Latest / UK Column Radio / Child Stealing by the State- A Mother Criminalised for Speaking Out – Part 2

Transcript

Child Stealing by the State- A Mother Criminalised for Speaking Out – Part 2 · UK Column Radio

• 0:06
  Speaker 1: I think you've raised a hugely important point here in
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: describing this as as a hostage situation. Effectively, terrorists are
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: taking children because they're taking the children unlawfully, and therefore
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: how you deal with that system is, in the first instance,
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: there's got to be some form of negotiated process to
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: get the children back, and this is clearly not happening
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: because the government itself and the Family Court Law Division
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: does not want to admit what is actually taking place
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: in UK's family courts, and that is that children are
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: being snatched from their parents and the vast majority of
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: those children are never returned. So what you've said is
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: tremendously important.
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: If we were judged by twelve members of the jury
• 1:04
  Speaker 2: who are meant to represent the twelve disciples of Christ,
• 1:08
  Speaker 2: and you know the judge wherein his wig would sit
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: on high representing Almighty God, and he was to say
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: to us, yes, you are terrible parents. I cannot give
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: these children back to you. The jury's verdict is the following,
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: and I hereby passed this sentence. We would do that,
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: we would go to prison, we would serve that sentence,
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: we would serve that punishment. But we're not allowed to
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: say jury of our peers. We're not allowed to even
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: say when I mentioned the word peer or peerage, or
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: that we want to approach our law lords or even
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: the House of Lords. And that's the other thing I
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: got told by the Supreme Court only a couple of
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: weeks ago that they don't represent cases from England and
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: Wales because they represent the United Kingdom. Now, most people
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: I don't know with the Internet how much is available now,
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: but most people before Brexit knew the difference between the
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: United Kingdom Corporation and the five countries of England, Ireland
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: and Northern Island, Scotland and Wales that have their own
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: inherent common law. It doesn't matter about EU directives, whether
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: we're in them or we're out them, or whether we
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: are signed up to the ECHR or not. That doesn't
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: stop the common law in the Commons people. It's our
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: first port of call is to approach the common law,
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: to approach our common law judges. This country cannot, England
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: and Wales cannot survive if we are not being allowed
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: to use the common law. Brian. We need, we need
• 2:52
  Speaker 2: to have access to it. We need nobody's sitting there.
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: None I have not heard the parents talking about their
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: civil liberties or constitutional law, just asking for very basic things,
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: which is a right to trial by jury for any
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: crimes that they've committed. Most of them haven't. I haven't
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: met a parent yet that's actually committed a crime. These
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: are accusations and allegations that are being thrown about by
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: corporate supporters and by their franchises and their privateers.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: Indeed, this is so important where you've got to because
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: you're expressing understandably avail a huge sadness and frustration what
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: it's been like for you to fight through the family courts.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: How long have you been actually fighting for you children?
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: How long is it?
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: I don't know if I'm allowed to give the time,
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: because yes, certainly, I'll just say over a couple of years.
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: Right, So, you've been fighting over a couple of years
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: for your children, and initially you're trying to fight for
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: them through the family court system. And I'm going to
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: say to the audience that has had some training at
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: law herself, and she's done some legal training herself, but
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: what as you have of You have tried to defend
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: yourself and your family and your children in the family courts,
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: and it's been a brutal process. There have been many
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: ups and downs. It's been extremely stressful for you, and
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: you haven't mentioned it, but I'm going to mention it.
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: It's it led to you being in hospital for a
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: couple of days recently, undoubtedly due to stress. You've been
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: exhausted much of the time. But in the course of
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: that two year period you have learnt a lot about
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: the law in this country. And what you started to
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: talk to me about was that it was becoming more
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: and more apparent to you that the family court system
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: wasn't really a proper legal process. It was like it
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: was a separate, created entity within the overall legal framework.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: Is that true? Is that how you see it?
