Tagged with "Ice"
How social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoption Tags: Social Services adoptions kidnapping government Child Protective Services newborns false accusations meeting quotoas

By SUE REID

Last updated at 23:10 31 January 2008

Created: 31 January 2008

 

For a mother, there can be no greater horror than having a baby snatched away by the State at birth.

 

 

The women to whom it has happened say their lives are ruined for ever - and goodness knows what longterm effect it has on the child.

 

 

Most never recover from this trauma.

 

 

Imagine a baby growing in your body for nine months, imagine going through the emotion of bringing it into the world, only to have social workers seize the newborn, sometimes within minutes of its first cry and often on the flimsiest of excuses.

 

Yet this disturbing scenario is played out every day.

The number of babies under one month old being taken into care for adoption is now running at almost four a day (a 300 per cent increase over a decade).

 

In total, 75 children of all ages are being removed from their parents every week before being handed over to new families.

Some of these may have been willingly given up for adoption, but critics of the Government's policy are convinced that the vast majority are taken by force.

 

Time and again, the mothers say they are innocent of any wrongdoing.

Of course, there are people who are not fit to be parents and it is the duty of any responsible State to protect their children.

 

But over the five years since I began investigating the scandal of forced adoptions, I have found a deeply secretive system which is too often biased against basically decent families.

 

I have been told of routine dishonesty by social workers and questionable evidence given by doctors which has wrongly condemned mothers.

Meanwhile, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been given to councils to encourage them to meet high Government targets on child adoptions.

 

Under New Labour policy, Tony Blair changed targets in 2000 to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent to 5,400 a year.

The annual tally has now reached almost 4,000 in England and Wales - four times higher than in France, which has a similar-sized population.

 

Blair promised millions of pounds to councils that achieved the targets and some have already received more than £2million each in rewards for successful adoptions.

 

Figures recently released by the Department for Local Government and Community Cohesion show that two councils - Essex and Kent - were offered more than £2million "bonuses" over three years to encourage additional adoptions.

Four others - Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Cheshire and Hampshire - were promised an extra £1million.

 

This sweeping shake-up was designed for all the right reasons: to get difficult-to-place older children in care homes allocated to new parents.

But the reforms didn't work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, social workers began to earmark babies and cute toddlers who were most easy to place in adoptive homes, leaving the more difficultto-place older children in care.

As a result, the number of over-sevens adopted has plummeted by half.

 

Critics - including family solicitors, MPs and midwives as well as the wronged families - report cases where young children are selected, even before birth, by social workers in order to win the bonuses.

 

More chillingly, parents have been told by social workers they must lose their children because, at some time in the future, they might abuse them.

One mother's son was adopted on the grounds that there was a chance she might shout at him when he was older.

 

In Scotland, where there are no official targets, adoptions are a fraction of the number south of the border, even allowing for the smaller population.

 

What's more, the obsessive secrecy of the system means that the public only occasionally gets an inkling of the human tragedy now unfolding across the country.

 

For at the heart of this adoption system are the family courts, whose hearings are conducted behind closed doors in order to protect the identity of the children involved.

 

Yet this secrecy threatens the centuries-old tradition of Britain's legal system - the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

From the moment a mother is first accused of being incapable as a parent - a decision nearly always made by a social worker or doctor - the system is pitted against her.

There are no juries in family courts, only a lone judge or trio of magistrates who make decisions based on the balance of probability.

 

Crucially, the courts' culture of secrecy means that if a social worker lies or fabricates notes or a medical expert giving evidence makes a mistake, no one finds out and there is no retribution.

Only the workings of the homeland security service, MI5, are guarded more closely than those of the family courts.

 

From the time a child is named on a social services care order until the day they are adopted, the parents are breaking the law - a crime punishable by imprisonment - if they tell anyone what is happening to their family.

Anything from a chat with a neighbour to a letter sent to a friend can land them in jail.

And many have found themselves sent to prison for breaching court orders by talking about their case.

 

As High Court judge Mr Justice Munby told MPs last year: "It seems quite indefensible that there should be no access by the media, and no access by the public, to what is going on in courts where judges are, day by day, taking people's children away."

 

However, it is not only secretive and publicly unscrutinised family courts that are creating an injustice in our adoption system.

