Sunday, 31 October 2010

US Catholic Childrens Home Used Orphans in Experiments

I am sure that most Catholic people have absolutly no idea about what horrors are taking place within their own organisation. They NEED to know!

Please, anyone reading this, can you help to educate these people, who attend church yet do not understand about the corruption and horror they are inadvertantly funding?

Just show them this video. Please.

Wednesday, 20 October 2010


I am reposting this piece that was on John's Blog (The Slog) earlier this year.

John has given up blogging. So many of us wrote to him, begging him to continue, but I can understand his frustration, we all can.

I still think he was persecuted for getting involved with my case. He put me through hoops before he would touch my case, he did not believe me at first, he thought I was making it all up, sadly, I was not. I am like poison to all causes, because of what was, AND STILL IS going on in Stafford. They have covered up the Staffordshire Pindown scandal and put the whole thing inside a cast iron coffin, sealed it with lead and massive chains wound round. They are as cagy about Stafford as they are about Dunblaine, Witherwack, Kinora, Haut de la Garenne, Hollie Greig........

They are determined as hell to hide the truth.

I hope John changes his mind, or finds another way of expressing what we all know is the truth.

Monday, 12 July 2010THE GUARDIAN: Free the Slog One.

The Slog continues to wonder why it's a crime to disagree with The Guardian.

So anyway, there I was commenting away, happily back on the Guardian's comment threads under a new (if thinly disguised) identity. And I thought, that's funny....not a single hit on the site as a result.

And then I saw the familiar appearance of bright red letters above my comment form announcing 'this comment will be held for moderation'. I assume they censor sorry moderate all comments anyway, but the words popped up to remind me: 'We're on your case, Naziboy'.

So I checked the nine comments made over the last three working days. All gone. Every last one - as if they'd never existed.

It started earlier this year, when a hopelessly misinformed article in the Grauniad about the Stafford Hospital case appeared toeing the Party line about mad people attacking an 'innocent' social and medical administration. My comment thread was clinically critical of the piece, but not insulting and used no obscenities. It was taken down after twenty minutes.

Before that spat, there had been the denunciation of a piece I wrote in Comment is Free, and subsequent denial of all access to that soon followed. Then two weeks ago my comment 'privileges' were removed entirely. Numerous subsequent emails tried to establish why, all of which offered really rather pathetic obfuscations and uninformation. It was Kafka's The Trial come to life.

I've rattled quite a few cages about this over the last ten days. Nobody seems to be particularly interested. The apathy stems partly from widespread acceptance that 'this is what the Guardian does' these days (horribly depressing) and a sort of born-after-1970 thing one comes across more and more now 'yeh well, don't go on about it, right? Snot that big a problem' (intensely irritating).

I emailed the profoundly unlovely Peter Hain about it, but he wasn't interested either. I'm sure being a privileged Rhodesian white boy, he doesn't get it: his assumption has always been that the Left is always right, and the Right is always wrong. Were I a goose-stepping loony with 0.007% electoral support, he'd have written a piece in The Independent about it by now; but as I'm a political radical who wants to see a fine old mass circulation newspaper relearn the principles of free speech, I'm clearly a danger to society and should be reported to Special Branch.

I'm as big an egotist as the next man, but this saga isn't about me - any more than the Staffordshire scandals were about brave people like Barbara Richards and the Single Mother Who Cannot be Named for Legal Reasons. It's about a perverted form of self-styled progressive fascism that's just a gnat's away from burning books.
Posted by John Ward at 18:30 Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz
Labels: fascism of the Left., Guardian censors Slog again, Peter Hain
SadButMadLad said...
Join the rest of the "blogosphere" whose opinions are generally that CiF is a waste of space. Just about all articles in CiF are lambasted and criticised for being loony lefty.

A classic series of comments on CiF are highlighted by Tim Worstall. Go to and have a laugh

12 July 2010 22:02
Anonymous said...
we should start a movement whereby we post your comments for you John. Create an incessantly moving target and see how long it takes them to close down thier site entirly. Might be fun!

12 July 2010 22:27
Sir Henry Morgan said...
No John - it's not a crime to disagree with the G ... it's a crime to disagree with the G and be right.

... got more accurate after that.

But I've told you all that before.

12 July 2010 22:47
Sir Henry Morgan said...
Demonstrably right.

12 July 2010 22:48
Anonymous said...
I got banned too. Comment is free unless you put a foot wrong and reject the Guardian's hideously self-righteous censorship in which case you are banned from commenting ever again! I suppose I won't be able to comment again until I get a new computer. They just use the IP address to identify you. Ian C

20 July 2010 23:12
Leonardo said...
Did not you know that the left is as intolerant as extreme


I have been contacted by a lady I know who has asked me to put the following letter onto my blog and to share it with other people. I do not know the full details of her case, but I do know that she is a woman who has been treated in a vile way by the authorities who profess to help people, and that she has grave concerns for the wellbeing of her disabled son, Jamie.

I have left this lady's contact details off this letter, lest it should fall into the hands of paedophiles and their protection racketteers.

This lady deserves some answers.


Date: Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 13:33
Subject: SAO Miss Stanton



Jean Lambert MEP
Syed Kamall MEP
Claude Moraes MEP
Gerard Batten MEP
Marina Yannakoudakis MEP
Sarah Ludford MEP
Mary Honeyball MEP
Charles Tannock MEP


Friday 1 October 2010

Dear Mary Honeyball, Gerard Batten, Jean Lambert, Charles Tannock, Claude Moraes, Syed Kamall, Sarah Ludford and Marina Yannakoudakis,

RBKC have waged a war against my son and I - disabled people, since approx 2000.

It began with my son being given a colonoscopy by Dr.Murch of the Royal Free Hospital, he did this without my permission.

Prior to that in 1999, I had been supported by social workers in court, Sean Ryan and Judith Smith attended court to support my good parenting.

Judge Moorehouse requested I make application for every weekend, unsupervised overnight contact due to my important relationship with Jamie, my mute, terrorised child, living with his heroin dealing, violent, drink-drive recidivist father, who also raped and terrorised me for years, and who had a child die in his care, Cosmo Steele. All this has been covered up and away from judges and is crime not dealt with by RBKC /police but covered up.

This has now led to staff hanging up the 'phones on me, memos sent to instruct staff not to take my calls - these staff are at my sons' school too, the 100k PA behavioural correctional facility for disabled children known as Treehouse Trust, that I strongly disapprove of (I believe my son is raped and terrorised - he is in nappies aged 17, no GP has seen him during this time, his father has severe psychiatric problems believing he is the 'son of the devil' (really) and so my son is now trying to run away, I can't find a lawyer to help and Sir Rifkind is not helping) - Fay Wright (adult learning-disabilities worker) also hung up on me today, as well as Anne Lehane (legal) and social worker, Erika Endlein, wrote and told me I am to be excluded from my sons life forever and accused me of making borderline allegations.

These allegations are not without evidence but useless if police refuse to investigate.

Some is civil law, but I don't trust the family courts and my friends, and colleagues, act against this type of draconian, crime against innocent children and mothers, they demonstrate, they protest and it can't be good for anyone not to adopt a better, kinder and common-sense approach to these sort of situations.

SO MUCH MALICE is emanating from the people covering these crimes against us, and nobody there at RBKC seems to understand simple 'cause and effect' let alone professional impartiality.