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: I looked up what Tony Blair did. There's a private
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: committee that sat down to make an amalgam of the
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: existing law. They call it law, but they're just guidelines
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: and proclamations and declarations and judge made rules. So the
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: family court, as far as I can see, I mean,
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: the one that we're dealing with, isn't even anything remotely
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: like the capacity the legal capacity of a county court.
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: It's not even a magistrate's court. It's simply sort of
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: like a social security arbitration center which has been advertised
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: in London for decades, and they ignore the fact that
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: they're only administrators and that they're only it's a place
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: of business. And they say that they are allowed to
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: use the children at nineteen eighty nine to take the children,
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: but then say not all of the Act. We only
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: use part of the Act. So then you ask them
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: what part of the Act they use, and I would
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: say there's probably only ten, minimum between two and sort
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: of ten parts that have featured in the cases that
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: I've seen in our case, and so any part of
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: the Act that favors the parents getting support, well you're
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: not allowed to use that. Any part of the Act
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: that says that if the parents are alive, there needs
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: to be no involvement of any guardian. You're not even
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: allowed to appoint a guardian. The Act actually says you
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: can only appoint a guardian by this section of the Act,
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: which is five and six. And then it says not
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: only can you not appoint a guardian without this section
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: of the Act, but you can only do it if
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: there's no parents. If this parents, you can't appoint it.
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: So then what they do is they'll say well, actually
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: that's not our meaning of the word guardian. So you say, well,
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: do you mean guardian as in a guild guardian under
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: Roman law and the canons, or are you talking about
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: a guardian such as a debt ship order or a
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: power of attorney or something that one might get from
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: the Court of protection. So then you approach the Court
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: of Protection, they say, well, they're not allowed to talk
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: to you. So then you approach the Central Family Court,
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: they say they're not allowed to talk to you. They're
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: not allowed to process or applications. You then approach the
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: Family division of the High Court. They're not allowed to
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: approach you. So what I did was by a process
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: of elimination. I thought, okay, so what is the right
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: or liberty should I say, or freedom that a mother
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: has that is beyond everything. So what I started to
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: look at was deprivation of liberty cases. So in a
• 8:43
  Speaker 2: deprivation of liberty case, the council has to go to
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: High Court because the deprivation of liberty case must involve
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: the natural parent. So if the local authority and the
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: council had this way of taking away parental consent, well,
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: then why would deprivation of liberty cases exist because it
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: doesn't make any sense. So when you start talking like that,
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: you start talking about parental responsibility, they say that it's shared.
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: It's not. They don't share any of it with you.
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: There's no sharing going on. There's a total annihilation of
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: the parents' rights, which affect the children's right. So we say, well,
• 9:24
  Speaker 2: how can the children's future be determined on malicious falsehoods
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: against the parents or an unfair process against the parents,
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: And again they overlook in. We then say, could you
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: point us to an act that says these family courts
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: are set up as county courts and can do everything
• 9:49
  Speaker 2: that a county court can do. And then they're saying, no,
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: we can't. Well, can you show as your liability certificate
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: for the court? No we can't. Can you show us
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: your bench bar, No we can't. Do you have public
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: indemnity in case we harm a member of the public,
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: because the parents are going in with no trauma of
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: care proceedings. All they're going in with is whatever incident
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: that of yester year before Tony Blair. It would have
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: been dealt with by a general practitioner, a local policeman
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: that knew the family, and possibly some sort of home
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: support charity nearby. It would have been done by members
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: of the community. It would have been done that people
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: who knew the family or wanted to know the family,
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: had an interest within the local community to know the family.