There is a more worrying factor involved. Look at the official figures. Why are they so high? Is it really true that more mothers are becoming potential killers or abusers?

Or are the financial bonuses offered to councils fuelling the astonishing rise in forced adoptions?

 

John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning to change the adoption system, said yesterday: "I have evidence that 1,000 children are wrongly being seized from their birth parents each year even though they have not been harmed in any way.

"The targets are dangerous and lead to social workers being over-eager.

 

 

"The system's secrecy hides any wrongdoing. One has to ask if a mother is expected to have problems looking after her baby, why doesn't the State help her instead of taking her child away?"

 

 

The MP's concerns are echoed by the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS), a body which advises new mothers.

Spokeswoman Beverley Beech insists: "Babies are being removed from their mothers by social workers using any excuse.

"We strongly suspect this is because newborns and toddlers are more easily found homes than older children. They are a marketable commodity.

 

 

"I know of social workers making up stories about innocent mothers simply to ensure their babies are put up for adoption.

"Suitable babies are even being earmarked when they are still in the womb.

"One baby was forcibly removed in the maternity ward by social workers before the mother had even finished the birth process and produced the placenta."

 

 

Her words may be emotive. But are they true? Six months ago, I wrote an article about a young couple - who must remain anonymous because of family court law - fighting for the return of their three-year-old daughter.

She was taken within weeks of birth and is about to be adopted.

 

Astonishingly, a judge has issued a Draconian order gagging them from revealing anything, to anyone at all, which could identify their daughter until her 18th birthday in 2022.

 

Immediately after the article was published, I heard from 35 families whose children were forcibly removed.

The letters and e-mails continue to arrive - coming from a wide range of families across the social classes (including from a castle in the heart of England).

 

An e-mail from one father said: "Please, please help, NOW. We are about to lose our son . . . in court tomorrow for final disposals hearing before he is taken for adoption ... we have done nothing wrong."

 

 

Another father calling himself "James" rang to say his wife's baby was one of eight seized by social workers from hospital maternity units in one small part of North-East England during one fortnight last summer.

 

 

A Welsh man complained that his grandson of three weeks was earmarked for forcible adoption by social workers.

The mother, a 21-year-old with a mild learning disorder, was told she might, just might, get post-natal depression and neglect her son.

To her great distress, her baby was put in the care of Monmouthshire social services within minutes of birth.

 

The grandfather said: "Our entire extended family - which includes two nurses, a qualified nanny and a police officer - have offered to help care for the baby.

"I believe my grandson has been targeted for adoption since he was in the womb."

 

 

A Worcestershire woman told how her daughter's baby was snatched away by three police officers and two social workers who came to the door of her house.

The girl has now been adopted.

 

 

The mother's failure? She was said to be too young to cope.

Yet - a little over a year later - she had another baby, a boy, whom she was allowed to keep, in the same home and with the same partner.

Why on earth did she have to lose her little girl?

 

The grandmother emotionally explained: "All the family came forward to offer to help look after my granddaughter, and all of them were told they were not good enough.

"The social worker told us to forget her. He said: 'She is water under the bridge.'

"We think they wanted her for adoption from the beginning."

 

 

No wonder she, and thousands of other parents, want a shake-up of the heart-breakingly cruel adoption system which has ripped apart so many families - and which continues to do so.

 



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-511609/How-social-services-paid-bonuses-snatch-babies-adoption.html#ixzz3Gxn71DhI 
 

Are you a 'domestic extremist'? How to ask if you are on police databases Tags: domestic extremist terrorist databases records police How to
Rob Evans and Paul Lewis explain how the Data Protection Act can open up police files. Plus a step-by-step guide to making your own request

Interactive: Police spies and corporate infiltrators

 

theguardian.com

A snapshot of prptester Matt Salusbury taken secretly by the Met police
A snapshot of protester Matt Salusbury taken openly by a Metropolitan police surveillance team

Have you been on a protest recently? Have you attended a political meeting, or stopped by at a rally? Were you stopped and searched, or photographed by police?

Even if you have done nothing unlawful, there is a possibility police have listed you on a database of so-called "domestic extremists".

All that is needed to find out what information is being held about you in police intelligence files is to follow our step-by-step guide and send this simple letter. This is through a relatively powerful piece of legislation, the Data Protection Act.

