Thursday, 26 May 2011

The North Wind and the Sun

THE NORTH WIND and the Sun disputed as to which was the most powerful, and agreed that he should be declared the victor who could first strip a wayfaring man of his clothes.The North Wind first tried his power and blew with all his might, but the keener his blasts, the closer the Traveler wrapped his cloak around him, until at last, resigning all hope of victory, the Wind called upon the Sun to see what he could do. The Sun suddenly shone out with all his warmth. The Traveler no sooner felt his genial rays than he took off one garment after another, and at last, fairly overcome with heat, undressed and bathed in a stream that lay in his path.

Wednesday, 25 May 2011







Nancy Schafer is with God now, RIP dear lady xxxx

Sunday, 22 May 2011


Because of the abuse I suffered as a child, I have got a big black mark on my life.

They put me into a childrens home as a "place of safety". They tried to cover it up, the fact that the children's homes were being run by paedophiles.

So they said in the newspapers "THEY WERE NO ANGELS" to justify the abuse.

All my life the stain has been there. It has blighted my life.

I was unable to get a good job. I was a hard working girl, but I got treated badly at work as well. I got punched at Burgesses, another woman accused me of filling in an invoice wrong and punched me off my chair. Although she got repremanded by the boss, I spiralled iunto depression and had to leave. I had been used as a human punchbag before and that woman punching me off my chair triggered the depression.

I got another job, as a silk screen printer, but the boss kept feeling my breasts and bottomn. I was working for less than the dole money. I had to leave that job and went on the dole.

I've tried to make myself employabvle. I hate being on benefit handouts. But I keep getting depressed and have low self esteem. I have panic attacks and hardly sleep.

I want to get rid of this big black stain. I am going to get rid of it, it's blighted my life for far too long.

This is what I want and I am going to get these things.

1) an apology from the departments that have hurt me - Stafford Police and Stafford Social Services.

2) PROPER therapeutic help, NOT the crap ENMERGE councelling that tried to cover it up and blame my dad for everything

3) I want a divorce from the man that Stafford Court refused to give me a divoirce from even though I have not seen the man for nearly 15 years.

4) I want a job with Stafford Police - working to fight against paedophiles. I know that might sound bonkers but because of the massive fight I have had I think I am really well qualified to help investigate paedophile rings. Stafford Police can apologise to me and put right the wrongs they have done to me by offering me a job. I could read through lots of documents and look for evidence.

I don't know how I am going to get these things but I AM going to get them somehow. I am going to get rid of this big black mark.

Friday, 20 May 2011



Lenny Harper

"BDO Alto"

"The Plot Thickens"

BDO Alto was commissioned in September 2009. This was an independent report that had nothing to do with Wiltshire

Wiltshire Haven 1 was commissioned in November 2008 with the suspension of

Graham Power

Wiltshire Operation Blast was commissioned in June 2009 by Senator ILM with the alleged holding of police files on states members

All 3 Reports were released by the Minister of Home Affairs in May 2010

No one meant to ask any questions


How is it that BDO Alto are quoting from Lenny Harpers Wiltshire Statement when all the reports were released on the same day into the public domain? Have Wiltshire Police Force been sharing confidential witness statements with a Jersey Financial Audit Firm? This plot is going beyond Disney it real is. Are we now to believe that the Chief Constable of Wiltshire gave classified information that was exempt from the UK Freedom of Information Law to BDO Alto?

Lenny Harper is asking for answers and frankly who could blame him; As can been seen below BDO Alto are clearly quoting Lenny Harpers Wiltshire Statement. How have they done this? If there is any need for clarification surly they contact Lenny Harper.

What if someone didn't want Lenny Harper involved?

Remember Wiltshire exempt from "FOI" & Highly Confidential ( in the uk )

In Jersey (Totally Cavalier) AKA ( lawless )

" In Mr Harpers statement to Wiltshire Police he notes that several meeting took place with the Home Affairs ( during the course of the Investigation) but that he has never asked for detailed forecasting of costs. This contradicts with our discussions with the Finance and Administration Manager at Home Affairs."

" Mr Harper also notes in his Statement that Home Affairs queried certain expenses , such as the Australia trip , but that they were always happy with the explanation given."

Then on Page 21 we have:

" There was failure to implement a number of ACPO policies relating to management of MIR, impacting effectiveness and management of resources. Mr Harper has previously noted in a statement to Wiltshire Constabulary in April 2009 that, in his opinion, the ACPO standards of investigation do not normally apply to SOJP because SOJP is not a Home Office force"

Here is the Email to BDO Alto;

----- Forwarded Message ----

From: Lenny Harper


Sent: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011 22:55:58

Subject: BDO Report on Operation Rectangle

Dear Sir /Madam,

I am the former Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police and I was the Senior Investigating Officer on 'Operation Rectangle.' I made most of the decisions regarding the use of resources on that operation. I have, in the past week, become aware that Mr Ian Le Marquand, the Home Affairs Minister, commissioned you to examine the use of resources during the operation and that you submitted a report which was critical of my decisions. I am somewhat surprised that you felt able to do this without even contacting me to ask me a single question about the rationale for my decisions. Accordingly you have made assumptions which are totally incorrect and factually inaccurate. If you had contacted me I would have given you the information which would have prevented you from being so wide of the mark.

Mr Le Marquand states that he had no say in the decision not to interview me. He actually states that he remained independent. I presume you were working to a terms of reference and I would be grateful if you would tell me who composed your TOR, and if these included a specific instruction not to speak to me. It seems most strange that a reputable firm of accountants (which I presume you are) would compile a report passing judgement on the decisions on how to use resources without even speaking to the person who made those decisions. This is not a matter of hindsight, (although the hideous inaccuracies within your report are highlighted by hindsight) but a matter of commonsense. It would seem obvious for a report to have any integrity or credibility then the lead player should be consulted.

Another, perhaps even more serious matter, is that in several places in your report, you quote from a statement which I made to Wiltshire Police. This statement was made on a confidential basis to Wiltshire, for one purpose only, and that was a disciplinary investigation into another senior police officer. I was given an assurance that no one else would have access to it. You have quoted from it and thereby raise issues of Data Protection. Furthermore, on at least one occasion you have quoted incorrectly from it. The whole interview was tape recorded and you havequoted me as saying something at variance with what was actually said. Before deciding whether to take matters further with the Data Protection Commissioner I would like to know how you accessed my statement to Wiltshire and why you quoted it in a report which had nothing to do with the original purpose for which it was made.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Leonard Harper

I believe this Email says it all.

Now we come to Wiltshire and their Chief Constable Brian Moore. Obviously Wiltshire have a very big part to play in this. A major problem for Wiltshire is that when they handed "Haven" over in November 2009 they had basically lost control of it.

Here is Lenny Harpers email to Wiltshire;

I was recently interviewed by your staff and made a statement in relation to a Disciplinary investigation carried out by your force under your personal supervision, into Mr Graham Power QPM, the former Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police. Your officers refused me a copy of my statement at the time and told me that it was being made for one purpose and one purpose only, it would be used for nothing else, and that no one else would be given a copy. I have recently learned that a copy of my statement was given to a company called BDO, a jersey firm of accountants, who were compiling a report separate from your own enquiry. My belief is that they were given this statement by someone in the Jersey government. However, this has been denied by the Home Affairs Minister there who states that it must have been yourselves who handed the statement over. I have a long experience of untruths told by the Jersey government but of course have to seek clarification from you. I would be grateful if you would tell me if indeed you, or a member of your force, handed my statement to this company in direct contravention of the assurances I was given. Furthermore, I would be grateful if you would now supply me with a copy of the statement which I made to your officers. Thank You.

Lenny Harper

Now we come to Home Affairs Minister Ian Le Marquand. Just how big was his role in the setting up of the BDO Report? One thing for certain his memory is not to good on this issue.

He did Commission it along with SAV

Let us now look at the exchange now between Lenny Harper and ILM;

-----Original Message-----

From: Lenny Harper

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:59 PM

To: Ian Le Marquand

Subject: BDO and my Wiltshire Statement

Dear Mr Le Marquand;

I have recently become aware of the BDO report which seems to criticise my use of resources during the Historic Abuse Investigation. Bizarrely, no one from BDO has ever attempted to contact me to ask me anything at all about my decisions during my use of resources. Not only does this cast huge doubt on the validity and credibility of the report, but it goes a long way towards explaining the factual errors and wrong assumptions endemic in the report. Can you shed any light on how a report about the use of resources during a criminal investigation failed to even contact the person responsible for the use of those resources?

I notice that in the report BDO also quote from my Wiltshire statement. On a least one occasion they quote incorrectly from it. When I made this statement I was refused a copy and I made it only on condition that it was used solely for the discipline investigation into Graham Power. Wiltshire made this quite clear. This binding agreement appears to have been ignored and Data Protection issues arise. Can you please inform me who authorised the release of my statement and the breach of the agreement as to its use, who it is that is quoting it in the BDO report, and what action you will take in respect of the breach of the conditions under which I made the statement.

Finally, in the light of the errors in the report concerning what was said by me in the statement, will you now reconsider your decision not to make it public in order that the truth can be revealed.

Yours sincerely,

Leonard Harper

From: Ian Le Marquand
To: Lenny Harper

Sent: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011 18:52:51

Subject: RE: BDO and my Wiltshire Statement

Dear Mr. Harper, I am sorry to be slow in replying to you on this.

I was not involved in the arrangements for the production of either the Wiltshire Financial report or the BDO Alto report for the simple reason that both of these had to be independant reports. You will be well aware as to why I had to remain independent in relation to the disciplinary reports concerning Mr. Power. However, it may help you if I explain the origins of the BDO Alto report. There had been, by the time I became Minister for Home Affairs in December 2008, considerable criticism of the handling of financial matters in relation to the Haut de la Garenne investigation. That criticism was not only of the States of Jersey Police but also of the Home Affairs Department including Mr. Austin-Vautier who was the relevant accounting officer. I, therefore, decided to commission an independent report in relation to the financial handling. That report ran in parallel with the Wiltshire investigation. However, I had to remain separate from it so that my independence was retained.

