Supernaturalearth.myfreeforum.org

admin sinfulldude

I can feel a storm brewing, i was talking to a friend of mine in the usa, and she is livid about this situation after seeing the utube video....word is spreading fast

sarah xx
this is what she said...

Listen to these devils being recorded~we also did this!! PLEASE READ/REPOST AND SO IMPORTANT WRITE A SHORT NOTE AND SENT IT!!!!!! It will only take a second and secure a family,please help!!!! Have another cup of coffee or a cigarette or whatever please don't put this off. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID TO MY DAUGHTER INGRID!!!! PLEASE HELP!!!! THANK YOU ALL AND MAY WE STOP THIS NIGHTMARE FROM HAPPENING TO ONE MORE FAMILY!!!!!!
THIS IS BULLnuts,BULLnuts I CAN'T EVEN LISTEN TO THE WHOLE VIDEO,WHAT HITLERS LIVE AMOUNG US!!!!!!!!!!

Unbelievable please go here and check out THIS NIGHTMARE!!!!
http://unity-injustice.co.uk/

From: Welcome to my world!!

PLEASE STAND UP PEOPLE WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH!! I AM NOT SCARED THEY CAN NOT TAKE ANYMORE FOM ME~I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!!!!Please write a short note to help this young couple,it only takes seconds~I just did mine! If you do not have a clue what to write ask me I have not run out of words yet!!!!! From A Destroyed Family~No White Flags~Forever Mona G.

NEWS PAPER REPORT 20 august 2007 :-

YouTube row over social services baby threat
Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 4:01am BST 20/08/2007

hear the threat here :- http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fKagqj1N908

A heavily pregnant woman is at the centre of an extraordinary legal battle with social workers after she secretly recorded them threatening to take away her newborn baby.

YouTube audio: The secret recording
Vanessa Brookes, 34, who is due to give birth early next month, smuggled taping equipment into a meeting with social services officials, fearing they would try to take her baby for forced adoption.

She recorded a social worker telling her and her husband Martin, 41, that even though there was "no immediate risk to your child from yourselves", the council would seek a court order to place the child in foster care.

Mother and baby would be allowed "two or three days" in hospital together, but should not leave the premises until social workers came to remove the infant. In a desperate attempt to keep their baby, the couple have published the recorded conversation on the internet.

Calderdale council, in West Yorkshire, last night accused them of breaching the Data Protection Act by recording its staff without their knowledge or consent. The council said it had begun legal action to have the recording removed from the YouTube website. Mrs Brookes said: "Even puppies and kittens aren't removed from their mothers at birth. Social workers always record everything, so why shouldn't we record them?"

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of campaign group Justice for Families, said: "I find it very odd that a newborn baby would be removed when there is not any allegation by the authorities that the child is at risk. Yet this case is not unique. There are many cases in which newborns are removed because of allegations that their mothers may at some later stage 'emotionally abuse' the child."

The case returns the spotlight to claims that social services are being heavy-handed in removing children from their parents, in order to meet Government adoption targets.

The Sunday Telegraph has previously revealed cases of mothers who were not told why their children were taken away, and cases of families whose children were not returned even after the parents had been cleared of wrongdoing. More than 2,000 babies aged under a year were taken for adoption last year, almost triple the level of a decade ago.

Social services took an interest in the Brookes family after Mrs Brookes, who is partially-sighted, was diagnosed with depression and a personality disorder, leading to concerns that her baby might be subjected to "emotional abuse". Neighbours have complained that the couple's household was disorderly, but neither has been accused of abusing or harming a child.

In the recorded meeting, the social worker tells the couple: "It's our intention as a local authority that when your baby is born, we go into court on that same day and ask for an interim court order because we would wish to place your baby with foster carers."

He tells Mrs Brookes: "I would like you and your baby to stay in hospital until the courts have made a decision."

The social worker says the two or three days the mother has with her baby in hospital will allow her to begin breast-feeding and that once the infant is taken away, social services will pick up expressed breast milk from her home and deliver it to the foster carers for bottle-feeding.

The social worker admits to the couple that a back-up plan is being drawn up in case the judge refuses the application for a care order. He says: "What we also have to think about is a child protection plan that looks at you, at home, with your baby. There is no immediate risk to your child from yourselves, that's my understanding from reading documents."

A spokesman for Calderdale council said officials would seek a meeting with Mr and Mrs Brookes "to understand how this information came into the public domain. We are taking action to have this item removed from YouTube. This recording was made without the knowledge or consent of our member of staff.

"The council does not take lightly any recommendation to the court for a child or a baby to be brought into care. The decision whether or not to institute care proceedings is made by social workers who have to consider the best interests of the child."

SUPPORT THIS FAMILY !!
IT COULD BE YOUR CHILD NEXT !!

