Wednesday, 28 September 2011


Baroness king of Bow plainly shows her ignorance and self centredness in this brutal remark she made about the poor little murder victim Baby Peter Connelly. It's that same callous attitude that people are just so many numbers that Ann Widdecombe displayed when she tried to justify secret courts putting 200 people a year in prison without a fair trial for "contempt of court" because I had not told her what percentage that 200 was of the whole numnber of cases. In other words, its ok for the UK to jail 200 people per year in secret illegal trials as long as 200 is only a small percentage of the total number of cases.

Baroness King's remarks about this poor little child's murder are not only grossly highly offensive but spring from flawed logic and lack of political insight. If she knew anything at all about the secret family courts she would realise that vast amounts of money are being squandered in taking good parents to court using syndromes invented by paedophiles, such as MSBP ans PAS. She would know that Baby P was already under the "care" of Haringey Social Services, and that they were well aware that Baby P was being cared for by a mother who was in a relationship with a convicted sex offender who was part of a p[aedophile ring.

She would also know that there are many survivors of child abuse who do not grow up to become violent offenders. Perhaps she should have a talk with the survivors of Haut de la Garenne, or any of the other Pindown homes, though she had better be quick as the governments have had a policy of deliberatly harrassing and persecuting the survivors of Pindown and anyone who helps them (ie Senator Stuart Syvret) so if she doesn't do it quick she might find that there are.t any left, as they are driven into depression and suicide, and deliberatly criminalised.

Meanwhile, money is being pumped into the "child protection" system, and being deftly creamed off by smartly turned out "professionals" who need the money to pay for nice houses cars and skiing holidays ect. PAS is a big money spinner, no wonder the secret courts are so keen to use it even though it was invented by a paedophile who wangled his way into being accepted as a respected world renouned psychologist, until people actually took the time and trouble to read some of his stuff. It cost over £100,000 for the secret family courts to harrass me and my family to try to force me into meek submission to a man who raped me and his supportive wife, who both used the secret family courts as a weapon to stalk me with, to try to force me to be the man's concubine. These vile people actually used the secret courts to try to force me into contact with the man who I have formally complained about raping me, and who has apologised in court for what he did to me. I went through 7 years of hell trying to defend my right not to be sexually molested, and the pretence that the court case was about my son was absolute poppycock AS HE WAS ALREADY SEEING HIM VIRTUALLY EVERY DAY AT THE TIME HE TOOK ME TO COURT!!! £100,000 at least was the bill for all that. What can be bought for £100,000? The secret family courts are bnusy as ever, using PAS to make good parents lives a living hell, because all the fathers rights groups - which are funded by big law firms and paedophile networks, and wangle their way into Select Committees, push PAS like junkies push heroin, it is a money spinner, so what if it leaves a trail of human disaster in its wake, they're only numbers!

The people of this country are waking up and seeing how money has been squandered in persecuting innocent people, in spite of media gagging. What has been happening in this country is downright wicked. People who are going into social work because they want to help other people are getting depressed, because they are being dragged into bad things, pressure is put on them to commit perjury and turn a bliind eye to real child abuse. The whole thing is one big mess, but its not so hard to sort it out, if only people like Baroness King had the will to do so, but from what I have read here it seems that this lady would rather see little innocents like Baby P become a scapegoat, in the lazy notion that it would be too expensive to fix.

Well, I will be writing to this lady. Here is the part of the Woman's Day debate which caused me so much offence:

International Women's Day — Debate
11:38 am

Baroness King of Bow (Labour)

My Lords, I have often gazed down from the Public Gallery in some wonderment at this golden Chamber, and so it is with much humility, gratitude and a little surprise that I rise from these red Benches to speak. It is customary to thank the staff of the House and I genuinely want to do this, as in all the years that I have worked here they have always assisted me and, more remarkably still, never once arrested me-long may their indulgence continue.

I also thank my two supporters: my noble friend Lady Kinnock and my noble friend Lord Alli, of Norbury. Their support over many years has been so extraordinary to me on a personal level that it has provoked a reaction in me that borders on the devotional, so I will just leave it at that.

Another noble friend whom I would like to mention is the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. His is a story of rags to riches. From a poor working class family in the north of England, the noble Lord left school at 14, joined the Royal Marines at 17 and was wounded in the preparations for D-day. His membership of the Co-operative Party remarkably propelled him to become Prime Minister at the age of 21, pipping Pitt The Younger by three years. He was Prime Minister of the Tyneside Youth Parliament, before being demoted to be MP for Enfield. When I was studying A-level politics, I discovered that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was my mum's cousin. Given that I could not get into the Parliament and my class wanted to come and visit, I nagged him to show us around the place, and I have been hanging around ever since.

It is 14 years since I gave a maiden speech in Parliament and, not wishing to sound like a scratched record, I had genuinely hoped to break new ground and move beyond the limited territory of equalities issues. No such luck. Although this debate has been characterised by genuinely enlightened contributions on both sides, I have to be honest and say that we have been having these debates for so long, I sometimes find them claustrophobic, as though I was trapped inside a box-a small box. A small box with a tick on it. But I should not complain. I am great at ticking boxes. I tick loads of them. My dad is black, my mum is Jewish, my grandparents were Scottish, Irish, Hungarian, African-American and native American Indian-there are more ticks on my census form than on my mum's German shepherd dog. I have tick-borne disease, but all these ticks make me think one thing-tick-tock.