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: In this case, it's all money driven. So whether you
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: can get help from the charity or a support through
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: court charity or even immediately mediation under Part three, even
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: if you wanted to go to immediation charity in order
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: to fulfill those rights that you've got, you're not allowed
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: to do it. The court turn around and say, well,
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: we're going to tell you that you can't have mediation
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: under Part three and say what could you point us
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: to the law? No, we can't, but you're not allowed
• 11:14
  Speaker 2: to make those decisions in this court. So the fact
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: that the Family Court can't adjudicate on these things because
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: it is a place of business, it's a place of
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: administrative law, it's a place of corporate law. When you
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: ask them to interpret medical results or make a ruling
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: on medical treatment or deprivation of liberty cases, they can't
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: do it. It has to go to the High Court. When
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: you go to the High Court, there's another call to
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: sack that's been created, so they've got another little administrative
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: division there. So you just basically walk round there, go
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: round around about, and come back out again, and I
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: send you back to the original family court. And then
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: the original family court says, oh, well, your case is
• 11:54
  Speaker 2: finished here. We don't have to talk to.
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: You, right, And in describing it as as accurately and
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: eloquently as you have, in my mind, there can be
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: no doubt that this is a calculated orchestrated system which
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: has been set up to deceive not only the wider
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: public as to what it really is and does. So
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: it sits with the Family Law Division, which sounds very
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: clear cut that it's there to adjudicate on family law.
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: But when you get into the belly of the beast,
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: as you have, unfortunately thousands of other parents have, what
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: you are discovering is that this thing has no real
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: substance to it, and it exerts control over families by
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: virtue of the fact that it acts as if it
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: does have power, which it does not, And it prevents
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: you from speaking out with the detailed evidence to prove
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: that they are essentially a false construction, so you are
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: not allowed to talk about what was actually said or
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: the documents that were presented in court. You're not allowed
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: to do that, and they will take it as far
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: as a committal order. And I've been aware of this
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: with many other cases where parents are threatened with committal
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: to prison if they dare breach the confidentialities of the
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: family court hearings. And yet you are demonstrating as accurately,
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: in as detailed a way as you can with the
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: constraints upon you. You are detailing that actually the whole court
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: system itself is a fabrication.
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: Well the other thing, you know, Brian, that when we
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: looked up and we questioned it, we're going to question
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: it next week in court. D notices are voluntary, the
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: freedom of expression. We're not speaking profanity. I haven't seen
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: a parent go in front of a judge and do
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: anything except beg. I've not seen a parent do anything.
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: Some of them are really young, some of them are
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: just in their twenties and thirties, and they love their
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: children just like we do. In fact, nobody can love
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: if the parents have committed no crime. You can't replace
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: the love that a parent can give, a mother and
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: a father can give to their children by it. You
• 14:41
  Speaker 2: can't go and buy it. It's invaluable. It's not something
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: you can purchase. Is procuring of these there's also a
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: lot of procuring of abortions going on. I don't even
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: understand it. I find it's so horrific to try to
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: contemplate the idea that these count sols would go and
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: procure abortions. To me is in it's unconscionable, it's incomprehensible.
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: I can't do it. But there's a whole dream of
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: evidence that we've handed in and the young women that
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: are just being so damaged. We had a lady came
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: up to us last year and she just said, I'm
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: going to end my life. I can't live without my baby.
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: I didn't do anything. They just came in took it.
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: They just came in, took my baby. And we were like,
• 15:32
  Speaker 2: you know again, I can't talk about our case and
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: we have no idea what's happened to her, and then
• 15:38
  Speaker 2: there's no support afterwards. And it's just bizarre because the
• 15:43
  Speaker 2: English law that we were taught all the way in
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: Hounslow when we were young, from the Commonwealth. A lot
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: of English law is being used around the COmON Wealth
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: of Nations, which is fifty seven countries around the world.
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: Every day, English law is being used in places like
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: Texas under President Trump to give parents back their children
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: based on English law, and we're not allowed to use it.
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: The English common law is being used by President Trump
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: to give people their children back today as we're speaking.
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: As I mentioned to you earlier about there's some Sikhs
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: that I've met who's had to have their children snatched.
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: And I even mentioned to the judge the Treaty of
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: Amritsar which came as you know, and also the the
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: Amritsar massacre and things like that, and how the English
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: East India Company was one of the first to create
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: sort of battlefield rules. Because they call this law fair.