_________________
The supernatural & paranormal is out there.

(ADMIN) madmart
http://Believe.myfreeforum.org
http://Supernaturalearth.myfreeforum.org

admin sinfulldude · Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject: The recording lives on

Youtube have removed both video recordings from their site after getting pressure from calderdale ss to do so

BUT I BELIEVE BOTH OR AT LEAST ONE OF THE RECORDINGS IS STILL ADVAILABLE TO BE HEARD ON ANOTHER WEBSITE :-

The 1st Meeting
http://www.corestore.org/baby_threat.wmv

also there are loads of OTHER FOREIGN websites who have posted the story on their websites to keep the story alive, has they know that OUR CORRUPT BRITISH LAW CANT TOUCH THEM becuase of the differing FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAWS IN THEIR COUNTRIES well done to them i'd like to say and thank you for supporting this couple !

the following sites are hosting the recording and story ;-

http://gumpe.com/2007/08/26/secre...ing-of-uk-social-workers-threats/

http://innertemplelibrary.wordpre...ices-baby-threat-daily-telegraph/

http://digg.com/world_news/YouTub..._over_social_services_baby_threat

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...ives/cat_dictatorship.html#068642

http://codnuts.blogspot.com/2007/...ow-over-social-services-baby.html

http://www.di2.nu/200708/24a.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1883502/posts

http://www.realfathersforjustice.org/news/index.php?itemid=87

http://elliottjoseph.blogspot.com.../08/care-system-more-madness.html

http://forums.sterlingtimes.org/t...st/sterlingtimes/vpost?id=2099603

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm...ID=188497505&blogID=300949158

http://critest.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/8/19/3167899.html

http://forchrist-contramundum.blo...ow-over-social-services-baby.html

http://dizzydayz.blogspot.com/2007/08/whiskey-tango-foxtrot.html

http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/#rights

http://make-real-money-over-inter...sages-in-11-topics-digest_19.html

http://adoptingmyidentity.blogspo...08/shame-of-uk-family-courts.html

http://www.di2.nu/200708/24a.htm

Blackbird · Joined: 17 Mar 2008 Posts: 119

Most of those links are no longer working, so there is no recording left of the second meeting. Can you put the recording on here sinfulldude ?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...illa_cavendish/article2310550.ece

For a brief time this week, until it was taken down, there was an extraordinary posting on YouTube. It was a covert recording, made by a 34-year-old mother, of her meeting with the social worker who wants to take her next baby into care.

Had it been staged, critics would have called it a caricature. A robotic official orders the sobbing mother to stay in the hospital until his colleagues come to remove her new baby. He refuses her desperate pleas to be monitored with the baby at home. He explains in the tones of a traffic warden the inconvenience of delivering her breast milk. He then lets drop an astonishing admission: that Calderdale Council is pursuing a court order despite there being “no immediate risk to your child from yourselves”. Will he say that in court? We will not know, of course, for the court will sit in secret.

Such a chilling drama plays to our deepest fears of state tyranny. There is something wrong with the system. But posting a conversation on YouTube, out of context, is not the way to right it. The council argues that (freebirds) recording falls foul of the Data Protection Act. Her supporters say that she is a victim of social services and justified in publishing what is essentially her own data. But we do not know whether she is a victim. Who is abusing whom here?

(freebirds) case is not straightforward. She is partially sighted and has suffered bouts of depression. Two of her children have already been adopted. That does not prove that she is an unfit mother - mistakes can be made - but it does explain the council’s interest. Equally, I am told that she and her husband have never been accused of harming any child. But this dribble of incomplete facts is fundamentally unenlightening. All it does is illustrate the torturous trade-offs that the system has to make, and our inability to judge those trade-offs because it is illegal to read family court papers.

How should we treat someone like (freebird), who has troubles enough to worry social services but has not apparently yet harmed a child? She is one of a growing group of people who are categorised as capable of “emotional abuse”. You can see why the category exists. Ill-treatment comes in many forms, not just cigarette burns. But in that nebulous phrase lurks the potential for great injustice.
“Emotional abuse” has no strict definition in British law. Yet it now accounts for an astounding 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection, up from 14 per cent in 1997. Last year 6,700 children were put on the child protection register for emotional abuse, compared with only 2,600 for sexual abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse. Both of the latter two categories have been falling steadily. Meanwhile emotional abuse and “neglect” - which replaced the old notion of “grave concern” in 1989 - have been rising. Both are catch-alls. But emotional abuse is especially vague. It covers children who have not been injured, have not complained, and do not come under “emotional neglect”.

The Department of Health defines emotional abuse as “persistent emotional ill-treatment . . . [which] may involve conveying to children that they are worthless or inadequate . . . and may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being placed on children . . . Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all types of ill-treatment of a child, though it may occur alone”.