You cannot expect to batter the innocent forever and expect to get away with it.

Diplomacy is required to ameliorate this situation, I am asking you to please provide an advocate that will help this situation and bring my son home to safety and the love he needs.

Social workers cannot unilaterally alter law to suit them, as they have done in their last letter to me. I am a parent with legal responsibility and that won't change. You cannot remove children from innocent parents, torture them and expect us to take it?

Please put it right and you could be prevent all out civil war? This sort of thing is happening too often ans evidence of groups I support like the EDL is all too evident. Why should they even have to exist? Why is it an 'us and them' society? Help Stop the harming of innocent people by neglect please.

I am worried my son is running away and RBKC has become one of the most corrupt places on earth apparently.

I can find no help or impartial advice, it has to change - how do you suggest we can put something so fundamental as to getting a scared disabled child to be safe home with his mother after we have been victims of pure spite and malicious acts by RBKC Social Work staff?

How can this happen? How can a memo go out ordering staff to hang up the 'phone to a mother terrified for her child and hated for trying to protect him?

Thank you for your time

Yours sincerely



I had no idea Gary was interested in dating agencies until he did his usual little hacking trick and tried to fix me up with a load of men. I have told him that he is a very naughty boy for hacking into other people's computers and fiddling about with their email accounts, but nothing you say to him seems to be able to get through, such is his obsession for the babemagnet who is is slavishly devoted to. It is indeed a tragic and hopeless situation.

Luckily, help is on hand, in the shape of a very special dating agency guarenteed to unite this poor befuddled creature with a partner of suitable personality and interests.

Tuesday, 19 October 2010


Poor thing, he is still SOOOOOOOOO obsessed with Stuart.



I know people might be sick of me reposting this video, but people need to be reminded of what was said.

CHILDLINE - Esther Ranzen is strangly silent on the whole saga - why? She is aware of what is going on, but is not responding to correspondence on the subject of organised paedophile rings. Perhaps she is scared of the child abusing thugs as well, which is understandable. I do wish she would at least reply to Robert Green's correspondence though, so that we can all be made aware of what CHILDLINE is doing, wether CHILDLINE is only for helping children who are being abused and bullied by close family and school peers, or wether it will also help the many children who are in the terrifying circumstance of being abused by the professionals who are being paid by the State to look after them.

Monday, 18 October 2010



Joyfully kissing her beautiful baby boy - the girl branded too stupid to be a wife or a mother

By Alison Smith Squire
Last updated at 1:38 AM on 17th October 2010

Laughing in the autumn sunshine, a baby boy takes his first wobbly steps along a sandy beach. His delighted and attentive mother offers a safe pair of arms as his proud father captures the moment with his camera.
It is a touching scene that any parent would recognise. But it is particularly precious for Kerry Robertson and her new husband Mark McDougall.
Kerry, you may remember, is the slender brunette whose wedding was dramatically halted a year ago by Fife social services because they judged her too ‘stupid’ to understand the vows.

Devoted: Kerry Robertson shares a tender moment with Ben
Four months later, the social services struck again. As Kerry breast-fed her three-day-old son Ben, council officials who feared she lacked the intelligence to be a good mother came into the maternity ward and took the child into care.
Already banned from marrying, Kerry, 18, and Mark, 26, were forced to leave the hospital without their newborn son.
Today, however, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that they have been reunited with their little boy and are now both living with him for the first time since he was born.
The authorities in Ireland, where they fled before the birth in the hope that they could keep their baby, have agreed that Ben can indeed stay with his parents.
This is not their only piece of happy news. Earlier this month, Mark and Kerry finally married in a tender ceremony at a hotel in County Waterford, defying those who said their relationship could never last.
‘All I ever wanted was to be married to Mark and to live a normal life with our son,’ said Kerry yesterday.

‘Now I just feel so contented and happy to be a proper family at last. I love being with Ben and being his mum. I have cried a lot over the past year but it’s only brought Mark and me closer.’
The couple’s resilience and the resourcefulness they have shown in fighting for the right to bring up their son together seems to make a mockery of the view that Kerry was too weak-minded to be a wife and mother.
Some would say it is difficult to see why Fife social services came to that conclusion in the first place.
Kerry’s friends accept that she was in the remedial class of her local state school, but point out that her educational difficulties were caused, in part, because she missed a lot of school time through treatment for a cleft palate.
Happy family: Mark and Kerry are now making a new life for themselves and their precious son in Ireland
They say she is chatty – indeed her new husband describes her as ‘bossy’ – and claim the root of the problem was that she found Scottish social workers so patronising that she refused to co-operate with them, often meeting their questions with silence.
Only in Ireland, where the professionals seemed more understanding, did she open up and talk about her situation, say her friends.
When the couple’s plight first came to public attention last year, there was a huge outcry at what seemed to be a monstrous abuse of power. Social workers had descended upon Kerry and Mark just 48 hours before they were due to get married, telling them their wedding would be unlawful.
In a highly unusual step, Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife council wrote a letter of objection.
The removal of their child a few months was even more heart-wrenching and sparked a major campaign of protest on the internet.
Mark says he is still struggling to come to terms with the ‘nightmare’ they were put through. A gentle, mild-mannered young man, he says quietly: ‘I will never forget the day we were forced to hand Ben over. Kerry had just finished breast-feeding and both of us were in pieces. We were totally helpless to do anything about it.
‘To say we have been on a rollercoaster over the past year would be an understatement. It has been traumatic. And although now we are married and have Ben with us at last, I can’t help but feel bitter that we have had to go through all this.’
Many would have crumbled under the strain. For the past few months, Mark and Kerry have been forced to go through rigorous tests to prove they can be good parents.
It would appear their only ‘crime’ is that Kerry suffers from mild learning difficulties, although the true extent of these has always been a matter of contention.
Indeed, Mark and Kerry claim she has never undergone any official psychological assessment and, before having Ben, she successfully worked as a childcare assistant in a school.
Although no one is pretending she is academically gifted, to meet her is to encounter a lively young woman in the mould of any other young mum. Certainly, it is hard to fathom why Fife social services reached such a damning verdict.
The authorities first took a formal interest in Kerry when, at the age of just nine months, her parents handed her to the care of her grandmother, who brought her up overseen by Fife social services.
Even so, there was little to distinguish Mark and Kerry from any other young couple. When she became unexpectedly pregnant they were pleased rather than concerned. They had organised a white wedding in church, bought a dress and rings, arranged the reception and were eagerly anticipating their big day.
Mark recalls: ‘We were about to go out and make a few final arrangements for our wedding when we heard a frantic rapping at the front door.
‘When we opened it, two social workers burst in and told us that the marriage was illegal because Kerry has learning difficulties. They said she did not possess the capacity to make such a decision.’
Then came the second bombshell – their baby would be removed at birth. Once again, social workers believed her learning difficulties could lead to the baby suffering ‘emotional harm’.
‘It was as if I didn’t matter as a father,’ recalls Mark.

‘By stopping our wedding, social workers had taken away my rights as the baby’s dad. The fact that I would always be there to look after Ben as well didn’t seem to make any difference.’
He now believes that Fife social services had made up their minds that Kerry would not be able to keep the baby even before they had assessed her as a parent.
Because of this, days later the couple made the heart-wrenching decision to flee the UK and go to Ireland because they believed Irish social workers would prove more sympathetic.
Kerry expertly cradles Ben on her lap and as she talks it is clear that he enjoys the sound of his mother’s voice.

