Education &amp; Children

-

7 June 2016

2016Worcester 011 — Queen Victoria stands in front of Worcester Shire Hall, where the Family Court sits.

By Stephen Green

A local authority has lost its bid to put four children from a Christian home up for adoption.

Sitting in Worcester Family Court in Worcester’s impressive old Shire Hall building, His Honour Judge Richard Rundell ordered instead that the children should stay in long-term foster care and enjoy regular contact with their grandparents and indirect contact – cards, gifts and letters – from their parents. Far from ‘nothing else would do’ (the legal test for adoption), adoption in this case wouldn’t do at all.

THREE MONTHS TO FIND ADOPTERS

Worcestershire County Council protested they would do their best to keep the children together. They would look for adoptive parents willing to take the children as a sibling group for a full three months, said Social Work Team Leader Glenn McWilliams. But Judge Rundell was unimpressed. To allow adoption, which would happen against the wishes of parents and grandparents, would inevitably split the children up, he ruled.

In addition, adoption would mean the children would lose their family identity and all contact with their parents and grandparents. If they were split up, Judge Rundell said, keeping the children in contact with each other would rely on the good will of the adoptive parents, and these might moreover be at opposite ends of the country.

On top of that, the eldest two children, even though not yet in their teens, were adamant in their opposition to adoption. In those circumstances, said His Honour, any adoption would be very unlikely to endure.

SOCIAL WORKER CHANGES SIDES

The Court heard a couple currently fostering the children had been doing so from early last year (2015) on a short-term basis. By the grace of God they decided in December they could now foster the children long-term. The court-appointed ‘Children’s Guardian’, Mrs Maggie Stephens, represented by solicitor Aiden Codd, was robust under cross-examination from Worcestershire’s barrister Greg Rogers.

She maintained that having the children adopted would mean splitting them up and that would be ‘cruel’. You could not ‘reinvent these children’, she told Mr Rogers, a reference to the new surnames they would be given upon adoption.

There was dramatic evidence on 10th May, the first day of the two-day hearing, when social worker Alison Davies took the stand. Ms Davies had been involved with the case from February 2014, but she resigned from Worcestershire in protest at their decision to press ahead with an application for adoption. They should ‘remain where they are’ she told Mr Rogers. She had been all for adoption, but seeing how the children were now ‘thriving’ in the long-term foster care she had changed her mind.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Asked why the foster parents did not want to put themselves up as prospective adopters, or apply for a Special Guardianship Order, Ms Davies said it was purely down to economics. They were being paid as foster parents and so could afford nice clothes, treats and holidays for the children. As adopters, they would lose out financially and be able to provide none of that. The financial considerations could also have been in the mind of Worcestershire and their advocate in pressing for adoption, but no-one was crass enough to say that.

The children came to the attention of Worcestershire Social Services when the youngest child was unruly at nursery. Social workers said there was a chaotic atmosphere in the home on one occasion when they visited. The mother was trying to home-school despite having bi-polar challenges, and the father resented the social workers being involved.

But Ms Davies said that if the parents improved their position there was no reason why they should not resume contact with the children, who at the moment wanted to stay where they were, and crucially did not wish to return home. But the grandparents should see the children together once a month.

ONLY SIX COUPLES ‘IN THE MARKET’

Barrister Andrew Bainham, representing all four grandparents, told the judge there were only six couples in England and Wales who could take a four-sibling group. His Honour asked Mr McWilliams direct if he knew anything more about them? He didn’t. How many four-sibling groups were ‘in the market’, he asked. Mr McWilliams said he didn’t know.

Judge Rundell went on to tell Worcestershire they should be ‘grabbing (the foster parents) with open arms. … If after three months you can’t find these saints who will take four children you will have to split them up’, he said. ‘Then you have to get adopters to facilitate sibling contact? It’s a risk. And scouring the countryside, distance increases the risk.’

Ending the first day of the two-day hearing, the Judge told Mr Rogers: ‘The local authority may wish to consider its position overnight’. That is the nearest he could come to telling him that his case for adoption was falling apart and that he shouldn’t waste any more of the court’s time.

DON’T NAME THE COUNCIL!

But the next day, in came Mr Rogers still pursuing the adoption line which the court had heard would split up the children, and separate them forever from their grandparents and parents. His page on his Chambers website, the St Ives set in Birmingham, says ‘common sense is frequently in short supply’ in the family court. It ‘requires a sensitive and pragmatic approach’.

Such an approach was conspicuously absent from his presentation. Indeed, in talks with the judge involving this author to do with a ‘reporting restrictions order,’ Mr Rogers not only did not want me to identify the children, their parents or family structure, which is becoming normal procedure, but any of the parties. He did not want me to name Worcestershire County Council, any of the experts, social workers, the ‘children’s guardian’, or any of the advocates. Judge Rundell had earlier expressed himself in favour of transparency, and every one of Mr Roger’s suggestions was thrown out.

WORCESTERSHIRE IGNORED JUDGE

The only real issue was the frequency of contact with the grandparents. With Alison Davies saying it should be twelve times a year and Mrs Stephens opting for six times a year, the Judge ruled with the ‘children’s guardian’, and said bi-monthly contact should be written into the care plan.

But when the case came back to rule on press restrictions and to check the care plan the following week, the Local Authority’s care plan had the grandparents seeing the children just twice a year. His Honour was not happy and sent Mr Rogers away to redraft it.

Social worker Toni Badham, responsible for the drafting, apologised to the grandparents afterwards, claiming she had only just become involved. But this author understands she was involved right from the start. One if the grandparents told this author the machinations of the Council meant they had been ‘to hell and back’.

But in the end, the hand of the Almighty was strongly on this case. The grandparents applied to be ‘interveners’ which delayed matters sufficiently for the foster parents to decide they would offer a long-term placement. If the matter had been heard last November it could easily gone the other way.

The mother was represented by Miss Nevine Zaki and the father by Mr Michael Phillips.

LESSONS WE LEARN

The case illustrates several important points:

1 Any teaching environment these days is watching your children.

2 Any shortcomings whatever in your parenting skills will be used by a local authority against you.

3 If you lose your temper with social workers it will only count against you.

4 The position of the court-appointed Children’s Guardian is crucial. It is a brave judge who will go against her.

5 Local Authorities are over-keen to get children adopted. And when adoption is not on the table, they are too keen to keep children in their care and resentful about them going back to families.

6 The rules about getting children adopted in 26 weeks are draconian, especially if it is to be a forced adoption in opposition to parents’ wishes.

7 Local Authorities are both incompetent and tricky. They do not honour their promises and even try blatantly to circumvent the clear orders of judges.

8 Judges do not have enough power to insist that details like particular foster parents are written into care plans. Instead, both judges and parents have to rely on the good nature of local authorities, which may be in short supply.

