TREASON!

This is part two of seven videos of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth the Second.

As you can see, the Queen made several promises in her Coronation Oath to God.

One of them was to uphold the Protestant Christian faith in the British Isles.

Here is the Oath she swore:

Text of the oath taken by Elizabeth II in 195313
The Queen having returned to her Chair, (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1 9 5 2, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,
Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
And the Queen answering,
I am willing.
The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and the Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen. I Will.
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premises: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Archbishop (The Bible to be brought) and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and be brought saying these words:
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath. And a Silver Standish
Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.

SO WHY WAS THIS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN?


13

BORN FREE

I AM DEDICATING THIS BEAUTIFUL SONG TO ALL MY FELLOW ANTI CHILD ABUSE CAMPAINING FRIENDS.

FOR ALL YOU WHO ARE BEING ABUSED AND REABUSED RIGHT NOW, REMEMBER THAT WHATEVER PEOPLE MAY DO TO YOUR BODY, YOUR SPIRIT CAN SOAR ON EAGLES WINGS.

GOD BLESS ALL MY BRAVE FRIENDS.

XXXXXXXX

HOSPITALS CAN BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH

I would have liked to have known a bit more about his clashes with authority - his tutors. I don't think this is really a very good documentary, there are huge gaps in it. It would also have been good to include references to other suspicious deaths in hospitals, such as North Staffs, and Jersey Royal, and Stafford.

PRAISE THE LORD FOR ARROGANT COMPUTER HACKERS

Last night my computer was hacked, and two email accounts were taken over. I know the identity of the man who committed this crime.

Thanks to that hacker, we anti child abuse campaigners are nearer to the goal of eradicating institutional child abuse from the British Isles.

Thank you Mr X. Your arrogance has brought you nearer to your just punishment.

God should never be underestimated, he works in mysterious ways!

WHY LOCKHEED MARTIN WANT PERSONAL DETAILS OF UK CITIZENS

It's history repeating itself, but people have almost forgotten. Thank God for the poppy remembrance services, the memory of the Holocaust is still with us, praise the Lord!

Dear Lord Jesus,

The memory of the terrible Holocaust is a dim memory in this country. I pray that you will gently blow on that little spark of remembrance, so that the people of this nation can see the grave danger ahead, and turn to you.

They are blind. They do not understand the significance of the Pentagon, they close their minds to the awful truth, because they are too frightened to deal with it.

I pray for the people of this country. I forgive my persecutors, I do not want any of them to perish in eternal damnation, there is no bitter hatred in my soul, I come to you dear father with a clean heart. I forgive the people who destroyed my childhood and persecuted me in the secret courts and persecute and threaten me still. Open their eyes, dear Lord, and allow them to see what they are giving themselves to.

I forgive them for what they have done and are still doing to me. But I cannot save anyone for the wrath to come. Only you can do that, dear Lord. Every person has to make an account of themselves to you. I am just a poor woman, you are God, my father, my creator and my redeemer.

Lord, there is a terrible thing about to happen, that you prophesied long ago. You said that Babylon would fall. You said that when it happened, all the people would witness it in horror and there would be shock and sorrow and amazement. These are the words prophesied:


Revelation 18
1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

6Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

7How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

9And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,

10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

11And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.

15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

16And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

21And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

22And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;

23And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

THE JUDGES JOLLY

On Wednesday 7th September secret family court judges are going to meet up at the 6th most luxurious hotel in the world, the Rudding Park Hotel, to have 4 days of silver service sumptiousness.



The excuse for this 4 day party is the 25th AGM of the International Acadamy of Matromonial Lawyers.



Well, when I saw what these corrupt old coffin dodgers are looking forward to (surely not at taxpayers expense when we are all supposed to be pulling our belts in?) I had to rub my eyes, as I could scarcely believe what I was seeing.

All I can say, is that stealing and selling other people's children must be a very profitable line of business.

IAML 25th MEETING AND
AGM 2011
Event runs Wednesday 7th September 2011 to Sunday 11th September 2011
Celebrating the Academy's 25th Year
Meeting Hotel
RUDDING PARK HOTEL
Follifoot
Harrogate
North Yorkshire HG3 1JH
England
www.ruddingpark.co.uk
Voted Best in UK and 6th Best Luxury Hotel in the
World at Tripadvisor's Annual Awards (2010 and
2011)
Getting There
Please note revised details. Click on the link below for information about flights to Harrogate.
www.iaml.org/cms_media/files/harrogate_flight_information.pdf
Educational Programme
Educational programme chaired by Roger Bamber (England)



with speakers including the Right Honorable Baroness Hale of Richmond of the UK Supreme
Court (formerly House of Lords)


and the Rt Hon Lord Justice Thorpe, Head of International
Family Justice for England and Wales.