I know that there was some liaison between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Police but I do not know what form that took. If the section from your statement which is contained in the BDO Alto report is also quoted in the Financial report then it is very likely that BDO Alto obtained access to the Wiltshire Report directly from the Wiltshire Police. I would be very surprised if the Wiltshire Police showed your statement to BDO Alto.

I have checked the position with Mr. Austin-Vautier and he does not know the answer because he also had to remain separate from the production of the report although he has a similar recollection that there was some liaison between the two.

The BDO Alto report was always intended to be shared with other States Members and it was always likely that it would be made public in some form.

I do not think that any of this makes any difference to my decision that it would not be appropriate to publish your statement even in a redacted form.

Yours sincerely, Ian Le Marquand.

From: Lenny Harper

To: Ian Le Marquand
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011 21:57:52

Subject: Re: BDO and my Wiltshire Statement

Dear Mr Le Marquand,

Thank you very much for your reply. I fully understand that you had to remain independent from the BDO report. If I understand you correctly, you commissioned the BDO report then took a back seat. Presumably then, someone else would have drawn up their terms of reference including giving some guidelines as to who they should seek to obtain information from. It would stand to reason that once you commissioned the report then you would have had to delegate responsibility for setting the TOR etc., to someone else. I imagine however, you would have given them some guidelines as to what the remit should be and where they should seek information. (I should emphasise I see nothing wrong with that.) I would be grateful therefore if you could tell me who set the terms of reference for BDO and if they were told not to contact me, or indeed, if when commissioning the report you expected that I, as the person making the decisions on the use of the resources, would be interviewed. There does seem to be a gap between you commissioning the report and them starting work and deciding what enquiries they should make. I presume they were given some guidance.

As for the question of who gave BDO access to my statement to Wiltshire I will, in the light of your helpful comments, take that up with the Chief Constable of Wiltshire and will let you know of the outcome.

I note your comments about your continued position of not releasing my statement. Whilst I strongly disagree with your position I do of course respect the fact that it is your decision to make. I will apply to Wiltshire for a copy of the document.

Thank you for your assistance.

Lenny Harper

From: Ian Le Marquand
To: Lenny Harper

Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011 11:02:40

Subject: RE: BDO and my Wiltshire Statement

Dear Mr. Harper, I will have to make enquiries on the issue of the terms of reference. I would expect that I would have been involved in setting these. There may now be a delay in my responding to you on this point because I shall be going on holiday for two weeks from Friday lunchtime and have many things to do before then. Ian Le M.

So, let us just look at what ILM is saying Below. There was liaison between BDO and the Wiltshire Police. What? What was Wiltshire doing? Can this be right. I thought it was all confidential. Has a Police Disciplinary Investigation ever shared information with anybody else that has nothing to do with them? I find this just staggering. No wander there was never any hearings I believe we are looking at a complete shambles.

"I know that there was some liaison between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Police but I do not know what form that took. If the section from your statement which is contained in the BDO Alto report is also quoted in the Financial report then it is very likely that BDO Alto obtained access to the Wiltshire Report directly from the Wiltshire Police. I would be very surprised if the Wiltshire Police showed your statement to BDO Alto."

Working hard for the Truth.
We, at the Voice are working hard.
Rico Sorda


I have just recieved the following email from my good friend and fellow human rights/anti corruption/anti paedophile campaigner and multi medalled war hero Norman Scarth.

David Bentley is the same judge who threw out the Operation Ore case, and now the paedophiles are sniggering up their sleeves at having got away with what they did to much that they have even written a book called THE APPALLING VISTA which outlines how they got away with it. Nigel Oldfield gets a good mention in that book, he is the horrible creep who went on Newsnight to try to blag the world that being a paedophile is all perfectly acceptable.

I feel sick reading this. This brave old man is still fighting for justice at a time when most people his age have put their feet up by the fireside, feeling that they have done their bit.

I am a victim of child abuse, and I have PTSD, which I can never be healed from while the persecution continues. I get sent every 6 months by DHSS to near where I was abused as a child, and have been kept deliberatly isolated for all the other Pindown home victims in Stafford, persecuted over a 7 year period in the secret family courts which involved keeping me against my will for 2 hours crying and screaming to be allowed to go home and not be forced to sign documents against my will, threatened with jail and the smash up of my family by gangsters from the secret family courts, put onto a website for criminals and other nasty things have been done to me, I presume, in the hope that I will get so depressed I might commit suicide, something which I steadfastly refuse to do. And likewise, so does my good friend Norman!

"The 'News Media' are screaming blue murder at not being allowed to publish titillating stories of adulterous sex. Please forgive me taking the opportunity to ask why did they not make equal outcry at their banning from my grotesque Kangaroo Court 'trial' in Sheffield Crown Court in April 2001? They would have seen that the sadistic Judge David Ronald Bentley also banned my witnesses, my evidence, & three times had me literally dragged & thrown back down the cells when I dared to complain of his gross misconduct. They would have seen him feed monstrous lies to the (specially selected) jury to get the guilty verdict he wanted. They would have seen him ban any mention of the potentially lethal terror attack on me by a mob-handed gang of West Yorkshire Police on 8th August 1999 - eleven months BEFORE my supposed 'crime'! Then, where others would have been given Probation, Community Service, Suspended Sentence or similar, they would have seen him impose a sentence on me (a 75 yr old World War II veteran, for a first 'offence') of TEN YEARS - the intention that I would die in prison. Well, in spite of all the efforts of sadistic screws & shrinks, I didn't die, & retained my sanity (perhaps you should be the judge of that?) Six of those ten years entailed being 'ghosted' between a bewildering succession of different prisons & lunatic asylums where they did their best to drive me to mental breakdown. I never expected to be allowed out alive, but thanks to an honest psychiatrist who was not a puppet of The State (as so many are) I was released, & here I am - STILL exposing the corruption which is rampant in our courts. I do so in memory of my brave young shipmates who died around me 68 years ago, the equally brave German sailors that we killed, & what we believed we were fighting for. They have all been betrayed: EVERYTHING we fought against then is here now in Britain, an Orwellian Police State, just as bad as Nazi Germany, but less honest, the victims fewer - AS YET!
Why were they so determined to silence me? In 1997 I stood for Parliament as an 'Indepenedent Old Age Pensioner' & published the book CAUSE for CONCERN. The main point of manifesto & book was my concern at the LACK of concern from regular politicians at the ever increasing number of violent attacks on the old & vulnerable, almost unheard of until the 1960s. However, the second subject in each was corruption in the courts, of which I had newly become aware. It earned me powerful enemies, but they were not too worried, I was just a noisy old buffoon a Parliamentary No-Hoper. This view of me changed after my single-handed success in the European Court of Human brought a vital change in British law. The change is much hated by lawyers & judges - & I am hated for it!
That is only a tiny part of the still continuing horror story. I am STILL suffering attack, physical & financial.
Norman Scarth.
PS: Attached is the document banning reporting of my 'trial'. Why did the 'News Media' make no outcry then? The same reason that they make no serious complaint about Police State Britain: They are all, tabloid & serious alike (even Private Eye!), as essential a part of this Police State as was Josef Goebbels in Hitler's Germany. No doubt there are reporters & even editors who would like to tell the truth, but they are all under the thumbs of the Press Barons & Media Moguls. How could The Press eventually publish a report of of my trial & conviction, when no reporters were ever present? Obviously, they published what they were told by the prosecution.
PPS: “In a State which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison” said Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862). It is the highest compliment, that the Judicial Mafia & the rest of the gangsters who now rule Britain felt the need to go to such extra-ordinary lengths to silence a little old man like me. Well, they haven't succeeded yet NS."

Thursday, 19 May 2011

The Mysterious Nathaly Dedeyan

This "lady" sure does get around quite a bit! Cambodia, Bradford, Bern, Athens, Belgium, Little Rock, Brazil, you name it, "she's" been there.


I apologise about the untidy muddle of this posting, but I have not had time to do anything other than repost three articles by Judith Reisman and one by Michael Weiss on Roman Polanski that I think are very relevant to the IMF story.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Roman Polanski and the Left's trouble with rape allegations
By Michael Weiss World Last updated: May 18th, 2011

The intellectual Left has lost all sense of seriousness and proportion in its paranoid campaign to make Dominique Strauss-Kahn out to be the real victim of the alleged assault on a chambermaid
The New York Times has done its po-faced best to keep up with the actual scandal convulsing Paris. But the implication is: How dare the police subject a public figure to a “perp walk”?
The DSK apologetics and conspiracy theories have only just begun. Bernard Henri-Lévy, who usually has no difficulty spotting the vices and absurdities of his ideological camp, is wailing that the sexual “McCarthyists” have struck again with his “friend for 20 years”. Not that BHL is rushing to judgment about innocence or guilt just yet, no, no, no. But isn’t it interesting that “the number of the room (2806) corresponds to the date of the opening of the Socialist Party primaries in France (06.28)”?
Any aspiring Tocqueville knows that the Yanks put the month before the day. And the contingency is a remote one that a sleeper agent for Sarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement first booked Strauss-Kahn into the Sofitel, then arranged the non-occupancy of a backwardly encrypted room as a special baise toi to the Socialists.
But this is mere throat-clearing. What BHL is really on about is the dignity of DSK’s much-aggrieved wife:
What I know as well is that nothing, no earthly law, should also allow another woman, his wife, admirable in her love and courage, to be exposed to the slime of a public opinion drunk on salacious gossip and driven by who knows what obscure vengeance.
You might expect a French philosophe to demonstrate the same earnest concern for the help. But apparently not.
If there were an award for consistency in giving the benefit of every doubt (and even the benefits of a few non-doubts) to famous men accused of loose gallantry, BHL would be the laureate to beat.
In 2009, Roman Polanski spent some time in a Swiss prison cell awaiting possible extradition to the United States to stand trial for raping a 13-year-old girl in Jack Nicholson’s LA home in 1978. Then, too, BHL sang a sad song for his old chum and added his name to a list of celebrity signatures calling for the Polanski’s immediate release from Zurich. Another signatory – incidentally – was Woody Allen.
Finally, let’s not forget Gore Vidal, who can entertain the idea that George W Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, but not that the man behind Rosemary’s Baby could get up to no good. “I really don’t give a f*ck,” Vidal told an American journalist regarding l’affaire Polanksi. “Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?”
Tags: Bernard Henri-Lévy, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Roman Polanski