PRAY: Thank God for such a positive outcome in all the circumstances.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Sodomite Superhead Stripped of Schools

By

-

29 March 2016

Liam Nolan addresses the Conservative Party Conference, possibly in 2012.

A much feted self-styled ‘superhead’ will be stripped of the schools in Birmingham under his command following the discovery of financial mismanagement, but is extraordinarily going to keep his job as headteacher, according to reports.

Liam Nolan pleaded with the General Teaching Council to keep his job after a conviction for a homosexual offence at the Midlands Sandwell Valley beauty spot in 2007. Three of his school governors quit in protest. Later Nolan invited Sir Ian McKellen to promote sodomy at the original Perry Beeches school in Great Barr, Birmingham in 2009, leading to a Christian Voice street witness outside the school.

Nolan subsequently fronted a Stonewall conference encouraging teachers to follow his example. It was called ‘Education for all’ with the subtitle ‘challenging homophobia and supporting young people.’

The Guardian reports Nolan and his Perry Beeches Academies Trust will be stripped of the five academies he runs as chief executive.

The Education Funding Agency investigated only after whistleblower allegations about the financial connection between Nolan and a supply company, Nexus Schools Ltd. The EFA Report found ‘Nexus Schools Ltd’ received £1.3m from the Government and paid another company, ‘Liam Nolan Ltd’, £160,000 over two years to add to his £120,000 per year salary as head teacher.

The Birmingham Mail reports that Liam Nolan has stepped down as the Academies Trust’s chief executive following a call from Birmingham Councillor Brigid Jones for the trustees to consider their positions.

David Cameron opening Liam Nolan's Perry Beeches III Academy. — David Cameron opening Liam Nolan’s Perry Beeches III Academy.

But the same paper later reported that Nolan was set to keep his job as headteacher.

The BBC reports that politicians from Michael Gove, as Education Secretary, and David Cameron praised Liam Nolan. The Prime Minister even invited the stalwart Labour supporter to address the Conservative Party Conference then opened his third academy, Perry Beeches III. This was despite their knowing about Nolan’s promotion of sodomy at Perry Beeches and his conviction for outraging public decency by a jury at Wolverhampton Crown Court in June 2007 where he was fined £1,000 with £1,500 costs. The man he was with was fined £250. At the time Nolan described himself as ‘gay’ and said he was ‘in a relationship’.

Nolan’s willingness to engage with the academy programme made him the Government’s poster-boy. But now that his sexual immorality has spilled over into financial mismanagement, critics are pointing out that the academies idea is open to anyone who wants to make a quick buck to take advantage of the system.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Judge rules Bucks girls can go home

By

-

2 March 2016

2

Milton Keynes Magistrates Court, where the case was heard.

A Family Court judge has ruled two children should go home after criticising a local authority for failing to admit that they were suffering emotional harm in its care.

District Judge Patrick Perusko made the order on Friday 26th February 2016 in Milton Keynes Family Court.

A series of exchanges between the judge and Mr Shaw, representing Buckinghamshire County Council, served to illustrate the extent to which local authorities go to build a case against parents while denying all responsibility themselves.

Mr Shaw contended that the children, girls aged twelve and fourteen, were at significant risk of harm at home. The Local Authority, he said, wanted to keep the girls in care.

But after repeated questioning by District Judge Perusko, it emerged that the report prepared by social worker Rosalinde Woodroffe had not adequately balanced this alleged harm with the known harm currently occurring to the sisters from being held in a foster home where they had been deprived of privacy, night-clothes, toothbrushes and even clean underwear.

Bucks County Council were not ‘considering the other side of the coin’, said the judge.

The eldest girl had emailed the judge pleading to go home, and her views and those of her sister must be taken into account, he said.

Mr Shaw said the parents needed to recognise that they had harmed their children, even though the girls had subsequently challenged what the social worker wrote down, which was the Council’s only basis for keeping them. He was incensed that the children had refused to give social workers the pins to their mobile phones and annoyed that there appeared to be ‘collusion’ between the children and their parents. He contended there was fear in the home of the Christian family, physical chastisement, and a belief in satanic forces.

But the judge insisted that there was no analysis by the local authority of the harm being suffered now and therefore no possible assessment of a ‘balance of harm’.

He had no need to hear from the parents’ barrister, he said, and then explained ‘why the children are going home’.

The District Judge said: ‘Children should be at home if possible and should only be removed when there is a real risk of harm.’ He said the risks about which the local authority was concerned ‘have not gone but can be safely managed with the children returned home’.

Mr Shaw said the children would return home after school that same afternoon.

Afterwards, the court-appointed children’s guardian said she was ‘very pleased’ with the outcome.

The parents, devout Christians, were praising God outside the courtroom after the verdict.

Mr Shaw refused to comment.

On the train home, this writer received a call to report that the girls had indeed returned home.

This might not be the end of the matter. Bucks County Council seem determined to try to get the children back, but the case has shown that prayer and hope can prevail. Dear reader, give God the glory. The presence of the Press in a courtroom probably does no harm either. And after the debacle of the week before, this time there was no objection to the presence of a journalist in the courtroom from Buckinghamshire County Council.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Schools gay propaganda in RE

By

-

27 February 2016

3

Children in Cambridgeshire are to indoctrinated with pro-sodomy propaganda following a decision by the local Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE), chaired by Cllr Tony Orgee (left).

The leaflet will promote the teaching of ‘gender identity’ and ‘sexuality’ in religious education in the County.

Both are ‘protected’ characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and public authorities in England and Wales, which includes county councils responsible for education, have a duty under Section 149 of the Act to promote them.

The Committee, which includes a Mormon and a Muslim, approved the leaflet at its meeting on 4th February but has not yet openly published it. It was due to be discussed at pro-sodomy charity Stonewall’s first inter-faith seminar on 25th February and the news report said it ‘contains advice about handling issues around
gender identity and sexuality in RE, together with a range of resources for teachers’.

SACRE chairman and Cambridgeshire County Councillor Tony Orgee (Conservative) said: “Religion is about how people live their lives and raises questions about what it is to be human. It encompasses a diversity of views about the ethical ideals that guide human behaviour and why these are followed.

“All religions therefore present a range of beliefs and practices relevant to issues relating to human sexuality
and gender identity. This new leaflet crystallizes the importance of adhering to these values – it will be an invaluable teaching aid.”

What Cllr Orgee did not say is that religion is first and foremost about how people search for whatever they see as divine and that not one world religion endorses sodomy as a legitimate behaviour.

Tory-run Cambridgeshire County Councillor Ed Cearns, Liberal Democrat, a fellow member of SACRE, added: “I am delighted this leaflet has been produced to coincide with LGBT history month.

