are intended to prove their case and POV. They
don't have to record anything, and don't have to prove their case or
their methods. Why is it assumed that the police are apt to corruption
and mis-representation, yet SS'vs and CWO's are able to work with no
such safe guards. The same seems to be the case in the childrens
courts, there is no one to dictate the case to check for iregularities
or points of law (actualy this lends to the question, who can get a
copy of the full court case transcript? in "normal" criminal cases?)
and no way to see if justice has been done.
There can be no failings, or bias... as it is impossible to assertain
the questions asked, the answers given, and how accurate the "reports"
are.
While it would be aborent to contemplate, it would be so easy for a
social worker to say "your dad/mother abused you didn't they, if you
don't say yes you will never see them again" obviously the Social
worker would, in the current system, only need to write a note saying
that the child said the dad/mother abused them. It is more likely that
a child would un-knowingly "convict" their parents, by saying "my
dad/mother gets into my bed ... and kisses me at night ..." by
replacing "..." with "and reads to me" "before turning my light out";
a completely different state of affairs.
I can see that potentially a parent should not be privy to an
interview tape (can a LIP in a criminal case get a copy of a police
tape?) as this may place involve the parent placeing undue preasure on
the child... or a parent hearing that their child "is not happy with
them" in some way... but parents have no rights of reply. Also as the
child is often removed, there are no checks in place and no way to see
if questions are slanted, or important questions have been missed. In
childrens cases, the most often un-asked question is "did your dad/mum
put you up to saying..." One wonders how many custody/access cases
would be imediatly decided on the basis of the answer! A quick direct
question, slipped in, often elicits a truer answer than any other,
especially in children. When a child realsises it's slipped up, its
interesting to watch their response to any further questions!
The whole system is wide open to deliberate, and accidental, abuse.
The fear, distrust, and lothing of SS'vs prevents many people from
approaching them for help; lest they remove the children or accuse the
wrong person.
Such a system cannot hope to deal with its problems if it doesn't
reconise it has one.
ISTR, if it's true, a case reciently where a child was removed from
the parents, place in foster care and subsiquently died... as it was
impossible to decide which foster parent caused the harm neither was
convicted. However SS'vs were imune, as all they had to do was say
that the child was removed as it was at harm (I believe they had a
no-proof case of sexual abuse by the father which prevented him from
returning to the marital home, and the mother was depressed so the
father entered the house to give her support, facilitating the removal
of the child) So they [SS'vs] argue that their dececision, dispite the
eventual outcome, was correct!
Social services, and its employees, are truely teflonic.. They don't
even have the conviction to quit when they are found wrong, or fired
if they don't go!
Jon
--
Jonathan Wilson
Phone 07775 638904.
I can only offer advise! No responsibility can be accepted.
All sugestions are provided on a personal basis,
such as would be recieved by talking to a friend.
Jon
wrote:
Jon, as a matter of interest, what's you area of LAW?
Who else on this group is a lawyer (I think I know of 1 other)...
It's a shame that there are no specialists in Family law [on UK
legal], as often replies on here are few and limited in response to
questions.
scoff
So because you share dissimilar views to myself that gives you a green light
to be abusive?
That makes for an excellent debate. Grow up!
Andy
scoff
The last time this crap did the rounds I attempted to reason, question and
argue in a sensible and sensitive manner. I cannot help but feel this is
being re-raised just for the sake of it...This time round I don't give a
shit!
There were no answers supplied last time, there are none this time.
Is it not time to burry this once and for all?
As for my family situation, you will never know, but don't assume!
Cynic <none@none> wrote in message
news:1001931516.27131....@news.demon.co.uk...
Stan Mould
"scoff" <Ihat...@getlost.com> wrote in message
news:9pai6v$hm9np$1...@ID-93747.news.dfncis.de...
I missed the reply you made to my first post - my news-server seems to
ignore whole chunks of stuff.
However, I did see your comment above repeated above - about a child
'being killed'.
Not so. You should not use emotive terms such as 'killed', as it
implies a deliberate act. Notr was it a 'hard luck' story.