Polanski freed by global pedophile movement

Posted: July 14, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2011
I've written often about the sadistic little coward. No surprise that the Swiss government just freed the "celebrated" Roman Polanski from his multimillion-dollar Swiss chalet. The international pedophile movement would have applied whatever pressure was needed to have one of their own released from his champagne-and-caviar castle walls.
Roman must have had banker backers along with his cult of leftist Hollywood deviants and close chums like the homophile pederast French culture minister, Frederic Mitterrand (Roman always preferred little girls to boys). As a Bangkok boy-sex tourist, Mitterrand despaired that Roman was "thrown to the lions," and was glad to know his fellow child rapist would be back, as it were, on the street.
True, Zurich streets and whorehouses are trafficked at a fast pace nowadays since children are legally prostituted at 16 and pedophile prosecution or prison quite rare. However, street teens are a tad old for little Roman, and since the legal age for prostitution in France, Germany and Italy is 18, his public pedophile antics may be more leery for a time.
In gay Paree, Roman was an open pedophile, posing with bevies of little teenyboppers for photo journal essays. His "relationship" with 15-year-old Natassja Kinski was well-known. She became Tess in his 1979 film Roman got to direct, and shoot her (Tess) being raped.
Ah, the thrill of fine art.
Charlotte Lewis, a British actress, recently accused Polanski of raping her when she was 16. He "forced himself upon me in his apartment in Paris," she said, "and I have lived with the effects of his behavior ever since it occurred."
The New York Daily News quoted Lewis as saying Polanski told her he slept with all of his actresses. "He just said very coldly, 'If you're not a big enough girl to have sex with me, you're not big enough to do the screen test. I must sleep with every actress that I work with; that's how I get to know them, how I mold them.'"
For any who missed why Polanski was incarcerated in Switzerland, in 1977 he drugged, brutally raped and sodomized a 13-year-old child in the USA. He never expected to be arrested for what was apparently his common behavior, but arrested he was. He confessed but fled to France to film happily ever after. He was arrested in Switzerland under a USA warrant as a fugitive.
Widmer-Schlumpf, a Swiss justice official of the female persuasion, said, "This decision was not meant to excuse Polanski's crime," which was really a nice thing to say – though some would call those weasel words or worse. This shows how far Swiss women have come. Some got the vote in 1971, roughly 60 years after most Western countries, and by 1990 all the ladies could vote in Switzerland.
The Polanski case in Switzerland brings to mind that country's habit of passing German military trains through their nation during the Second World War while claiming Swiss "neutrality." One also harkens back to their legalized euthanasia, still ongoing, and their involuntary sterilization programs, finally stopped in the 1980s. Freeing the unscrupulous Polanski also recalls the noble Christoph Meili, a former Swiss bank security guard who exposed his bank for destroying "records of people murdered in the Holocaust so that their money would not be returned to their heirs," as did other Swiss banks.
Our Founding Fathers warned, as did Plato, that the price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men.
Indeed, just as we all try to surround ourselves with allies, pedophiles must surround themselves with similar deviants. French President Nicolas Sarkozy keeps Mitterrand, the child rapist, as part of his "rainbow cabinet." Who would keep a liar in a position of political power except another liar?
Years ago, Daniel Marc Cohn-Bendit, German socialist co-president of European Greens, etc., disclosed his sexual abuse of children, and a recent Der Spiegel article exposes the leftist pedophile ideology and practice in depth.
Mr. Polanski is doubtless toasting victory with Cohn-Bendit's stoned French, Swiss and Hollywood pedophile colleagues. However, as Americans, we can take pride in the fact that some moral warriors in our legal system almost brought Polanski the pedophile to justice.
Learn more in Judith Reisman's new book: "Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America."

She Could Have Died, Roman
By Judith Reisman

I've written often about pedophile Polanski, but since he was arrested in Zurich as a fugitive fleeing the U.S. for child rape, here's a quick review.

In 1977, filmmaker Roman Polanski tricked, stripped, drugged, raped and brutally sodomized a 13-year old, 7th grade girl. Convicted of these atrocities, he fled the U.S. to work and play in freer, gayer France. He escaped because once the judge got some additional facts, his plea bargain (to save the child additional media attack) was deemed invalid.

His biographer, Thomas Kiernan reports Polanski's crimes in The Roman Polanski Story. Roman "broke open a bottle of champagne The youngster hesitated, telling him that the last time she had drunk champagne it had made her violently ill. She was asthmatic, she said that the bubbly had brought on an asthma attack."

Polanski tells her French champagne "could never hurt you." She drinks a glass to placate him. Soon "she felt her lungs beginning to constrict." Polanski says "jump in hot tub It make you feel better."

"I really don't feel good," she says, "[S]houldn't've had champagne She complained again about her dizziness and shortness of breath He gave her a tablet and told her to take it, assuring her that it would counter the effects of the champagne."

The police report continues. "[D]utifully, the girl swallowed the tablet." He didn't "tell her that the tablet was not an antiasthma pill but a high-potency [illegal] Quaalude from his own pocket The girl was in a deep champagne-Quaalude daze slipping into unconsciousness."

"She was shivering and ashen and weeping I'm sick," she mumbled drunkenly. I want to go homemy fathergasping for breath in shrill, raspy heaves. Mucus spilled from her nostrils."

She lost bladder control and is feverish. Polanski worries that he might be stuck with a "naked American teenager in the throes of a potentially fatal seizure." He "wondered whether he should call an ambulance or the police. He decided to wait."

Why no ambulance!! In a film, should she die, his Hollywood friends might help dump the body.

Still, not to waste a rape opportunity, Polanski painfully sodomized and raped the half unconscious child. "With her breathing still impaired by the effects of the Quaalude and champagne, she immediately gagged and retched. She tried to scream but couldn't produce a sound."

Eventually, she revived. He drove the child home, leaving her at the front door.

Now those who have followed Roman know he regularly rapes, well, sodomizes, children. Kiernan reported that "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn."

Roman was a victim of our "excessively prudish petite bourgeoisie."

I remember a French photo story of Roman with pubescent girls he seduced and dumped. Kiernan quotes Roman shouting, "I love young girls very young girls."

To offset people's general revulsion, Polanski has a pubic relations campaign that constantly plays on his tragic WWII childhood. He was born Jewish. He lived during the Holocaust. (In my view, he filmed The Pianist to exploit the Holocaust as a self promoting 'pity Polanski' PR ad.) In fact, Roman went to make a film in Israel, but the Israeli government wouldn't let him set foot on Israeli soil.

Elsewhere I've written of Polanski's response to the murder of his young wife, Sharon Tate, by Charles Manson's satanic cult. In brief.

Since Roman used girls in their marriage bed, the spousal relationship was, well, tense. Roman sold pictures of his naked wife to Playboy to tantalize millions of lusting men (was Manson one of the millions?). When she was pregnant, Polanski humiliated Tate in public, calling her "a dumb hag" and similar endearments.

Polanski partied in London, often with his Arab sheiks. He planned to remain until the baby was born. "Then maybe I could go back and find Sharon the way she used to be."

His biographer says he was "sipping champagne, passing a marijuana cigarette around when he heard his wife and baby were stabbed to death in a satanic ritual" by the Manson cult. Poor Polanski flew back to "pose at the entrance of the death house for Life magazine a week after the slaughter. He charged Life $5,000 for this picture."


Recapping. In 1977, filmmaker Roman Polanski, an infamous Hollywood pedophile, got caught. He'd done nothing more than drug, rape, sodomize and almost kill a 7th-grade child. Based on his sadistic sexual history, there was nothing new in that, so he was outraged by his arrest.

Convicted of his ruthless near sadosexual murder, the mean judge told Polanski he could get 50 years -- but he'd be paroled certainly.

Thus did Roman flee to France to continue being a lionized pedophile filmmaker.

The Swiss arrested him recently as a fugitive from the U.S. If he is returned to California and sent to the clink -- with all those big, mean guys for his remaining years -- well, that actually starts to sound like justice.