‘I’m shy when I first speak to people,’ she says by way of explanation of her reticence to speak to Fife social workers.
‘It’s only when I’ve known people for a long time that I am happy speaking to them.
‘I didn’t want to leave Fife – I’ve lived there all my life. All my friends and family are still there. I didn’t want to leave them.

But at the same time I’d been told my baby would be taken into care at birth and, naturally, I was going to do anything to stop that from happening.’
After tearful goodbyes to family and friends, the couple fled the UK with just £200, a suitcase of clothes and a bag of sandwiches made by Kerry.
Thankfully, a benefactor provided a rented house for them in Waterford. This generosity came just in time – ten days later, on January 15, Kerry went into labour and at 8.41pm gave birth to Ben, a healthy 7lb 3oz.

For three days, like any other new parents, the couple were on cloud nine. Kerry took to breast-feeding and close friends and family who knew where they were sent congratulations cards.
There was more trouble in store, however. The Irish authorities had discovered from Kerry’s medical records that social workers in Fife had an interest in her.
Mark later found out that Irish officials who contacted Fife were told that Kerry’s ‘disability’ could put Ben at risk of physical or emotional neglect. As a result, Irish social workers were duty-bound to act.
Mark and Kerry were utterly unprepared when, at 9.15am on January 19, they were forced to hand over their baby. They just had time to tell Ben they loved him and give him a kiss before he was taken away.
‘Coming home without Ben was awful,’ says Kerry.

‘Neither of us could stop crying. We just didn’t know what to do with ourselves. My body ached for my baby. I produced so much milk for him, which I would give to social workers so they could feed him.’
Over the next two weeks the couple barely saw Ben. Indeed on the few occasions they were allowed to visit him there were tearful exchanges with social workers. Kerry was upset to see Ben with a dummy and angry that he was being bottle-fed with formula milk.
Even when mother and baby were reunited at a special residential home, Mark had to drive for 90 minutes to get there.
Mark says: ‘Kerry and I were apart and I couldn’t see Ben that often. We just longed to be a normal family – to play on the beach, take him for walks in the park and tuck him up in his own bed.’
More recently they have been allowed to see him without the presence of a social worker. Then, last Wednesday, the Irish courts lifted many of the restrictions, meaning they were finally allowed to take Ben home and care for him themselves.
Mark is reluctant to criticise Irish social services.

‘Having been told by Fife that they feared Kerry could cause Ben “emotional harm”, I can see that they found themselves in a difficult position where they were forced to act,’ he says.
‘We had to prove that Fife social services’ concerns were groundless. Yes, Kerry does have some learning difficulties – the way she sees everything in such a black-and-white way is one of the reasons why I adore her – and she does need help with Ben. But it doesn’t mean she should have the right to be a mum taken away from her.’
He says that neither he nor Kerry regret leaving the UK and that, after the way they have been treated, they have no plans to return.
‘I believe that, had we stayed in the UK, our lives would have been ruined,’ he says. ‘We would have been forbidden to marry, and Kerry would have continued to be treated as a single mum with learning difficulties rather than an individual with a right to a normal life.
‘Although our baby was taken in Ireland, at least they looked at us as individuals rather than making a blanket assumption that Kerry wouldn’t be a good parent.’
It is proof of how much this couple have touched people’s hearts that, when they married two weeks ago, some of the 30 guests were officials involved in their case.
‘Right up to the last minute I expected someone to turn up and say we couldn’t go through with it,’ says Mark.

‘The registrar knew our wedding had been refused in the UK and it was up to her to decide if in fact Kerry was intelligent enough to understand the vows.
‘The registrar did have the right, under Irish law, to stop it again.Thankfully she had no hesitation in taking us through our vows and the wedding went without a hitch.’
The guest of honour was Ben, now nine months old and a lively bundle of mischief. Although clearly angry at their treatment, neither Mark nor Kerry show any bitterness. Instead they are absorbed in the happiness of making a home on the beautiful shoreline of Waterford.
‘He’s a big baby for his age,’ says Kerry proudly.

‘He’s also very contented and he’s always laughing. He can crawl fast and already he’s pulling himself to stand and trying to walk.
‘I do most of the caring for Ben. I’m the one who gets up in the night, who changes his nappies and sorts his food. I usually give him his bath in the evening and try to keep to a definite bedtime, so he is usually tucked up by 8pm.’
Mark’s view is equally straightforward: ‘We simply want to move on. We want to put this behind us and enjoy being a family at last.’

I hope Fife Social Services have a suitable compensation package for this family, although I doubt any amount of anything will be able to make up for their atrocious behaviour. Is it now that only 'the intelligent' can marry or raise a family? I have never heard such nonsense. Before long you will need an NVQ or degree to qualify you as a good parent. It's a pity more attention isn't paid in the areas of true bad parenting & neglect instead of picking on people who have learning difficulties. Since when did this make you a bad parent?There are good & bad parenets across all walks of life but all too often certain groups are picked out as an easy target to justify jobs funded by the taxpayer! I wish this lovely family all the luck & happiness in the world and shame on the services involved. Just as an after thought, if any family member of person(s) with learning difficulties thought it best to discourage reproduction, do-gooders/services would be on 'their' case like a dose of salts!
- Maria, West Midlands, 17/10/2010 12:17

A truly heart warming story. Best wishes to them all.

Now - What have Fife social services got to say for themselves - and even more importantly - who is going to hold these ridiculous people and their ridiculous edicts to account?

I think we all know the answer to that one don't we?
- Charlie from Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth, 17/10/2010 12:08

So very happy to learn of this happy ending for this couple who have often been on my mind as to the final outcome to their appaling time with the social workers in the UK. The person who helped them with houseing over there did what so many of us would have wished to do had we been able to do so. Thank you Daily Mail for informing us of this happy ending & long may they live.
- Margaret, Bridlington, 17/10/2010 12:07
"she has never undergone any official psychological assessment"

Many councils now assess for learning difficulties using 'observation'. Not surprisingly the quality of this depends on the expertise of the practitioner.
We spent 8 years trying to convince council psychologists that my son has a specific learning difficulty. They treated us like idiots and blamed us for his problems. Our son was in terrible distress and could not face school.
In the end we paid for a full psychological assessment.This confirmed our view & found difficulties we had not suspected. It turned out the signs had been obvious from nursery onwards - or should have been to any competent professional.
The list of people who failed our son includes head teachers, learning support teachers, ed psychs, psychotherapists, CBT therapist, psychiatrist, & social workers.
All of them draw generous salaries with pensions.
All of them were too arrogant to listen to what we were telling them.
- Concerned parent, Edinburgh, 17/10/2010 11:57

As someone who apparently has an IQ of 158 ie top 0.1%, I would like to point out that IQ tests are probably unreliable. Well done Kerry, Mark and Ben, have a lovely life together.
- Andrew Sherwood, READING, Berkshire, 17/10/2010 11:56

This has been an extraordinary experience for this couple, hopefully they will eventually feel able to share their understanding of what has been going on for the benefit of us all.
- Maire Stafford, Loughborough, 17/10/2010 11:53

Friday, 15 October 2010


The FART bloggers are at it again, it's sad to think that these two men have got nothing better to do than to sit all day tapping away at their keyboard, scrutinising everything Stuart Syvret does, no doubt swilling beer as they do so, shovelling chips and grease down their guts and breaking off every now and then to watch Jeremy Kyle. It's a pity they can't get themselves a job, but there again who would want to employ such a pair of brain dead losers?