For preliminary details of the Educational Programme, please refer to
www.iaml.org/cms_media/files/harrogate_educational_programme.pdf
Meeting Programme
Wednesday 7 September 2011
Optional Activities
10.30 am to 5 pm – Fellows and Guests
Golf Tournament at Rudding Park: “The
Comity Cup” - the inaugural IAML golf
event - £45 per person (including coffee
and bacon rolls) *
* Electric carts at additional cost (£21 per
cart) available to hire on the day. Very limited
golf club hire available at additional cost (£25
per set). Contact:
nigel.shepherd@mills-reeve.com in advance if
you wish to hire clubs.
"Comity - mutual civility and respect - the principle that one jurisdiction will extend certain
courtesies to other nations or jurisdictions"
Join fellow golfers from around the world for IAML's first ever golf event. The competition's
name reflects the qualities of friendship and common purpose that are so evident in both
IAML and the great global game of golf.
We will be playing the highly regarded Hawtree Course, which was designed by renowned
golf architect Martin Hawtree and provides a stern (but hopefully fair) test to handicap. In the
heart of the 300 acre estate in which the meeting hotel stands, the course runs through the
mature parkland that was originally laid out by the famous landscape designer Humphrey
Repton in the 18th century.
We will be playing the Stableford format on full handicaps, maximum 24 for men and 36 for
ladies. We will be finished in plenty of time for a celebratory drink to toast the winner and to
be ready for the Welcome Reception at Harewood House the same evening, where we can
regale fellow guests with the details of our glorious drives, unerring iron play and crucial
putts - or not!
Only 20 places are available on this popular activity; please book early.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
Wednesday 7 September 2011 (continued)
Optional Activities
2 pm to 5 pm – Fellows and Guests
Guided Walking Tour of Harrogate (including Pump Room/Mercer Art Gallery and Valley
Gardens) - £18.50 per person
Our guided walk will take in the Royal Pump Room (explore Harrogate's spa history at the
museum, check out its Royal and famous visitors, see the sulphur wells and taste the
strongest sulphur water in Europe!), the Valley Gardens and the Mercer Art Gallery.
There will be ample free time for individuals to explore on their own the delights Harrogate
has to offer. Famous for its healing waters, this Victorian spa town oozes cosmopolitan
charm, smart streets and quaint mews. Enjoy fabulous shopping, atmospheric cafés, fine
restaurants and plenty of green open spaces.
Why not try a cup of tea and watch the world go by in the famous Betty’s Café Tea Rooms or
browse antiques and unusual gifts in the stylish Montpellier Quarter.
Stroll around Harrogate, admiring its beautiful floral displays along the way. The most
attractive green spots include
• The Stray, 200 acres of green lawns surrounding the town
• Valley Gardens, featuring well-heads of Harrogate's famous spa water
• Royal Horticultural Society Garden Harlow Carr and
• Lush, green pine woods
Coach transport to/from Rudding Park to Harrogate will be provided.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
Wednesday 7 September 2011 (continued)
Optional Activities
6.45 pm to 9 pm– Fellows and Guests (Complimentary)
Welcome Champagne Reception at Harewood House (www.harewood.org)
Sponsored by 1 Hare Court Chambers (www.1hclaw.com)
Picture ©2010 Harewood House Trust
Welcome to a 'St Petersburg Palace on a Yorkshire hill'. Harewood sits at the heart of
Yorkshire. Edwin Lascelles (1713-1795) commissioned the building of Harewood House in the
mid-18th century with money his father Henry had made in the West Indian sugar trade. It
has been home to the Lascelles family ever since, reflecting the changing tastes and styles of
the past 250 years. The 7th Earl, cousin to the Queen, and Countess of Harewood still live
here.
Pictures ©2010 Harewood House Trust
The House, one of the treasure houses of England, has magnificent interiors by Robert Adam,
furniture by Thomas Chippendale and paintings by JMW Turner, Reynolds, Titian and El
Greco, among others. An Italianate Terrace, designed by Sir Charles Barry, stretches along
the South Front of the House and provides stunning views of Lancelot 'Capability' Brown's
landscape and lake. The collection of paintings, furniture and porcelain is as fine as any in the
land, and the setting is Yorkshire’s most beautiful landscape.
Our Welcome Reception will take place in the Gallery, one of Robert Adam’s most magnificent
achievements, with ceiling paintings by Biagio Rebecca covering an area 76 feet long and 24
feet wide.
Coach transport to/from Harewood from Rudding Park will be provided.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
Wednesday 7 September 2011 (continued)
Optional Activities
9 pm onwards – Fellows and Guests
Buffet Supper at Rudding - £35 per person
Buffet Supper following the Welcome Reception at Harewood (see above) at Rudding Park.
There will be a cash bar available.
For those arriving on the Wednesday night too late to join the Welcome Reception
at Harewood, you may nevertheless wish to book for the Buffet Supper which will
commence from 9 pm.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
Thursday 8 September 2011
Educational Programme
9 am to 3.15 pm – Fellows only
For full details of the Educational Programme, please refer to
www.iaml.org/cms_media/files/harrogate_educational_programme.pdf . The programme will
be held in the Radcliffe Room at Rudding Park. There are two sessions (9 am to 1 pm and
2.15 pm to 3.15 pm).
A buffet lunch (1 pm to 2.15 pm) will be provided for Fellows only in the rooms adjacent to
the Ratcliffe Room.
Optional Activities
9.30 am to 1 pm – Guests
Cookery Demonstration “Effortless Entertaining” at Betty’s Cookery School - £115
per person (www.bettyscookeryschool.co.uk)
Betty’s Cookery School
opened in 2001, inspired
by the idea of sharing
their passion for good
food with their
customers and the wider
community. Whether
you’re a complete
cooking novice hoping
to learn the basics, or an aspiring chef looking for new ideas, you can rest assured the
experts at Betty’s Cookery School will help you learn in an enjoyable and supportive
environment.
On this course, you will be shown the art of effective entertaining with delicious and “showstopping”
results: goat’s cheese, roasted beetroot & red onion filo tartlets, chicken
Saltimbocca with lemon & sage butter, warm duck salad with a raspberry vinegar dressing;
Moroccan spiced lamb noisettes with squash, date & apricot couscous, and chocolate
espresso pots with chocolate & nut biscotti.
A two-course lunch with a glass of wine together with refreshments on arrival is included.
You will also get the opportunity to taste the demonstrated dishes. Only 24 places are
available on this popular course : please book early.
Coach transport to/from Betty’s Cookery School from Rudding Park will be provided.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
OR
Thursday 8 September 2011 (continued)
Optional Activities
10 am to 3 pm –Guests
Guided tour of Fountain’s Abbey (www.fountainsabbey.org.uk) - £32.00 per
person (to include buffet lunch)
Yorkshire's first World Heritage Site is a
huge estate of beauty, contrasts and
surprises including the largest abbey ruins in
the country and one of England's most
spectacular Georgian water gardens. The
perfect place to escape from it all and enjoy
a great day out; there's so much to see and
do at Fountains. Set your own pace to
explore over 800 acres of naturally beautiful
countryside, with ten historic buildings to
discover spanning 800 years of history and
acre after acre of open space. The Abbey is
situated in an area of outstanding natural beauty in the valley of the river Skell, on the
doorstep of the Yorkshire Dales.
There will be a guided walking tour followed by a light buffet lunch at 1 pm in the Visitor
Centre with some free time to browse in the shop.
Coach transport to/from Fountain’s Abbey from Rudding Park will be provided.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
Thursday 8 September 2011 (continued)
Optional Activities
4.30 pm to 7.30 pm – Fellows and Guests
Visit to Ripley Castle with early evening cocktails - £37.50 per person
(www.ripleycastle.co.uk)
Ripley Castle and Gardens, situated 3 miles from
Harrogate in North Yorkshire on the edge of the
Yorkshire Dales National Park, is an historic
attraction open to the public all year round and
makes for a fascinating and entertaining day
out, in a beautiful location, with memorable
surroundings. Ripley Castle dates from the 15th
century. In 2009, the Ingilby Family celebrated
residing in the Castle for 700 years. The present
owner is Sir Thomas Ingilby, 6th Baronet, the
28th generation. The castle has a priest hole and
landscaped grounds which contain ornamental lakes.
The Drinks Reception commences in the East Wing. There will be a guided tour in small
groups around the Tudor part of the Castle.
Coach transport to/from Ripley Castle from Rudding Park will be provided.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
7.30 pm for 8 pm – “New” Fellows and Guests with Executive Committee and
Guests
New Fellows’ dinner at Sasso, Harrogate (www.sassorestaurant.co.uk) - £45.00
per person
Following our visit to Ripley, our coaches will drop off in
Harrogate town centre. For “New Fellows” (ie those attending
their first IAML meeting) and their spouses/partners,
arrangements have been made for the exclusive use of Sasso
Restaurant, Harrogate to enable the Executive Committee to
meet and welcome them. Wine is included with the meal.
The restaurant opened in 1998 and is run by husband and wife
team, Sara and Stefano Lancellotti. Sasso aims at proving
authentic Italian cuisine and has a strong Bolognese influence
in its cooking. Bologna is the central city in the region Emilia
Romagna. The region is renowned for its Parmesan cheese, Prosciutto ham and, most
importantly, its fresh egg pasta. The use in Sasso of fresh ingredients and homemade dishes
meant that, after only a year of being open, they were entered in the Michelin Guide and
have been every year since.
Numbers are limited and you are advised to book early. Return coach transport from
Harrogate city centre will be provided.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
Thursday 8 September 2011 (continued)
Optional Activities
7.30 pm onwards – Fellows and Guests
DineAround option in Harrogate
For those wishing to make their own arrangements for dinner on this evening, you might like
to book one of the recommended restaurants in York or Harrogate from our guide. Click here
www.iaml.org/cms_media/files/harrogate_restaurant_guide.pdf to view our
recommended guide to local restaurants in Harrogate and York and to see the President’s
favourites.
You will need to make your own arrangements from your chosen restaurant for return
transport to Rudding Park.
Alternatively, the coach transport will be returning direct to Rudding Park from Ripley Castle
should you wish to arrange to dine at the hotel.
Friday 9 September 2011
Educational Programme
9 am to 11.30 am – Fellows only
For full details of the Educational Programme, please refer to
www.iaml.org/cms_media/files/harrogate_educational_programme.pdf. The programme will
be held in the Radcliffe Room at Rudding Park. There will be a coffee break during the
working session.
Optional Activities
9.15 am to 11 am – Guided visit to Royal
Horticultural Society Gardens at Harlow Carr,
Harrogate - £18.50 per person
(www.rhs.org.uk/gardens/harlow-carr)
One of Yorkshire's most relaxing, yet inspiring,
locations at the gateway to the Yorkshire Dales.
Wander through tranquil surroundings and find
inspiration in the innovative and dramatic rose
revolution and main borders. Stroll along the
Streamside Garden and explore Gardens through
Time. Savour the Scented Garden and take
practical ideas from the extensive Kitchen Garden.
Visit the extensive RHS Shop & Plant Centre and
linger over delicious goodies in Betty’s Café Tea
Rooms.
Coach transport to/from the RHS Gardens from Rudding Park will be provided.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
Friday 9 September 2011 (continued)
Optional Activities
12 noon to 6 pm – Fellows and Guests
Visit to York with guided tour - £39.50 per person (including packed lunch and
admission to York Minster)
York is renowned for its exquisite
architecture, tangle of quaint cobbled
streets and the iconic Minster, one of
Northern Europe’s largest Gothic cathedrals.
Delve into the city's vibrant café culture,
take time out to enjoy some of the country's
most talented street entertainers or simply
watch the world go by while sipping a drink
by the river. A city of contrasts and exciting
discoveries, York is a place where the old
encompasses the new and the
commonplace meets with the unexpected.
There will be tour guides for groups of 15 for those wishing to participate in a guided tour.
Lunch will be taken en route, provided by Rudding Park.
Coach transport to/from York from Rudding Park will be provided.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
7.30 pm onwards – Fellows and Guests
DineAround option in York or Harrogate
Following our visit to York, you are free to make your own arrangements for dinner on this
evening, whether you wish to remain in York or return to Harrogate. Click here
www.iaml.org/cms_media/files/harrogate_restaurant_guide.pdf to view our
recommended guide to local restaurants in Harrogate and York and to see the President’s
favourites.
You will need to make your own arrangements from your chosen restaurant for return
transport to Rudding Park.
Alternatively, the coach transport will be returning from York direct to Rudding Park, dropping
off in Harrogate town centre, should you wish to arrange to dine at the hotel.
Saturday 10 September 2011
Educational Programme
8.30 am to 11.30 am– AGM (Fellows only), Board of Governors and Audrey
Ducroux Lecture
We are delighted to announce that our Audrey Ducroux Keynote Speaker will be the Right
Honorable Baroness Hale of Richmond, the first and (so far) only female judge of the UK
Supreme Court (formerly House of Lords). Guests are very welcome to attend Baroness
Hale’s lecture (10.30 am to 11.30 am). Session to be held in the Radcliffe Room at Rudding
Park. There will be a coffee break during the working session.
Optional Activities
12.30 pm to 4.45 pm – Fellows and Guests
Visit to Saltaire World Heritage site and guided tour of Hockney Museum - £28.50
per person (including packed lunch)
Saltaire is a perfect example of a Victorian
model industrial village in Italianate style. Sir
Titus Salt built what is now known as Salts
Mill a grand textile mill in 1853, which
employed over 3000 workers. He also built
churches, schools and houses for the
workforce, which still remain today. The Mill
was purchased in 1987 and was transformed
into Salt's Mill. The mill is now home to the
1853 Gallery and one of the largest
collections of art by David Hockney, as well
as a selection of shops and restaurants.
Salts Mill is set in the UNESCO World Heritage Site, Saltaire.
Lunch will be taken en route, provided by Rudding Park.
Coach transport to/from Saltaire from Rudding Park will be provided.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
Saturday 10 September 2011 (continued)
Optional Activities
7 pm to 11.30 pm – Fellows and Guests
President’s Silver Jubilee Drinks Reception (sponsored by Mills & Reeve LLP) and
Dinner at Rudding Park - £115 per person
Drinks at 7 pm in the Drawing Room, Blue Room and Library in Rudding Park House followed
by dinner in the Radcliffe Room at 7.30 pm.
Menu choice to be pre-ordered at registration for meeting, prior to the evening. Wine and
entertainment included.
To book this option, please complete registration/activity booking form at
www.iaml.org/events/harrogate.
Pre/Post-Meeting add-on tours
Pre- and Post-Meeting tours may be arranged through Osprey Events
(www.ospreyevents.co.uk)
Accommodation at Rudding for pre/post-meeting tours is available to Fellows and Guests at
same special room rates as for during the meeting..
Contact: Mike Lancaster or Sarah Coles (tel: +44 (0)1423 720900).
Examples of possible tours include the English Lakes, Scotland, Yorkshire Dales, North
Yorkshire Moors; Northern Belle day trips by Orient Express; Fly-fishing at Bolton Abbey
Accommodation
Meeting Hotel
RUDDING PARK HOTEL
Follifoot
Harrogate
North Yorkshire HG3 1JH
England
www.ruddingpark.co.uk
Our meeting hotel is the award winning Rudding
Park in Harrogate, Yorkshire. Voted Best in UK
and 6th Best Luxury Hotel in the World at
Tripadvisor's Annual Awards (2010 and 2011), it is
a privately owned luxury hotel, spa and golf course set in beautiful parkland within easy
access of both York and Leeds and is just three miles from Harrogate town centre. The
Regency House is an exclusive business conference and banqueting centre for up to 250
delegates. Rudding Park retains a legacy of elegant yet unassuming architecture from the
Regency period. The original Grade 1 listed house was converted in 1987 into a conference
and banqueting venue. Ten years later the adjoining contemporary hotel and Clocktower
restaurant opened, making Rudding Park a leading meeting and celebration venue within
Yorkshire. Previous guests have included Presidents Clinton and Bush Sr and Secretary of
State, Colin Powell.
The setting perfectly blends traditional values with the modern facilities and standards of
service expected of corporate and private hospitality today. Personal touches and attention
to detail are the key features of every function. Whether a first-time guest or a regular visitor,
all are guaranteed a warm welcome from a dedicated
and professional staff.
The Clocktower
restaurant combines
a cosmopolitan
fusion of interior
design inspirations
from all over the
world with a menu
of the finest locally
sourced dishes.
The décor is stunning – from the magnificent Conservatory which has a 400 year old
Catalonian olive tree through to the 27 foot limestone bar. Attention has been paid to every
detail. A hand-made pink crystal chandelier from France is the striking centrepiece to the
dining room which features American black walnut, a glass wine wall, Moroccan wall lights,
hand-painted Brazilian wallpaper and waltzer seating.
We have almost exclusive use of the hotel and a selection of accommodation reserved for us.
Please use the link below to make your reservation. A member of the team at Osprey
Events, who are our meeting organisers, will then get in touch to confirm your detailed
arrangements including credit card details to confirm your reservation. Please do not make
reservations with the hotel direct as special discounted rates have been arranged and these
are only available through Osprey Events.
Click here http://www.warpmailbox.com/booking.aspx?eid=229&cl=96 to book your
hotel accommodation online
The following accommodation is available at Rudding Park:
• Double room: single occupancy: £169 per room per night; double/twin occupancy:
£199 per room per night. Breakfast included.
• Junior Suite (limited number available): single occupancy: £354 per suite per night;
double/twin occupancy: £384 per suite per night. Breakfast included.
• Suite in Ribston Wing (limited number available): single occupancy: £404 per suite
per night; double/twin occupancy: £434 per suite per night. Breakfast included.
• Suite in new Follifoot Wing (limited number available): single occupancy: £464 per
suite per night; double/twin occupancy: £494 per suite per night. Breakfast
included.
• 2-bedroomed lodges (limited number available). Adjacent to Rudding Park, each
luxury lodge (sleeps 4) and is individually furnished to an extremely high standard.
£195 per lodge per night’(Sunday to Thursday); £220 per lodge per night (Friday
and Saturday). Self-catering; breakfast is not included. If you wish to take
breakfast in the hotel with the group, this may be booked at an additional cost of £10
per person per day.
• 3-bedroomed lodges (limited number
available). Adjacent to Rudding Park, each
luxury lodge (sleeps 6) and is individually
furnished to an extremely high standard.
£251 per lodge per night (Sunday to
Thursday); £302 per lodge per night (Friday
and Saturday). Self-catering; breakfast is not
included. . If you wish to take breakfast in
the hotel with the group, this may be booked
at an additional cost of £10 per person per day.
• The Bothy. A self-catering property (sleeps 4 adults; 3 children) and on the Holiday
Park. 3 bedrooms (a master bedroom with en suite shower room; double bedded
room and triple bedded room with a further house bathroom with toilet). £165 per
night. Self-catering; breakfast is not included. . If you wish to take breakfast in the
hotel with the group, this may be booked at an additional cost of £10 per person per
day.
A lot of interest has been expressed in this meeting and early booking is
recommended.
Some Fellows who are regular single travellers have previously expressed an interest in being
able to share a twin room with another single traveller in order to minimise accommodation
expenses. There is an option on the accommodation booking form to express your interest in
this arrangement.
Cancellation/Postponement
If a confirmed hotel booking is cancelled up to one month prior to arrival, rooms can be
cancelled with no charge incurred. After this date, a cancellation fee corresponding to the
first night will be charged.
Click here http://www.warpmailbox.com/booking.aspx?eid=229&cl=96) to book your
hotel accommodation online. Please do not make reservations direct with the hotel in order
to be able to take advantage of our special discounted rates.
Overflow Hotel
If demand is such that Rudding Park is unable to accommodate all Fellows and guests, our
overflow hotel is the Hotel du Vin situated in the town centre of Harrogate:
Hotel du Vin & Bistro Harrogate,
Prospect Place, Harrogate,
Yorkshire HG1 1LB
www.hotelduvin.com/hotels/harrogate/finding-us.aspx
Created from a row of eight Georgian-styled houses that
have been used as a hotel since the 1930s, Hotel du Vin
Harrogate features 48 bedrooms and airy loft suites. Located
close to the town centre, the hotel overlooks The Stray, a
magnificent 200-acre common, and offers a billiards room,
cellar snug, the newly added Health du Vin with its extensive
range of treatments and alfresco dining in the courtyard
during the summer months.
The following accommodation is available at Hotel du Vin:
• Superior Double room: double/twin occupancy only:
£175 per room per night (Tuesday to Friday); £210
(Saturday). Breakfast included.
Transport from Hotel du Vin to Rudding Park will be provided at key times throughout the
meeting.
A lot of interest has been expressed in this meeting and early booking is
recommended.
Some Fellows who are regular single travellers have previously expressed an interest in being
able to share a twin room with another single traveller in order to minimise accommodation
expenses. There is an option on the accommodation booking form to express your interest in
this arrangement.
Cancellation/Postponement
If a confirmed hotel booking is cancelled up to one month prior to arrival, rooms can be
cancelled with no charge incurred. After this date, a cancellation fee corresponding to the
first night will be charged.
Please use the link below to make your reservation. A member of the team at Osprey
Events, who are the conference organisers, will then get in touch to confirm your detailed
arrangements including credit card details to confirm your reservation. Please do not make
reservations with the hotel direct as special discounted rates have been arranged and these
are only available through Osprey Events.
Click here to book your hotel accommodation online
(http://www.warpmailbox.com/booking.aspx?eid=229&cl=96