Dr. Reisman is a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Her last book was Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences-The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme. She runs

The Kinsey-Polanski story

Posted: January 31, 2003
1:00 am Eastern
By Judith Reisman
© 2011
Editor' s note: The following column contains language that may be offensive to some readers.
The year 2003 may just be the year Hollywood pedophiles come out of the closet to launch their national offensive.
In March, MGM / United Artists and Francis Ford Coppola Jr. begin shooting a film starring the admired Liam Neeson as Alfred Kinsey – the single most sadistic scientific pedophile propagandist in history. Is it prophetic that the Kinsey film follows on the heels of mass media kudos for Roman Polanski's "sensitive" film "The Pianist"?
The film is clever by half with Polanski staking his Yankee rehabilitation on a Holocaust story. If you missed the publicity spin, Roman lived through the Holocaust. The film allegedly has no sex and our hero is aided by a Godly Christian.
That said, for the price of a ticket to "The Pianist," we are supposed to forget Polanski's notorious brutality and pedophilic crimes.
But lest we forget, let's take a quick turn down memory lane.
Thomas Kiernan's biography, "The Roman Polanski Story" was published in 1980, just three years after Polanski fled the United States following his arrest for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl.
Kiernan's smooth biography is candid about the legendary tyranny, sadism and pedophilia that led to Polanski's rape conviction.
Said Kiernan, "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn."
The child "had practically begged him" – "to f--k her," he said. "So I f--ked a chick," he exclaimed. "So what?"
After the charges of raping the unconscious girl were established, and it was clear that Polanski would go to prison, he fled to England. When in France, he arrogantly displayed pubescent girls under his spell who were used and discarded, shouting "I love young girls … very young girls."
Articles in the French press echoed Polanski's whine.
He was victimized by America's "excessively prudish petite bourgeoisie."
Now, while few can deny Polanski is a fugitive child rapist, some argue that his crime was a reaction to the brutal murder of his lovely young wife, Sharon Tate.
Except, notes Kiernan, that six weeks after their marriage, Roman found "a whole new field of girls that interested him." Although Sharon was reputed to be highly traditional in her mores, Kiernan reports that:
Polanski and Sharon celebrated their love affair by consenting to have some nude pictures of the actress – taken by the director during the shooting of their movie – appear in the March 1967 issue of Playboy.
Ah, young love. Sharon was now part of Roman's stylish Hollywood druggie crowd.
[She] went along with [Polanski] in some of his more bizarre sexual practices – allowing him for instance to videotape the two of them making love and then sitting by quietly while he screened the tapes at parties.
Young love shared.
After finding videos of Roman engaging in sexual variations with other women in their bed, Sharon planned to divorce him – until she "found out she was pregnant."
Kiernan describes Polanski's abuse of his distraught and vulnerable wife, no longer girlishly slender:
[Roman] was bored with her being pregnant … He treated her like she was a piece of excess baggage. He was even pointedly cruel to her in front of others at times, calling her a dumb hag and criticizing her whenever she expressed an opinion.
The hostile father-to-be sent his wife to California while he partied in London with Arab sheiks who preferred boys. Roman instead used "a series of girls." He is quoted as saying:
I can't stand seeing Sharon blown up the way she is. This pregnancy has made her such an insecure, nagging b--ch.
Kiernan reports that Polanski secretly planned to remain in Europe until the baby was born. "Then maybe I could go back and find Sharon the way she used to be."
He was with some, friends, "sipping champagne, passing a marijuana cigarette around … when the phone rang" in his London flat. His wife and unborn child were just stabbed to death in a gory satanic ritual in California.
The grieving husband now rushed home and, "posed at the entrance of the death house for Life magazine a week after the slaughter. He charged Life $5,000 for this picture."

Roman Polanski
Polanski didn't miss a beat after Sharon's horrifying killing in 1969.
It bears repeating that Polanksi's reputation for seducing very young girls was legendary in Hollywood and Europe.
That reputation preceeded and followed both the barbaric massacre of his wife and her unborn child and his callous rape of an unconscious child.
Pray that our memories are not so cynical and our understanding so enfeebled that the dazzle of Polanski's Holocaust Pianist "art" cleanses the cruelty of its creator. And, beware Neeson's upcoming portrayal as, says the National Review, the "big daddy of pedophile chic," Alfred Kinsey.
2003 may just signal the entertainment industry's support of a pedophile-rights movement.

Read more: The Kinsey-Polanski story

Wednesday, 18 May 2011


I am being signed out of Blogger, that means I cannor post onto anyone elses blog.

I am not recieving posts that other people have made to this blog.

Funny all this is happening a few days after aq big fat porker of a D head from MI5 posted crap onto my blog, pretending to be someone else.

Blogger is a pain in the backside, I'm really mad as hell about this, but there are fumes coming out of my nostrels because of the stupid pathetic sleazy cretins at MI5. It needs closing down if all they can do is to send decrepit old turnip heads to pick on middle aged women.

Monday, 16 May 2011



It concerned a Select Committee Minutes of Evidence which were ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 22 October 2002. The objective was about setting limits on the use of police resources and time limits for people claiming to have been abused to come forward when investigating historic child abuse cases.

Here is part of that blog post, the list of people present at that meeting:

Members present:

Mr Chris Mullin, in the Chair
Mr David Cameron Bob Russell
Mrs Janet Dean Mr Marsha Singh
Bridget Prentice Angela Watkinson
Mr Gwyn Prosser David Winnick

Examination of Witnesses
MR DAVID ROSE, Special Investigations Reporter, The Observer, MR RICHARD WEBSTER, Author of "The Great Children's Home Panic", and MR BOB WOFFINDEN, Freelance Investigative Journalist, examined.
Question Number

Select Committee on Home Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 38-59)
38. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our witnesses. This is the first session of our inquiry into allegations of abuse in children's homes. I should make clear at the outset that, although we are under great pressure to do so, we are not going to examine in any detail individual cases. Of course, they may be cited where they illustrate a wider point, but we do not wish to get dragged into individual cases because that is not our function. The second point I should mention to witnesses, although I suspect they are well aware of this, is that we have to be careful of the rule on sub judice, so that if a case is before either a court of first instance or the Court of Appeal, then it cannot be referred to by name. If it is before the Criminal Cases Review Commission that is fine. If the CCRC has referred it to the Court of Appeal, then again it is covered by sub judice so we have to be a bit careful there. I think, since this is the first session, I will start by quoting the terms of reference. As I say, we have been under a lot of pressure to widen our terms of reference and we propose to stick as closely as possible to them. The questions in which we are interested are: "Do police methods of "trawling" for evidence involve a disproportionate use of resources and produce unreliable evidence for prosecution?" Two: "Is the Crown Prosecution Service drawing a sensible line about which cases should be prosecuted?" Three: "Should there be a limit—in terms of number of years since the alleged offence took place—on prosecution of cases of child abuse?" Four: "Is there a risk that the advertisement of prospective awards for compensation in child abuse cases encourages people to come forward with fabricated allegations?" And five: "Is there a weakness in the current law on `similar fact' evidence?" Those are the issues on which we hope to concentrate. Can I first of all put a general question to each of our witnesses and ask, starting perhaps with Mr Woffinden, how you became interested in this area?
(Mr Woffinden) Well, obviously I have been interested in miscarriages of justice for some years now, so in a sense I came in through that doorway, a lot of people contacting me saying that in these particular cases they had been wrongly imprisoned. So I had this background of interest in miscarriages of justice and it was natural for me to become concerned about these cases.
39. When did you begin to notice that there was a common thread to them?
(Mr Woffinden) Probably from about 1996 onwards it seemed that all these convictions were being obtained by similar means. So then we tried to put together, initially with Richard when I was writing articles, precisely what was happening.
40. Thank you. Mr Rose?
(Mr Rose) I am a relatively new arrival on the scene. I became interested about two years ago when a lawyer—with whom I had worked very closely some years ago investigating the miscarriage of justice which befell the Tottenham Three, the three men falsely convicted on fabricated evidence of murdering PC Blakelock in the riots at Broadwater Farm—contacted me saying he had been instructed in one of these cases and he was more convinced than he had ever been not only that his client in that particular case was innocent but that the case did fit into a general pattern which was causing him, as an experienced barrister, now a QC, grave concern. He actually gave me Richard Webster's book to read and it was as a result of that that I began to investigate a number of cases.
41. Thank you. You were responsible for making the Panorama programme.
(Mr Rose) Yes, the first thing I did was investigate the case of Roy Shuttleworth, now before the Criminal Cases Review Commission, for Panorama. As part of the research for that programme I looked into a number of other cases too and subsequently I continued to work in the area for The Observer.
42. Thank you. Mr Webster?
(Mr Webster) Unlike Bob Woffinden and David Rose, I am not an investigative journalist. I came into this field because I wrote a fairly substantial intellectual biography of Freud and that may seem a strange route in, but that led me into the field of studying recovered memory and false memory and the origins of that in 1896. I will not go into that now. Having finished that, I thought I would spend three or four weeks looking at false allegations or looking at sexual abuse allegations starting with the Cleveland affair because I felt there were things there that I wanted to understand. That was in early 1996 and it so happened that that coincided with the non-publication of the Jillings report into alleged abuse in North Wales. It also coincided with the beginning of an extremely strong campaign run by The Independent newspaper to try to force upon a reluctant Government a tribunal of inquiry based on the non-publication of the Jillings report. At that time, it seemed to me, that what was happening in North Wales (and I was going on trust from The Independent reports) was the genuine article, that there was massive abuse or had been abuse on a massive scale. Questions were raised about that. I did actually meet some former members of staff from Bryn Estyn and I decided the only thing I could reasonably do was go to North Wales and begin to be an investigative journalist, although I was not one. That is what I started to do. I will not go into details about my investigation, but really, it would be true to say, that by having started investigating North Wales before the Tribunal was ever convened, I then decided I must look over the border in Cheshire and Merseyside and ever since then, on and off, I have been investigating these cases simply because, I think, of the sheer horrifying nature of the miscarriages of justice which they have undoubtedly produced.

I wrote this blog post because I have been very concerned about the motives of these men, and in particular Richard Webster, as he belongs to an organisation called the British False Memory Society, which was founded by an American paedophile called Richard Gardner. Bob Woffingden has worked in the past for the New Musical Express and has jumped to the defence of Jonathan King the convicted paedophile musician. David Rose had admitted to working for MI5.