With all the talk recently of Stuart being a babe magnet, well, all I can think its that Stuart obviously has such charisma and sexual attraction that Gary is passionatly in love with him, as he spends all his days and nights stalking him! He even sent bitter little messages about his unrequited love whilst he was away on holiday, obviously he could not wait to get back. I have never seen such a slavish devotion! I bet Gary has pictures of Stu all over his walls, and a special one in a heart shaped photo frame, which he kisses every evening before he goes to sleep.

It's a sad situation, I can't help but feel sorry for him, obnoxious as he is. Stuart is definatly a ladies man, so he has got absolutly no chance there. I expect that is why he is so bitter, what a shame.

Thursday, 14 October 2010


Disgraceful, but justice is coming.

Stuart Syvret has made a sacrifice of his own life, his career, his finances. He has laid down his own life for people who have been despised and downtrodden from childhood. He has done what Jesus told those who love Him to do, to look after the most vulnerable. Stuart Syvret has obeyed the Lord, and yet he is not even a Christian believer!


Wait and see what the Lord will do.

Wednesday, 13 October 2010





Tuesday, 12 October 2010


Hello. My real name is Crystal Walton, I was born on 26th December 2004. Welcome to my Web site. My Dad created this special place on the Web to share my life with you. I hope this site will enable family and friends, near and far, to stay connected. I look forward to sharing my family news and precious memories with you for years to come! Feel free to use our Guestbook to leave me a comment. I would also like to thank you to all the people who supported my Mum and Dad, since 1999 there has been so much support, it would be impossible to name everyone. The people concerned know who they are! An exrtra special Thank you to Hope4Kidz. Please read my story below:

Thanks for visiting!

My Story
'A Stolen Childhood and Life'

Crystal Walton Is My Real Name. The Court Proceedings relating to My case ended on the 23 October 2006, meaning my daddy is not in contempt If he identifies himself or my mummy.

This is how The Law, The Judges & Social Services (in my case Enfield Social Service) got it WRONG.

My Mummy 'Sarah Walton' is my Daddy’s second wife. He has two children from his first marriage. My elder brother 'Danny' was born on 2nd February 1999. On the 30th March 1999 he suffered from an episode which resulted in him being taken to hospital and being diagnosed with subdural haematomas and retinal haemorrhages, but no signs of any physical abuse, Although The Social Services Said "Shaken baby syndrome" . As a consequence of this brain damage, he is disabled

'Danny' remained in the care of my Dad and his first wife, care proceedings continued up to the fact finding hearing on the 6th March 2000. Both my Dad and first wife have always denied being responsible for his illness. Both my Dad and his first wife and were never charged or convicted of any wrong doing.

The medical evidence given was not challenged in court, because at the time, There Was Not Enough Medical Knowledge About 'SBS' All So my Dad’s legal team & the court stated "It Would Not Be Advisable To Pursue This Pointless Venture." We Now Know That There is a strong body of opinion that the medical evidence without any physical trauma does not point to a Non-Accidental Injury. However, the court found that either my Dad or his first wife were responsible. Their continued to be an involvement from ENFIELD SOCIAL SERVICES although 'Danny' remained in their care.

The relationship between my Dad and the Social Services deteriorated, My Dad worked nights at the time and would be expected to attend meetings during the day when he would normally be in bed. He admits chasing two workers away from their home at the time, He would have had about 2 hours sleep when they turned up and expected Him to have a meeting with them. This resulted in the Social Services indicating that if he remained in the home they would take my elder brother and sister into care, He therefore left the home so as not to have his children go into care.

He continues to have unsupervised visits from my elder siblings, my Dad’s current wife is present during these visits, But Not Always. There have been no other criticism raised about my Dad or his first wife of the level of care given to either 'Zoe' (born 21st March 1997) my eldest sister or the care given to 'Danny' my elder brother. The only criticism was the time he chased two workers from his home.

On 23rd December 2003, My Dad Married my Mum 'Sarah'. 'Sarah' fell pregnant with me. I was born on Boxing Day 26th December 2004, My real MUM & DAD called me CRYSTAL. My Dad’s relationship with Social Services started on a bad note. In October 2004 my Dad was an in-patient at North Middlesex Hospital, the Social Services came into the ward and handed him some papers, stating at the same time "That they intended to remove me from my parents at the moment of my birth and put me into care".
The way this was done was very un-professional and prompted my Dad to get off to a bad start with them. My Dad’s attitude towards Social Services wasn't intentional, but in light of the way it was done it is not surprising. 'I was removed from my parents care, and put into the care of my Mum 'Sarah' and my Grandparents (Joyce and Peter Scott) on the 30th December.

April 2005. My Mum 'Sarah' had done nothing wrong, to give reason for social service to remove me from my Mum & Grandparents. I was then taken into foster care in April 2005. The Social Services were saying that I was being neglected, I in fact had infantile eczema, most children get this at some point in their life.

My Other Grandparents (Joan and Terry Walton) were also assessed as candidates for possible carers for myself, they were ruled out because they have supported my Dad, right through all the care proceedings as far back as 1999.

A saga of rows between my Dad & Mum with Social Services ensued over a period of time with my Dad continuing to deny being responsible for my brother Danny’s original Illness. My Grandparents and my aunt & uncle expressed an interest in being a carer for myself; they were refused because they have such strong close family bonds. They said this is not good because the family was so close and supportive of my Dad.

On the 23rd October 2006 His Honour Judge Horowitz QC ordered that I (Crystal Walton) be placed in the care of Enfield Social Services, contact between My Mummy & Daddy was refused. Permission to appeal.

In November 2006, a courageous MP (John Hemming MP) became involved. He has been acting as a lay adviser. His Personal view on the issue of the illness of 'Danny' was of a naturally cause. This can happen for a number of reasons. The fact 'Danny' had track record of screeching in pain would indicate that such haemorrhages had occurred previously but not as severely. There are bases upon which this can happen naturally.

An important issue is that there were no signs of physical trauma that you would expect to have if a baby was shaken hard enough to cause this sort of brain damage. This is much like the argument metaphysical fractures. Retinal haemorrhages do not prove 100% that a baby has been shaken.

The whole process was unfair because the medical "evidence" has never been challenged, Because in 1999 there was not enough Medical knowledge about 'SBS'.