“As a former RE teacher, I understand … the vital work of fostering an understanding of the harm caused by homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying.”

One would have thought that any bullying was harmful, but propaganda such as the SACRE leaflet is not about stopping bullying – it may even add to it – but about promoting perversion.

Cllr Cearns is himself homosexual. He was on the Rainbow Radio show on http://cambridge105.fm/ on the 20th of this month talking about ‘being gay in the council and LGBT History Month’ (which is February, of course – you knew that).

Interestingly, Cllr Cearns said publishing the leaflet was part of something called “the Stonewall Education Index”. He meant its ‘Education Equality Index‘ which is a league table of education authorities which are doing the most to promote perversion. Cambridgeshire County Council is third, after Bath & North East Somerset Council and Hertfordshire County Council. All three are Conservative-controlled.

Cllr Cearns is a very committed gay activist. He popped up when the LGBT ‘history month’ bandwagon rolled into Cambridge at the end of last year, complete with ‘lessons for local primary school children and workshops for youth workers, faith workers and librarians.’

And when Cambridgeshire County Council failed to fly the homosexual ‘rainbow’ flag from Shire Hall in February 2014, it was Cllr Cearns who led the complaints. He was rewarded when the flag was flown for the first time this year. No doubt an OBE will follow in due course, for ‘services to diversity’.

One person who will receive no such honour, nor would he welcome it, is farmer, journalist and political activist Robin Page. The former ‘one man and his dog’ television presenter is also a fiercely independent councillor for South Cambridgeshire District Council. When that outfit flew the rainbow flag in February 2013, he blogged:

“The event is pathetic and makes the council a PC laughing stock. In fact it shows a lack of respect to the rest of society. What about those who are celibate – who have achieved much throughout history – is a flag being raised for them?

“Then of course we could have a flag celebrating vegans? And what about a flag celebrating the achievements of all those with irritable bowel syndrome? I want to be part of a community – not a division in a conglomerate of divisions.”

Conservative Tony Orgee, who as well as being on the Cambridgeshire SACRE as a County Councillor is also chair of South Cambs, described Mr Page’s comments as “very disappointing”. There’s a surprise.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Bucks County Council fails to bar the press

By

-

20 February 2016

6

LinHazell — Councillor Lin Hazell, Bucks County Council Cabinet Member for Children's Services

Martin Tett, Leader of Conservative-controlled Buckinghamshire County Council — Councillor Martin Tett, Leader of Conservative-controlled Bucks County Council

Councillor Lin Hazell, Bucks County Council Cabinet Member for Children's Services — Councillor Lin Hazell, Bucks County Council Cabinet Member for Children’s Services

A local authority has failed in a bid to oust a journalist covering a child protection case in the family court.

Buckinghamshire County Council (leader Cllr Martin Tett, left) initially raised no objection to the presence of Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice and an accredited journalist, in a case where they were seeking an interim care order.

But during an interval in which District Judge Patrick Perusko met the two children involved, at their request, before reconvening in Milton Keynes Magistrates Court, the Tory-run council’s social workers and advocate together with the court-appointed ‘children’s guardian’ and her solicitor took the opportunity to do an internet search of Christian Voice.

When the court reassembled, Bucks County Council’s advocate, one Mr Dove, objected to Green’s presence, based on blog gossip about the alleged political stance of the prayer and action group. The solicitor for the children’s guardian backed up the plea.

But District Judge Perusko was having none of it. Mr Green, he told the advocates, was entitled to be there. If they objected, it had to be on specific grounds listed in a court practice direction. It was clear these did not include that the opinions of a journalist were not politically correct.

So long as the children were not identified directly or indirectly, the media were entitled to report on a child protection case. The advocates were left looking foolish.

Stephen Green said afterwards, ‘Whilst I am flattered by the attention they have given to a humble reporter and commentator, I do feel Bucks County Council could have spent their time in the interval better, perhaps by going out to buy some toothbrushes for the children in their care.’

Click here for our report of the hearing: Social Services tell girls: ‘No Nightie? Wear my Tee-shirt!’

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Social Services tell girls: ‘No Nightie? Wear my Tee-shirt!’

By

See Bucks County Council fails to bar the press

-

20 February 2016

1

Two adolescent girls taken into care by a local authority’s social services had to sleep in their school uniforms, a court was told yesterday.

District Judge Patrick Perusko, sitting in Milton Keynes Family Court, heard that the sisters, one aged 14 and the other 12, were not provided by Buckinghamshire County Council with night clothes. They also complained there was no lock on the bedroom door in their foster placement.

Eventually, said one of the girls, the foster mother gave her one of her husband’s old tee-shirts to sleep in.

The sisters also complained that they were given no tooth brushes and that when they asked for a hair brush, a used shared one was produced tangled with other people’s hair. The foster parents made no attempt to keep their dog out of the girls’ room, which terrified them.

To pile on the indignity, the girls were also given no clean underwear by the County Council.

Girls want to go home

The girls are from a stable Christian family and not surprisingly, the District Judge said that both girls had told him they wanted to go home.

The case started when eldest girl’s school learnt that her mother had raised her hand to her. Any contact, says the mother, was accidental, but the school told social services and both sisters were taken into care just over a week ago.

The parents refused to sign a notice under Section 20 of the Children Act, which would effectively ask Bucks CC to provide accommodation. The Council then sought an care order in the County Court. An interim order was granted on Friday 12th February, for eight days. Yesterday’s hearing was to decide whether it should be extended.

Both parents complained to Christian Voice that social worker Rosalinde Woodroffe either misunderstood or misrepresented what they had told them in the report she made. In other cases, parents have said that social workers have resorted to invention to embellish the case the Council was building against them. One social worker whistle-blower even said his bosses objected when his write-up was too favourable to parents.

Bucks Council causing emotional harm

The court even heard that Bucks CC had only served papers on the parents the day before the hearing, giving them no time to prepare a statement in response.

The Judge said significant emotional harm had been done and was continuing to be done by the local authority to the girls. He was surprised that in a whole week the Local Authority had not troubled to arrange a medical examination for the girls to substantiate its contention that they had been subjected to unreasonable physical chastisement – or any at all.

But it seemed that because of what he had read in the report the judge was prepared to order that the girls, as he said, ‘Should stay where they are – just about – on balance.’

A case where parents deny that have done anything wrong is difficult for social workers to understand, but this ministry is surprised that District Judge Perusko did not hear oral evidence from the parents before making his ruling.