Nor would anyone who had an iota of sense post messages in the terms you
do. I can see no other reason for the remarks in your post than malice,
or a desire to be seen to act like a prick, or both.
In fact, one of the children of the family, Paige, died in a tragic
accident about 16 months ago. This was not the reason for the later SS
'investigation'. I have read the entire four archive boxes of papers
(some 10 lever arch files) in this case, and nowhere AT ALL has this
death been mentioned as a reason for the subsequent care proceedings.
Indeed, even the SS and their tame shrinks and 'experts' commiserated
with the parents over the incident.
The truth is simple. The parents had seven children. One was a tiny
baby who was born very prematurely and was close to death. The family
were all very upset. One day, when visiting her sister who had 2 or
three kids herself, a number of the children were having a play bath
together and having a high old time.
The children were taken from the bath and were all being dried off in
the living room. Paige, then about two or three, wandered off unseen in
the melee of children back to the downstairs bathroom to look for her
dummy. She leant over the bath to get it, and toppled in, striking her
head on the taps and drowning.
I have read all the reports on this. No proceedings were ever issued,
the SSD was satisfied as to the cause, and the family suffered yet
another catastrophe to deal with, whilst they worried whether their
premature child would survive.
So if you wish to continue to post in the vein you have been, please
stop. If you have children, God help them. If not (which I suspect is
the case) do the world a favour and have a vasectomy.
In the meantime, grow up yourself, wanker. John H was entirely right.
Stan
Stan Mould
> Sorry Cynic, I couldn't be arsed to read the whole of your post.
Oh, so you have a well-reasoned response to everything he said then,
even though your boredom threshold is so poor?
>
> The last time this crap
Similar to your cognitive processes, then?
did the rounds I attempted to reason, question and
> argue in a sensible and sensitive manner.
I don't remember seeing that.
I cannot help but feel this is
> being re-raised just for the sake of it...
Read the post and you'll see why it has been raised again.
This time round I don't give a
> shit!
> There were no answers supplied last time, there are none this time.
There might be if you could post a reasonable question.
> Is it not time to burry this once and for all?
Bury. No it is not, because the system that caused this problem is
still around.
> As for my family situation, you will never know, but don't assume!
As I said in another post, if you have children, God help them. If not,
do the rest of the world a favour and have a vasectomy.
Stan
JohnJo
-----------------------------------------------
"Jon" <10157...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:68ihrtc68v21b0unn...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:14:32 +0100, "Jon" <j...@jongru.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Jon, as a matter of interest, what's you area of LAW?
>
> Who else on this group is a lawyer (I think I know of 1 other)...
>
> It's a shame that there are no specialists in Family law [on UK
> legal], as often replies on here are few and limited in response to
> questions.
>
Jon
<10157...@compuserve.com> writes
>On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:14:32 +0100, "Jon" <j...@jongru.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>Jon, as a matter of interest, what's you area of LAW?
Litigation, especially negligence claims. I have sometimes defended
local authorities and social services departments against negligence
actions.
I have met quite a number of social workers and the ones I have met are
very nice, conscientious, sympathetic people. It doesn't follow that
they all are, of course.
--
Jon
Jon
<stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
is it possible to give the reasons for the investigation? or is this
priviledged?
Although, the reaons don't have a baring on the subsiquent [mis]
treatment by the foster carers.
Jon
Ps, how do you get access to such papers, surly they are all belonging
to the court, and as such to give them to others is unlawfull?
Can go to private mail if you would prefer!
--
Jonathan Wilson
Phone 07775 638904.
I can only offer advice! No responsibility can be accepted.
scoff
And this time you never saw it either..News server I believe!
> > There were no answers supplied last time, there are none this time.
>
> There might be if you could post a reasonable question.
I did last time, there were no answers supplied. No one could give a single
reason WHY the children should be given back to the parents, something to do
with the secrecy of the family court! Sorry without a plausible amount of
evidence, what conclusions do you expect people to bring?
> As I said in another post, if you have children, God help them. If not,
> do the rest of the world a favour and have a vasectomy.
FUCK OFF I am a father to 3 healthy and extremely bright children!