ROB GREEN VISITS THE LEGAL AID AWARDS OFFICE

TERESA COOPER SURVIVOR OF KENDALL HOUSE CHILDRENS "HOME"

Teresa Cooper is a very brave lady who wrote a book called "Pindown". That was how I came to know her, as it was the first time I had seen any book about the horrific Pindown children's home regime, of which I was also a victim.

Teresa was less fortunate than me, because she was repeatedly raped and sexually abused whilst in the not so loving care of Kent SS. The home she was in was being run by the Church of England, who have shares in the Glaxo pharmaceutical company, and Teresa and other children in that house of horrors were used as human lab rats.

Teresa and the other survivors are still waiting a proper apology from the Church of England. Knowing how stiff necked and arrogant those people are, it looks like they will all be waiting until the end of time - until the Lord returns. Come back quickly Lord Jesus!

THE HAPPY SMILY POLICEMEN ARE GETTING NEW SHIRTS

Hey, I have got a great idea to further soften the image of the Jersey freemasons oops I mean police. They could have matching Cosh, Tazar and CS Gas pouches made from the same materiel as the new shirts!

AND YET THEY WANT TO JAIL STUART SYVRET FOR TRYING TO PROTECT VULNERABLE PEOPLE AND CHILDREN?

Royal Court gives man with ‘appalling’ record a chance

A MAN with an ‘appalling’ record has escaped a prison sentence for receiving stolen goods worth £1,480 because of his efforts in the last ten years to change his ways.

David Philip Carrel, who spent his 47th birthday in the Royal Court yesterday, was found guilty by an Assize jury recently of criminally receiving 148 CDs and DVDs which had been stolen in a break-in from Offshore Solutions in Rue des Prés.Yesterday, he was sentenced to 210 hours’ community service for that offence.Crown Advocate Nuno Santos Costa said that videos and CDs worth £10,144 had been stolen from the company and the man charged with their theft was sentenced in July.Police had searched a flat at Le Marais occupied by a friend of Carrel’s and when Carrel was searched there they had found a list in his jacket of CDs and DVDs.Advocate Santos Costa said that Carrel’s ‘criminal career’ had started in 1971, after which there had been 118 convictions.Sitting with Jurats Tibbo and King, the Deputy Bailiff, Michael Birt, described Carrel’s record as ‘appalling’.However, he said that because of the efforts Carrel had made to improve his life the court had decided to sentence him to community service to encourage him to continue that progress rather than go back to his old ways.

Article posted on 24th November, 2003 - 12.00am



Read more: http://www.thisisjersey.com/2003/11/24/royal-court-gives-man-with-appalling-record-a-chance/#ixzz1JIo86vgN

RICO SORDA POLITICAL BLOGGER

RICO HAS ALSO BEEN PERSECUTED FOR EXPOSING CORRUPTION IN JERSEY POLITICS, CONNECTED WITH THE HDLG CHILD ABUSE SCANDAL

I KNEW IT! MORE FAKE STUFF!

The Guardian has published an article by Michael Ruse on Monday 4th April, claiming that Jesus Christ was gay.

Another article from April 4th "THIS IS GLOUCESTERSHIRE" claims that the couple who found the books have gone into hiding because of death threats.

Sorry to spoil the fun, but April Fools Day is over.

THE LATEST CON TRICK OOPS I MEAN BAIL OUT

The Financial Times reports Chancellor George Osborne is preparing to make more than £4bn of British-backed loans available to Portugal.

Here is a lovely picture of the Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich and his yacht in Portugal. He owns Chelsea football club.

Now why would the UK be underwriting this bail out? After all, there seems to be plenty of money swishing round Portugal.



Now, the Census. Lockheed Martin want to know intimite details on every man woman and child in the UK. Why? I can understand the UK Government wanting details so they can plan for public services, but this argument unravels when you realise that they already have all the information on everyone in this country already!The Census info is to be given to an American company that is working with the EU.

On 20 February 2008 the European Parliament approved a Council (Framework) Census Regulation covering the harmonization of outputs from member states’ censuses of population and housing. This took affect when it was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 9 July 2008. The regulation provides for the specification of outputs, the means of submission of these to Eurostat, and the requirement to provide metadata and quality reports, to be prescribed by subordinate Commission (Implementing) Regulations. These are currently being drafted with input from the EU Legislation Task Force of which the UK is a member.