The case was set down for another hearing on Friday 26th February, at which, said the District Judge, he hoped to return the children to their parents. ‘They are going home’, he said, ‘subject to the parents being open and honest and co-operating with social services’.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Bexley Council threat over ‘injustice’ video

By

-

20 January 2016

Bexley council threat over ‘injustice’ video

Press Release from Christian Voice – Immediate: 12.20 hrs 20th January 2016

The Head of Children’s Services at a local authority has threatened a journalist over a video claiming her department ‘visited injustice’ on a family in her borough.

Jacky Tiotto, Head of Children’s Services at the London Borough of Bexley, has written to Stephen Green of Christian Voice demanding he take down a YouTube video in which he interviewed the parents of four children taken by Bexley and kept in care.

The video is called ‘Christmas Ruined by Social Services’ and may be seen at youtu.be/CaBczpK7HOM.

Ms Tiotto says a section in which the parents talk about advice given to them by a family court judge to plead guilty to child abuse in the Crown Court is a contempt of court. So, she says, are three other occasions where the parents say judges and social workers would not listen to the children.

The parents were actually charged by police with abuse following a foolish and false allegation from the eldest son. They were acquitted in July 2015 in the Crown Court when their son vehemently retracted his allegation.

A section in which the parents claim the social worker in the case acted out of religious hatred escapes Ms Tiotto’s wrath.

Despite neither the case nor the children and not even the parents being identified, and despite contesting the accuracy of the information in the video, the highly-paid Children’s Services boss claims Green is contravening Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. This prohibits ‘publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private’ under the Children Act 1989.

Stephen Green, said today, ‘Rather then waste her precious time and council tax on frivolous legal action, Jacky Tiotto should be calling her staff to account over this case and reuniting this family.

‘A section in her letter where she says it is up to the parents to make a court application for return of their children, rather than for Bexley to do the decent and honourable thing and return them voluntarily, displays a callous disregard for justice, for ordinary families and for the emotional harm being done to these children on her watch.

‘In addition, the parents have been punished for doing nothing wrong. Other parents are now contacting me and it seems this case is by no means unique.

‘Jacky Tiotto is responsible for a massive, continuing injustice and it is obviously embarrassing to her and Bexley’s administration that it has come to light.

‘I’ll take legal advice, but my inclination is not to be deterred from giving the victims of injustice a voice by threats from uncaring bureaucrats’.

ENDS

For further information, phone Stephen Green on 07931 490050.

Christmas ruined by Social Services

By

-

4 January 2016

8

Happy New Year. At this festive season, please spare a prayer for one Christian family who are spending their second Christmas divided. I traveled to Bexley on Monday 21st December 2015 to interview the parents.

Following a foolish and false allegation from their eldest son, who has since vehemently retracted it, all four children are now ‘in care’. You will scarcely believe their story, but it needed to be told – and it needs to be heard.

Someone in your family or in your church could be on the receiving end of similar treatment, so please find a moment to view our video and pray for this family.

May God bless you and draw close to you this day and always.

If you have a story to tell us about Social Services Child Protection people, please get in touch.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (KJV)

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Cornwall Council in discrimination case

By

-

16 November 2015

13

A local council has won a secret trial after being sued for discrimination by a father under the Human Rights Act.

The father, whom we cannot name, is opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion and is suing Cornwall Council after its social services department intervened to prevent contact between him and his son, now five.

He alleges that they discriminated against him on the grounds of his beliefs after a social worker interrogated him about his opposition to abortion and gay-marriage.

COURT HEARING OUTCOME

A court hearing held on 23rd October decided that the case should be held at its substantive hearing in December in secret rather than in open court. Cornwall Council wanted the hearing to be in secret. The father, known to this ministry, wanted it to be heard in the open, so that the media, including Christian Voice, could report on it.

The father says the social worker voiced ‘concerns’ to do with his faith that were ‘insurmountable’ and told him that because of his unacceptable ‘beliefs’, openly posted on a blog, it was the social worker’s ‘duty’ to ensure that he never saw his son again. He has not seen his son for two and a half years.

The father, who is separated from the child’s mother, initially referred his son to social services because of concerns that the mother was not keeping to a written agreement about contact.

PUBLIC SUPPORT

At previous hearings the father defeated two applications to strike out his claim, which began in March 2014, and two applications for summary judgment against him.

The father told Christian Voice: ‘Whether you agree with the social worker’s decision or not, it is surely wrong that such an important issue as this should be decided in a secret trial. The issue to be decided is whether social workers should be allowed to deprive a child of one of his parents because that parent holds strong moral Christian beliefs which differ from those of the Government.’

There was a good degree of support from the public, particularly from the claimant’s church.

JUDGE CONSIDERED REPRESENTATIONS

The circuit judge hearing the application was His Honour Judge Cotter QC. HHJ Cotter heard, considered, then dismissed representations from the media.

READ: Exod 23:6; Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17; 1Kings 3:28; 1Chron 18:14; Job 37:23; Psalm 82:3, 89:14; Prov 31:4-5; Isa 59:4,14; Ezek 45:9; John 7:24; Acts 23:35; Romans 13:4; Rev 20:4.

PRAY: that justice may be done and may be seen to be done in this case. Pray also for wisdom for the father and for Christian Voice in the matter of an appeal.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

‘Putin’ makes Elton John’s Day

By

The recording and a transcript were gleefully added to the Russia Today website.

-

19 September 2015

2

Elton John promoting sodomy. — Elton John promoting sodomy through his ‘Aids Foundation’.

Sir Elton John was on the receiving end of a prank this week after expressing a desire last Sunday to lobby Russia’s President Vladimir Putin over Russia’s antipathy to advancing the cause of sodomy.

The singer had already been promoting gay rights in Ukraine, where he was on tour.

Two days later, Sir Elton had switched from saying the president’s stance was ‘ridiculous’, ‘isolating and prejudiced’ to praising him for ‘reaching out’ by apparently phoning the ageing pop star out of the blue.

The only problem was, the president’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov told reporters that reports of a conversation were “not true”.

“I don’t know who spoke to Elton John but President Putin did not speak to him,” he said. “… most importantly we didn’t receive any proposals to meet.”

He added: “If the president does get such a signal from Elton John, the president has always been open to discuss any… human rights problems, any issues. He is always ready to clarify the real situation.”

The ‘real situation’ is that Russia has passed a law outlawing homosexual propaganda to protect its young people.

‘Wonderful moment’ in Elton’s life

'Vovan' (right) and 'Lexus' — ‘Vovan’ (right) and ‘Lexus’

The next day, one Vladimir Krasnov, known as “Vovan”, admitted that he made the call with his sidekick Alexei Stolyarov, known as “Lexus”.

Vovan told the BBC and Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, “Alexei has excellent English so he played Dmitry Peskov and translated our conversation. And I was Vladimir Putin.”

“It turned out that Elton John was really expecting that call, so he really believed he was talking to the people we said we were,” he said, adding that the singer had been in a London recording studio at the time of the call.

