We'll start off with my thoughts on this, I think. The other posts should follow naturally on from it.

If you're reading this, then the chances are you do not think that child snatching by the state is a crackpot conspiracy theory.

The problem is, the people who are directly involved in forced adoptions rely (whether consciously or unconsciously) on the characterisation of those who oppose their actions as irrational or unhinged. In this way, they can contine to do what they do (often believing it to be the "right" course of action for the child) unimpeded.

Then there is everybody else, including many people who don't consider the relevance of something as apparently far-fetched as forced adoption to their own family situation. It is an easy and somewhat comforting approach to assume that you are sane and safe, and the proponents of an idea you'd rather not follow through to damning logical conclusions are just plain crazy.

An addition spanner in the works is that people who are comfortable exploring ideas that threaten the fabric of conventional society are also less likely to feel the need to conform in other ways. They may dress differently, say unexpected things or behave unusually in the company of other people. Again, rather than being curious as to why it is that somebody who is so clearly comfortable in his or her own skin makes us feel uneasy or alienated, it's much easier to label them as mad.

And finally, of course, there is the passion and emotion that people who have experienced the threat (whether theorectical or actual) of having their children removed - not to mention those who have had their children taken from them - this force of feeling is easily dismissed as mental instability. But you should know the quote by now:

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

And each innocent parent should be at liberty to protect their child. People who speak out about forced adoption are not insane by virtue of doing so. They are simply describing a brutal practice -- permanent removal of children from parents who have committed no crime against them, do not want them to be removed and do not know where they will end up - whether they are safe, well and happy.

Does anybody genuinely think that the killers of Victoria Climbie, Peter Connelly or Khyra Ishaq, who showed so little regard for the value of human life, would have campaigned so tirelessly for the return of their children if removed from them? Would they have made such an effort to raise their profile and gain as much publicity as possible? Or would they have slunk off somewhere else, glad to be let off the hook?

Amongst the children who are happy and relieved to have been removed from their parents and placed into care, are there any whose parents had not committed a crime against them? Almost certainly not.

It's understandable that people do not want to think about this in detail. It's easier to make throwaway comments that actually require a level of thought and analysis, such as: social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't (it's complicated) or some people shouldn't be allowed to have children (that's coercive eugenics) or more children should be taken into to care (an easy assertion to make if there are financial incentives for doing so). 

But returning to forced adoption for a moment, how can it ever be right that people who are not found guilty of a crime nevertheless have their children removed from them, permanently, and placed with strangers for the rest of their lives?

Forced adoption is perhaps too polite a way of putting it. It really is state sponsored child snatching. It is unnatural and immoral. It is a situation that people perhaps avoid thinking about because it is so distressing. But it happens, right here, in this country, and with the power that statutory services currently have, it could happen to any one of us.

As Ian Josephs rightly said, there is absolutely no need for a conspiracy theory. A complex set of independent, interdependent and dependent arrangements and agendas have unhappily produced an environment within which:

• Statutory services can intervene in families with ease
• Fallible individuals within statutory services have the power to make subjective assessments and definitions of suitability
• Fallible individuals within statutory services can remove children permanently from families without their parents ever having committed a crime against them
• Cases are heard in closed family courts which are not subject to scrutiny, do not operate with a jury, accept hearsay as evidence and rely only on the judgement of a single fallible individual (the judge)
• Parents and children are subject to gagging orders preventing them from deciding whether or not they want to put their private matters in the public arena for wider scrutiny
• Social services departments, lawyers, judges, expert witnesses, (fake)charities, foster and adoption agencies all benefit financially each time a child is removed from his or her family

Financially indexed adoption targets may have been dropped, but they nevertheless exist in a different incarnation. And as anyone responsible for performance knows, what's measured gets done, often exerting pressures and causing all sorts of unforeseen consequences elsewhere in a system.

Some lawyers are retained by local authorities; when this is the case it is not necessarily in the long-term interests of those professionals to put up a fight against their biggest source of income. We already know about parasitic fake charities. Foster carers can receive up to around £20k/child, so goodness knows what fees the agencies (often set up by ex-officials) managing these arrangements command.

And none of these people will feel the sickening heart wrench that parents bereft of their children are biologically destined to feel. Only those with real empathy and a desire for the truth will ever try. To come close to even imagining is painful, so it is no wonder that emotive language is used, personalities clash and tempers are lost.

Unfortunately, these outbursts can put people off pursuit the truth. But so, of course, can perpetuating the sterile, numbing vocabulary of the bureaucrat, or (worse) the slick corporate doublespeak of the social care salesperson.

The best we can do is be true to ourselves and use whatever tactics, information and contacts we have at our own disposal. A willingness to reflect on the efficacy of our actions and change where necessary is always valuable. We also need to remind ourselves that, although the world contains psychopaths, rent-seekers, crowd pleasers and professional cyncics, there are also people like me and you. I am an ex-local authority worker who not so many years ago didn't really think and probably wouldn't have believed that bad things happen, but now -- I do. My ability to think and challenge is the only leaving present I received when I finally walked out of that environment - and the best one I could have hoped for. 

"Child Snatching" by the State conference: first thoughts

Su and I attended this conference at the weekend. It was a pleasure to meet her (and her family, albeit briefly!) I am hoping that Su will write up her notes, too, and I will amend this post as necessary.