Now, I have just read this article in the Mail Online:

I was wrong about Bambi killer, says crime writer who has unearthed chilling new evidence
By Bob Woffinden
Last updated at 2:16 AM on 16th May 2011

Throughout the 25 years he has been locked up, Jeremy Bamber has consistently maintained his innocence of one the most horrific mass murders of modern times.
Bamber was only 24 when, in August 1985, five members of his family were shot dead at White House Farm, the family home in Tolleshunt d’Arcy, Essex. A year later, he was found guilty of the murders, and the judge described him as ‘evil, almost beyond belief’.
Returning to the case in 1994, the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, ruled that for Bamber life should mean life — which means, in time, he could serve Britain’s longest-ever prison sentence.
Bamber has always challenged the conviction through the courts and the media, and his campaign has never been so active as in recent months.
When the Criminal Cases Review Commission recently announced that it had to decided not to refer Bamber’s case back to appeal for a third time, they were almost apologetic. Because of what they described as the case’s ‘highly complex nature’, they gave Bamber and his lawyers a month longer than other applicants are usually given to respond to their decision. The Commission yesterday announced that they had agreed to extend the time limit again by a further two months.
Despite the commission’s decision, Bamber, who passed a lie detector test in 2007, has not given up. He has announced that his case is now stronger than ever, sending a message to his followers on Twitter: ‘I will win a historic third appeal and this will change the face of British justice forever’.
But for anyone hoping to understand what really happened that night, there are crucial questions: If Bamber had committed the crime, why did he need to become involved with the police at all —wouldn’t it have been less risky to go back home, then put on a show of grief when told the news? Why was his father’s body downstairs? And why had the phones in White House Farm been moved?
There were four separate phones at the farm, all on the same line: one in the kitchen, one in the office and another in Nevill and June’s bedroom. A cordless phone had been collected for repair two days earlier. But police photographs show the ivory dial-type bedroom phone was in the kitchen, with the receiver off the hook, when the bodies were found.
Somebody had unplugged it in the bedroom then plugged it in again downstairs. More bizarrely, the kitchen phone had been unplugged and hidden beneath a pile of magazines. When tested it worked perfectly.
The telephone that moved downstairs is the key to solving the White House Farm murders.
Why? Because the phone which was normally on Nevill Bamber’s bedside table was the principal obstacle to Jeremy Bamber’s hopes of fulfilling an ambition he had confided to Julie Mugford, his girlfriend: that of committing the perfect murder.
Someone in the house had only to call 999 and identify him as the gunman for his entire plan to be foiled. Once we recognise this it becomes possible to reconstruct events.
Bamber had developed an intense hatred of his family, in particular his ultra-strict mother. A few months earlier, as he would later admit to the police, he and Julie had burgled a caravan site the family owned, stealing £970 and making it look like an outside job.
For Bamber, however, this was only a beginning. He wanted the family fortune and devised a calculated scheme to get it. It involved killing not only his parents and his sister, but also the twins, who would otherwise inherit half the estate.
On the evening of the murders, he drove home from the farmhouse at around 10pm to his small cottage nearby in Goldhanger village. He returned on his mother’s bicycle. The first thing he did on entering the house was to take the kitchen phone off the hook. By doing this he disabled every phone in the house.
He would already have put on some kind of protective clothing, in all probability a wetsuit. If he showered in it afterwards, there would be no danger of his clothes being spattered with tell-tale bloodstains.
Taking his father’s rifle, whose ten-bullet magazine he had loaded earlier that evening, he crept upstairs. It seems almost certain that he shot the children first. He then crossed the landing to his parents’ bedroom.
This was where his plan began to go awry. Nevill, who had earlier confided in Barbara Wilson, the farm secretary, that he suspected Jeremy was planning to kill him, was woken by the noise. He would have tried to call the police from the bedside phone, then realised that a phone downstairs was off the hook.
So when Bamber came into the room, Nevill was at least partly ready for him. Although hit by four bullets, he avoided any lethal injury. Then, after Bamber wounded June, the gun clicked empty. Nevill seized the opportunity to go downstairs.
Bamber pursued him. At all costs, he had to stop his father reaching that phone and calling for help. There was no time to reload the gun. Instead Bamber, battered his father into unconsciousness with the rifle butt.
He then re-loaded, fired four bullets into Nevill’s face and head, and went back upstairs. Sheila had by now moved into her parents’ bedroom to tend to her wounded mother. Bamber shot June dead. Then came the really difficult task: shooting Sheila.
This time there had to be only one bullet, directed at such an angle that it would appear to be suicide. However, the bullet didn’t kill Sheila. He had to shoot her again — another potentially serious mistake.
To simulate a crazed attack he fired more bullets into the bodies of the twins. He then showered in his wetsuit and put clean clothes back on.
But he did have a major problem. What if investigators asked why Nevill or June hadn’t dialled 999 from the bedroom? And why Nevill’s body was in the kitchen? Bamber had to improvise. So he plugged the ivory bedroom phone into the kitchen socket — hastily hiding the kitchen phone under magazines.
For Bamber’s purposes, this would explain why Nevill was found downstairs. And it would provide an explanation as to what had happened to the phone everyone knew was usually next to Nevill’s bed.
There was still the anomaly of why the kitchen phone was not plugged into its usual socket — but Bamber thought he could argue it was not working. However, for quarter of a century, even though one police inquiry did address the issue, no one did unravel what had happened. If Bamber’s sister Sheila had killed her family in a psychotic episode before shooting herself, she would obviously not have re-arranged the telephones. That’s why the phone that moved is the final piece of evidence in the case for Bamber’s guilt.
There is, of course, one remaining question. Why did Bamber himself call the police? The answer is that this ensured they accepted his version of events. He primed them with the false information that Sheila was familiar with guns; he hid the fact that, because of her prescribed drugs, she had neither the strength nor co-ordination to re-load an automatic rifle, let alone defeat her 6ft 4in physically fit father in a fight.
At only 24 Bamber had not only committed one of the gravest crimes of modern times, but appeared at first to have got away with it, and chaos reigned as about 40 police officers went in and out of the house disturbing the crime scene.
But Bamber needed an audience who would recognise what he doubtless assumed was his genius in committing the perfect murder. The morning before the murders he had already told his girlfriend Julie that ‘It’s tonight or never’. He phoned her after carrying out the killings — very probably before phoning the police. In the following weeks, he imparted more details. At first Julie kept his secret, but eventually she did make a statement. This chimed with the police’s own suspicions and her evidence sealed Bamber’s fate at trial.
Bamber, however, still has all the cunning and ingenuity he displayed in his planning of the crime. Even after all these years, from inside a maximum security prison he has managed to construct a new credibility for himself, with his claims of innocence reaching an increasingly sympathetic audience.
There is, though, no hope left for him. Even if, somehow, the case were to be referred to appeal, and even if the convictions were quashed, it could still be sent back for re-trial. Although much evidence has been destroyed, much still survives and many witnesses are still alive.
At the original trial, there was a great deal of evidence, for example from Barbara Wilson, the farm secretary, which could not be given because it was hearsay. Today, that evidence would be admissible. Her testimony about what Nevill told her — that he believed Jeremy intended to kill him and had said: ‘I must never turn my back on that young man’ — would be disastrous for him.
There is also, now, the evidence from our solution to the telephone mystery. That would truly seal his fate.
I think Woffingden, Rose and Webster have a lot of explaining left to do.

I have been blogging and writing about the BFMS and international paedophile rings for a few years now. I am a survivor of the Staffordshire Pindown childrens home child abuse. I found out yesterday, to my horror, that I am listed on a website for convicted criminals, and that a fee can be paid to obtain personal details about myself. This is outrageous, as I have never in my life been arrested for any crime at all, let alone be convicted! I have come into contact with he police many times, all apart from a malicious attempt to blacken my name by falsely accusing me of sending a malicious email to a woman, which I blogged about last year which Stafford Police have told me to “draw a line” under (probably because MI5 were involved) all my dealings with the police have been as a VICTIM of crime! So unless the police are counting picking me up and taking me down to the police station for an illegal interrogation without legal representation or even a guardian present and a forced vaginal examination to discover why I had run away from home aged 13 as a criminal offence, then there is no way I should be on that list of criminals! Also, I have had all my social networking sites hacked, a website I use and contribute to called Mothers For Justice has also been hacked and my mobile phone was disabled, I was unable to make any calls from it, and I had to ring the service provider who gave me a number to ring, which immediately fixed the problem immediatly.

Some people may read this and wonder why I have added this personal statement to this blog posting about Bob Woffingden, but those who know about Illegal Malicious Vindictive Persecution will understand straight away what the connection is!

Saturday, 14 May 2011


Now that I have been able to post on my blog I can post this important information about the BFMS.

An American paedophile called Ralph Underwager invented False Memory Syndrome. Underwager was a man who believed it was perfectly acceptable for grown men to have sex with little children. Here is a little taste of Underwager's moral values, from an interview he gave to a magazine called Paidika:

"Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. . . . Paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will."

This is the statement posted onto the Charity Commission's website concerning the aims of the BFMS:


Here are the reference and administitive details for December 2009:

Reference and Administrative Details
Registered Charity number
Principal address
The Old Brewery
BA15 1NF
Lady Parker BM BCh Chair of Trustees
B Reed Honorary Treasurer
Mrs S Thompson Secretary
R Oade
Reverend J Young
A Poole
Berkeley Hall Marshall Limited
Chartered Accountants and Registered Auditor
6 Charlotte Street

Here is a list of news items from the BFMSs website:

News Items
Science Weekly - Memory on Trial. Professor Chris French and Professor Tim Valentine from the psychology department at Goldsmiths University of London look at how the failings of human memory can lead to gross miscarriages of justice.

False Memories of sexual abuse lead to terrible miscarriages of justice. Guardian Online, Thu 25th Nov 2010. Columnist Chris French talks about the new book Miscarriage of Memory, published by the BFMS.

Twin re-wrote Childhood Memory Loss Guardian Online, Saturday 26th June 2010. A story of how one twin reminded the other of their childhood after a motorbike accident left the first twin with no memory. Or click here to listen A podcast from the BBC Website, October 2010.

Meredith Maran - Did my father really abuse me? - Guardian Online, Saturday 9th October 2010.