Sir Elton told the pranksters that he was ‘extremely honored’ to be called. ‘It is a great privilege to be able to speak to one of the most influential people in the world. It’s amazing,’ he continued.

The singer concluded the call by saying to Lexus, “Please thank him for his time and tell him he’s made my day. It’s a very wonderful moment in my life.”

“He really believed he was talking to the people we said we were,” said Vladimir Krasnov, known as “Vovan”.

Propaganda point

By Thursday, the musician was putting a brave face on his discomfort, saying he still wanted to speak to President Putin and then deciding to make a propaganda point out of it.

On his Instagram account, John posted a picture of a man with a bloodied face, whom we were to assume had acquired the injury from someone opposed to sodomy. John said: “Pranks are funny. Homophobia, however, is never funny.”

What is even less funny is authority figures like teachers telling children there is nothing wrong with being homosexual and encouraging them to turn a transient phase which they would otherwise grow out of into an ‘orientation’ which they will never shake off.

It also isn’t funny when entertainers use their considerable following to promote a pro-sodomy agenda.

We can but pray that Vladimir Putin will continue to keep Russian young people safe from the machinations of campaigning homosexuals like Elton John.

What does ‘taken into care’ mean?

By

-

13 July 2015

12

Danielle was moved 26 times in five years and raped three time while 'in care'. — Danielle was moved 26 times in five years and raped three times while ‘in care’.

Birmingham Social Services oversaw some of the worst cases of child abuse, including that of seven-year-old Khyra Ishaq, who starved to death at her home in Handsworth in 2008, and Keanu Williams, who was found collapsed in his mother’s partner’s flat in 2011.

These high-profile cases, following after that of baby Peter Connelly, who was murdered by his mother, her boyfriend and his brother in 2007 in London’s Haringey, which was already under pressure following the death of Victoria Climbié ten years earlier, caused social workers to put caution before common sense.

Children have been taken from their parents on the slightest whiff of abuse, which for today’s social workers involves any sign of corporal punishment. But what happens then? The BBC website is carrying a video of an interview with a girl called Danielle. She was taken into care in 1998 at the age of 11 after marks from a belt were seen on her back. If that were punishment, it sounds excessive, but what subsequently happened to Danielle makes it seem like the ultimate in compassion.

Danielle, who is now twenty-seven, says she was moved six times in six weeks and had twenty-nine moves by the time she left the care system aged just sixteen. She was raped three times whilst ‘in care’, in addition to an attempted rape when she was only eleven and in a children’s home. She ran away when she was thirteen but was brought back.

The outcomes of children in care make shocking reading. According to a Government study in 2013, ‘67.8% have special educational needs’. ‘Around half of all looked after children aged 5 to 16 were considered to be ‘borderline’ or ‘cause for concern’ in relation to their emotional and behavioural health’, the study said.

Their educational gaps ‘are still large, especially for key stage 4, where 15.3% of looked after children achieved 5 or more A* to C GCSEs or equivalent including English and mathematics compared with 58.0% of non-looked-after children’.

Even according to the NSPCC, which has an interest in providing care facilities, the mental health difficulties of children in care are four times higher than their peers.

The Government report did not mention the staggeringly high incidences of sexual abuse faced by children in care, but the Independent newspaper reported:

‘One in every hundred children living in care is abused every year in Britain, according to the most comprehensive study conducted into the issue.

The research by York University and the NSPCC is the first of its kind to uncover and analyse local authority records on abuse in foster and residential care.

‘Academics tracked abuse allegations – and their outcomes – between 2009 and 2012. They found that on average there are between 450 and 550 cases of proven abuse every year in foster care and between 250 and 300 cases of confirmed abuse a year in residential care.

I’n residential care the rate of substantiated abuse claims is significantly higher than for foster families, with an average of between two and three proven cases per 100 children.’

Would the children have done better and been treated better left with their parents under some kind of supervision with assistance in parenting? It is hard to imagine their outcomes would have been much worse.

There is little sign of social workers, whose jobs are under no risk if they take children from their parents, becoming more family-friendly. But with being in care leading to such horrifying abuse as Danielle suffered and the poor outcomes reported by the Government, surely a rethink is overdue.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Consent Lessons for 11-Year-Olds

By

-

24 March 2015

3

Education secretary Nicky Morgan has commissioned new guidance to schools for giving lessons about consent and rape to 11-year-olds. The new guidelines will start after the Easter holidays.

Scheduled to be taught in PSHE classes, the new lessons are supposed to give children “a better understanding of the society around them” so they can make smart choices and stay safe.

In an online statement, the PSHEA said: “The key learning set out in this guidance is respecting the rights of others, communication, negotiation and consider[ing] the freedom and capacity of others to make choices.” The association also said that students would learn that sexual activity for those under the age of 16 was illegal.

Additionally, students will learn about whether or not consent is attainable when a person is drunk, and the issue of gay rape will also be added to the curriculum later this year. Many of the lesson plans involve situational ethics and encourage the student to discuss what is right or wrong in these circumstances. For example, one of the questions is: “What misconceptions about consent would an alien get if their only evidence was from pornography?”

The Government has given formal guidelines for the classes, saying that the topic should be broached “before young people are sexually active,” because it will be ineffective after that. The proposal made sure to mention how acknowledgment of sexually active young people is not the same as “encouraging underage sexual activity.”

Ms Morgan publicized the measures on International Women’s Day and stressed that the curriculum will be age appropriate and in line with British values. The goal is to give instructors the tools and confidence to teach these difficult topics.

These guidelines were introduced amid growing concerns for the safety of children, particularly girls. Rising numbers of child “sexting” and child exploitation cases in Rotherham and Oxford are just some of the issues being cited.

Writing in The Sunday Times, Ms Morgan stated: ‘Mothers at the school gates often tell me about their worries for their daughters. They tell me that on top of the usual stress of school life and teenage years, they want to know their girls are being taught what a healthy relationship looks like and how to say “no.”‘

However, other parents are concerned that these classes could put even more pressure on children to engage in sexual activity at a young age, causing an “erosion of childhood.”

Family Education Trust spokeswoman Sarah Carter disagreed with the proposed effectiveness lessons, saying: ‘I work with vulnerable teenagers who have been groomed and this is not going to protect them. This creates the idea that you will find yourself in this situation so make sure you give express consent.’

This curriculum is not mandatory, and the PSHE Association has expressed disapproval of the fact that Morgan has made a harder push for these classes to be required in all schools.

The 60-page guidelines contain eight suggested lessons for teachers. By the end of the course students will understand what sexual consent is and what constitutes a healthy relationship (significantly, however, students are not taught that it is marriage that constitutes a healthy sexual relationship). They will also be taught about pornography and rape. See this article in The Daily Telegraph for a summary of these eight suggested lessons.