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: They're actually calling it law fair. Lawfair is like warfare. Well,
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: parents don't know how to do that. I mean, a
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: lot of parents say, if you touch my child, I'll
• 17:04
  Speaker 2: i'll you know, I'll defend ourselves. You know, because there's
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: even in the animal kingdom, parents, mothers and fathers of
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: animals will look do everything to defend their baby. That's normal.
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: And the other I mean the word normal. Where has
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: the word normal gone? And this is why I say
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: it's not possible for a system to get to this
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: point without the very staff becoming ill. We have now
• 17:34
  Speaker 2: watched people that were just involved in brinkmanship and one
• 17:40
  Speaker 2: upmanship now actually become incredibly mentally ill, including police officers
• 17:47
  Speaker 2: and social workers and council workers and other staff. And
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: there's only so much attrition and coercion. By attrition you
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: can do. I mean, what are the I mean those
• 17:58
  Speaker 2: people soon will will start joining the public in whether
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: it's demonstrations or marches. And I've said to you, I
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: don't think this requires demonstrations and marches, even though I'm
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: sure that's what's going to happen. Because one of the
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: things that this is the basis of all of this
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: is unconditional love. Mother and father who don't harm their
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: children have got nothing but unconditional love for their children.
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: In if you ever sit next to a new mother
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: and a new father, this only but joy, This only
• 18:33
  Speaker 2: joy and unconditional love. There is the feeling of the
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: presence of Almighty God, the presence of Jesus Christ, the
• 18:41
  Speaker 2: presence of something very very powerful. You asked about where
• 18:46
  Speaker 2: the Lord derives its power, Well, it derives it from
• 18:50
  Speaker 2: Almighty God and our King. I want our king to
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: know what's going on. The parents should be allowed to
• 18:59
  Speaker 2: tell the King what's going on in his office, the
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: office of the Monarch, and the office of the Archbishop
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: of Canterbury. And we need a hostage negotiator sent from
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: the top. Whether it's the Princess of Wales or Queen Camilla,
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: nobody minds. We nobody minds if it's all of them
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: turning up, whether it's the celebrities, it doesn't matter. People
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: need to be able to understand that this is going on.
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: These are corporations and private entities that are doing this
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: and it's got to start enough enough.
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: I think we've got to the point where you've done
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: a brilliant job of talking through to quite some depth
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: into the subject of the system which takes children. But
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: you've you've recently been able to make some challenge it,
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: or try and make some challenges through the higher court system,
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: which I think we should we should discuss. And the
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: beauty is that because those were that was a public hearing,
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: we can discuss what took place in your journey as
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: a parent who's had your children taken away from you
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: body by the British State. You've met and come into
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: contact with many other families who have also experienced this.
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: What have you learned from those other parents that have
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: also been through the system? How have you found them?
• 20:31
  Speaker 2: I've found them to be remarkable. The strength. There's a
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: lot of strength to becoming a mother and a father,
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: but the strength that these people are showing is phenomenal.
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: And each fight seems to that there's a large amount
• 20:53
  Speaker 2: of similarity always which is the law in the court,
• 20:58
  Speaker 2: but the strength that the people are showing. A lot
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: of the ones that have been picked on, and I'll
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: described why I see it as a strength, seem to
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: be people that are vulnerable in some way. So they're
• 21:15
  Speaker 2: either those that don't have a lot of family. There's
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: a lot of them that are poor and they kept poor,
• 21:26
  Speaker 2: so they either haven't got jobs, they've got a disability,
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: or they have lost some sort of thing they used
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: to do, such as a business through COVID or a
• 21:41
  Speaker 2: parent who provided for them, you know, prior to that.
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: And I hope you haven't got a misunderstanding of the
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: types of families that I've talked about. From what I
• 21:52
  Speaker 2: said earlier, the family isn't under attack for taking the children.