Why don't you do us a favour, as stated in my previous post, stop posting
your drivel!
Stan Mould
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 20:27:56 GMT, "Stan Mould"
> <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> is it possible to give the reasons for the investigation? or is this
> priviledged?
No, and when I get time I'll try to post as short a summary as possible
of this complex and lengthy case.
> Although, the reaons don't have a baring on the subsiquent [mis]
> treatment by the foster carers.
True. What is relevant is the selection of these people by an
incompetent SSD and system.
> Jon
>
> Ps, how do you get access to such papers,
Easy. You have someone who has removed all the papers from his
solicitors office and later gives them you to read by the boxful.
surly they are all belonging
> to the court,
No, to the client.
> and as such to give them to others is unlawfull?
It is a contempt of court under the Administration of Justice Act 1961
to *publish* documents in a child case. And also see the Family
Proceedings Rules, tho' I can't remember which one.
It is not a contempt to READ the papers. Anyway, as his McKenzie
friend, how could I advise and assist him without knowing all the
details in the papers?
> Can go to private mail if you would prefer!
Doesn't bother me. The various rules etc are designed to keep the
misconduct in child cases secret so the more matters like this are
publicised the better.
scoff
> However, I did see your comment above repeated above - about a child
> 'being killed'.
Bad choice of words!
> Not so. You should not use emotive terms such as 'killed', as it
> implies a deliberate act
Agreed, in this case.
> Nor would anyone who had an iota of sense post messages in the terms you
> do. I can see no other reason for the remarks in your post than malice,
> or a desire to be seen to act like a prick, or both.
No it is a desire to get someone such as you to post a message which is a
balanced view so WE may make conclusions.
<snip death details>
If this is the case, the parent's have my deepest sympathy! but not support
for their newest problems.
> So if you wish to continue to post in the vein you have been, please
> stop.
No. You choose to post in a open forum, on a subject of which you have a
very one side opinion. Expect to be challenged.
> If you have children, God help them. If not (which I suspect is
> the case) do the world a favour and have a vasectomy.
See next reply...FUCK OFF!
> In the meantime, grow up yourself, wanker. John H was entirely right.
I will say, you and John H may share the same opinion, but your argument
need not resort to being abusive, you have the makings of something which,
if presented properly could be compelling. Shame!
Stan Mould
>
> > However, I did see your comment above repeated above - about a
child
> > 'being killed'.
>
> Bad choice of words!
That's all then? That's the best ytou can doo? You were wrong, chump.
>
> > Not so. You should not use emotive terms such as 'killed', as it
> > implies a deliberate act
>
> Agreed, in this case.
Oh, sense at last then.
>
> > Nor would anyone who had an iota of sense post messages in the terms
you
> > do. I can see no other reason for the remarks in your post than
malice,
> > or a desire to be seen to act like a prick, or both.
>
> No it is a desire to get someone such as you to post a message which
is a
> balanced view so WE may make conclusions.
I suspect you'd just troll whatever was said.
> <snip death details>
Why? Because you did not want to have your stupidness revealed again?
> If this is the case, the parent's have my deepest sympathy!
Oh, good. That'll please them, then, know YOU sympathise.
but not support
> for their newest problems.
Why? You don't know them yet, nor the reasons why.
> > So if you wish to continue to post in the vein you have been, please
> > stop.
>
> No. You choose to post in a open forum, on a subject of which you have
a
> very one side opinion. Expect to be challenged.
What one-sided opinion? I haven't put an opinion yet, other than of the
system, you chump.
> > If you have children, God help them. If not (which I suspect is
> > the case) do the world a favour and have a vasectomy.
>
> See next reply...FUCK OFF!
Oh,, well reasoned debate, then? I thought you just bollocked John H
for that sort of reply.
> > In the meantime, grow up yourself, wanker. John H was entirely
right.
>
> I will say, you and John H may share the same opinion, but your
argument
> need not resort to being abusive, you have the makings of something
which,
> if presented properly could be compelling. Shame!
I have not been allowed to present anything properly at all yet. Been
too busy responding to you.
scoff
> too busy responding to you.
Respond no more!