Despite these efforts, many are concerned that ‘consent lessons’ will do virtually nothing to help children stay safe, particularly girls. In a rape situation the assailant is not going to desist simply because the person he is attacking does not give consent. That is why child exploitation is a problem in the first place. The lessons do not address the root of the problem, which is men who think it is acceptable to take advantage of a child or woman. Instead, all these lessons will accomplish will be to lower important the barriers of innocent children by prematurely introducing them to the disordered side of sexuality.

In the cases of sexual activity between school children, schools should do more to promote chastity. Just because children engage in underage sexual activity does not mean it is right or normal, even if the parties involved have both consented.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Protect sex-ed from parents says health board

By

-

10 March 2015

6

A Scottish health board has said sex education needs protection from parents.

Dumfries and Galloway health board has voiced its opposition to a Scottish Government plan to allow teachers and students to opt out of lessons on equal marriage and same-sex relationships.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Scotland’s largest health board, is also opposed to new draft guidance for sex education lessons that would allow teachers or pupils to opt out on the grounds of ‘conscience’.

In a submission to ministers, the board said: “It is extremely concerning that teaching staff would be provided an opportunity to refuse to participate in this particular aspect of the curriculum … There are other areas of the taught curriculum where ‘conscience’ may be a factor – e.g. modern studies or religious education – where no option to withdraw is provided.”

The Glasgow & Clyde board argued that staff who opt out from sex education lessons on the grounds of ‘conscience’ may only need what they described as ‘training’ to overcome their objections.

Dumfries and Galloway health board warned against allowing pupils to opt out of lessons using a ‘conscience clause’, arguing, without any evidence, that this ‘could lead’ to ‘intimidation’ by parents of their children and the ‘entire basis’ of sex education being ‘undermined’ in Scotland.

“As we move forward into an era where same-sex marriage is permitted, there may be significant campaigns by parents in relation to (sex education) which alludes to same‐sex unions and there is a need to protect programmes from activities of this sort,” Dumfries and Galloway Health Board said.

Their comments indicate why sex educators and pro-homosexual teachers are prone to introducing amoral topics without telling parents in advance. Parents are regarded in sex education circles as a barrier to the sort of indoctrination the sex educators want to carry out.

Dumfries & Galloway Health Board HQ, taken by Darrin Antrobus — Dumfries & Galloway Health Board headquarters building.Taken by **Darrin Antrobus**

According to the homosexual website PinkNews, health chiefs also protested against the guidance recommending pupils learn about “the values of a stable and loving family life”, arguing this was insensitive to those youngsters who did not grow up in such an environment.

It gets worse. Some health boards even objected to the phrase “both sexes” being used in the guidance, stating this was “problematic” for youngsters ‘who are transgender’.

In response, a Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government is currently updating its existing guidance on the Conduct of Relationships, Sexual Health and Parenthood Education in Scottish Schools document and as part of that has sought views from various organisations and individuals.

“We are considering carefully the comments we have received and will publish an updated version in due course.”

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Faith Schools Must Promote “British Values” of Gay Rights

By

-

13 November 2014

8

Secretary of State for Education Nicky Morgan believes it is "crucial" for all schools to promote tolerance for beliefs that are different from those the school might believe. — Secretary of State for Education Nicky Morgan believes it is “crucial” for all schools to promote tolerance for beliefs that are different from those the school might believe.

Faith schools must promote “British Values” such as gay rights and other religions.

The Equality Act, effective last week, gives inspectors the authority to censure schools that do not “encourage respect for lesbian, gay and transgender people, and other religions and races.”

Inspectors will look for schools that are intolerant of same-sex “marriage” or engage in practices such as forcing girls to sit at the back of the classrooms.

These new rules were inspired by Michael Gove, MP for Surrey Heath, in response to the “Trojan Horse” incident in Birmingham, which revealed that extremist views were being taught in state schools.

In response to news about the policy, the Department of Education tweeted: “Nonsense to say schools ‘must teach gay rights’. We want schools to teach broad curric based on British values.”

The tweet, which was later deleted, offended many people because it seemed to make a distinction between promoting gay rights and “British values,” which many believe are the same thing.

Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt responded: “LGBT rights are British values. The Department for Education must back compulsory sex and relationship education, including LGBT rights.”

According to Andy Slaughter, the Labour MP for Hammersmith, the DfE needs to clarify whether it considers gay rights to be “British values.”

Christians have opposed the new policy, fearing that it will threaten their religious liberty. The DfE says that teachers who disagree with gay “marriage” are allowed to express their opinions in class, but they must respect gay children or parents and not discriminate against them.

Antonia Tully, national coordinator of Safe at School, a parents’ rights campaign of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, called Morgan’s announcement an “attack on every parent in the country.”

Tully said in a statement that “it’s quite clear that the new rules for schools actively to promote so-called ‘British values’ are all about indoctrinating children with a homosexual ideology. The prospect that schools will have to champion homosexuality or risk being downgraded by Ofsted strips all parents of their right to educate their own children about sexual morality.”

She added, “It is misleading to suggest that same-sex issues must be embedded in the school curriculum in order to protect children. Parents will be left powerless to keep their children safe from harmful sexual lifestyles. Nicky Morgan’s zeal to further the gay agenda is undermining every parent in the country.”

However, Nicky Morgan, secretary of education who succeeded Michael Gove, told the Sunday Times that it was “crucial” for Christian and Jewish schools to follow these rules as well as Muslim schools, despite the fact that the schools targeted in the Trojan Horse Plot were not faith schools.

Already an all-girls Jewish schools was punished last week and downgraded from good to adequate ratings for not meeting the new standards. According to inspectors who visited the school, there were “major gaps in students’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Students are not provided with sufficient opportunities to learn about or understand people of other faiths or cultures. The school does not promote adequately students’ awareness and tolerance of communities which are different to their own. As a result, the school does not prepare students adequately for life in modern Britain.”

Despite this development, the DfE claims that faith schools are not being forced to teach gay rights, a notion that one spokesman declared was “complete nonsense.” Commenting further, he said that “Ofsted are rightly ensuring that schools do not indoctrinate pupils about gay people – or any other people – being inferior. The same goes for schools that do things like make girls sit separately at the back of the class. Both are practices which go directly against the fundamental British values of tolerance and respect.”

Morgan will soon begin a consultation suggesting that students taking GCSE religious education must study more than one faith, exposing students to views other than their own and offering them a more well-rounded education.