At the beginning of 2009, In fact the 14th January 2009 My Mum & Dad were still fighting for Me. My Mum ‘Sarah’ started watching a documentary about SBS, there was a paediatric pathologist named Waney Squire. She was a pathologist involved in SBS at Oxford, Dr Squire originally believed that shaking baby syndrome was a myth, she still believes it's a myth as far as we know. My Mum & Dad sent her an email asking if she could help with their case, she replied to our email saying yes she would be able to help. Then she asked for Danny's medical notes. Waney Squire took her time and came up with Sinus Venous Thrombosis, but she still wanted the CT Scans and MRI Scans, My Mum & Dad made enquires about the scans, they were told by North Middlesex Hospital that they have been destroyed. (This is not surprising destroying evidence is part of this country’s policy, to destroy evidence would make it impossible for my Mum & Dad’s to fight their case court)

My Mum & Dad got back to Waney and told her that the Scans had disappeared, so Waney (After looking at the medical notes) found in the notes that the Umbilical cord was wrapped around Danny's neck at birth. Which my Dad had been saying all along. But Enfield Social Services decided to get there own Medical Expert, his name was Neil Stoodly. My Mum ‘Sarah’ researched him and found an article saying that he also believed that shaking baby syndrome was a myth. But on the 14th/15th/16th January, both medical experts were examined by my Dad in court. Waney Squire keep to her story of a Birth Defect. But Dr Stoodly was questioned up to five hours and still said SBS wasn't a myth and it exist. He committed perjury on the stand in front of everyone. He could not answer his own article, in the end the Judge Mr Hedley still went with the Neil Stoodly & the Social Services.

Around February my Mum & Dad put in an Appeal, my Mum ‘Sarah’ went in front of Judge Wilson and put their case across, but to no avail, yet again they lost. The Adoption Proceedings started. My Mum & Dad had to go to court and oppose the Order, they was granted permission to oppose it on the 9th of June 2009.

On the 19th of June 2009 my Mum & Dad went to court again. When they got in the court room the Judge said we had to have special circumstances to opposed an Adoption Order. They were told that they had done nothing wrong and it was proven beyond doubt that Danny had a medical condition. He issued a rule 29 report, stating the reason why they were to Adopt Me. In the document they claimed that my Dad was evil and my Mum ‘Sarah’ was a bad mum for staying with my Dad.

Also at this hearing which now became an Adoption Hearing, My Mum & Dad went in and sat down, the Judge started asking my Dad why Crystal shouldn't be adopted, He explained that the system was corrupt, and the fact that it was proven that Danny wasn't hurt. Then he turned to my Mum ‘Sarah’ and asked her the same question, she said "She had done nothing wrong except love my Dad, and that both my parents would never hurt Me". My Mum ‘Sarah’ went on to say that they should have me back if we're allowed to see Zoe and Danny. But the Judge just carried on and let the Adopter’s solicitor speak. Then Mr John Tugan (Enfield’s Solicitor) had his say. Then The Judge went on to read the Judgement out and said "My Mum & Dad were not allowed to oppose the Adoption and it's going to happen". He started going through the Adoption process whilst My Mum & Dad were still in the room, My Dad turned to my Mum ‘Sarah’ and said “He could not stay and my Mum said the same. My Mum & Dad turned to the Judge and said we're going, My Dad told the Judge that he know his wife, and my Mum ‘Sarah’ swore at the Judge. The Judge also said "it would be unfortunate if Mr Walton was to die due to his illness, before my Mum & Dad find me".
P.S. Please help me find my Mummy & Daddy!

Please also read:
Advertising Crystal
Gagging of my Mummy & Daddy

If Social Services thought my Dad was a danger to Me.
Why were my two elder siblings left in my Dad and his first wife’s care for over 10 years?
(Ever Since 'Danny' Was Born In Fact).....
Even up to the present day my Dad still has Unsupervised visits with both my elder brother & sister (Zoe' & 'Danny)

-Ian Walton for Crystal Walton


Vicar went to hospital with potato stuck in bottom
A vicar attended hospital with a potato stuck up his bottom - and claimed it got there after he fell on to the vegetable while naked.

Published: 2:55PM GMT 31 Oct 2008

The clergyman, in his 50s, told nurses he had been hanging curtains when he fell backwards on to his kitchen table.

He happened to be nude at the time of the mishap, said the vicar, who insisted he had not been playing a sex game.

Related Articles
Plank sawn off girl's skull after freak accident
South Africa: road trip through the Free State
Rabies: the threat to travellers
Ryder Cup 2010: fitting finale for Sir Terry Matthews' Celtic vision
British teenager named after hotel balcony fall
Hospital care: Thomas Dalziel suffered delays due to appointment mistakesThe vicar had to undergo a delicate operation to extract the vegetable, one of a range of odd items medics in

Sheffield have had to remove from people's backsides or genitals.

Others include a can of deodorant, a cucumber, a Russian doll – and a carnation.

Speaking of the vicar, A & E nurse Trudi Watson, of Sheffield's Northern General Hospital, said: "He explained to me, quite sincerely, he had been hanging curtains naked in the kitchen when he fell backwards on to the kitchen table and on to a potato.

"But it's not for me to question his story. He had to undergo surgery to have it removed."

She advised anyone tempted to use such objects in sex games to think again.

"It can be very dangerous and potentially life-threatening," she said.

"Surgery can lead to infection, nasty scarring, and it could possibly end up with the person having to use a colostomy bag as a result."

A hospital trust spokeswoman in Sheffield said: "Like all busy hospitals we do see some unusual accidents.

"But our staff deal with them in a discreet, professional and kind way."

Monday, 11 October 2010



Dr Richard A. Gardner

Child psychiatrist who developed the theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome

Saturday, 31 May 2003

In a contentious child custody dispute in the suburbs of Pittsburgh a few years ago, three teenage boys begged a family court judge not to force them to continue visits to their father because, they said, he was physically abusive towards them. Rather than believe the boys, the judge relied on the testimony of an expert witness retained by the father, a Columbia University professor of clinical psychiatry, Richard A. Gardner.

Richard Alan Gardner, psychiatrist: born New York 28 April 1931; MD 1956; twice married (one son, two daughters); died Tenafly, New Jersey 25 May 2003.

In a contentious child custody dispute in the suburbs of Pittsburgh a few years ago, three teenage boys begged a family court judge not to force them to continue visits to their father because, they said, he was physically abusive towards them. Rather than believe the boys, the judge relied on the testimony of an expert witness retained by the father, a Columbia University professor of clinical psychiatry, Richard A. Gardner.

Gardner insisted the boys were lying as a result of brainwashing by their mother and recommended something he called "threat therapy". Essentially, the Grieco boys were told they should be respectful and obedient on visits to their father and, if they were not, their mother would go to jail. Shortly afterwards, 16-year-old Nathan Grieco, the eldest of the brothers, hanged himself in his bedroom, leaving behind a diary in which he wrote that life had become an "endless torment". Both Gardner and the court were unrepentant even after the suicide, and it was only after an exposé in the local newspaper that custody arrangements for the two surviving boys were changed.

This "threat therapy" was part of a much broader theory of Gardner's known in family courts across the United States as "Parental Alienation Syndrome". The theory - one of the most insidious pieces of junk science to be given credence by US courts in recent years - holds that any mother who accuses her spouse of abusing the children is lying more or less by definition. She tells these lies to "alienate" the children from their father, a shocking abrogation of parental responsibility for which she deserves to lose all custody rights in favour of the alleged abuser.

This is not only tawdry logic, guaranteed from the outset to protect the interests of divorcing fathers, by far Gardner's most enthusiastic constituency, but it has also destroyed the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American families over the past 15 years. In state after state, courts deferred to Gardner's academic credentials and put children in the custody of their alleged abuser, even in cases where police records, medical records and testimony by teachers and social workers supported the mother's accusations.