Any member of the public can submit a request under this act asking for copies of the entries stored about themselves on the police's databases of political activists. The act gives the public the right to see personal data held on them by police forces, and any other state organisation such as local councils, schools and Whitehall departments.

The Guardian is continuing to investigate the surveillance of political activists, ranging from the use of undercover officers to infiltrate the ranks of campaigners to attempts to recruit informers.

We have revealed how police have been secretly maintaining huge databases on thousands of political activists and campaign groups across the country.

We now want to delve further into these clandestine databases and hope that, if people find out what data is being stored on them, we can learn more.

Crucially, there are precedents. John and Linda Catt, an elderly artist and his daughter, received files showing how police had covertly recorded their presence at more than 80 demonstrations over four years, logging details such as their appearance and slogans on their T-shirts.

Even John Catt's artistic endeavours were being recorded by police. "John Catt sat on a folding chair by the southern most gate of EDO MBM and appeared to be sketching," one entry stated. "He was using his drawing pad to sketch a picture of the protest and police presence," said another.  

Another individual, Matt Salusbury, submitted a data protection request to Scotland Yard and discovered that police had photographed himcoming out of an openly advertised public demonstration and had too recorded what he had been wearing and said at protests.

One entry showed that noted that at a demonstration against Britain's biggest arms fair in 2007, police had noted that "at 1240 hours, Matt Salusbury, male IC1, observed cycling along Victoria Dock Yard wearing a high-visibility vest, black and red rucksack ... the bicycle he rode was a green Giant mountain bike with a carrier".

He also obtained a photograph taken by police photographers of him when he went to an east London community centre for a public meeting to organise a concert to raise money for an anti-capitalist campaign. It shows how campaigners are also entitled to obtain photographs and video recordings of themselves which are held by police.

How to make a request

Your request needs to be directed to the Metropolitan Police, which took control of the main secret database of political activists run by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU).

The Metropolitan police has an online form for data protection requests. We have also formulated a sample letter as well. It is probably wise to fill out the form, attach your letter and send them off together (otherwise the Met may delay responding to your request for silly bureaucratic reasons).  

The four-step process should not take more than 10 minutes, but you need to make sure you have supplied all the information that is required.

Step 1 Fill in the online form or use our sample letter to request your data. Be sure to request information from all three databases: the National Police Order Intelligence Unit; the CO11 Public Order Intelligence Unit; and CRIMINT.

Step 2 Proof of identity

The Met is entitled to ensure that you are who you claim to be, so you will need to provide evidence of your identity and address by supplying two different official documents which "provide sufficient information to prove your name, date of birth, current address and signature."

For example, this would be a combination of driving licence, medical card, birth/adoption certificate, passport, utility bill or bank statement. These need to be recent.

Step 3 Pay £10

The Met can only charge a maximum of £10 for complying with your request. The force accepts cheques, British postal orders and international bankers drafts made payable to The Metropolitan Police Authority. You need to write your name, date of birth and address on the back of the payment in block capitals.

Step 4 Save a copy and Send

If you decide to use the sample letter, you need to send it to the Met's data protection officers at: MPS Public Access Office, PO Box 57192, London, SW6 1SF.

Keep a photocopy of your request - they have been known to "go missing" or are "not received" by organisations. If you do not receive confirmation that the data protection officer has received your request within two weeks, ring the Met on 020 7161 3500 and ask to speak to the data protection unit, or email them –publicAccessOffice@met.police.uk. You are entitled under the act to get an answer within 40 days.

Know Your Rights

Don't forget that you do not need to explain why you want the information or what you are planning to do with it. Remember that you can also get copies of videos and photographs of yourself under the act – for instance, those taken by CCTV cameras or forward intelligence teams. It is essential to specify the time and place when you think you were photographed.

Public organisations are allowed to withhold documents, or parts of documents, under various exemptions (for instance if the information would infringe the privacy of another individual, would help criminals or damage national security).

Appealing

The Met must explain clearly why information is being withheld, so you can challenge any denial of information by lodging an appeal, and asking the department to reconsider the decision.

If you do this, don't forget the Met has previously released information on all the listed databases when requests have been received activists using this legislation. So precedent is on your side.

If you are unhappy with the Met's response, you can also ask the information commissioner to investigate whether the organisation has acted correctly.