The Council Regulation which prescribes the reference year for the next round of censuses as being 2011. Thereafter, reference years will be determined by subsequent Commission Regulations. The Regulation also requires Member States to make available the results of their census by end of March 2014.

The Framework Regulation is intended to be a permanent piece of legislation concerned with establishing common rules for the decennial provision of comprehensive population and housing data to be collected from traditional census taking or from alternative sources such as surveys and registers, or from combinations of such sources.

The topics which are specified by the Regulation cover:

•Place of usual residence
•Size of locality of usual residence (urban/rural)
•Sex
•Age
•Marital status
•Economic activity status
•Occupation
•Industry
•Employment status
•Workplace
•Educational attainment
•Country of birth
•Country of citizenship
•Ever resided abroad and year of entry into country
•Place of usual residence 1 year before census
•Relationship within household
•Status within household
•Status within family
•Type of housing arrangement
•Tenure status of household
•Type of household
•Size of household
•Type of family
•Size of family
•Type of living quarters
•Type of ownership
•Location of living quarters
•Occupancy status
•Floor space/Number of rooms
•Density standard of accommodation
•Housing amenities (water supply, toilet facilities, bathing facilities, type of heating)
•Type of dwelling
•Period of construction

More details about the Framework Regulation and the implications for topic content in the 2011 Census are detailed in an article published in Population Trends 128.

Further EU legislation
The UK is an active participant in an EU Census Legislation Task Force which is advising the European Commission on the scope and content of the proposed Implementing Regulations. The Commission Regulations will set out in separate regulations:

•The detail of the programme of statistical data and metadata to be provided to Eurostat by member states from the 2011 round of European censuses (based on the core topics specified by the Council Framework Regulation). Eurostat currently propose that these will be provided in the form of sets of 'hypercubes' of cross-variables at various geographical levels

•The classifications of the categories and technical specification for the topics to be covered in statistical programme

•The measures of quality assessment to be reported on. The statistical detail of the outputs to be provided by member states will be set out in secondary Implementing Regulations, to be prepared by the European Commission later this year.

Formal consultation on these issues went out to member states in March 2008 and were discussed at a meeting of the EU Census Working Group on 9-10 September 2008. ONS is liaising with GROS and NISRA in order to present a UK view.

Eurostat has also announced initial proposals for a European Census Hub by which member states could ‘pull’ the 2011 Census data specified in the Implementing Regulation. The difficulty of achieving common specifications and applying comparable statistical disclosure control methodologies across the 27 member states has been recognized as a major obstacle. Italy and Ireland have offered to take part in the pilot phase of the project by offering to make a sample of their latest census data available. Further countries have been invited to participate to this pilot phase, and ONS has agreed to prepare a submission to Eurostat setting out its own current thinking on the possibilities for similar domestic access to 2011 Census outputs.


I THINK PEOPLE IN THE UK OUGHT TO BE VERY WORRIED INDEED AS ALL THEIR PERSONAL DETAILS INCLUDING THEIR RELIGION IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE EU. CHRISTIANS OUGHT TO BE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED, AS IT IS VERY APPARENT THAT THE EU IS TRYING TO STAMP OUT CHRISTIANITY. IF THE UK GOES BUST WILL WE BE TAKEN OVER BY NATO, AND SUBJECTED TO THE SAME TREATMENT AS THE LIBYANS ARE HAVING TO ENDURE? THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP ETHNIC CLEANSING HAPPENING IN ENGLAND'S GREEN AND PLEASANT LAND!

RICHARD GARDNER IN HIS OWN WORDS

RICHARD A. GARDNER:
IN HIS OWN WORDS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"At the present time, the sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim," though the child may initiate sexual encounters by 'seducing' the adult."

Gardner, Richard A., Child Custody Litigation (1986), p.93

Sexualizing children can have procreative purposes, because a sexualized child is more likely to reproduce at an earlier age. "The younger the survival machine at the time sexual urges appear, the longer will be the span of procreative capacity, and the greater the likelihood the individual will create more survival machines in the next generation."

Gardner, Richard A., True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse (1992), pp.24-25

"It is of interest that of all the ancient peoples it may very well be that the Jews were the only ones who were punitive toward pedophiles."

Ibid. pp.46-47

Many child advocates are "charlatans, and/or psychopaths, and/or incompetents."

Ibid. p.526

"It is extremely important for therapists to appreciate that the child who has been genuinely abused may not need psychotherapeutic intervention."

Ibid. p.535

"There is a whole continuum that must be considered here, from those children who were coerced and who gained no pleasure (and might even be considered to have been raped) to those who enjoyed immensely (with orgastic responses) the sexual activities."

Ibid. p.548

"Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible act. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare's Hamlet, who said, 'Nothing's either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.' In such discussions the child has to be helped to appreciate that we have in our society an exaggeratedly punitive and moralistic attitude about adult-child sexual encounters."

Ibid. p.549

"If the mother has reacted to the abuse in a hysterical fashion, or used it as an excuse for a campaign of denigration of the father, then the therapist does well to try and 'sober her up'... Her hysterics... will contribute to the child's feeling that a heinous crime has been committed and will thereby lessen the likelihood of any kind of rapproachment with the father. One has to do everything possible to help her put the 'crime' in proper perspective. She has to be helped to appreciate that in most societies in the history of the world, such behavior was ubiquitous, and this is still the case."

Ibid. p.584-585

"Mothers who have been sexually abused as children may have residual anger toward her molesting father or other sexual molester, and this may be interfering with her relationship with her husband. This should be explored in depth, and she should be helped to reduce such residual anger... Perhaps she can be helped to appreciate that in the history of the world his behavior has probably been more common than the restrained behavior of those who do not sexually abuse their children."

Ibid. p.585

"It is likely that the mother has sexual problems... In many cases she herself was sexually molested as a child... She may never have achieved an orgasm -- in spite of the fact that she was sexually molested, in spite of the fact that she had many lovers, and in spite of the fact that she is now married. The therapist, then, does well to try to help her achieve such gratification. Verbal statements about the pleasures of orgastic response are not likely to prove very useful. One has to encourage experiences, under proper situations of relaxation, which will enable her to achieve the goal of orgastic response... Vibrators can be extremely useful in this regard, and one must try to overcome any inhibition she may have with regard to their use... her own diminished guilt over masturbation will make it easier for her to encourage the practice in her daughter, if this is warranted. And her increased sexuality may lessen the need for her husband to return to their daughter for sexual gratification."

Ibid. pp.584-585

"If he [the molesting father] doesn't know this already, he has to be helped to appreciate that pedophilia has been considered the norm by the vast majority of individuals in the history of the world. He has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, it is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people. He has to appreciate that in our Western society especially, we take a very punitive and moralistic attitude toward such inclinations... He has had a certain amount of back [sic] luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia. However, these are not reasons to condemn himself."

Ibid. pp.593

"Of relevance here is the belief by many of these therapists that a sexual encounter between an adult and a child -- no matter how short, no matter how tender, loving, and non-painful -- automatically and predictably must be psychologically traumatic to the child... The determinant as to whether the experience will be traumatic is the social attitude toward these encounters."

Ibid. pp.670-71

"I believe it is reasonable to say that at this time there are millions of people in the United States who are either directly accusing or supporting false sex-abuse accusations and/or are reacting in an extremely exaggerated fashion to situations in which bona fide sex abuse has occurred."

Ibid. p.688

Mandated reporting of child abuse has resulted in the "reporting of the most frivolous and absurd accusations by two- and three-year-olds, vengeful former wives, hysterical mothers of nursery school children, and severely disturbed women against their elderly fathers."

Gardner, Richard A., Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 5(1), p.26

"We need well-publicized civil lawsuits against incompetent and/or overzealous psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protection workers, 'child advocates,' police, and detectives whose ineptitude has promulgated a false accusation."

Ibid. p.26

SPECIALLY FOR STAFFORD POLICE

Now that I know for sure you people are spying on me, I just thought I had better remind you of this lovely man, Richard Wise. Now, I know you police officers have got a lot to do, what with being expected to be the private army of criminal lawyers and bankers, but if there is even one proper decent cop amongst you perhaps you might think about investigating the peculiar circumstances of this good man's death?

CALL TO REPENTANCE

Wish I had seen this before

THE MYSTERY OF THE 13TH AMENDMENT

"This nation was founded on principles that power was not to be trusted with checks and balances to keep this application. Lawyers have worked to circumvent this from the beginning. Some how lawyers have to be removed from politics at all costs and with complete prejudice or this nation will contnue in its decline."


If you Brits don't think this does not affect us too, think again!

DR FRANKENSTEIN, PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME JUNKIE

THIS IS THE MAN WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DESTROYING MANY CHILDREN'S LIVES, BY PROMOTING DR RICHARD GARDNER'S (PAEDOPHILE) JUNK SCIENCE THEORY PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME - PAS


Dr Ludwig F.Lowenstein M.A., Dip. Psych., Ph.D. founded Allington Manor in 1978, following years of experience as a Consultant Psychologist and after serving the Hampshire Education Authority as Chief Educational Psychologist

Dr Lowenstein obtained his M.A. and Doctorate in Psychology and Education at London University, and is one of Britain’s most quoted authorities on psychology in Education. His background includes work on mental hospitals, child guidance clinics and residential centres for maladjusted adolescents in New York City. He served as a teacher, a welfare officer, and, in Australia, as a probation officer. Over the years he has held such appointments as: Director of Assessment and Guidance for maladajusted boys with learning difficulties, London and Winchester; Chief Examiner in Education Psychology, College of Preceptors, London; former educational psychologist in Essex and London; Visiting Lecturer to the Universities of London, Southampton, Maryland (U.S.A.), and Visiting Professor to the University of Khartoum (Sudan), as well as to many U.K. Colleges of Technology and teacher training colleges. His appointments have included a directorship of the International Council of Psychologists and the Chair of the Hampshire Association for Gifted Children. He has also written widely on the subject of educational psychology and forensic psychology, and as it’s first Editor-in-Chief, helped found the journal School Psychology International. Articles on his research into the philosophy, diagnosis and treatment of children with problems are available on request, as are his books.