The question many parents will want to ask is this: Where will inspectors differentiate between upholding Christian beliefs, on the one hand, and teaching students intolerance, on the other? Contrary to popular belief, many Christians do not want to discriminate against others when they teach their views in faith schools. There is a big difference between teaching about other views and condoning them. Unfortunately, Nicky Morgan seems to be leaning toward making schools enforce the latter.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Sex Education Could Become Compulsory Under Proposed Measures

Education & Children

By

-

31 October 2014

4

Caroline Lucas is the Green Party MP for Brighton. Her Bill seeks to make sex education compulsory

Sex education could become compulsory in all state schools under a Bill introduced by Brighton MP Caroline Lucas.

Under current law, free schools and academies are not required to follow the national curriculum. Moreover, many parents choose for their children to opt-out of sex education classes, preferring to offer chastity-based education at home.

Caroline Lucas’s private members bill would force all state schools to offer sex education. Known as Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (Statutory Requirement) Bill 2014-15, it is expected to have its second reading debate on 27 February 2015. Meanwhile, Parliament has been collecting information from witnesses for and against the proposals.

A very revealing article appeared in the Guardian last week giving a glimpse of some of the disturbing content presented to students under the guise of “sex education”, including three-dimensional pornography (although Sally Weale, the author of the Guardian article, seemed to think it was great). If Lucas’s Bill passes, we can expect UK schools to be flooded with these types of crude lessons, ostensibly to prevent sexual violence and inform students of things like consent and STDs.

Although the proposals are supported by most of the “experts” in the establishment, parents are overwhelmingly opposed to it. Last year a Labour amendment to the Children and Families Bill proposing the same was voted against by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives.

Professor David Paton, chair of industrial economics at the University of Nottingham, expressed the feeling of many when he said

“There seems no sound reason to introduce statutory SRE in schools or to end the right to parents/carers to opt their children out of school-based SRE.”

“What is interesting is that professional organisations are pushing for statutory sex education but almost all of the responses from parents are against. There is an ideological divide about who are the experts.”

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Shocking Documentary about UK Forced Adoption Practices

By

-

24 September 2014

21

This June, ITV ran a shocking documentary on the UK’s forced adoption practices. Titled ‘Exposure – ‘Please Don’t Take My Child’, the film chronicled the ongoing scandal of social workers abducting children from loving parents. Read more about the documentary on the ITV news website or watch the full video below.

The video should impress upon all of us who have ‘child protection’ policies in place that great damage can be done to a child and indeed a whole family by involving Social Services – which can be seen as a betrayal.

It may be far better for a church to help a struggling family to get on its feet financially and socially.

After all, the families we are talking about are often those on the margins of society – the very people our gracious Lord would have us help and stand up for.

[facebook-comments-master-un]

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Ditch Christian School Assemblies says NGA

By

-

3 July 2014

21

The National Governors’ Association (NGA) has suggested scrapping Christian assemblies in state schools.

The NGA, which told Christian Voice that one-fifth of state school governing bodies are members, says staff are “unable or unwilling” to lead pupils in prayer and that worship is ‘meaningless’ to non-Christian schoolchildren.

In a policy statement, the body said schools were “not places of worship but places of education” and “the worship of a religion or religions in all schools should not be … compulsory.”

“Few schools can or do meet the current legislative requirement for a daily act of collective worship, partly because there isn’t space in most schools to gather students together and often staff are unable or unwilling to lead a collective worship session,” it said.

“There is also the added issue that worship implies belief in a particular faith – if the ‘act of worship’ is not in your faith then it is meaningless as an act of worship.”

The NGA said dropping collective Christian worship from schools’ remit would “not prevent them from holding assemblies that address a whole range of topics, including faith and belief.”

The Church of England said dropping Christian assemblies would “deny children the opportunity to experience something they wouldn’t experience elsewhere in their lives”.

In 2012, Welsh Evangelical Alliance National Assembly Liaison Officer Jim Stewart said of Christian worship in schools: “If this right were taken away from us it would lead to further marginalisation of Christianity in public life. This is not just something that is beneficial to us though – it is for the common good and other faith groups in Wales are supportive of it as are people who don’t have a particular faith.”

Naturally, the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society welcomed the NGA’s comments, with the BHA saying schools should be “holding inclusive assemblies that forward the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of all pupils and staff”.

However, it isn’t at all clear what ‘spiritual, moral, social and cultural’ values would qualify as ‘inclusive’ nor whom or what they could be founded on if not on the God who brought this nation victorious through two world wars.

It is no good appealing to ‘multi-culturalism.’ Even though Islam is the UK’s fastest-growing religion, its practitioners still only number 5% of the population. Our African and Caribbean populations are overwhelmingly Christian. Britain is not ‘multi-cultural’ in any meaningful sense.

For some fifteen hundred years, as they became converted, rulers in this nation increasingly rooted their laws and morality in what Almighty God revealed in the Bible, revering Jesus Christ as King of kings. This process culminated in the late-ninth-century law-code of King Alfred the Great, who based his ‘dooms’ on the laws of God in the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses.

In a country with such a rich Christian heritage, who defines what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ if not Almighty God? The school head? The school governors? On what basis?

A collective act of worship has been a statutory requirement in state schools since the Education Act 1944 stated that ‘the school day in every county school and every voluntary school shall begin with collective worship on the part of all the pupils in attendance’. The Act gave parents the right to withdraw their child, perhaps in favour of separate arrangements. The Education Reform Act 1988 reaffirmed that position and reinforced it, stating that the act of worship should be ‘mainly of a broadly Christian character’.

Children in state schools should engage in a collective act of worship because ours is constitutionally and demographically a Christian country. As we lose respect for the sacred, we lose respect for each other. Britain would become just a bit more brutal, crass and disrespectful as a result.

The elimination of school prayer would rank alongside amoral sex education and the silencing of any possibility of creation as a prime motivator of antisocial behaviour. It would be irrational for anyone to ask why God permits this or that outrage of violence in schools which have legislated God out of the door.

The National Governors’ Association cannot claim to represent anything approaching a majority of school governors. But if it is true that staff are unable or unwilling to conduct an act of Christian worship, the way is open for a local church to offer the services of its pastor, youth leader or another committed member of the congregation. So there is an opportunity in the present situation for closer relationships between schools and churches.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

New Family Court won’t end injustice

By

-

22 April 2014

Jayden Wray's vitamin deficiency was to blame for the broken bones which led to him being taken 'into care'. — Jayden Wray’s vitamin deficiency was to blame for the broken bones which led to him being taken ‘into care’.

The much-trumpeted legal reforms announced today will not end the secrecy and injustice which surrounds the Family Court.

The plan includes new time limits for cases where children are taken into care, which could work against parents struggling to meet demands placed upon them by social services departments.

Ministers said the changes would put the welfare of children at the centre of the system. But that is what they have always said. The suspicion is that the welfare of the system itself is paramount.