At the current rate of progress, it will take 200 years to achieve an equal number of women in this Parliament. Come on, boys and girls, I know we don't go in for revolution, but 200 years? This timeframe is, frankly, lazy. What happened to our work ethic? How long do we have to wait? How many speeches do we have to make? How many clauses do we have to debate? Although the previous Labour Government did what all Labour Governments have done and introduced groundbreaking equalities legislation for women, ethnic minorities, disabled people, gay people, older people, religious groups-basically, everyone-I am still shocked at how much ground is left to break.

Maybe that is because I grew up in a country where the head of state and the Prime Minister were both women and it was an article of faith to me that, in this country, unlike so much of the world, women no longer faced an uphill struggle. The facts presented in this debate prove that I was a misguided young woman. I thought that promoting equality was a matter of us tying up a few loose ends, not actually questioning the whole system. But since I have spent most of my adult life working inside a parliamentary rabbit hole, I realise that we must question the system. I have concluded that Britain is a wonderful country; and I prefer British politics to virtually all others. But having worked within the system all my life, I can say with clear-eyed conviction that our system needs radical repair. Our system is needlessly failing not just women-although they face the brunt of the problems at the moment-but failing children and men as well.

Repair is required in three principal areas. First, recognise that the equalities debate is for everyone, not just those of us with tick-borne disease. For example, all men in Britain today who desperately want to see their children more than they do, would benefit from greater gender equality at work and around childcare responsibilities. If the average man understood what gender equality meant for him, the average man would be a feminist.

Secondly, a gender analysis is the most effective way to reduce the harshest inequality of all: the inequality between those who are nurtured from birth, on the one hand, and those who are effectively abandoned, whose lives are thrown away before they reach the age of three.

Thirdly, the most effective way to improve outcomes in our system is to implement an old wives' tale and listen to what our grandmothers said. They said that prevention is better than cure. This was the theme of my wonderfully ill-fated London mayoral campaign last year, the failure of which, thankfully, allowed me to wash up on these noble red Benches. I am ashamed to say that, at the time when I was harping on about early intervention, I had not read what I think is one of the most important contributions that any two Back-Benchers have made-they are men, but never mind; I shall give them credit. Graham Allen and Iain Duncan Smith's report on early intervention is genuinely groundbreaking and I commend it to everyone.

Given the time limitations, I have discarded half my speech, but I want to tell your Lordships one last anecdote about a social worker that I heard of during the mayoral campaign last summer. The social worker was talking about Baby P, the 17 month-old boy whose 50 injuries included a broken back, broken ribs, his teeth kicked out, the tips of his fingers sliced off, his nails ripped out and so forth. The social worker noted that our entire country was united in an outpouring of grief and rage at the suffering of that poor soul. How different their responses would be, said the social worker, had Baby P survived. If Baby P had survived his horrific childhood of constant abuse, all the research indicates that, as an adult, unless he received intensive and expensive help, he would almost certainly have become a sex abuser, wife beater and paedophile. The whole country would have been united in an outpouring of rage against this monster and demanded that he be hanged by the neck. We need to reflect on the madness inherent not just in this system's responses but in society's responses to the ills around us.

I conclude by mentioning the fantastic EQUALS campaign, spearheaded by Annie Lennox-and why is it that we politicians have to rely on pop stars so often? That campaign pointed out that there is no doubt that women's rights have come a long way since 1911, but women still only hold 19 per cent of the world's parliamentary seats, only 9 per cent of the world's leaders are women, women perform 66 per cent of the world's work, produce over 50 per cent of the world's food and yet only earn 10 per cent of the world's income and own less than 1 per cent of the world's property.

This House is renowned as a place of reflection. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for securing this debate, and on the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day, I hope that we can stop ticking boxes, start to think outside the box and secure gender equality for all.
Link to thisHansard source (Citation: HL Deb, 3 March 2011, c1200)
Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)1:05 pm
Email me when Baroness Cox speaksView voting recordMost recent appearancesNumerologyFull profile ...
Baroness Cox (Crossbench)


Anonymous said...

My God, is this woman high or something?

Zoompad said...

I thinbk what she has said is utterly disgraceful, and I am going to write to her and tell her so. Peter Connelly was murdered, what she's said, in effect, is that it's perhaps a good job he died because if he had lived it would have been too expensive to give him the therapy and aftercare that he needed as a victim of child abuse, and would have turned into a monster as a result.

She should be screaming from the rooftops that the money that ought to be ensuring that babies like Peter have a decent childhood is going into the already overstuffed wallets of greedy unscrupulous and downright wicked Secret Family Court judges, solicitors and self procraimed "experts" such as Ludwig Lowenstein.

I think it is wicked what she has said and I am going to tell her so. I'll write a letter and publish it here, plus any reply I get from her.