No anonymity Law - Letters to the Editor, The Times, Tuesday 20 Jul 2010 (comment on previous article underneath)

Anonymity in rape trials is essential - Letters to the Editor, The Times, Monday 19 Jul 2010

Obituary - Jill Parker (Follow this link to The Times)

It is with great sadness that we announce the death of Jill Parker, Chair of the BFMS Board of Trustees, who died peacefully on 11th March 2010. She meant a lot to us in BFMS and we shall miss her immensely because she was with us almost from the beginning. We enjoyed her kind hospitality for many trustees' meetings in London and for that splendid reflection day at Minster Lovell. She had a gentle way of leading us which was very appropriate and all backed up by genuine, deep understanding and compassion coming from her professional background as a General Practitioner and her personal values. We admired her courage and cheerfulness and remember that she really put herself out on our behalf in the Refuge issue when she resigned as one of their trustees when challenged over her work with the BFMS. As I understand it, her garden which my wife and I visited nearly two years ago, was an expression of her spirituality for she said, “I keep my soul in my gumboots”.

Rev’d John Young
BFMS Trustee
16th March 2010

Psychotherapy rebels consider rebranding to avoid state regulation - Sarah Boseley. The Guardian On-Line May 2010.

Self help books can 'convince women that they were victims of child sex abuse' - Kate Devlin. Daily Telegraph 8 Apr 2010.

BFMS's Position from Madeline Greenhalgh - The Church Times 2 Apr 2010

British False Memory Society's Letter - comment by Lucy Huntington - The Church Times 26 Mar 2010

Memories of abuse to be reappriased - Bill Bowder, The Church Times 19 Mar 2010

Jo Woodiwiss writes, Why do women identify themselves as victims of childhood sexual abuse? Guardian On-Line 12 March 2010.

A suitable case for libel? Chris French - Guardian On-Line 31st March 2010.

Churches Misled on Child Protection. The Scientific and Professional Advisory Board to BFMS writes to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to correct the misinformation provided by their child protection advisors to the Safeguarding Adviser for the Church of England and Methodist Church, the Reverend Pearl Luxon.

Church must accept reality of false memories of childhood sexual abuse. The notion that therapists can help people to 'recover' memories of sexual abuse causes serious harm to patients and their families, writes psychologist Chris French.

Call for church to renounce book aimed at victims of child sexual abuse. Scientists specialising in false memory syndrome have written to the archbishop ofCanterbury criticising The Courage to Heal, which they describe as 'misleading' and 'potentially harmful'.

Consultation on the Statutory Regulation of Psychotherapists and Counsellors - The Health Professions Council (HPC) has launched a consultation and invite professionals and the public to contribute by 16th October 2009. To download copies of the consultation please see the HPC Website.

Dear Tanya: Is psychotherapy to blame for our daughter’s lack of contact? We don’t understand why our daughter has distanced herself from her family - The Times, 21 July 2009
Professor Chris French, BFMS Advisory Board member, has a new regular column on the Guardian Online science pages. His next topic will discuss false memories and the work of the BFMS and will be appearing on Tuesday, 7th April. Please feel free to leave your comments on the blog site.

Hysteria in Four Acts - Article by Paul McHugh in Commentary, December 2008
Mother loses libel battle over 'Ugly' lawyer's misery memoir - The Times, 2 December 2008
Mother denies judge's abuse claim - BBC News, 18 November 2008
Weird ... or what? Why do people have paranormal experiences? - The Guardian, 14 October 2008
Is your mind playing tricks on you? - The Guardian, 16 September 2008
False child abuse claims to be kept on file - The Daily Telegraph, 13 September 2008
Study shows how false memories rerun 7/7 film that never existed - The Guardian, 10 September 2008
Experts able to plant false memories in minds - The Herald 29th August 2008
Family torn apart by child abuse slur - The Sunday Mercury, 22 July 2008
Can you regulate psychotherapy? - The Times, 15 July 2008
New research sparks fears over paedophile convictions - The Sunday Mercury, 14 July 2008 plus letters published in response - 20 July 2008
You can't trust a witness's memory, experts tell courts - The Times, 11 July 2008
Courts do not rely on a person’s memory alone - The Times, 11 July 2008
CBS remake of "Sybil" - Press release from Pamela Freyd, FMSF in America to TV Movie Reviewer - 5 June 2008
Memory, make-believe and the courts - what's the mischief? - Inside Time, May 2008
I see a tall,dark stranger...from trading standards - The Times, 23 May 2008
When claims are false, lives can be destroyed - The Times, 20 December 2007
Dangerous Convictions - Inside Time, December 2007
Second Opinion - Private Eye, 23 November - 6 December 2007
Disciplinary Notice - Mrs Janet Sinclair - The Psychologist, December 2007
Lies of Little Miss Misery - Daily Mail, 1 November 2007
Brain Stains and Brain Stains: In Sheri's Words - Scientific American, October 2007
Woman wins memory therapy pay-out - The Press Association, 20 October 2007
Talking therapy roll-out gets thumbs-up - Community Care, 18 October 2007
Psychobabble is ruining thousands of minds - The Observer, 4 February 2007
Click any of the following for news items from that year

2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999


Health Professions Council - Statutory Regulation of Psychotherapists and Counsellors
Further information is in preparation.


CBS remake of "Sybil"
The item below is a press release that Pamela Freyd has just sent to TV reviewers:



On Saturday June 7, 2008 CBS will air its remake of the movie SYBIL, (based on the 1973 book with the same name) about an early, alleged case of "multiple-personality disorder" (MPD).

SYBIL was the first major book/movie to tie "MPD" to child abuse. Before SYBIL was published, there were fewer than 50 reported cases of MPD worldwide. By 1994, over 40,000 cases had been reported.

SYBIL, however, is well known to be a hoax. See, for example, The New York Review of Books, 44(7), April 24, 1997, "Sybil-The Making of a Disease: An Interview with Dr. Herbert Spiegel," by Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen.1

Dr. Spiegel (Faculty, Columbia Medical School) reported that statements from the real "Sybil" convinced him that her "memories" were the result of suggestion by Dr. Cornelia B. Wilbur. He reports that Wilbur engaged author Flora Rheta Schreiber to write "Sybil's" case for a popular audience only after professional journals refused to publish it. He refused to lend his name and credentials to co-author the work when asked to do so by Wilbur and Schreiber.The 2006 book The Bifurcation of the Self: The History and Theory of Dissociation and Its Disorder (Springer) by Professor Robert Rieber (Fordham University) documents how the hoax was perpetrated. Rieber had access to the original Schreiber/Wilbur interview tapes made when Sybil was being written. We learn that the "memories were a result of prolonged hypnosis and, to quote Dr. Wilbur: "Uh, the first time we got any memories back was when I gave her Pentothal ..." (Rieber, page 217)2

Wilbur's treatment of Sybil required eleven years and a total of 2,254 sessions.

In a letter to Dr. Wilbur, (reprinted in Rieber page 91) Schreiber reports that she had visited "Sybil's" hometown but was unable to find anyone to corroborate the awful things that supposedly happened to"Sybil" there. Schreiber was also unable to find the "woods" where
many incidents allegedly occurred.

Will the CBS remake of SYBIL include the information documenting Sybil's MPD as a hoax? Does it matter? Yes! Bitter experience shows that when the media give credence to psychological anomalies, they spread wildly.

Media coverage played a pivotal role in the dissemination of McMartin preschool copycat cases in the mid 1980's, the spread of the "Satanic Panic" and alien abduction sightings in the 1990's, and in widely held beliefs about "repressed" memories of childhood abuse.

SYBIL played a substantial role in a cultural and psychiatric tsunami, later known as the "false" or "recovered" memory debate. In spite of professional skepticism about MPD and multi-million dollar malpractice suits by former MPD patients, there is danger of unleashing another
tsunami unless the truth is told.

Does anyone care? Yes! As Oprah Winfrey's recent experience over the fraudulent James Frey memoir A Million Little Pieces shows, the public really does care to know whether the material served them by the media is fact or fiction.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: (including the Spiegel interview from the New York Review of Books.

[1] Available from the FMS Foundation. See also
[2] This book contains more than 75 pages of transcripts of conversations between Wilbur and Schreiber.

The new TV movie originally scheduled to be shown on CBS over a year ago. It has, in fact, since been shown in six other countries:

Italy - 28 May 2007
New Zealand - 15 Jun 2007
Dominican Republic - 4 Aug 2007
Brazil - 20 Aug 2007
Norway - 3 Jan 2008
Hungary - 23 Feb 2008

It is now finally being slipped into a summer Saturday slot with no advanced publicity. The only mention on the CBS website ( is in the weekly schedule.


Woman wins memory therapy pay-out
A woman who falsely accused her father of rape after undergoing a discredited form of psychotherapy has won a £20,000 payout from health bosses.

Katrina Fairlie, 37, sued NHS Tayside claiming that the 'recovered memory' treatment that triggered the accusations ruined her and her family's lives.

Ms Fairlie, daughter of former deputy leader of the Scottish National Party Jim Fairlie, underwent the therapy after being referred to Perth's Murray Royal Hospital in 1994.

See also: Woman who falsely accused her father of rape reveals 'doctors hijacked my mind', £20,000 payout for woman who falsely accused her father of rape after 'recovered memory' therapy and Settlement for bogus abuse woman


Talking therapy roll-out gets thumbs-up

Mental health charities welcomed a government pledge yesterday to roll out talking therapy services across England to treat depression and anxiety.

Health secretary Alan Johnson committed to increasing NHS spending on psychological therapies to £170m by 2010-11, meaning an extra 900,000 people will be treated over the next three years and all GPs eventually will be able to offer the service.

This constitutes a massive increase on current pilot funding on talking therapies: £3.7m over two years for the two major pilots in Doncaster and Newham, east London, which were launched last year, and £2m in total annually for 11 further pilots launched this year.

A survey of over 15,000 community mental health service users published last month by the Healthcare Commission found that over one-third of people who wanted talking treatments did not receive them.

This is despite guidance issued in 2004 by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence calling for people to be offered talking therapies for common mental health problems, given their effectiveness.