Stan Mould
> > I don't remember seeing that.
>
> And this time you never saw it either..News server I believe!
Uh? That's right - my server has not downloaded any messages from
uk.legal between 23/9 and 1/10. Why a week has disappeared I do not
know.
>
> > > There were no answers supplied last time, there are none this
time.
> >
> > There might be if you could post a reasonable question.
>
> I did last time, there were no answers supplied. No one could give a
single
> reason WHY the children should be given back to the parents, something
to do
> with the secrecy of the family court!
Are you not aware of the family court system? Did you not know that
children matters are not to be discussed outside the court?
Sorry without a plausible amount of
> evidence, what conclusions do you expect people to bring?
Bring? I think you mean 'draw'. Well, you could try having a modicum
of knowledge of child law, and intelligence, for a start.
> As I said in another post, if you have children, God help them. If
not,
> > do the rest of the world a favour and have a vasectomy.
>
> FUCK OFF
Don't swear, you tosser. No wonder you come over as a waste of space
and bandwidth.
>I am a father to 3 healthy and extremely bright children!
Then they can't take after you. I have four children - big deal. I've
produced 10, but my ex was burdened with miscarriages, mainly late in
pregnancy, so any kids are pretty precious to me.
I suspect you'd have been better off staying wanking as you have been
described already, rather than inflicting your views and offspring on
rest of the world
> Why don't you do us a favour, as stated in my previous post, stop
posting
> your drivel!
Hey, clot, why not stop reading it if you think it's drivel? It's
simple, even for you. It's called ignoring stuff from people you don't
want to read.
The fact is, you are a semi-literate and not-very-bright troll, who
enjoys picking holes in others comments so as to hide your own
deficiencies from yourself. Right?
Right.
Richard Miller
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
news:1001931516.27131....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > So what is your question? Or were you just alerting us to the fact you
> have
> > nothing better to do, other than post your drivel to these news groups,
as
> > if anyone gives a shit?
>
> I have no idea of your family position. If however you ever have children
> that you love, and they are one day removed from you by force of law, you
> may start to "give a shit".
>
> I, too would like to know the reasons that the children were removed in
the
> first place. I have seen and heard of too many cases where children have
> been removed completely unnecessarily to immediately assume that the
reasons
> were good and justified - but OTOH I cannot assume without details that
they
> were not justified.
I gather that this is the case we discussed a few months back where the
children were removed because another child had died because of neglect.
>
> Last week I heard of yet another over-reaction from the social services.
A
> 6 year-old child told his teacher that his father had chased him with a
> broom, trying to hit him. [snip]
The child will learn to keep his mouth shut in future, and
> not tell anyone what goes on in private. The child has already become
> withdrawn as a result of the strain in the family - which I fully expect
the
> SS to claim is "proof" of abuse.
Another case where the only abuse is that perpetrated by the social workers
themselves. What gets me is that they can take action in such patently
unsuitable cases and yet consider the likes of little Lauren, whose mother
and stepfather have been convicted of her manslaughter, not worthy of
intervention. What planet do these people live on? Why do they find it so
difficult to distinguish between abuse and innocent horseplay?
Richard Miller
John Hill
wrote:
>There were no answers supplied last time, there are none this time.
There are plenty of answers, but none you care to read.
JH
John Hill
wrote:
>> >nothing better to do, other than post your drivel to these news groups,
>as
>> >if anyone gives a shit?
>>
>> Wanker.
>>
>> JH
>
>So because you share dissimilar views to myself that gives you a green light
>to be abusive?
>That makes for an excellent debate. Grow up!
How can you suggest you seek debate
"nothing better to do, other than post your drivel to these news
groups, as if anyone gives a shit?" was the phrase you used.
How, precisely, is this conducive to debate ?
JH
David Husband
<stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
Stan
Are you not aware that you come over as a far greater loony and fuckwit
than Scoff ever does?
For God's sake get a grip. He's walking all over you.
David
(8->)
--
David Husband, Portland, Dorset. (Use rot-13 to get correct e-mail address)
Stan Mould
Shall. Just put me in your killfile if you've nothing sensible to
contribute.