By now, the concept of "parental alienation" has entered case law and swayed thousands of disputes in which Gardner himself played no part. Yet it has no scientific basis whatsoever. It is not recognised by the American Psychiatric Association or any other professional body. The stream of books that Gardner produced on the subject from the late 1980s were all self-published, without the usual peer review process. His method for determining the reliability of sex abuse allegations was denounced by one noted domestic violence expert, Jon Conte of the University of Washington, as "probably the most unscientific piece of garbage I've seen in the field in all my time".

Nobody with experience of high-conflict divorce cases would deny that mothers, in some cases, make false allegations against their spouses. But Gardner went much further. He believed that 90 per cent of mothers were liars who "programmed" their children to repeat their lies, and never mind the corroborating evidence. He theorised that mothers alleging abuse were expressing, in disguised form, their own sexual inclinations towards their children.

And he suggested there was nothing much wrong with paedophilia, incestuous or not. "One of the steps that society must take to deal with the present hysteria is to 'come off it' and take a more realistic attitude toward paedophilic behaviour," he wrote in Sex Abuse Hysteria - Salem Witch Trials Revisited (1991). Paedophilia, he added, "is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people". Asked once by an interviewer what a mother was supposed to do if her child complained of sexual abuse by the father, Gardner replied: "What would she say? Don't you say that about your father. If you do, I'll beat you."

It beggars belief that such a figure would be taken seriously by family court judges but, in an adversarial system where fathers often have more money to spend on divorce cases, Gardner's theories have proved remarkably persuasive. The journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry wrote in 1996 that a book of Gardner's, Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation, was "a recipe for finding allegations of sexual abuse false, under the guise of clinical and scientific objectivity. One suspects it will be a bestseller among defence attorneys." And so it has proved.

Gardner's work has created a generation of mothers and children scarred psychologically and, in many cases, physically by the court rulings he has influenced. In one of his earliest cases, a Maryland physicist he labelled a "parental alienator", unfit to retain custody of her children, was subsequently shot dead by her ex-husband. Still Gardner did not change his view that the wife was the true villain; her lies, he insisted, had made the husband temporarily psychotic.

Richard Gardner's background was surprisingly conventional. Born in the Bronx, New York, in 1931, he studied medicine and psychiatry at various prestigious New York universities, and served a stint as a US army psychiatrist in Germany. Appointed to the Division of Child Psychiatry at Columbia in 1963, where he became Clinical Professor of Psychiatry in 1983, he was respected for many years as an expert on childhood experience of divorce.

After he developed his Parental Alienation Syndrome in the 1980s, however, he and Columbia slowly distanced themselves from each other and he spent most of his time in private practice in New Jersey. Along the way, he also turned into an authentic American monster.

Andrew Gumbel


500 parents in legal action to win back 'stolen' children taken into care
(By Martyn Halle)

Hundreds of heartbroken parents who claim social services "stole" their children have launched a legal bid to win them back.

The 500 mums and dads say it is impossible to get justice in the UK and have turned to an international court.

Families argue they are the victims of social workers who are over-zealous after cases such as Victoria Climbié and Baby Peter and a process in family courts which is excessively secretive.

They also say that the courts rely too heavily on the opinions of experts or social workers and that it is wrong that there is no right of appeal. The UK now has 64,000 children in care...a 6pc rise since 2006.

If the Court of Human Rights in The Hague backs the new case, it could let parents bring proceedings against councils - and get their children back.

One dad told the Sunday Mirror last year he had lost his daughter to adoption days after her birth.

"Crystal" was taken because of an unproven allegation that Alan (not his real name) had harmed his son from a previous marriage.

Alan, 44, who is campaigning for a change in the law, found that over five years his local authority, Enfield in North London, had succeeded in all 43 cases where it wanted to take a child into care. He said: "It's hard to believe they right every time.

In my case there was no evidence our girl would be harmed by me or my wife. Yet she was 'snatched' without warning."

And another dad in Nottingham whose three boys were taken after a tip-off said he and his wife were never told the allegation against them. Sam Hallimond, of pressure group Freedom Advocacy and Law, organising the court action, said: "Families are fighting injustices, with children being taken on vague allegations."

Mr Hallimond, who had his daughter taken for adoption in Suffolk, added: "If the court agree our rights have been breached, we could bring prosecutions against councils and possibly get our children back."

Lib Dem MP John Hemming, backing the legal action, said: "We are challenging a system where simply believing a child is at risk can see them taken into care - or being adopted and lost for ever."

Back To News Index!

Hershey Childrens Home Sex Crimes Coverup, $3M Settlement Milton Hershey School PA

Friday, 8 October 2010


The Masons love this technique. Get out the big guns and blast away. They did this to me, rolling out their secret family court judge trainer Anthony Cleary, who threatened me with jail at every possible opportunity, just in case I thought about committing the appalling offence of "CONTEMPT OF COURT", an umbrella term beloved by the UK Secret Family Gulag Courts, which covers all manner of offences, such as sending a birthday card to your own child, going to a house, ringing the doorbell, finding no-one answers it, turning round and walking away from the house, mouthing "I LOVE YOU" to your own child in the street and, horror of horrors, surely this one deserves capital punishment, complaining to the police that the freemason who is taking you to court is a rapist, and collapsing in grief and shock when forced to be cross examiined by him at Stafford Torture Chamber (only to be mocked and jeered at by the barristers who are supposed to be on your side, paid for by your own Legal Aid)

Stephen Baker is an English Barrister and Jersey Advocate. He is one of only two lawyers who practise at both the English and Jersey bars (the other is Emma Jordan, Senior Associate at BakerPlatt). He is a member of Chambers at 7 Bedford Row, which specialises in financial crime, particularly money laundering and associated regulatory matters.
Advocate Baker has undertaken complex investigations on behalf of the Attorney General of Jersey including those into Bank Cantrade C.I. Ltd. and General Abacha. He is what you would call a Big Gun.

Stuart Syvret is an unemployed homeless ex politician. He is no longer in a position of power or authority.

What has Stuart Syvret been accused of? Has he plotted to assassinate the AG by running over him with his bike? Has he been involved in a major money laundering scam? Has he been growing naughty plants in his flat?

No, Stuart Syvret's "crimes" are that he published details in his blog of a major scandal that ought to have been under police investigation, had corrupt politicians not interfered in the impartiality of the police, using God knows what threats and bribes to stop them doing their job.

Yes, the Masons love to bully. Mind you, so many of them were unfortunate enough to go to some pretty nasty schools. I have been having a peep at some of the schools which these people who are currently engaged in bullying the Ex Senator, Stuart Syvret, champion of the people who were abused at Haut de la Garenne, the hell hole which has had at least 160 complaints of terrible cruelty against children, and where burnt human remains and lime pits were found during the police investigation.

