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:
- The tactics that people use to break up families and break down individuals are the same the world over, and
- 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?