He was made an honorary member of the Polish Medical Society for acting as consultant to the setting up of a therapeutic community near Warsaw similar to that of Allington Manor, giving lecturers and donating a book dealing with the functioning of the Centre. Louis Pasteur was one of the persons who achieved this honour outside Poland. He is currently an Educational and Psychological Consultant. He was made a fellow of the college of Preceptors and has also published books and over 360 articles on a variety of subjects including those dealing with Forensic matters. He was recently made President Elect (2010) of the Internationl Council of Psychologists.


1.) GENERAL EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS:-

(A) B.A. Degree. University of Western Australia, (1955-1958.)
Subjects taken:- Psychology, Education, English, German, Philosophy , Sociology.
(B) M.A. Degree. University of London, (1958 - 1960.)
Birkbeck College. Title of Research:- The Psychological Needs of Sub-Normal Children as Assessed by a Thematic Apperception Test. Examiner of Thesis - Prof. C. A. Mace.
(C) Diploma in Clinical and Educational Psychology. Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, (1961 - 1962.)
(D) Ph. D. University of London, (1966.) Main Research:- An Application of Group Operant Conditioning. Thesis Examiner:- Prof. Vernon and Dr. G. Jones.
(E) C. Psychol. AFBPsS. Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. Membership Number:- 21085.

2.) PRESENT EXPERIENCE:-


-President Elect 2010 – International Council of Psychologists
-Director, Allington Manor Psychological Services.
-Honorary Member of the Polish Medical Society.
-Member of the Association of Educational Psychologists (A.E.P.), Great Britain.
-Member of the American Psychological Association (APA) Membership no: 3064/8272.
-Visiting Professor to the Jungian Society, Zurich, Switzerland. -Member of the International Foundation of Learning. ( Canada.)
-Member of Editorial Board of the International Journal of Group Tensions. -Member of Editorial Board of Special Services in the Schools Journal. -Member of Editorial Board of Journal of Applied School Psychology. -Consulting Editor:- Suicide and Life Threatening Behaviour Journal.
-Member of the Special Group in Clinical Neuropsychology.
-Member of The British Academy of Forensic Sciences.
-Member of Editorial Board of Quarterly Journal of Mental Health.

-Previous Experience:-

-(1968 - 1974.) Chief Educational Psychologist, Hampshire C.C.
- Head of Psychology and Educational Psychology in charge of 12 qualified psychologists, other staff and trainees.
-Visiting Lecturer to the Department of Sociology for the University of Southampton and Reading College of Technology.
-(1974 - 1976.) Independent Clinical - Educational Consultant Psychologist. -Director of Assessment and Guidance Centre ( London and Winchester.) -Visiting Lecturer:- London University; University of Southampton; Reading College of Technology; Southampton Technical College; and University of Maryland, U.S.A.
-Visiting Professor of Psychology and Education, Faculty of Education, University of Khartoum, Omdurman, Sudan
- Development of Child Guidance and Special Education in the Sudan. -Former Editor-in-Chief,and a founder member of School Psychology International. (1979 - 1985.).
-Former Director of International Council of Psychologists (ICP) (1981 - 3.) -Former Chairman - Hampshire Branch of the Association for Gifted Children, (1981 - 1983.)
- Chairman and Trustee – Children of High Intelligence 2008/09
-Former Honorary Secretary of I.S.P.A. (1983 - 1985.)
-Former Chairman of the Consultative Committee on Solvent Abuse, Hampshire.
-Former Treasurer of the British Rorschach Forum Trust
-(1964 - 1967) Area Clinical Psychologist for Essex, (1964.)
-(1962 - 1964) Educational Psychologist, London County Council.
-(Before 1962.) Market Research, Industrial Psychology. Teacher. Research, Journalism, Army (Paratrooper), Tree - Felling, Lifeguard, Factory Worker, Farmer, Sailor, Swimming Instructor, Security Guard, Painter, Carpenter, Boat Builder, Foundry Worker.

3.) REFEREES AND TESTIMONIALS:-

(A) Prof. Charles Spielberger, Director, Centre for Research on Community Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33620, U.S.A.
(B) Dr Peter Merenda, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, U.S.A. (C) Dr Frances Culbertson, University of Wisconsin - Whitewater, 800 West Main Street, Whitewater, Wisconsin 53190, U.S.A.
(D) Mr W. Briggs, 2 Lynford Avenue, Winchester, Hants.
(E) Dr G, Watson, 49 Woodfield Drive, Winchester, Hants.
(F) Professor C. Mace, (Deceased) - Testimonial.
(G) Professor Sybil Eysenck, Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London. SE5 8AH, Great Britain.

4.) MEMBERSHIPS:-

(A) American Psychological Association. – Member & Foreign Affiliate.
(B) National Association of Gifted Children. - Consultant to.
(C) Chairman of CHI (Children of High Intelligence)
(D) International Council of Psychologists. - Director (1983.) Director 2nd term (1999-2000)
(E) Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society.
(F) Fellow of the College of Preceptors (now the College of Teachers).
(G) UK Register of Expert Witnesses.
(H) The Expert Witness Directory.
(I) Member of the Academy of Expert Witnesses.
(J) Member of Expert Witness.
(K) APIL Expert Witness Database.
(L) AVMA Database.
(M) Chartered Scientist of British Psychological Society


Southern England Psychological Services


********************************************

BETWEEN:

LUDWIG FRED LOWENSTEIN

and

KATHLEEN BRENDA LOWENSTEIN Appellants
and

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Respondents
Before: Mr Mark Rowland (Chairman)
Mr George Thomas
Mr Robert Bessell

Hearing at Winchester on 24, 25, 26 and 27 March 1997 of an Appeal against a decision of the Children's Service Sub-Committee of the Social Services Committee of Hampshire County Council notified to the Appellants on 15 October 1996 whereby it was resolved that there be cancelled the registration under Part VIII of the Children Act 1989 of Dr Ludwig Fred Lowenstein and Mrs Kathleen Brenda Lowenstein in respect of Allington Manor School, Allington Lane, Fair Oak, Hampshire SO50 7DE.

Representation:

For the Respondents:

Mr Garry Grant of counsel, instructed by Mrs Kate Phillipson, solicitor, of the Chief Executive's Department, Hampshire County Council, The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire S023 8UJ.

The Appellants in person.

DECISION

It is the unanimous decision of the Tribunal that the Appeal be dismissed.

Background

Allington Manor School is a therapeutic community based in a large house in substantial grounds. The Appellants have run the community for many years. Dr Lowenstein is an educational psychologist. Mrs Lowenstein is a qualified teacher. After Part VIII of the Children Act 1989 had come into force, they sought registration of Allington Manor as a children's home. It was not registered as a school because there were fewer than five pupils. After protracted correspondence, the Respondents issued a certificate of registration under the Children Act 1989 and the Children's Homes Regulations 1991. The certificate was dated 17 February 1994 and contained five conditions of registration. The two of relevance to these proceedings were:
"1. The number of children for whom accommodation with both board and care is provided at any one time shall not exceed six.

"2. That the proprietor shall employ staff in sufficient numbers with experience and qualification to meet the purpose and function of the home. A full list of all staff employed giving their function and role, hours employed, relevant experience and qualification shall be provided to the registration authority within three months of registration."

The Respondents have never been entirely happy with the way Allington Manor has been run and there has been much correspondence between them and the Appellants ever since registration. We were not shown all the correspondence because it was not considered to be relevant to the proceedings before us. Some issues have no doubt been resolved to the satisfaction of the Respondents and some may have been abandoned as having been bad points or as not being of sufficient importance. However, there have continued to be some major concerns. Matters came to a head in early 1996 following the Appellants' refusal to accept the resignation of one Roger Small who had been employed as a classroom assistant. That led to a proposal to cancel the registration. Representations were made to a sub-committee of the county council's Social Services Committee who decided to adopt the proposal. The Appellants now appeal against that decision.

The Statement of Reasons served under rule 5(2) of the Registered Homes Tribunal Rules 1984 and dated 20 February 1997 has been drafted by counsel. They are the reasons upon which the Respondents seek to resist the appeal rather than the reasons for the sub-committee's decision. That is acceptable, as we are concerned with the merits of the sub-committee's conclusion rather than the merits of their reasoning. We have been greatly assisted by the clarity of the Statement of Reasons. The five reasons advanced for the cancellation of registration are:
"Reason 1

"The Appellants have failed to ensure that the experience and qualifications of the staff are adequate to ensure the welfare of the children is safeguarded and promoted at all times contrary to regulation 5 of the Children's Homes Regulations 1991.

PARTICULARS
"(a) Failed to employ a suitable head of care with an appropriate social work qualification in accordance with the advice of the Respondent;

"(b) Failed to ensure that all staff were police checked prior to entering any form of employment at the Home contrary to the guidance and regulations to the Children Act 1989 and the recommendations of the Warner Report 'Choosing with Care';

'(c) Employed staff in the home in a voluntary capacity or otherwise without knowing the outcome of police checks;

"(d) Recruited or offered to recruit staff in response to a request for a placement of particular children undermining the ability to properly assess the suitability [of] the appointment;

"(e) Employed unqualified and inexperienced staff including Frank Swanborough who was employed under the inappropriate title of 'handyman/care worker', who had his care worker role identified at the end of his list of duties and who had no previous professional child care experience, had not in June 1996 read any of the children's files and had no understanding of specific plans for individual children nor any awareness of the needs of vulnerable young people;

"(f) The Respondent will also rely on the matters particularised under reason 3;

"(g) The Respondent will also rely on the matters particularised under reason 4:
"Reason 2

"The Appellants have failed to comply with Condition 2 of the Registration Certificate by reason of their failure (i) to employ staff in sufficient numbers with experience and qualifications to meet the purpose and function of the home and (ii) failure to provide a full list of staff employed giving their function and role, hours employed, relevant experience and qualifications to the Respondent within 3 months of registration.