Local authorities have printed their own, wildly differing, interpretations. In Enfield emotional abuse includes “swearing”, “conditional love” or “discriminatory remarks”. In Nottingham, it is “an ingrained pattern of interaction . . . which it is essential to observe and understand over time”. Under that definition, a baby could never be removed at birth. Nottingham also states that emotional abuse should rarely be a cause for removing a child. Meanwhile the NSPCC, the charity that has never knowingly undersold a statistic, states in its briefing on emotional abuse that “18 per cent of children experience humiliation and/or attacks on self-esteem”. Should we put them all in care, then?

“You’ll know it when you see it - except that you can’t see it” is no way to make law. Abuse literature repeatedly states how often parent and child are unaware of the damage done by their relationship patterns. How do we weigh that damage against the trauma of the conveyor belt of foster care? In most such situations, isn’t removing a child utterly disproportionate?

Just imagine that some social services departments were crusaders, seeing evil parents everywhere but unable to prove conventional abuse. It is plausible that the number of vague allegations would rise, backed by psychiatrists of a similar mindset who are prepared to enter a “maybe”. How else can one explain a 50 per cent rise in emotional abuse cases in ten years? How many of those cases are utterly marginal?

Next, imagine that the rise in these cases had left social workers even more overstretched. They would have less time to monitor children at home and to keep families together. They would also have less time for the hard-core cases. No system can ever protect every child. But the toddler on Haringey’s at-risk register who was found dead last week with fractured ribs, a broken back and two missing fingernails was surely more deserving of removal than those at risk of low self-esteem.

So many cases are gut-wrenchingly complex. We need social workers to be properly accountable. We need the family courts to be open. (freebird) is clearly not perfect, but she deserves to have clear grounds for the removal of her child. Right now, it looks as though around 6,000 people stand accused of abuse, or potential abuse, that no lawyer can even define. That is an appalling vista that we must not continue to hide from public view

whitedove · Joined: 18 Apr 2008 Posts: 62 Location: London

Couple of things bothered me hearing the first tape.
The social worker clearly states "courts could not agree - may not agree with our plan"
That indicates to me that they had already tried and the courts saw it as a slam dunk and chucked it out. That would bother me that this was done prior to your knowledge. Not sure if they had illegally stepped over the line if thats the case.

Were they advised to seek legal help before that meeting? S/S have done nothing wrong if they didnt advise them, but it would be frowned upon in most courts if they had not, as freebird and mart were entitled to legal representation all through this and should have had it.

Social Services could argue that you agreed to this, again as heard on the tape.
However, it is NOT uncommon for parents to be traumatized especially if they had no solicitor batting for them in the meeting. I have heard parents say bizarre things in these meetings because they have been too stunned and traumatized to think straight.

A disorderley house is NO grounds to remove a child, only a dangerous house is, even then its questionable as to whether removing children is the best option or social servises working with the parents in the home.

I need to hear the tape of the other meeting, but I would say that you have grounds of appeal on the very fact that the social worker stated that there is nothing in the papers he has read to indicate you are an immediate threat to your child.
Its what he did not say that matters.
He did not say that they were a threat in the future. A good solicitor will pick that all up for you as its more to do with what they dont say that can speak volumes.

I am assuming freebird and mart are starting from scratch here, so forgive me if I state the obvious.

The first thing they need to do is get a good solicitor, legal aid will cover them for this and they need to get a copy of the judgement, as they need to know what reasons social services gave in order to remove their child.
They cannot begin an appeal without the court transcript.
Social Services will probably try and block giving you a copy, and if thats the case, you need to get in touch with the Judicial Communications Office in London for a copy of that transcript.

You need to launch your appeal.
Its a long process and will be trying for both of you. The aim is to get it back into court.

Dont give up if that appeal fails as you have the option, and I recommend it, to go to The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Freebird / Mart or someone else if you have a copy of that second tape, can you IM it to me and I can analyse this case properly.
Also, if you know what sections of the childrens act or the reasons you were given, that social services used to remove the children, can you IM them to me also.

From the outset of the information to hand and reading all the links that remain, I can see no reason yet why these children were removed.

All that seems to be screaming at me at the moment is that Freebird suffered an illness - depression, which is treatable and no reason to take children away. Also a sight disability and because of that disability she was discriminated against, which is against the law.
I have it in mind, probably wrongly, that your children were removed to fill quotas and reach targets. In short, you were easy targets.

_________________
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
http://www.mysterial.co.uk

admin sinfulldude · Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: near end of case ;- no hope ?

freebird is near the end of her case now, ss are coming out with all sorts of crap. they have not taken in to account that freebird is regisiter Blind and has sight in only one eye which plays a part on how she cares for her child, no assessment has been made taking this fact of her disability in to account. A parenting assessment has been done (all the correct answers given but they say she cant put these answers into action pyscially , but they they not they feel taken fully into account her disability, she feels she has been treated as a normal able body person not a person who has a sight problem and may have difficulty doing certain tasks. SS are again looking to meet their targets with the Adoption word springing up in this case. i believe they are trying to get hold of a indepenant social worker to assess the mother disabitily and how it effects her caring for her child who is ALSO HAS A VISALUAL IMPAIRMENT.