Send any complaint to the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF; Tel - 01625 545 700.

The commissioner has the power to issue an enforcement notice compelling disclosure of the records, although the commissioner is most likely to try resolving the matter informally. You can also start legal action through the courts.

Help the Guardian?

Can you help us? We want to build on what we already know about these protest databases. The data that you obtain belongs to you, and there is no obligation to pass it onto any third party.

But if you are willing to help us find out more, then we would be grateful if you could get in touch. You can contact us discreetly; we will not reveal any of your details without your permission. We will guarantee your privacy and handle any information you pass to us with care.

rob.evans@guardian.co.uk paul.lewis@guardian.co.uk 0203 353 2000

Sample letter

Your address

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to request all the information to which I am entitled to under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (a subject access request).  
I am requesting a complete copy of all the information which is held about me on the databases controlled by the National Police Order Intelligence Unit; the CO11 Public Order Intelligence Unit; and CRIMINT.

I request that you disclose all comments, reports, emails, notes and any other written or other material from each of these three databases, as well as photographs or video footage of myself.  

I am also requesting copies of any information about me that is being held by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit or the CO11 Public Order and Operational Support unit separately from these databases.
I wish to draw your attention to the fact that information held by these units and databases has previously been released under the Act.
I enclose a photocopy of [proof of your address, such as gas/electricity/telephone bill] as confirmation of the above being my home address. I have also enclosed a photocopy of my passport [or similar, such as driving licence] and a recent photograph of myself to aid your identification.

I understand that under the act, I should be entitled to a response within 40 days. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Yours,

 

The Price War On The Oil Market
Category: BEYOND ILLUSION
Tags: PriceWar OilMarket Parsifal US SaudiArabia Iran Iraq Russia Energy Dollar

this is the continuation of my previous essay What Energy Crisis ?
The world literally floats in oil, not only because currently, 1 Million barrel are produced more as the global consumption of 90 million barrel per day, but because the claim that oil would be a fossil fuel and we would have exceeded the so-called 'Peak Oil', is completely wrong, and a fairy tale.


Oil is not finite and is actually available in abundance, namely constantly produced in the interior of the earth.
See my article about 'abiotic oil'.
The current price of oil is so low as not anymore for a long time.

Currently a barrel is at 82 dollars, almost 30 percent lower than at the beginning of the year.
About why this is so and what is the reason for the pricing pressure, there are different opinions.
I want try to list these possible causes for a drop in price.

The above chart shows the fluctuations in the oil price in the last 36 months.
Currently the cost of a barrel of crude oil nearly as little as in July 2012, as the global economy crashed into recession and the need, therefore, fell sharply.
This raises the question, is the price so low because we are again in front of a worldwide recession, or are other factors at work ?
For example, a deliberate and controlled price war ?
Parsifal, October 15, 2014
 

Here is a list of possible reasons for the low price:

1st Scenario:
As already said, the industry experienced worldwide a significant decline in orders and therefore less oil as an energy source is needed, therefore, the afresh recession is to blame.
Europe and Japan will experience an economic downturn; the U.S. economy is woolgathering, and would appear as if it shrivels again.
An additional reason for the global economic downturn are the sanctions against Russia, which cause considerable damage, especially in Europe.
If the economy stagnates, and therefore less oil is consumed than is being produced, there is an excess squeezing the price.
Since the OPEC countries, as just confirmed want not adjust their production to the lesser need, but keep the flow rate constant and not reduce, the price goes down.
Supposedly, only in November at the next OPEC Meeting over a throttling of the flow rate will be decided.
New providers for oil are also on the market, because of the respective conflicts so far have failed, such as Libya and Iraq.

The ISIS also sells the stolen oil from the conquered Kurdistan with the help of Turkey for dumping prices.
How this under the watchful eyes of the Americans is possible, is a different question.
Their own child Al-Qaeda to rename in ISIS is probably the reason.

But overall there is too much oil on the market.


2nd Scenario:
Saudi Arabia, one of the largest oil producers in the world has decided on a reduction of the price, to increase their market share, and wants to disable the competitors.
To the Saudis and the other Gulf States doesn't fit the declared energy independence of the United States, which has been achieved with the massive use of fracking, in their plans.
By the reduction of the price to below USD 80 is the extraction of oil from shale uneconomical and slips into the red.
So the Saudis want the oil production over this new controversial method - which is relatively expensive to stall.
The goal is generally to squeeze all oil producers with high production costs out of the market.