PARTICULARS
"(a) Under failure (i) the Respondent relies on the particulars given under Reason l;

"(b) On 3rd May 1994 the Appellant wrote to the Respondent stating that he could not abide by the conditions within the registration form as to staffing requirements and seeking advice on de-registration;

"(c) No list which complies with the condition was supplied prior to 17th May 1994;

"(d) Staff lists have thereafter been submitted which do not contain the information required of the skills and experience and relevant qualification of the staff numbers, for example in January 1996 the Respondent received a staff list which stated the names of 6 staff members but gave no information about qualifications or experience;

"(e) In April 1996 an additional member of staff (Mr Swanborough) had joined the staff group, but the inspectorate were not informed of this until the next staff list sent in September 1996.

"Reason 3

"The Appellants have failed to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children accommodated in the Home pursuant to section 64(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 by failing to respond to and understand the requirements for appropriate restraint training.
PARTICULARS
"(a) Despite a need identified in 1993 [and] recommendations from the Respondent in January and July 1995 the Appellants have failed to ensure that all staff receive training in restraint techniques by an accredited and recognised instructor in such techniques;

"(b) The Appellants have inappropriately chosen to rely on the experience of Dr Lowenstein including his experience as a wrestler.

"Reason 4
"The Appellants have failed to safeguard and promote the welfare of children accommodated in the Home pursuant to section 64(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 by demonstrating a lack of judgement in dismissing the recommendations of a professional referee and in proceeding to and continuing to employ Mr Small.

PARTICULARS
"(a) Mr Small was dismissed from his employment with Hampshire County Council for reasons that were specific to his employment within social care work;

"(b) When Dr Lowenstein took up references from his former employer, Hampshire County Council, the reference from Chris Jackson, the Unit Manager, stated that it could not recommend his employment with young or vulnerable people;

"(c) There was no written evidence of interviews or observations of recruitment process in relation to Mr Small;

"(d) The Appellants elected to employ Mr Small in the home following an interview and having completed a personality questionnaire devised by Dr Lowenstein;

"(e) Mr Small informed the Respondent on or about 23rd January 1996 that he had been working in the home since October 1995 and could work evenings with residents on a voluntary basis;

"(f) In January 1996 the Appellant refused to review his decision to employ Mr Small [and] instead sought a meeting to challenge this requirement;

"(g) In March 1996 in the face of further information concerning mistreatment of young people by Mr Small, previously unknown to the Inspection Unit and the Appellants, the Appellants refused to accept that his recruitment practice had been unsound and continued to maintain that Mr Small had been unfairly treated and should be given a chance of employment with children;

"(h) From 18/3/1996 to at least 24/5/1996 the Appellants continued to employ Mr Small against the advice of the Respondent's officers in circumstances that it remained likely that Mr Small would come into contact with children.

"Reason 5

"The Appellants have failed to safeguard and promote the welfare of children accommodated in the Home pursuant to section 64(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 by failing to arrange for suitable plans to be drawn up in respect of the children looked after in the home."

PARTICULARS
"(a) The issue of care plans was first raised in 1993. In July 1993 the Appellants plans were criticised as being a list of requirements with uncertainty as to implementation;

"(b) On 19/7/1995 an inspection revealed no record of short, medium or long term care plans and a recommendation for such details to be recorded was made;

"(c) Based on information provided by the Respondent on 19th September 1995 the Appellants should have been able to draw up suitable plans;

"(d) An inspection visit on 10/6/1996 revealed that the children's files did not contain information in a structured and planned way which would enable them to be read as a history of the child's life in care, [and]contained no analysis of the child's progress, work undertaken [and] no identification of achievement and areas for further work. The files contained inadequate records of significant events and contacts with professionals or parents. There was no identification of persons responsible for particular tasks;

"(e) The Respondent will also rely on the matters particularised under Reason 1 at (e)"
It is clear that the matters relied on under Reasons 1, 2, 3 and 5 would not, even taken together, have led the Respondents to propose the cancellation of the registration in the absence of the matters relied on under Reason 4. That is not to say that it was improper to rely upon them in resisting this appeal because, even though we find Reason 4 to be proved, we are not necessarily bound to cancel the registration. Our findings on issues raised under Reasons 1, 2, 3 and 5 are matters we can then take into account, together with our finding under Reason 4, when considering whether registration should be cancelled.

Indeed, there is a common theme running through all the Reasons, which is the reluctance of Dr Lowenstein, and to a lesser extent Mrs Lowenstein, to seek or accept advice about matters relevant to the running of a registered children's home. This has not been helped by there being something of a culture clash between the Appellants, with their backgrounds in the worlds of psychology and education, and the Respondents' inspection team, with their background in the world of social work. The consequent misunderstandings have not all been on one side.

We observe that it is stated in The Children Act 1989: Guidance and Regulations Volume 4 Residential Care at paragraph 1.10 that "it must be recognised that a measure of flexibility will be expected in the application of the Regulations and Guidance to [schools]". We also observe that it is also stated there that some schools "will have to be looked at as rigorously as any private children's home".

It is convenient to look at the various issues raised by the Statement of Reasons in a slightly different sequence from the one in the Statement of Reasons itself. We will nonetheless start with Reason 1(a).

Reason 1(a) - lack of a qualified head of care

The Respondents had a general policy of requiring the head of care in a children's home to have a formal social work qualification (CQSW, DipSW or CSS). It was common ground that Mrs Lowenstein had been head of care and did not possess such a qualification. The Appellants had made some half-hearted attempts to recruit someone with a relevant qualification but their case really was that it was unnecessary to do so because they themselves possessed other professional qualifications and had considerable experience of caring for children. This is one of those areas where "a measure of flexibility" might be regarded as appropriate and, indeed, it seems to us that there has been some flexibility in the Respondents' approach. After all, they were prepared to register the home without a qualified head of care being in post. Mr Thomas, who was one of the Respondents' inspectors until early 1996 was also prepared to accept in evidence that the person with the social work qualification need not necessarily have been the head of care provided he or she had some real experience and was employed in a capacity carrying the authority to influence the practice within the home. He further accepted that there would have been "less urgency" in respect of this issue had the Appellants displayed more knowledge of social work practice and procedure themselves. We wonder whether it would have been desirable to discuss with the Appellants whether some training for Mrs Lowenstein short of a full Dip SW might have been sufficient.

At the heart of Dr Lowenstein's submissions was a clear view on his part that a social work qualification was of no value. He frequently made the point that well-qualified care workers are not necessarily better at their work than qualified carers. That may be true, but it does not follow that all qualified care workers are no good or that a good unqualified care worker cannot become more effective if he or she acquires a qualification. Both Appellants conceded that they did not really know anything about the content of a social work course. It is therefore difficult to see how they could properly dismiss it as being of know use. Materially in this case, a social work qualification would have given the holder some knowledge and understanding of the practice and procedures expected by the Respondents' inspection team, particularly as regards the keeping of records. The absence, within the team working at Allington Manor, of that knowledge and understanding is revealed in the other issues raised in the Statement of Reasons.

Mrs Lowenstein mentioned that, with her husband, she attended international conferences of psychologists. In that area of their work, the Appellants were doubtless both well informed. However, in other areas, Allington Manor appears to have been rather isolated from developments around them.

This isolation was exacerbated by the lack of any written guidance published by the Respondents. We were told that there are only five registered children's homes in Hampshire and that written guidance had not yet been developed. We consider that this is unfortunate and that the Respondents might give some thought to adapting the guidance published by other authorities. Merely referring proprietors to documents published by, or on behalf of, the Department of Health is not enough, because much of the guidance contained in such publications is in very broad terms. There are many issues on which local authorities can provide more specific guidance.

Reason 5 - inadequate care plans

It was not disputed that the care plans had not been in an appropriate form until recently. It was, however, accepted by the Respondents that there had been considerable improvements since Mrs Lowenstein had taken over the writing of the plans from her husband. These had been achieved with much guidance from the inspection team.

Having heard the Appellants, we accept that, in truth, there was rather more in the way of planning for the care of the children during the time when Dr Lowenstein was writing the plans than was appreciated by the inspecting officers. That, however, is not a vindication of the Appellants. A registered children's home must be inspected and the inspectors must be able to see what is going on. If the written records do not disclose what is going on, the inspectors can hardly be blamed if they draw the wrong conclusions from those records. In other words, a registered children's home must not only be run effectively but it must also be seen through its records to be run effectively.

Furthermore, written care plans are an important tool for use in working with children. Staff should be able to refer to them to remind themselves of the context in which they are working. The Appellants may have closely supervised their staff giving them oral instructions in the light of their plans, but that is not enough. A home cannot be run properly on the basis of plans that are in the minds of the proprietors and are not fully recorded elsewhere.

Although we accept that there was more in the way of planning than the inspectors saw, we are not convinced that it was uniformly adequate. We suspect that the planning of the psychological input was quite sophisticated but we are not sure that the planning of other aspects of the development of the children was as structured or as comprehensive as it should have been. However, in the absence of adequate records, it is difficult to judge the quality of the planning in the past with any degree of certainty and, in view of the improvements that have been made, it is unnecessary for us to do so.

Two aspects of the planning process remained the subject of criticism in the February 1997 inspection report. One criticism was that the children were not involved in the development of the care plans. The other was that staff remained unfamiliar with the plans.

The Appellants replied to the first of those criticisms by saying that the children were involved through their daily group confrontation meetings. The Respondents did not consider that to be an adequate answer and criticised the apparent involvement of the children in the development of each other's care plans. It seems to us that the use of the group confrontation meetings may be a valuable tool in-the development of plans but that it hardly amounts to a sufficient involvement of the individual child in the development of a long-term plan. On the other hand, the evidence of the Appellants was that there has in fact been work with individual children and, indeed, it would be surprising if there were none. What seems to be missing is a structured discussion with each child about his or her care plan or, at any rate, any clear record of such discussions. Further, there is a possibility that the life-story history is not being developed, which would be important when the child moves on from Allington Manor.

So far as the knowledge of the staff is concerned, we accept that not all the staff were as familiar with the care plans as they should have been. This seems to us to reflect an attitude that the compilation of proper care plans is a bureaucratic chore of no practical use in the home, whereas the care plans should be used to inform the work of staff.