There was a vast amount of information to take in and I am still processing it. What I propose to do in this post is to provide a brief rundown of the speakers and the key themes that arose from the day. I will then expand on the key themes and offer some analysis over the next week or two.

We started off with an introduction by Brian Gerrish, who is well-known for his work on forced adoption and Common Purpose. I fully acknowledge that some political bloggers exercise extreme caution around the issue of Common Purpose, preferring not to be labelled as conspiracy theorists, but nevertheless I think that there are valid criticisms to be made of this organisation, its modi operandorum, and the outcomes it seeks to achieve.

Fewer people doubt that children have been and are removed from innocent families by incompetent or vindictive local authorities. This problem - now covered by the mainstream media on a regular basis - is exacerbated by the closed nature of the family courts system, and the gagging orders that prevent parents (and children) from speaking out about what is happening to them. 

Then Ian Josephs spoke. He witnessed first hand the collusion and corruption that can occur within local authorities when children are unnecessarily removed from their families and placed into care settings. Even now, many years later, he still offers free legal advice and help to anyone who is threatened by unnecessary legal action. 

Ian described in some detail the individual and organisational drivers for forced adoption that operate interdependently, creating tightly controlled situations with foregone conclusions that are difficult to avoid. However, he also provided clear information and instruction on the best way to deal with such situations and ensure the greatest possible chance of removing one's family from threat.

Jack Frost, author of the Gulag of the Family Courts, articulately described the deeply embedded and organisationally protected nature of false abuse accusations. Two consultant paediatricians alleged that his wife had Muchausen's Syndrome By Proxy, after his daughter became ill at the age of 12. His family had direct and prolonged experience of:

the veritable thriving yet dependant food chain of social workers, charities, local government officials and ‘public officials’, whose livelihoods and careers depend on instigating care proceedings and taking ever more children to feed the conveyor belt of linked foster care and adoption agencies. Which agencies are themselves, often owned or managed by ex-social workers and ex- local government officials!

After lunch the stage was given over to parents who had had their children removed from them by local authorities (in at least one case aided by the NSPCC), and children (now adults) who had been taken from their parents and abused in care settings. This was the most distressing part of the day. No professionals attended; to stand in front of these people and justify or defend current safeguarding policy - policy that fails abused children and non-abused children alike - is, I think, an impossible task, regardless of what Lord Laming says.

There followed a talk by a Canadian, Kevin Annett, who "told the untold story of the genocide of Aboriginal peoples in Canada". He provided information and exerpts from his film, Unrepentant, to highlight the brutal treatment, torture and murder of children in church-run Indian residential schools. Whilst this topic was somewhat tangential, it was nevertheless something I was glad to have brought to my attention, and it also confirmed two other areas of thought:

1. The tactics that people use to break up families and break down individuals are the same the world over, and
2. State sanctioned, organised "care" of children is unfortunately ideally placed to be hijacked and appropriated by those who harbour abusive, fascist, or eugenic tendencies.

I was also made aware of the Indian Act, which (as I understand it) mandates that Indians who live on reservations in Canada are essentially wards of the state, and cannot refuse the "offer" of medication or immunisation, for example. 

So, just off the top of my head, here are some key themes I am happy to expand on:

• Crackpot conspiracy theory or legitimate concern?
• Common tactics to divide and conquer
• How to protect your family
• Campaigning for change
  
• What to do next
• Reading list and resources
  

What do you think?

It's official. Certain provisions of the CSF Bill have been dropped, including those pertaining to home education.

This is good news: At the very least it is much-needed breathing space.

But Ed Balls, true to form, has already stated his unswerving intent to "provide proper protection to home educated children" (through measures that will, if implemented, put significant numbers of children at risk psychologically if not physically) should Labour win the forthcoming election.

And Michael Gove has foreseen the need to "make some changes" if and when the Conservatives succeed.

Then there is Nicola Woolcock, Education Correspondent for The Times, who has picked up on the panic bird set free by the likes of Balls by publishing today's "analysis" on leaving the vulnerable unprotected. She cannot even be bothered to spell the name of Khyra Ishaq correctly, and conflates the unfortunate death of that little girl with all manner of prejudice regarding families who simply say no, thank you to state provision. This woman appears to be labouring under the bizarre misapprehension that, once people achieve the status of parent, they can enjoy "unfettered freedoms" to abuse and murder their children without fear of detection or punishment. Shoddy journalism.

So all I would say is, celebrate winning the battle, but do not take your eye off the war that still wages unabated. We have all done so much: Developed and strengthened friendships; built links around the world; really supported each other - non of this non-negotiable support so beloved of our current government; generated a plethora of ideas to change, subvert and disobey; educated, publicised, analysed, challenged, highlighted, engaged with and debated - repeatedly. We've done this online and in real life; locally, regionally and nationally. All entirely voluntarily. Isn't that wonderful? I think so.

Let's keep calm and carry on.

Links to elsewhere:

Gill.

Tech.

Maire.

Kelly.

Jax.

Firebird.

Debs.

Mum6kids.

Danae.

Hannah.

Blog 4 Victory.

Carlotta.

Joxy.

Billysu.

Sam.

Have I missed anyone? Let me know.