Since the Saudi production works just unprofitable under USD 70 a barrel and Riyadh have a disposal on huge reserves of 750 billion dollars, they can sit through this price pressure for a long time until the troublesome competition in the United States is broken and stops.

If Obama puts up with that price fight is another question, as actually Saudi Arabia is the second most important ally of the US.
At the same time, the Saudis want to weaken The Iran as a competitor on the regional power with a low oil price, because if the agreement in the nuclear debate is concluded, the sanctions against Tehran will be repealed, then can The Iran again sell oil and with the higher income will be stronger.

3rd Scenario:
The sudden reduction of the price of Oil at USD 80 a barrel is a joint plan from the United States and Saudi Arabia to weaken Russia and bring Putin to fall.
Washington is trying to revenge because the regime change in the Ukraine assumed in a debacle.

Because the strategic goal of the Americans, by the coup in Kiev, to grab the Crimea, evict the Russians and take over the naval port of Sevastopol on the Black Sea, failed miserably.
Putin has them all completely outmaneuvered and the Crimea has just felt him without using violence in his lap.

Riad is crossed with Putin because Russia supports Assad which but the Saudis would like to have away.
The plan to take over Syria has so far failed.
If the price of oil is low, then is missing Moscow important revenue for the years 2015 to 2017, but have been budgeted as government spending with USD 100 per barrel.
The Russian government needs to drastically save, what may trigger civil unrest, and even the fall of Putin.
At least this is the thought which bend the Americans and Saudis with a price war.


4th Scenario:

It is exactly vice versa.
The Price erosion control Moscow as the largest oil and gas producer in the world, and China, as the largest consumer in the world, to harm the Saudis and Americans tremendous.
This maneuver is part of the plan of the 'De-dollarization' of the energy market - and indeed, the world economy - both want to go ahead with.
This fits the agreement between the Central banks of Russia and China over a three-year Currency-Swap-Deal of 150 billion Yuan, and 815 billion rubles (the equivalent of 25 billion dollars).
It is the goal for a massive expansion of the trade between the two countries and reduce their Dollar and Euro-dependence.

The trade between Russia and China now accounts for almost 100 billion dollars and, in the coming years should increase to 200 billion dollars.
Moscow has enough currency and gold reserves to withstand low oil prices in the longer term, to and has massively reduced its foreign debt in the last few months.
China is happy about a low purchasing price for oil and helps Russia in a price war.
As already mentioned above, is so also the oil production of the Americans greatly damaged, because fracking is too expensive and does not pay below 80 dollars.

~~~~~~~~~~

One of the cited reasons for the drop in price of oil may be right, or several, or even all.
Each of the participants in this market has a motive for the price war.
The question resulting is, who will survive this struggle and who will carry away a significant damage ?
Most pleased will be the consumers, because the price of petrol at the petrol station is also decreased.
Should the OPEC countries first run out the road, they probably need to decide a throttling of the flow, so the price rises again.

Strictly speaking, there can no oil producer really economically produce under USD 100 per barrel and generate enough government revenues.
This is why 'cheap oil' will only be temporarily available.
What we must be clear, oil is the most important resource in the world besides water and is why virtually all of the interventions and wars of the West were in any way related to that.
A price war which likely ends in a shooting war.

 

related in BOLE

What Energy Crisis ?

Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' Is A Misleading Zionist Scam

RSS
Search a Blog

October 2014 (541)
September 2014 (688)
August 2014 (661)
July 2014 (654)
June 2014 (607)
May 2014 (659)
April 2014 (776)
March 2014 (692)
February 2014 (747)
January 2014 (962)
December 2013 (852)
November 2013 (858)
October 2013 (221)
Blog Categories

WHO IS ONLINE
Support B.O.L.E.

Your support to have the B.O.L.E. (incl.all articles) open and free for everyone is much appreciated.

Products for your Wellness

Important: For all products chose at the top of the page the  language (English or German) and currency!

 click HERE to reach all products

TATWellness deliver worldwide.

In Your Service

B.O.L.E.

 

This website is powered by Spruz

Live Support