Reason 3 - restraint techniques

Dr Lowenstein has developed his own techniques of restraint. In his bundle of documents. Dr Lowenstein produced evidence purporting to show the suitability of those techniques. Mr Grant sought leave to introduce evidence to the contrary which was granted. However, on reflection, we decided not to hear evidence on either side as to the suitability of the techniques. That was not really the issue raised in the Statement of Reasons.

Dr Lowenstein's case was that he trained the staff in his technique and that it was not necessary for them to receive training elsewhere. The Respondents' reply was that he was not an accredited and recognised instructor. The real complaint therefore was that he had not sought accreditation and recognition. One of the inspectors conceded that she had no idea how Dr Lowenstein might have sought accreditation or even how he might have discovered that information. However, Mrs Datta, the senior inspector, told us that there are agencies who accredit trainers or consultants.

We consider that the complaint that Dr Lowenstein failed to seek accreditation and recognition is justified.

However, we are not unsympathetic to the Appellants because the matter does not seem to have been put clearly in that way until the hearing before us. They have been told only that they and their staff need training from another agency. This seems to us to be an example of the inspectors not recognising that the experience of the Appellants might have some value despite the fact that it had not been acquired through an accredited agency.

On the other hand, Dr Lowenstein's firm belief that his technique must be acceptable does not appear to us to be justified when he has not submitted it for scrutiny by others. It may be acceptable but he should allow others to judge it.

Dr Lowenstein was also very keen to stress that one should not shy away from the need physically to restrain difficult children and he criticised the inspectors' frequent references to such children being "vulnerable". However, the inspectors did not deny that the use of physical restraint was sometimes inevitable and Dr Lowenstein's writings show a clear understanding of the need to evolve techniques for avoiding the need for physical restraint so far as is practical. It seems to us that the differences between Dr Lowenstein and the inspectors were really matters of emphasis rather than substance and Dr Lowenstein's insistence on highlighting them shows again his general antipathy to social workers as much as anything else.

Reason 1(d) - ad hoc recruitment of staff

This complaint arose primarily out of a letter written to Ms Datta by Somerset County Council on 8 March 1996. The letter was concerned mainly with Dr Lowenstein's method of levying charges but it showed that staff were to be recruited specially in anticipation of the admission of one child. The Appellants did not deny that that was so but argued that it was necessary, and even desirable, that staff should be recruited and trained with the needs of a particular child in mind.

No doubt, the Appellants are right up to a point. However, the Respondents are entitled to be concerned that, if staff are recruited to meet the needs of a particular child, it is likely that the recruitment process will be hurried and therefore less effective in finding the most suitable applicants. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Appellants had a long-term recruitment policy designed to ensure that they had a core staff of experienced and trained care workers.

We do not really have sufficient evidence to enable us to make a clear judgement about the propriety of the particular arrangements made for recruitment of staff in response to the proposed placement by Somerset County Council. The generally unsatisfactory nature of the Appellants' recruitment process is something we shall look at more closely when we consider Reason 4.

Reason 1(e) - employment of a handyman/care worker

All care workers must start somewhere and so the employment of a person who is "unqualified and inexperienced" is not objectionable, provided he or she is properly supervised and trained by qualified and experienced staff. Nor can there be any objection in principle to employing a person as both a handyman and a care worker.

However, to the extent that such a person is employed as a care worker, he or she ought to receive the training relevant to that side of the work and to be aware of the care plans for children. Dr Lowenstein said that Mr Swanborough was of a taciturn disposition and would have been more aware of the needs of the children than the inspectors understood from talking to him. Even if that is so, his knowledge would seem to have been derived from oral instructions rather than sight of the children's files or written care plans and we doubt that his understanding was very deep.

We also consider that the variation in the description of his job which was sometimes "handyman", sometimes "handyman/care worker" and sometimes "care worker" suggests a lack of precision as to exactly what his role was and a lack of understanding of the need for a proper staff structure and recorded system of supervision and training.

Reason 2 - failure to comply with condition 2 of the certificate of registration

In as much as this overlaps with Reason 1, we need say nothing further here.

The Respondents also rely on the failure to produce a list of staff with their function and role, hours employed, relevant experience and qualification. There was a clear breach of condition 2 when no such list was provided within three months of registration. The list submitted on 11 April 1994 was clearly inadequate. However, by 1996, it seems to us that that breach had become irrelevant.

By regulation 25(4) of, and paragraphs 15 to 18 and 27 of Schedule 5 to, the Children's Homes Regulations 1991, a list of staff and certain particulars about them is required to be sent to a registration authority upon an application being made for registration. By regulation 27, a person carrying on a home is obliged to notify a registration authority of any changes in the information provided under regulation 25(4), such notification being required "[I]n connection with an annual review of registration". By regulation 17(1) of, and paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to, those Regulations, certain records concerning the staff must be kept in the home. By regulation 4(1) a proprietor must maintain a statement of purpose and function of a home and, by paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 to those Regulations, that must contain particulars as to the organisational structure of the home, the experience of the person in charge, the staff and others working there and details of qualifications held by any of those persons relevant to their work in the home, or to the care of children.

Condition 2 of the certificate of registration seems to be designed to deal with those cases where a full complement of staff will be recruited only after registration so that the requirement to provide a list on the application is not a great deal of use. The Respondents seem to have interpreted the condition as giving rise to a continuing obligation to provide lists and notify them of changes of staff. We do not consider that to be so. As a ground for cancellation of registration, it was necessary for the Respondents to rely on a breach of the duty imposed by regulation 27 or, possibly, either a breach of the duty imposed by regulation 17 to keep records in the home or a breach of the duty imposed by regulation 4(1) to include specified particulars in the statement of purpose and function. The evidence in this case was not directed specifically to any breach of regulation 17 or of regulation 4(1), although the inadequacy of the lists provided suggests that there may have been such breaches, particularly as some of the lists appear to have been provided with, or as part of, statements of purpose and function. On the other hand, it would appear that there were breaches of the duty imposed by regulation 27.

We therefore accept the substance of the Respondents' complaint. However, that complaint is not accompanied by any suggestion that the staffing was inadequate, save in the respects identified in Reason 1. Nor did the Respondents urgently seek fuller lists when the inadequate ones were provided. The Appellants accept that the lists were not adequate. The inadequacy of the lists is not, in itself, serious but it points to the lack of a coherent staffing policy and is another example of the Appellants' lack of comprehension of the duties imposed on them by the legislation.

Reasons l(b), l(c) and 4 - the employment of Mr Small

There is some, but not much, dispute concerning the circumstances of the employment of Mr Small. It appears that he was first interviewed by Dr Lowenstein on 5 September 1995. We have no reason to doubt Dr Lowenstein's evidence that he intended to employ Mr Small in the light of the proposed placement of a particular boy who was then the subject of proceedings in a court. At that interview, Mr Small signed a consent to a criminal background check. The details on the form were completed by Mr Small and show the job title as "care worker". The form was not finally signed by Dr Lowenstein until 9 October 1995. He inserted the starting date for the employment as being the same day. It may not be a coincidence that that was the day upon which the court finally made an order permitting the placement of the boy at Allington Manor as a day pupil, although the placement did not take place until the beginning of the next term, in the New Year. Meanwhile, Dr Lowenstein had written to referees. The first was from Mr Chris Jackson, the unit manager of a children's home run by Hampshire County Council where Mr Small had last worked. On 31 October 1995. he wrote:
"Roger Small worked for the Social Services department of Hampshire County Council for 15 years from 29 October 1979 until April 1995 latterly he was employed as a Residential Social Services Officer at [....], a locally based children's home.
"Mr Small was dismissed from this post for reasons that were specific to his employment within Social Care work. Whilst we could not recommend Mr Small's employment with young or vulnerable people we recognise his skills in the following areas:

Roger was normally very good and concise with his record keeping.

He was well organised and his time keeping was excellent.

Roger had very little absence from work and was therefore a reliable member of staff.

Roger had a certain amount of responsibility, being of a more senior level than some. In the absence of more senior staff he was at times responsible for the day to day running of the unit.

Roger showed himself capable of working a rostered shift pattern without problems.

Roger seemed well able to communicate with his colleagues and had a good sense of humour."

On 10 November 1995, Dr Lowenstein again wrote to Mr Jackson, saying:
"I thank you for the information concerning the above mentioned in your letter of the 31st October. It leaves me rather puzzled as you have mentioned a number of very good points regarding Mr Small, but the second paragraph indicates that he was dismissed and that you would not recommend Mr Small's employment with young or vulnerable people. I wonder if you would elaborate on what kind of children you would not recommend him to work with and why. Most of the youngsters at Allington Manor School and Therapeutic Community are adolescents and I wonder whether you would feel the same way about such youngsters in connection with Mr Small i.e. that he should not be employed for that purpose.'

On 11 December 1995, Mr Jackson replied, saying that he felt unable to add anything further to his original reference.

Dr Lowenstein had also obtained a reference from Mr Steve Cockett, a senior practitioner who had been Mr Small's superior until 1992. That reference was initially provided on personal notepaper but, after the inspectors had commented on that fact, it was rewritten on headed Hampshire County Council notepaper and redated 13 February 1996. It is unnecessary to set it out in full here but it was a very favourable reference and made no mention of Mr Small's later dismissal by the county council or of any other disciplinary action being taken against him.

Dr Lowenstein told us that he had interviewed Mr Small several times and that Mr Small had spent some time at Allington Manor on a number of occasions when he had met staff and children and Dr Lowenstein had been able to observe how he interacted with them. He told us that he had also carried out a personality test that he had devised himself and that that had further satisfied him of Mr Small's suitability. He also told us that Mr Small had informed him at the first interview that he had been dismissed by Hampshire County Council and had discussed the incidents leading to the dismissal on that and subsequent occasions. He further said that Mr Small was not employed until the new term started in January 1996 and that he was then employed as a classroom assistant on the basis that he would be under constant supervision.

The Respondents disputed that Mr Small was always supervised and suggested that he had in fact been employed from 9 October 1995 as suggested by the request for the criminal record check, at least on a voluntary basis as had been stated to the inspectors. They also suggested that he had been employed as a care worker rather than as a classroom assistant, pointing out that he had been described as a care worker on more than one document. The Appellants rejected those suggestions. Dr Lowenstein said that the reason the starting date had been written as 9 October 1995 on the request for the criminal record check was that he thought that he would obtain a result more quickly and that Mr Small had not been working in 1995 but had merely been undergoing assessment, although on some occasions he had been there for some hours. He also pointed out that the boy with whom Mr Small was expected to work was only at the school during the day and he said that Mr Small would always be under the supervision of Mrs Williams, the teacher, even if he had to take the boy he was working with into the next room.