A coalition of five mental health charities - the Mental Health Foundation, Mind, Rethink, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health and YoungMinds - which is campaigning for the guidance to be implemnted said yesterday's announcement was a "welcome boost".

Mental Health Foundation chief executive Andrew McCulloch said: "We hope this will result in the extension of psychological therapies to people of all ages, especially older people, young people and to ethnic minority groups, who are often harder to reach and less likely to be offered talking therapy treatments by their GPs."


Psychobabble is ruining thousands of minds - The Observer, 4 February 2007
Your report, 'Crackdown on therapists who abuse vulnerable', (News, last week) will have been welcomed by the thousands who have had their lives wrecked by poor quality therapy and counselling.
We at the British False Memory Society deal every week with people who have been falsely accused of historical sexual abuse. More often than not, the accusation is made by a now-adult child against his or her parent, often following prolonged counselling sessions. In our experience, too many therapists are all ready to conclude that a person's problems have arisen because they were abused as a child. Once this theory is suggested, it can be easy for a vulnerable individual to be suggestible to the idea that these events happened and, with the guidance of the therapist, recall 'repressed memories', which can cause irreparable damage.

The therapy industry has had years to get its house in order. Now hundreds of families are looking to the government finally to bring evidenced-based practice to the thousands of vulnerable people seeking help.

Madeline Greenhalgh

Matt Smith
External Communications Manager
British False Memory Society


Friday, 13 May 2011


How long will I be allowed to excercise my freedom of expression this time?

Thursday, 12 May 2011


This is how I became a Christian. The Bishop of Durham had been on Radio 4 basically saying that Jesus was not the Messiah and that his mother was not a virgin when she became pregnant. I remember that so well, because I was so shocked that a bishop would say such a thing, I knew very little about God at that point apart from that his mother was a virgin, angels attended his birth and filled the air with song, wise men and shepherds followed a star and came to see him and left gifts, King Herod tried to murder him and murdered a lot of other babies, and that he died on a cross for no reason at all, and rose from the dead and went to heaven. The bit I didnt know about at this point was that he promised to come back and get us to heaven as well, if we wanted to go there.

So then, when a few days later, this happened, and no-one knew why, it was not lightning or arson or anything explainable. But when they chose Henry Venables LTD to buy the wood to mend the Rose Window I felt as though God was pointing his finger at me, because I lived in Stafford, which is where Henry Venables LTD is, opposite the Universal Grinding Wheel Company LTD, where my dad worked for 20 years.

And so that is how I came to be a Christian believer in 1984.

Tuesday, 10 May 2011


Birmingham City Council have always prided themselves that they have a rich history in scientific and mathematical knowledge. If you take a walk to the Birmingham Science Museum, you will find plenty of exhibits of super complicated machinery that the clever historical Brummies have invented, using their vast skills of practical mathematics.
With all that Birmingham mathematical brilliance in mind, I thought I would take the opportunity to put a simple question to the Birmingham City Council officials. They can think of it as a little test, if they like, just to check if they are able to do their sums.
The question is this – does 1 + 1 = 1?
I know a few people who are not regular readers of this blog might be scratching their heads in confusion, so for the sake of clarity I will flesh the question out a little.
There is one Colin Tucker, who was recently suspended as Birmingham’s Director of Children’s Services Department, for what precise reason Birmingham City Council are reluctant to discuss.
There is one Colin Tucker also known as Arthur C. (Colin) Tucker of Messrs, Burnett, Walker, Lindesay & Rae, W.S. Stafford Street, Edinburgh.
who was the homosexual lover of a lawyer called Ian Walker, his senior partner, who hung himself in the garage after being discovered to be involved in embezzlement of client’s funds. This Colin Tucker was involved in the Magic Circle paedophile investigation. This Colin Tucker also had a gay pal called Gordon May, who had a little funny handshake club thing going on in Thailand called the Gay McMafia.
Now, maths is not my best subject, so if I have done the maths wrong, I hope people will excuse me, after all, I did get abused as a child, and lost a lot of schooling as a result. I keep trying to do this sum in my head, and it keeps coming up as 1 + 1 = 1.
But I really do not think I should be to hard on myself. After all, the very highly paid civil servants at Birmingham City Council don’t seem to be any better than me at maths, judging from their expenses last year. I quote - “THE cost of placing troubled children from Birmingham in private care has rocketed after council chiefs closed four kids’ homes in the city.
In a four month period last year, the bill was £13,772,491 – the equivalent of £41 million a year, compared to just £18,434,830 for the whole of 2009/10.
Some youngsters are costing the taxpayer as much as £790 for every day they spend in a private care home”

(Birmingham Mail May 9th 2011)
Here is the Freedom Of Information request I have just sent to Birmingham City Council:

I have already asked you for a CV of the recently suspended Director of Children’s Services for Birmingham, Colin Tucker, to ascertain wether this man had the correct qualifications to do the job on behalf of the taxpayers of this country to a satisfactory standard. There was great reluctance to provide me with any relevant information about this man, I was made to feel as if I was having to wring water out of a stone.
I have discovered that there is a Colin Tucker, a lawyer from Scotland, who was caught up in the Magic Circle Rent Boy scandal just over 20 years ago.
Could you please tell me if this is the same Colin Tucker as you employed as Director of Children’s Services?

Right then, now I am going to post the rather large envelope addressed to Lockheed Martin, the American terrorist organisation that makes cluster bombs and sends paedophile psychologists round the world to teach secret family court judges the most efficient way of taking new born babies and children away from their mothers. Two big men that banged on my door last week seem very anxious that they get all my personal details to these terrorists and what nots as quickly as possible, so I had better dash, because I certainly do not want them booming my door down again!


Lord Falconer defends judge's privacy rulings, Monday 10 November 2008 15.39 GMT

A high court judge accused by the Daily Mail editor, Paul Dacre, of bringing in a privacy law "by the back door" was today defended by the former constitutional affairs secretary Lord Falconer.
Dacre last night accused Mr Justice Eady - who ruled against the News of the World in a privacy case earlier this year after it exposed the sex life of the formula one boss Max Mosley - of using the Human Rights Act to curb the press's freedom to expose the moral shortcomings of those in high places.
In his speech to the Society of Editors in Bristol, Dacre said the "arrogant and amoral" judgments of Eady were "inexorably and insidiously" imposing a privacy law on British newspapers.
However, Falconer, one of the New Labour architects of human rights protections in the UK who left the cabinet when Gordon Brown took over as prime minister last year, said the judge was legitimately interpreting a law that had been passed by parliament.
"I think society now puts a value on privacy. There are certain things in life that should be private. For example, if I am a singer or an actor and I have a miscarriage, is that something that people should know about in the world?" Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"Of course, if I'm acting hypocritically or I'm accountable, or there's something that may affect what I do in my public life which emerges from my private life, that should be published," he said.
"But there are things which are private and just as we don't want the state to know everything about us, do we want things that are legitimately private to be made public? I don't think we do."
Falconer said that the Mosley case had brought the debate into "sharp relief".
"What the court is saying there, is 'that's private, it's nothing to do with the public, there was nothing hypocritical about it'," he added.
"The judge did say if it had involved anything to do with Nazi behaviour or anything wholly inappropriate in relation to the Holocaust, he would have not said it was something that was legitimately private.
"But the human rights convention does say we've got a legitimate entitlement to privacy. It gives way to the public interest, but if there is no public interest then you should keep it private."
However, Dacre found backing today from the managing editor of the Sun, Graham Dudman.
"The issue here is that Justice Eady is unelected and unaccountable," Dudman told the Today programme.
"Parliament has not made these decisions, one man has. There is no doubt that Justice Eady is a very talented and clever and able lawyer, but surely the public has a right to make these decisions and not least a jury should be there," he said.
"You have one man setting the law in relation to newspapers, which cannot be right."
Dacre, who is also editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers, lambasted what he called the "wretched" Human Rights Act in his speech.
He said that in supporting Mosley, Eady had in effect "ruled that it was perfectly acceptable for the multimillionaire head of a multibillion sport that is followed by countless young people to pay five women £2,500 to take part in acts of unimaginable sexual depravity with him".
"Most people would consider such activities to be perverted, depraved, the very abrogation of civilised behaviour of which the law is supposed to be the safeguard," Dacre added.
"Not Justice Eady. To him such behaviour was merely 'unconventional'. Nor in his mind was there anything wrong in a man of such wealth using his money to exploit women in this way. Would he feel the same way, I wonder, if one of those women had been his wife or daughter?"
Dacre said that the "greatest scandal" was that Eady was given a "virtual monopoly of all cases against the media enabling him to bring in a privacy law by the back door".
• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email or phone 020 7239 9857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 7278 2332.

Former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer Joins Gibson Dunn’s London Office

July 08, 2008

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has joined the firm's London office. Lord Falconer, a barrister, joins the firm as a senior counsel. He will be a hands-on lawyer in the firm.

Lord Falconer served in various capacities at the highest level in the 10-year administration of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, during which he was instrumental in leading and delivering change in a wide range of areas. Most recently, he served as the first Secretary of State for Justice and as Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. He was the architect of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which changed the relationship between the executive and judicial branches of government and led to the creation of a first-ever Supreme Court for the United Kingdom and of a new commission to appoint judges.

Lord Falconer said, "I am very much looking forward to returning to private law practice, and Gibson Dunn is the right place for me to begin this next phase of my career. Gibson Dunn has a first-class litigation practice, a solid international platform in the U.S., Europe, the Middle East and Asia, and a keen ambition to build an even more international presence without diluting its focus on maintaining the highest standards of quality legal service."

“We are delighted that Charlie has chosen to join our firm,” said Gibson Dunn Managing Partner Ken Doran. “Charlie has had an extraordinarily accomplished career and is highly regarded not only within the United Kingdom, but within the international legal, business and political communities. His addition will support our strategic effort to further broaden our presence and profile on the international stage. Charlie is a consummate problem-solver – bringing a very practical and commercial approach to the most complex problems. His extensive experience and understanding of government and regulation in the U.K., and abroad will be of significant value to our clients.”