. No nothing was said at the begining about them getting a solicitor has they were not sure what they were going to do at first.

they dont have the 2nd recording at the moment but i think it is somewhere on a forgein site ? and will try to find it, i know that both tapes were sent to john hemmings a birmingham MP who used them in the house of commons to try to get the courts opened up and prove that 99% of SS adoptions are target based, but he had no luck as not enough other MP's backed him up. i believe this MP has just released a record aimed at the corrution with in the family courts and regarding SS FORCED ADOPTIONS
_________________
The supernatural & paranormal is out there.

(ADMIN) madmart
http://Believe.myfreeforum.org
http://Supernaturalearth.myfreeforum.org

whitedove · Joined: 18 Apr 2008 Posts: 62 Location: London

Had a feeling it had something to do with targets.
The MP does not need backing from other MPs to help you with this case. He is there to serve you not get his buddies approval, so if he has all the facts, he should be working with them for the forthcoming court case.
He should also be able to recommend a good solicitor and the solicitor should be able to get an independant report of the case done.

I only have a fraction of the facts here, so cant really advise them further.
I cannot find a copy of the tape on any of the threads.

The only other piece of advice I can give them both is ALWAYS stay focused to the task in hand and do not let anger or frustration get in the way. Keep calm at all costs.
If they do not understand anything said to them, keep on asking until they are understanding 100%. Ignorance or not understanding something is not a defence.

_________________
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
http://www.mysterial.co.uk

Blackbird · Joined: 17 Mar 2008 Posts: 119

Hows it going with Freebird and Mart? Hopfully there nightmare has now come to an end or an end is in sight for them. Please update us

admin sinfulldude · Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: update;- lost battle

UPDATE

HI ALL IVE TAKEN OVER RUNNING THE FORUM FROM MADMART (martin) who's taken time out to comfort freebird who's also left the forum after their loss, both of them say they may pop in every now and again to see how things are going and let us all know how they are.
martin says he will keep some admin powers to the site and will continue to drop by to post the odd ghost story or two both he and freebird both say thank you for the support you have ALL shown and given to both of them. I sure like myself, you are all sorry about their loss and will keep them both in your prayers. Martin, i'll do my best mate to keep your forum up and running for you untill the day you feel up to taking over again, thanks for trusting me to do this, i wish you and freebird all the best, take care both of you. ;- sinfulldude (daz;- darren)

after a 9 day final hearing 23 june to 4 july 08 Freebird and Mart LOST THEIR fight to have baby free returned to their care
due to them not having enough insight ? into the past concerns of social services, plus freebird not being fully over and recovered from a personality disorder, plus new physco report also claiming that mart also has minor personality disorder traits? leaving the hospital when NO court order was in place, causing distress to the social worker for secretly recording him.
an order has been made for placement of baby free (who's just turned 9 months), freebird and mart are hoping and praying this will be within the family with freebirds sister, an assessment is still being carried out on her suitability;- failing her being suitable baby free is to be placed for forced adoption with strangers.

they are just hoping and praying that baby free goes to freebirds sister and not to strangers.

if there's a lord god out there then i beg him to hear their prayers and for baby free to be placed with freebirds sister and not forced adopted to strangers, please lord.
_________________
The supernatural & paranormal is out there.

(ADMIN) madmart
http://Believe.myfreeforum.org
http://Supernaturalearth.myfreeforum.org

whitedove · Joined: 18 Apr 2008 Posts: 62 Location: London

This is all wrong! The child should be returned home where she belongs with her Mum and Dad
Freebird had post natal depression, she needed help not hindrance.
She was told by a social worker not to leave the hospital, it was not a court order and she was not obliged to stay.
As for Mart! He was at the end of his tether and did not have some personality disorder. Any parent would become jumpy knowing social services can ruin your life with just a stroke of a pen

Dont give up Freebird, appeal if you can and keep appealing

_________________
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
http://www.mysterial.co.uk

Blackbird · Joined: 17 Mar 2008 Posts: 119

Sad if the children were removed through a social worker being vindictive.
I still say that if the children wernt neglected or abused you should carry on the fight for their sake

stardust2 · Joined: 13 Jul 2008 Posts: 6 Location: SHEFFIELD uk

a child that is not abused in anyway by the mum and dad should not be taken away from them. a child needs its real mum and dad so i think that the ss are in a way abusing the child by not allawing the child to be with them. i hope freebird gets her child back soon. if anyone hears anything about this case can you please let us know thank you.
_________________
to love is to live