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, said the changes were the biggest in a lifetime. But they will not end the cosy relationship of social workers, Cafcass officials, paid ‘experts’ and child panel solicitors.

Crucially, they will not end the cloak of secrecy imposed on all dealings in the Family Courts. No-one may speak outside of what occurs inside on pain of imprisonment. This mafia-like omerta allows injustice to flourish. Justice can only happen when it is seen to be done. We are told the secrecy is imposed to protect the child. In reality, it is there to protect the system.

Care cases will be completed in six months in a single Family Court, which replaces the current three-tier court system in family cases. Although it could be good that cases are followed through by a single judge – assuming he or she is not corrupt – this time-scale will increase the sense parents have of their children being rushed into the adoption process against their wishes – the so-called ‘freed for adoption’ mechanism.

There are also supposed to be limits placed on the amount of expert evidence that can be used in cases involving children, only being permitted when it is ‘necessary to resolve the case justly’. Whether that will end the careers some experts have made out of backing up social workers with spurious observations and biased conclusions, or whether coaches and horses will be driven through it, remains to be seen.

Just yesterday, a distraught mother put up this comment on an older story on our website:

‘Please can you help me get my daughter back from social services? My daughter was kidnapped in 2011 when she was age 11.a teacher and s.s said I hit my daughter. I did not and never have. Police came and took her away. The next day she was taken to a children’s hospital where a doctor lied and made a false report saying she had unexplained bruises. She did not have any bruises.’

The Jayden Wray case exposed how dangerous it is these for parents to take a child to hospital. Jayden had brittle bones from rickets but doctors and social workers demanded the parents confess that they had caused Jayden’s injuries.

Clive Coleman, legal correspondent, BBC News, said: ‘Babies, toddlers and teenagers going through care proceedings have been removed from their parents for their own well being’. Sometimes they are. But in too many cases, when parents cannot explain a bruise a child acquired in the garden, or the child suffers from a mystery illness, they are removed, and even when the mistake is found, social workers will not return the child and fabricate evidence.

Short of death, there is no penalty more draconian than for the state to take people’s children from them.

Our readers or their churches are certain to come into contact with parents whose children have been taken from them by social services.

We are constantly told that homosexuals are the sort of people the Lord Jesus would have ‘been alongside’ as they are on the ‘margins of society’? Are they really? No, they are in the media, in diversity departments and government, with their feet under the table at No10, feted to the skies.

Would you like to know who really are on the margins of society? It is parents who feel totally inadequate and overwhelmed in the face of a machine which grinds them to powder in its quest to assume their function and to strip their children from them.

We should be standing with them, praying with them, showing how God hates injustice, fighting with them to have their children returned.

Multiculturalism Caused Government to Hide Truth of Muslim Grooming Gangs

By

-

12 April 2014

11

Multiculturalism has prevented the Government from reporting instances of Muslim child-grooming gangs.

(Since writing the report below, new information has surfaced. See “UK: Prosecutor ‘branded a racist’ for prosecuting Muslim rape gang” and “Rotherham child sex scandal: these children were victims of ‘anti-racism’” ).

British Government knew about Muslim child grooming gangs and chose to hide this knowledge.

A new comprehensive report, titled “Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery,” examines how authorities knew about the rampant child abuse by Muslim gangs yet refused to prosecute offenders.

A summary of this article, published by the Gatestone Institute, discusses the key points of the report, highlighting how “police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media” turned a blind eye to the crimes of these Muslim gangs for fear of being accused of racism or “Islamophobia.”

The “conspiracy of silence” regarding child grooming by Muslim gangs was exposed in 2010 when the underground investigation Operation Retriever found and convicted 13 Muslim men for grooming approximately 100 underage girls for sex. This generated more investigations and led to the discovery of several Muslim grooming gangs. Although many offenders were identified, few were prosecuted.

According to the “Easy Meat” report, these offenders are 154 times more likely to be Muslims, while the victims are almost always non-Muslim girls. But authorities have “never deemed it important to declare this, or even denied the pattern existed.”

These incidents were deemed unimportant because of multiculturalism. The report tells us:

“There is far more to this story than has come out so far. The population are already outraged by what they have learned in the last year or two, but know only a fraction of the scandal… This massive over-representation of Muslim men in this crime spree has been borne out by the prosecutions of the last three to four years, but it is clear that it must have been known long ago and should have been made public. Because the predators were Muslims, the agencies responsible for child-protection have almost entirely failed in their job to protect vulnerable children. From a fear of being called ‘racist,’ police forces across the country have buried the evidence.

“On the rare occasion when the phenomenon [of child grooming] would be discussed in more than the briefest details, political activists and the authorities would come together to stop the public from knowing more. Political correctness would be used to make sure that people did not speak about this phenomenon, enabling the perpetrators free rein to sexually abuse schoolgirls for decades. Yes, decades. We know that in an age where parents are not allowed to smack their children, this sounds unbelievable.”

The problem is much more prevalent than previously reported. In fact, as many as 10,000 schoolgirls have been victimized over the years by these Muslim gangs. According to a House of Commons report, as of November 2012 “at least 16,500 children were identified as being at risk of child sexual exploitation during one year.”

Their method is to drive around towns at night and zero in on young, non-Muslim schoolgirls between the ages of 11 and 16. They often give the girls drinks and drugs to entice them into the car. Many of the victims are from care or foster homes, where they might not be immediately missed. The younger the better is usually the policy with the girls they target. The younger the girls are more likely to be virgins who are free from any sexual diseases. (Most of these men have Muslim wives whom they do not want to contaminate.)

The report criticizes British Government for using multiculturalism as an excuse to turn a blind eye to this issue. The Government continues to excuse Muslims because many of the crimes they commit under British law are not crimes according to Sharia law. As the report says, “Multiculturalism is a fundamentally incoherent doctrine, invented to conceal the serious conflicts which have arisen when peoples from vastly different cultures, with different values, are forced to live together.”

In its reluctance to be even-handed and non-discriminatory, the Government has outright refused to take into account religious or ethnic connections to these and other crimes perpetrated by Muslims. The possibility that Islamic law might have something to do with this behaviour is not worthy of consideration.

The British Government expects all its citizens, including Muslims, to embrace multiculturalism. However, the religion of Islam is by its very nature opposed to the principles of multiculturalism through its intolerance of all dissenting voices. Moreover, the symbiotic relationship between Islam and the political left cannot last since once Muslims achieve power, they kick behind them the ladder of multiculturalism that they used for climbing to power.

Support us!

We appreciate your support; it enables our research and helps us inform your prayers.
So click below to support Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings

Click on the social media links below to share this post:

Muslim schools take-over plot revealed

By