“Charlie has had a very distinguished career in the law and public service. He brings to Gibson Dunn many years of commercial and political experience; much of it gained at the highest level in the British government," said Tom Budd, Co-Partner in Charge of the London office. “At the firm, Charlie will be an active, ‘hands-on’ lawyer, working as a integral part of our existing UK dispute resolution team to advise clients on a wide range of dispute resolution matters.”

About Lord Falconer

Lord Falconer joined the Blair government as Solicitor-General for England and Wales in 1997, moving a year later to the Cabinet Office as Minister of State.

In 2001, after the general election which took place in that year, he became Housing, Planning and Regeneration Minister and, in 2002, he became Criminal Justice Minister. He implemented important public service reforms, including reforms related to the planning system and the criminal justice system.

In 2003, Lord Falconer became Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor. In conjunction with the then Lord Chief Justice, he formulated a new relationship between the judiciary and the executive, which was embodied in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The Act provided for the creation of a Supreme Court, a judicial appointment commission and the introduction of an elected speaker for the House of Lords.

In 2007, Lord Falconer became the first Secretary of State for Justice, bringing together courts, prisons and justice policy for the first time. He was responsible for leading a department with a budget of over £10 billion and over 80,000 employees. Lord Falconer stepped down from his ministerial posts when Tony Blair was succeeded by Gordon Brown as prime minister.

Prior to entering public service, Lord Falconer was a commercial barrister with Fountain Court Chambers from 1974 to 1997, becoming a Queen’s Counsel in 1991. During his legal career, he was involved in a number of high-stakes matters, such as industrial disputes in the newspaper and airline industries, including those involving The Times and British Airways; and in the litigation which followed the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) collapse.

About Gibson Dunn’s London Office

Gibson Dunn’s London office, founded more than 25 years ago, offers in-depth experience in all aspects of corporate work, including mergers and acquisitions, private equity, commercial real estate, finance, capital markets and taxation, as well as litigation and international arbitration, competition and labour and employment. The London lawyers provide legal advice on a wide range of business issues to internationally listed companies, large private companies, investment banks, private equity firms, start-up ventures, and many other organisations.

About Gibson Dunn's UK Dispute Resolution Group

Gibson Dunn’s London-based U.K. Dispute Resolution Group covers commercial litigation, international arbitration, mediation, investigations and regulatory proceedings, antitrust matters and employment issues. Established in August 2005 with the arrival of Philip Rocher from Clifford Chance, the group has already shown itself to be highly effective in acting for large international corporates in high-value complex matters that involve different legal disciplines in multiple jurisdictions. The group continues to expand rapidly, currently comprising 15 lawyers, 2 of whom are US-qualified, supported by a team of highly experienced paralegals and the latest information technology and document management systems.

Gibson Dunn has always had disputes at the root of its culture and this has been an integral part of its success. Indeed, more than 300 US-based lawyers practice in trial, arbitration and appellate work. Hailed as the "Rescue Squad", Gibson Dunn was recognized in all four of The American Lawyer's Litigation Department of the Year competitions since their inception in 2002. The London office works closely with Gibson Dunn's pre-eminent U.S. Litigation Group to provide a seamless service to its clients.

Gibson Dunn to Receive Achievement in Adoption Award from North American Council on Adoptable Children

July 26, 2006

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is pleased to announce that the firm will receive the 2006 Corporate Award for Special Achievement in Adoption from the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC). Through this award, NACAC honors organizations that have made a significant contribution to adoption or permanence for children.

The award ceremony will be held in Long Beach at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach Hotel on Saturday, July 29 in conjunction with NACAC's 32nd annual conference. Nearly 1,500 conference attendees are expected from across the U.S., Canada and beyond.

The firm is being honored for the strides it has made in expediting the adoption process for thousands of children. In 1998, the firm spearheaded the Adoption Saturday project, which brings volunteer attorneys and judges together to finalize adoptions and has resulted in the adoption of thousands of children living in foster care. Since the program was created, Gibson Dunn attorneys and staff have personally handled more than 2,000 adoptions.

"We are honored to receive this award from NACAC in recognition of the work the firm has done for children who deserve to be placed in permanent homes as quickly as possible," said Los Angeles partner Mark Pecheck, who heads the Adoption Saturday program. "The program is an integral part of the firm's pro bono efforts and we look forward to helping many more families come together."


Started in 1974 by adoptive parents, the North American Council on Adoptable Children is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting adoptive parents, informing adoption professionals, and helping children find permanent, loving families. NACAC promotes and supports permanent families for children and youth in the U.S. and Canada who have been in care – especially those in foster care and those with special needs. To learn more, please visit

System taking hundreds of babies for adoption
By Andrew Alderson, Ben Leapman and Tom Harper 12:01AM BST 01 Jul 2007
Campaigners are to renew an attempt to open up the proceedings of family courts, after figures showed that the number of babies aged less than one week being removed from their mothers has risen almost three-fold in a decade. More than 900 are now being taken and put up for adoption every year.

Until last month, it looked as though the system would undergo a significant overhaul. Ten days ago, however, Lord Falconer, who was then the Lord Chancellor, seemed to have crushed an attempt to make family court hearings less secret.

Now, with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister and Jack Straw as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, legal campaigners are newly optimistic of forcing a change.

Sarah Harman, a solicitor who has specialised in family law for nearly 30 years, said she would step up her fight to open up proceedings. Ms Harman is the elder sister of Harriet Harman, the new deputy leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Commons. Harriet Harman was Justice Minister until last week's Cabinet reshuffle and has supported her sister's campaign.

The total number of children aged under a year taken into council care in England before being adopted has also risen, by a similar rate, from 970 in 1996 to 2,120 last year, figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show.

The increases come after the Government set targets for adoption in order to cut the number of children languishing in foster care.

Family courts in England and Wales hear 400,000 cases a year, mostly divorces and child custody hearings following divorces. In 20,000 cases a year, councils apply to the courts to remove children temporarily from parents who are abusive or neglectful, often because they are addicted to hard drugs.

The courts also rule on bids by councils to put removed children up for adoption, which is irreversible. Yet, while criminal cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, family courts take decisions on the balance of probabilities and unlike criminal courts, cases are heard in strict secrecy. A mother whose child is taken from her commits an offence if she tells anyone outside a tiny, approved list of people.

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who wants more openness in family courts, said of the latest adoption figures: "We are seeing a massive growth in the forced removal of newborns from their natural parents. Babies are being taken into care merely to satisfy government adoption targets."

In 2000, Tony Blair set a target for councils to increase adoptions by 50 per cent. Town halls were promised cash rewards for reaching their goals. Critics claim that the target has given social workers a perverse incentive to break up more families. Mr Hemming said: "There are clearly masses of miscarriages of justice, but ministers want to prevent parents from campaigning against them by preventing these parents from talking about their children after a case.

"This is fundamentally wrong. The secrecy in the family courts acts generally to protect misbehaviour by some professionals, rather than to protect children."

The new figures show that, while adoptions of the very young have spiralled, those for children aged seven and over have halved in England, from 100 in 1996 to 50 last year. Figures for Scotland and Wales are not available.

Campaigners were given new ammunition last week by the case of Mark and Nicky Webster, who fled the country to have their fourth baby after they claimed they were wrongly accused of child abuse and had their first three children taken into care four years ago.

Mr Webster, 34, and his wife, 26, from Cromer, Norfolk, were told they could keep their fourth child, Brandon, aged 13 months, after Norfolk County Council withdrew proceedings to take him into care.

The couple had fled to Ireland for Brandon's birth before challenging their county council. Their other children were taken into care after one of them suffered unexplained leg fractures. The council has now conceded that the injuries might have been caused by vitamin deficiency. It said it was no longer relying on the evidence which had suggested that the fractures were the result of abuse.

The Websters are angry that because of the secrecy surrounding their earlier proceedings, the case would not have become public had it not been for their successful fight to keep Brandon. They accept, however, that they will not get their other children back because they were adopted two years ago.

Under the current law, reporters and members of the public cannot attend family court hearings, see documents, review evidence or obtain copies of judgments.

Sarah Harman said: "Social services are the only department other than MI5 who undertake their work in complete secrecy. It's not the welfare of the child that is being protected, it is the welfare of social workers. This cannot be justified.

"Family courts work for the community and should be more open. Family courts are very reliant on expert witnesses and there have been some real concerns about some of this evidence being poorly researched and unreliable." In 2004, she and others set up Families Action for Court Transparency and Openness (Facto).

Facto was formed a year before Ms Harman was found guilty of "conduct unbefitting a solicitor" for passing confidential court papers to her sister. She was suspended from practice for three months and resigned as a part-time judge. The papers related to a client whose daughter was taken into care after alleged abuse. Ms Harman had not revealed the identity of the parent or child to her sister but was punished after it was decided she had misled the court.

Others seeking partial reform of the family courts include Sir Mark Potter, the president of the High Court's Family Division, and Mr Justice Munby, a senior judge. Sir Mark said: "I share entirely the concern about complaints of secret justice and lack of openness which I really believe the public would be assisted in forming a view about if there were more publicity available. The press seems to me to be the best safeguard of whether propriety is being observed."

Mr Justice Munby said: "The balance currently held between the confidentiality and privacy interests of the parties and the public interest in open justice, is badly skewed."

Lord Falconer's refusal to lift the secrecy surrounding family courts surprised many when he revealed a new discussion document, "Openness in the Family Courts", on June 20. This proposed tighter restrictions on what can be said about cases. He admitted that there had been a change of mind after consulting many groups, particularly young people. "The clear message was that the media should not be given an automatic right to attend family courts as this could jeopardise children's rights to privacy and anonymity," he said.

David Holmes, the chief executive of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, said: "Social services do not take children into care to be adopted unnecessarily. It is dangerous to suggest that this is happening.''