Stan Mould
"David Husband" <Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> wrote in message
news:z83luBAt...@p-v.bet.hx...
Aha. The resident aul fuckwit arrives on the scene. Leave me alone -
keep on with Jim Hulbert, who walks all over *you*.
David Husband
<stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
Jim Hulbert walks over nobody but himself.
You did not get the joke then, Stan [I will explain by email, if you
wish..]
And BTW, I post from uk.legal
Lighten up!
Cynic
> I gather that this is the case we discussed a few months back where the
> children were removed because another child had died because of neglect.
Stan has posted some more details. Stan has now stated that the death of
the child was an accident that was not the reason, nor has any bearing on
the care proceedings. As it had nothing to do with the proceedings it would
not seem to me to be unlawful to post details of that accident.
I'll await with interest the reasons and the evidence the care proceeding
was based upon. Though Stan is no doubt very much aware of the law
regarding these cases and will need to be careful lest he open himself to a
charge of contempt.
An anonymous remailer would of course allow details to be posted by a
completely unknown and untraceable person. URL explaining how to do that if
requested.
--
Cynic
Jim Hulbert
> For God's sake get a grip. He's walking all over you.
> --
> David Husband, Portland, Dorset. (Use rot-13 to get correct e-mail address)
Nice bit of malice you vindictice pratt David. Isn't that the well
meaning advice that Stan gave to you?
--
J.H.
Jim Hulbert
He's a bit of a fibber as well Stan: says he's killfiled me then guess
what?
Just read him whinging about me being quiet lately. Wonder how he knew
that?
--
J.H.
Richard Miller
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:14:32 +0100, "Jon" <j...@jongru.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Jon, as a matter of interest, what's you area of LAW?
>
> Who else on this group is a lawyer (I think I know of 1 other)...
>
Me. I used to do general civil work and some family. I no longer practice as
I work full time for the Legal Aid Practitioners Group.
Richard Miller
Jim Hulbert
>
> In article <81fu7.31185$iG3.2...@news1.cableinet.net>, Stan Mould
> <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
> >
> >"David Husband" <Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> wrote in message
> >news:z83luBAt...@p-v.bet.hx...
> >
> >Aha. The resident aul fuckwit arrives on the scene. Leave me alone -
> >keep on with Jim Hulbert, who walks all over *you*.
> wish..]
No post it here David. Let's *ALL* have a giggle.
David you're as popular as a French kiss at a family reunion and as
useful as dinosaur repellent.
--
J.H.
Stan Mould
"Cynic" <none@none> wrote in message
Request made. Reply by private email if necessary. Ta.
However the first person to try to pin one on me for contempt will wish
he hadn't. I shall issue proceedings against Judge David Parry and
Michael Cook of Guildford County Court like a shot - I have all the
evidence (which I have not bothered to adduce on the group in great
detail as I'd be thought a Hulbert - no offence Jim. We've chatted
about our respective cases and we know what's what). I might even be
able to nail Mr Justice 'Lame-brain' Johnson in the High Court too.
The only reason I haven't for so long as it's up my sleeve in case I
need it.
Stan
Stan Mould
"Stan Mould" <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Qnou7.37452$iG3.2...@news1.cableinet.net...
See my response to the less than anonymous Anthony Gold in the thread
'Barristers' for more details of Parry's misconduct.
Stan Mould
"David Husband" <Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> wrote in message
> In article <81fu7.31185$iG3.2...@news1.cableinet.net>, Stan Mould
> <stan...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
> >
> >"David Husband" <Da...@uhfonaq.bet.hx> wrote in message
> >news:z83luBAt...@p-v.bet.hx...
> >
> >Aha. The resident aul fuckwit arrives on the scene. Leave me
alone -
> >keep on with Jim Hulbert, who walks all over *you*.
>
> Jim Hulbert walks over nobody but himself.
>
> You did not get the joke then, Stan [I will explain by email, if you
> wish..]
Please do. I must have missed something
> And BTW, I post from uk.legal
So what? So do I, but this thread is cross-posted to aukl deliberately.
> Lighten up!
When you explain your 'joke', no doubt I shall.
Stan