Those schools, when you read some of the things that old boys who attended have written, you begin to understand very well why these Funny Handshake Old Boys have got such awful personality disorders. Take, for example, the one that the Chief Minister of Jersey, Terry Le Sueur attended, the De La Salle College, Jersey. The De La Salle College in Jersey is an independent Catholic school taking its name from St John Baptist de la Salle (1651–1719), who founded the Brothers' Order in France. Today the Order has establishments in over 80 countries. Sadly, the Brothers have a terrible reputation for child cruelty, bare arse floggings and bad teaching practices. So is it surprising that these men have turned out to be disrespectful of the Holy Bible and the Laws of God? I read one very sad story, of a man who had been forced to chant the poem "Timothy Winter" with his classmates as a boy, by a bully of a teacher. The man explained how, years later, he was listening to Radio 4 and they inserted a poetry reading just before the play he was about to listen to. The man froze in dread, of the bad school memories, but was surprised to find himself enjoying the reading, by Martin Jervis, of that poem, and realised, for the first time, that it was a beautiful poem of yearning for social reform.

Thursday, 7 October 2010


No doubt the paedo protectors will call me a nutter for posting this, and say I "need help", but I don't care what those creeps think, it's my blog so I can post what I like on it.

Anyway, I love this story, it is one of my favourites. The music is Old and Wise by The Alan Parsons Project, the singer is Colin Bluntstone


I wrote both these posts, which the Dumb and Dumber blog posted onto their infamous blog of lies and propaganda. I was pretty surprised they allowed me to post there again, just shows how stupid they are.

Anyway, I won't be posting any more on to their blog, the main reason being that they pretty soon will not have a blog to post on to. I don't think David Cameron is going to allow computer phones to be smuggled into prisons in the future, PRAISE THE LORD!


Zoompad said...
You can laugh all you like, but I did warn you not to pull the beard of Jesus or spit in His face, didn't I?

All the wicked bad things you have done and said, everyone knows about what you have done, you have brought ruin upon yourselves.

Did you really think that the Lord would let you get away with all the wicked crimes?

I know I must sound like a broken record, but you really should repent to Jesus. You have done the exact opposite of what he said to de. Jesus said to be kind, and to care for the weakest, to be good. You have not been good, you have been really very bad, cruel, malicious, hateful. You have not cared about all the people who were cruelly treated as little children. You have tried to destroy all the people who have tried to help all those smashed up people. You have said the most odious things about Carolyn Labey, and Stuart Syvret has had a terrible time because of you.

Now your stranglehold is about to be taken away, and you can snigger and bluster all you like at people like me, it's not Stuart or Lenny or Rico or Ian or any of the other people who have denounced you who is going to end your reighn of terror, it is the Lord, PRAISE HIS HOLY NAME! He has heard all our prayers, all the crying in the night, all the sorrow of those who did not make it, because some of those people are dead now, and the Lord is going to end this terrible bullying, and bring justice.

October 07, 2010
Anonymous said...
"Stuart Syvret has had a terrible time because of you."

Nice one. The rest of her babble is just the norm from somebody who cannot see the wood for the trees.

Strange though, how somebody living in the UK follows every word of our resident ex States Senator idiot so closely....

You would think just by looking at his recent e-mails to the Labey household and his lack of evidence to prove cover ups of child abuse when ask to is enough for any 'normal' thinking person to see that something is seriously wrong here...

Maybe Zoompad is actually part of a cult that hangs Witches.

October 07, 2010
Anonymous said...
There is only one comment I have to say about Zoompad's biblical nonsence on Syvret and thats:

"let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

October 07, 2010
Anonymous said...
Dear Zoompad,

Can you ask a favour of your higher power and find out if we can get Stuart processed through the Jersey Courts asap, so that I can send the Bahai hostel in Strasbourg a donation and can you find out how long he will be locked up for here first ?


Gay B Rel

October 07, 2010
Anonymous said...
An alert reader asks,

Who the **** is Saskia Le Masurier, ?

She has more brains than ALL bloggers and is destined to oust Dan Murphy at the next Grouville Connetable elections. Watch this Space!
He knows this and is scared of her.

October 07, 2010
Zoompad said...
I love the Lord Jesus Christ who was murdered on a cross 2000 years ago, who gave his life for sinful men to destroy, so that he could hold up a mirror to show us all the terrible destructive power of sin.

People are praying about this - they are calling out to God to bring down this terrible wall of corruption. People are calling to the Creator for justice, as they cannot get it from the justice system of mankind. So people are praying for divine justice.

God will not ignore the prayers of his people. He will not be like the unrighteous judge, who the widow woman pleaded to help her. God said to call on him for help, and that is what people have been doing.

It is in God's hands now. I think you will find taking on Almighty God to a fight is never really a very good idea. I have had many arguments with God myself, when I have been distraught with memories of how I was abused and reabused, and it is my experience that God always wins every argument and every battle!

October 07, 2010
Anonymous said...
Oh come on!

The latest posting from Zoompad is obviously not from her.

I have very little sympathy with the lady's views - although I do have some sympathy with her obvious need for care.

Just look at the syntax, language and phraseology of the latest posting and compare it to the genuine "Zoompad" postings in the Vile Blog and elsewhere and it's patently obvious that it's not from the real Zoompad.

I think the moderators of this site really need to get a grip and stop such obviously bogus postings from appearing - unless, like the author of the bogus posts - they're in it for cheap laughs. In which case: enjoy - jusr remember you're destroying your own credibility every time you allow it to happen.

October 07, 2010
Anonymous said...
Lord Jesus this and that, its like an evening on the Alpha Course, oh come on what is all all this guff!!!!

October 07, 2010


I met these musicians a few years ago (HELLO JO!) It was a lovely sunny day at Market Drayton, and they were playing for the Muller open day, and so I sat for an hour and just enjoyed the concert. I was going through all that hell of secret family courts at the time, so it was lovely to take my mind off all that rubbish for an hour or so and listen to this lovely music.

Wednesday, 6 October 2010


I had an eating binge last night. I got very upset about several cyber bullying incidents which have happened recently, one of which was yet another creepy bully asking me to suck his appendage.

Normally, I can just shrug a lot of that stuff off, but I have just been reading Shy Keenan's autobiography "Broken", and although her childhood was a lot different from mine, some of the things which happened to her also happened to me, so reading about them left me feeling very raw and vulnerable again.

Shy described how Social Services did a character assassination on her file, which, when all the different agencies including the police read, had devestating effects. It is a frightening thought that one malicious and twisted social worker can destroy someone in the way Shy described in her book, but I know the truth of what she wrote, as something similar also happened to me.

I was raped by my brother, I was 11 years old at the time. My brother, incidentally, had been abused by a male primary school teacher. My brothyer took out all his poison on me; he used to thump me as well.

I wrote my book "Tip" before I had had access to my Social Work records as a child. If I had seen what is written on my file, I think "Tip" might have been a very different book. When I read my SS records for the first time, I could hardly believe what I was reading. Stafford Social Services have actually written on my file that I had consencial sex at the age of 11. They made out that I was virtually a whore from childhood. They deliberatly tried to blacken my character. Which was a bit strange, as not only did I pass my 11 plus examination (at the age of 10) I was friends with the headmaster's daughter (the only other person in the school to pass) and my school reports virtually shone with praise for my hard work and my kindness to other children. But no, Staffordshire Social Services version of events overruled everyone elses; I was a "bad un" from the day I was born.

Social Services, in effect, treated me, as they did Shy Keenan, like Mrs Reed treated Jane Eyre. And other people have been making similar complaints about the SS. I don't know wether to feel hard done by or glad that Stafford SS have not tried to buy me off, as they have done so to other people. Glad, because I suspect they know darned well that I have enough integrity to tell them to shove any silence money offered where the sun never shines.