We are prepared to accept that Mr Small did not work at Allington Manor during 1995, save to the extent that he was with the staff and children while undergoing assessment. That might well have been described as voluntary work. However, that does not alter the Respondents' main point which is that Mr Small had access to the children for substantial periods of time before the police checks had been carried out. Under Reason l(c), the Respondents further relied on the fact that Mr Swanborough had had contact with children before the results of police checks were known.

Dr Lowenstein made it plain to us that he now accepted that it was wrong for potential employees to have contact with the children before the results of the police checks were known and he told us that, since February 1996, observation has always been carried out after the result of the check has been received.

We accept that, from January 1996, Mr Small was employed to work in the classroom with one particular boy. The description of him as a care worker merely reflects the Appellants' philosophy that everyone in the community was working together to care for the children and their general lack of precision over staffing matters. However, it was accepted by the Appellants and by Mr Small himself that he would also have contact with other children in the classroom and outside and might be called upon to restrain them if the need arose, which it did from time to time as is revealed by the incident book. Furthermore, while most of Mr Small's work could be expected to be carried out within the sight of other members of staff, that would not necessarily be so. It was particularly significant that Mrs Williams, giving evidence to us, said that she was not given any specific instructions that Mr Small was always to be supervised.

The inspectors having objected to Mr Small's employment and Dr Lowenstein not being happy with their objections, a meeting was arranged on 18 March 1996. It was chaired by Mr Alan Backhouse who was then an Assistant Director in the Social Services Department. Dr Lowenstein complained to us that Mr Backhouse was not independent. However, there was no obligation on the inspection team to bring in an independent adjudicator. Mr Backhouse brought a fresh mind to bear on the situation and had the authority to overrule the inspection team if he thought fit. Both Appellants were present at that meeting, as were Mr Small, Ms Datta and a Service Quality Manager.

Mr Small told the meeting that there had been a number of incidents during his employment with Hampshire County Council, which are recorded in the minutes of the meeting as:
"In 1981 he was disciplined for striking a young person.

In 1982 he was also disciplined for striking a young person.

In 1983 there was a third disciplinary which petered out as there was not enough evidence on the 4 counts.

In 1993 he was given a verbal warning when he had twisted a young person's foot when kicked by that young person.

In 1994 three young people (2 boys and a girl) alleged sexual harassment following a number of play fights where Mr Small smacked the young girl's bottom on up to 5 occasions. There was a disciplinary hearing which laid down conditions for Mr Small.

Additionally there had been allegations made when Mr Small entered a girl's bedroom and another when he entered a girl's bathroom.

In 1995 there was a stage 3 disciplinary hearing following an excessive restraint when Mr Small held his hand over a boy's mouth."

The minutes also record that "Dr Lowenstein had not been aware of every incident outlined above although Mr Small had discussed his previous experiences in Hampshire and the disciplinary hearings in some detail and had been open and honest". In his evidence to us, Mr Backhouse confirmed that it was his impression that Dr Lowenstein had not heard all the details of all the incidents before that meeting. We accept that that was so. Both Dr Lowenstein and Mr Small were a little vague in their evidence as to what exactly Mr Small had told Dr Lowenstein and when he had done so.

At the end of the meeting, Mr Backhouse offered the Appellants three choices which were minuted as follows:
"(i) Dr Lowenstein could choose to accept Mr Small's offer of resignation and to meet the recommendations of the inspection unit, in which case registration could be continued.

(ii) Dr Lowenstein could be given the opportunity to put his case to the social services committee in which case they would independently make a judgement and final decision on whether to register Allington Manor.

(iii) Dr Lowenstein could choose to withdraw and notify the local authority that he no longer wishes to be registered, in which case Dr & Mrs Lowenstein could continue to care for young people as a private foster home only. This would mean keeping the number of young people to three or under."

The Appellants were given until 8 April 1996 in which to respond. They initially chose the second option. Mr Small ceased to be employed in the classroom and moved to working in the office. He still inevitably had some contact with children. On 24 May 1996, his resignation was accepted.

The Respondents argue that Dr Lowenstein was reckless in employing Mr Small in the light of Mr Jackson's reference. Dr Lowenstein defended his decision on 15 grounds.
1. The favourable reference from Mr Cockett.

2. The good impression he made on children and staff while under assessment.

3. His 15 years experience dealing with youngsters with, as he viewed it, little support.

4. A psychological test showing tolerance, honesty and psychological stability.

5. The lack of initial further information.

6. The views expressed by staff, especially Mrs Williams, about his suitability.

7. The plan to have him working from 9am to 3pm in a classroom and always under scrutiny (not because Dr Lowenstein regarded it as imperative but to protect Mr Small)

8. The results of the criminal record check

9. His explanation of his dismissal in the absence of reasons from Hampshire County Council.

10. The view of the boy with whom he was to work that he could be helpful.

11. The view of the boy's family (who were made aware of the dismissal) and a belief that the boy would report any untoward behaviour.

12. Dr Lowenstein's own clinical experience of 30 years which led him to find Mr Small to be a reliable, conscientious and non-child-abusing individual.

13. Mr Small would only be working after intensive preparation by Dr Lowenstein and his staff and should be under constant supervision during his training period.

14. The small size of the centre and the constant scrutiny of staff.

15. The particular psychological needs of the boy concerned. which matched Mr Small's capacity for tolerance and understanding, his care skills and his other personal attributes.

Essentially, Dr Lowenstein made his own judgement on the material before him and found in Mr Small's favour. The Respondents submit that it was not a finding he could properly make.

Mr Small gave evidence to us, explaining what he had told Dr Lowenstein. We do not consider that it was a particularly accurate statement of precisely what he told Dr Lowenstein but it doubtless gives a flavour of the information Dr Lowenstein had. We did not find Mr Small to be a convincing witness. His account was wholly self- exculpatory, giving no substantial indication of Hampshire County Council's case against him. He accepted that his name was placed on the temporary Department of Health list on 13 February 1996, after his application to an industrial tribunal had been dismissed. He was given the opportunity to make representations and then his name was placed on the permanent list in May. He said that he could not remember whether he had told Dr Lowenstein because he "did not regard it as being terribly relevant". Dr Lowenstein would have disagreed because he said clearly that he would not employ someone whose name was on the list.

It seems to us that the Appellants' decision to employ Mr Small was seriously flawed on two grounds. Firstly, there was in fact no effective continual supervision of Mr Small, despite Dr Lowenstein's 7th, 13th and 14th points. That doubtless reflects Dr Lowenstein's view that supervision was unnecessary but it also probably reflects the fact that he did not know what he should be guarding against.

More seriously, Dr Lowenstein never discovered the detail of Hampshire County Council's case against Mr Small. His 5th and 9th points were not proper reasons for overriding the recommendation of Mr Jackson. He has relied entirely on Mr Small's account and the assessment of Mr Small made by himself and his staff without knowledge of the county council's case.

Dr Lowenstein made much of the argument that care workers may suffer from injustice. It is, of course, possible that a person may be wrongly dismissed, even though the dismissal was fair. It is also possible that one employer might take a different view of the seriousness of an incident than another. However, one cannot make judgements about such matters unless one sees all the evidence and hears from both parties. That the Appellants did not do. It may not always be possible to obtain all the information necessary for a proper independent judgement to be made. If that is the position, it will be very difficult for a prospective employer properly to go behind the decision of the dismissing employer. In any event, the Appellants made no serious efforts to obtain the necessary information. The single letter dated 10 November 1995 to Mr Jackson (which, incidentally, does not suggest the receipt of much information from Mr Small at that stage) was not enough.

We agree with the Respondents that the Appellants were reckless in their employment of Mr Small. There was a clear breach of the duty imposed by section 64(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989 to safeguard the children's welfare.

We wish to add that we hope that, if they have not already done so, Hampshire County Council will introduce a procedure for issuing references which will prevent a repetition of the situation arising in this case where Mr Cockett, an employee of the county council, gave an entirely favourable reference for Mr Small despite Mr Small having been dismissed by the county council for misconduct. Mr Cockett may have been unaware of the dismissal, but he is unlikely to have been unaware that Mr Small continued to work for the county council when the two of them ceased to work together.

Conclusion

We agree with Mr Grant that Reasons 1, 2, 3 and 5 are not sufficient, by themselves in the particular circumstances of this case, to justify the cancellation of registration. The concerns raised under Reason l(b), 1(c) and 2 have now been met. The concern raised under Reason 3 could be met quite easily and, we suspect, would be if registration were continued and Ms Datta gave the Appellants some more specific advice. The concerns raised under Reasons l(a), 1(d), 1(e), and 5 remain but, although we consider that the children's welfare could be promoted rather more effectively than it is, we are not satisfied that the children are being failed on the grounds raised under those heads. However, the matters raised under Reasons 1, 2, 3 and 5 are not irrelevant. Over and over again, the evidence we have heard shows the Appellants relying solely on the judgements of Dr Lowenstein, made without reference to conventional practice. A reasoned rejection of convention may be defensible but an unwillingness to consider convention at all is less admirable.

Reason 4 is entirely different. The children were exposed to a potential risk. Child protection is an issue upon which a school can expect to be treated as rigorously as any other children's home. If, as he did with Reasons l(b) and l(c), Dr Lowenstein had recognised the impropriety of his actions and assured us that they would not be repeated, we might have continued registration as, indeed, would the Respondents. However, he has not. For the reasons we have given, his decision to employ Mr Small was a gross error of judgement. He also showed an inability properly to manage risk. Given the Appellants' reliance on the judgement of Dr Lowenstein and his reluctance to be guided by normal practice, we consider there is a substantial risk of him making another similar error of judgement and again exposing the children to danger.
We therefore conclude that the Respondents were right to cancel the registration of Allington Manor under Part VIII of the Children Act 1989 and we dismiss the appeal.
Mark Rowland
George Thomas
Robert Bessell