I can't "move on". I am not allowed to. Stafford freemasons even blocked me from getting a divorce from a man I have not seen for about 15 years, so I can't even be with the man I fell in love with and still dearly love 12 years ago. It was not enough for those masonic bastards to use CIA psychological torture on me over a 7 year period - they have also made it impossible for me to be with the man I love.

So, last night, I had my binge. I feel horrible today, but I'll survive. The thing is, I just cannot see when this fiasco is going to stop. Nothing much has changed. I watched the Panorama Propagandocumentry last night - what a complete load of cobblers that was. They tried to show all the SS officers as if they were all born with a whacking great halo on their heads, and the three kids they picked were "difficult". It was the usual biased BBC propaganda that we abuse survivors have come to expect now.

Will I still be here writing these grievances in another 20 years time? If I have to, I will. The abuse of children by the so called child protectors has got to stop - at the very least, people like me can make darned sure that they do not get away with it in silence!

Madeira President Alberto João Jardim

This one is interesting


Sorry about the poor quality.


From Times Online May 27, 2007

VIP 'stalker' squad set up by governmentJoanna Bale for The Times The government has secretly set up a VIP “stalker” squad to identify and detain terrorists and other individuals who pose a threat to prominent people.

The unit, staffed by police and psychiatrists, will have the power to detain suspects indefinitely using mental health laws.

The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was quietly established last October and is set to reignite controversy over the detention of suspects without trial.

Until now it has been up to mental health professionals to determine if someone should be forcibly detained, but the new unit uses the police to identify suspects, increasing fears that distinctions are being blurred between criminal investigations and doctors’ clinical decisions.

The Metropolitan Police confirmed that the unit had been established only after its existence was revealed in a Sunday newspaper.

In a statement, it said: “The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre is a joint initiative between the Metropolitan Police, Home Office and Department of Health. Its role is to assess, manage and reduce potential risks and threats from fixated individuals, against people in public life, particularly protected VIPs.

“Fixated individuals are those who are abnormally preoccupied with certain ideas or people. Research has shown that a small minority exhibit violent behaviour.

“London-based FTAC is a pilot initiative, which was set up in October 2006 after research showed that no single unit existed to collate relevant information, assess the risks and initiate appropriate action to manage and reduce any threat.”

Staff at the central London centre will include four police officers, two civilian researchers, a forensic psychiatrist, a forensic psychologist and a forensic community mental health nurse.

It is being hailed as the first joint mental health-police unit in the UK and a “prototype for future joint services” in other areas.

The Mental Health Act requires two doctors or psychiatrists to approve a forcible detention, or “sectioning”, for treatment. It allows a patient to be held for up to six months before a further psychological assessment. Patients are then reviewed every year to determine if they can be released.

The government is trying to amend the act, with a controversial bill introduced in November, to bring in a wider definition of mental disorder in order to give doctors more power to detain people.

At least one terror suspect, allegedly linked to the 7/7 bomb plot and a suicide bombing in Israel, has already been held under the Mental Health Act. The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, absconded from the hospital where he was being detained and has never been traced.

Liberty said the secret unit represented a new threat to civil liberties. Its policy director, Gareth Crossman, said: “There is a grave danger of this being used to deal with people where there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution.

“This blurs the line between medical decisions and police actions. If you are going to allow doctors to take people’s liberty away, they have to be independent. That credibility is undermined when the doctors are part of the same team as the police.

“This raises serious concerns. First that you have a unit that allows police investigation to lead directly to people being sectioned without any kind of criminal proceedings. Secondly, it is being done under the umbrella of anti-terrorism at a time when the Government is looking at ways to detain terrorists without putting them on trial.”

FTAC was set up following an NHS research programme based at Chase Farm Hospital in Enfield, north London. Researchers examined thousands of cases of prominent people being stalked. It liaised with the FBI, the US Secret Service, the Capitol Hill Police, which protects Congressmen and Senators, and the Swedish and Norwegian secret services.

Sweden granted access to files on the murder of the foreign minister Anna Lindh who died after being stabbed by a stalker in a Stockholm store in 2003.

The research led to FTAC being set up with a £500,000-a-year budget from the Home Office and Department of Health.

Dr David James, FTAC’s senior forensic psychiatrist, has studied attacks on British and European politicians by people suffering pathological fixations. Also on the staff is Robert Halsey, a consultant forensic clinical psychologist who is a specialist in risk assessment.

Contact us | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Site Map | FAQ | Syndication | Advertising
© Times Newspapers Ltd 2010 Registered in England No. 894646 Registered office: 1 Virginia Street, London, E98 1XY

Tuesday, 5 October 2010


And the corrupt people who have managed to get into positions of power and authority are still trying to cover it all up.

There are some people in authority, good, decent people, who also want to cover it up, as they sincerely believe that this is in the best interests of the people. This is a mistake, just as the failure to close down the German spy rings was a mistake after WW2. PLEASE, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg, learn from the mistakes of the past.

The people need to know the truth. It will not cause a revolution if the people are allowed to know the truth. It will not cause the breakdown of law and order if the people are allowed to discuss the truth.

Please, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg, trust the integrity of the ordinary people of this country. Do it quickly, before there is a repeat of the Night of the Long Knives. Please, you know there are people of integrity in this country, start talking to them, and save these islands from sliding into the sewer.

Child abuse is ALWAYS evil.

Murder is ALWAYS evil.

Child abusers and murderers must not be allowed to escape from their judicial punishment.

Please, Mr Cameron, and Mr Clegg, please.

Monday, 4 October 2010

Friday, 1 October 2010


The Chairman
Privileges and Procedures Committee Friday 1st October 2010
C/O Morier House
Halkett Place
St. Helier

Attention Mrs J Gallichan and Members

Dear Mrs Gallichan,

I write in protest in the strongest of terms in regard to what was published in last evenings Jersey Evening Post ,on page 5 in regard to allegations made in the Magistrates Court by the Deputy of Grouville Ms Carolyn Labey, this person makes some outrageous and unsubstantiated claims of corruption and harassment against me as the then Housing Minister and against others including a Planning Officers, politicians, lawyers, backers…

I do not intend to repeat what the JEP have published as you will have read its contents and they speak for themselves….the complainant claims to have evidence of this corruption and in her claims says the States of Jersey Police have failed to act upon her “ evidence “.

I am well aware that the Auditor General Mr Swinson has already investigated ************ due to the “claims/allegations “ made by the complainant and these investigations have been completed and the findings are being eagerly awaited.

I wish to lodge a complaint against Ms Labey in regard to these “ corruption “ allegations which have apparently taken place over the rezoning of Field 148 in Grouville and any other land rezoning or otherwise in the Island.

It is important that the public have faith in their elected representatives and public employees and Court Officials ie legal profession etc and I now demand a full investigation into these claims of “ evidence etc “ made by Ms Labey and conveyed onto the blogsite of Stuart Syvret over several months.

Yours Sincerely

Terry Le Main

Senator Terry Le Main
cc. Senators Le Sueur, Ozouf, Cohen, AG, SG, The Bailiff, Deputy Egre.



I expect the creepy old fart will get his mason pals to pull this one off YouTube as well. Hee hee hee, it's too late, we've already downloaded it!