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: All the families we've noticed are under attack holistically, so
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: for instance, their livelihoods, their benefits, contact with their GP
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: and NHS services, contact with the police. For instance. In
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: our case, we had a wonderful relationship with the local
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: police here. It was really really good and it was
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: to the city we considered to be seen it as
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: in mature. Police officers wished us all the luck in
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: the world. They're very happy that we were a new
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: little family, and slowly that changed, and so the relationships
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: and the family is being These families are vulnerable and
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: they're being attacked from every angle in order for them
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: to be malleable for absolute destruction. Absolutely, there isn't I
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: was on a phone call the past couple of days
• 23:06
  Speaker 2: where a lady who's had two children. It's in a
• 23:10
  Speaker 2: neighboring county where she's had she had three children taken,
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: they returned to and kept one. They kept quote unquote
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: the most attractive one. And because she's continued fighting, she
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: gets fake bills which they're printing at some of these
• 23:29
  Speaker 2: people that know these people at councils, fake bills for electricity,
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: water for thousands and thousands of pounds. Her husband and
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: others and friends and whatever. These people are not allowed
• 23:43
  Speaker 2: to apply for their licenses for their livelihood. Again, they're
• 23:49
  Speaker 2: not allowed. They're going to end up great scrutiny for
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: the the when the children are at school, or if
• 23:58
  Speaker 2: the children go to the two to access GP or
• 24:01
  Speaker 2: hospital services, or if there's any extracurricular activities. So the
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: attack is not just what's happening in the family court.
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: And the Council has a huge play on the family life.
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: It's involved in every aspect of the family life, and
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: it's unnatural. It's eerie when you talked about common Purpose
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: years ago when I was very young and I had
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: never heard of anything like that. When you hear about
• 24:37
  Speaker 2: that type of thing, you put it into the context
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: of the time. At the time, they weren't smartphones. The
• 24:45
  Speaker 2: idea that these things can be done at the speed
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: of light. Now, the types of communications coming out of
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: the Council against a family is so quick and so fast.
• 24:59
  Speaker 2: They can get message to anyone in your life to
• 25:03
  Speaker 2: try to thwart your efforts to lead a normal family
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: life in any shape or form. Whether it's your job,
• 25:11
  Speaker 2: whether it's your legal affairs, whether it's your state's management,
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: whether it's your benefits, whether it's your healthy gp, whether
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: it's your job, whether it's anything right down to council tax.
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: So when we came out of court, one of the
• 25:27
  Speaker 2: first things we came home to because we were fighting hard,
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: was a six thousand pound council tax bill. And that's
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: something that I've noticed with all of the parents. They
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: will all of a sudden start getting bills through. There's
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: another lady who's going through the same thing at the
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: moment as well, thousands and thousands of pounds worth, and
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: then you have to So what they'll do is say, well,
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: if we use the parents' time this time, and like
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: I said to you that the commodity is time. If
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: we use the parents time to worry about wasting their
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: resources fighting this which could potentially put them into jail,
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: and they use it as a mechanism to put them
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: into jail.
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: Well, and to wear them down. And there's absolutely true.
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: This is a very interesting and important area. And I
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: know from my own dealings with other families where they've
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: experienced this type of sort of withering, relentless attack by
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: the authorities which are my view, clearly designed to exhaust them,
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: to wear them out, so they haven't got the stamina
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: to continue to fight for their cakes in the court.
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: So I've come across this before and I know what
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: you're talking about.
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: I would just like to end on something that's been
• 26:48
  Speaker 2: brought up this week. I think is quite important because
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: the momentum of it. I mean, I think the country
• 26:54
  Speaker 2: is alive. It's a living organism. So the reason i'd
• 26:57
  Speaker 2: want to I want to mention what I'm about to
• 26:59
  Speaker 2: say to you is because I think it's important and
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: it's a live issue within the culture of the country.
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: One of the things that they attack the parents with
• 27:10
  Speaker 2: is personality disorder, and the specific go to doctors be
• 27:14
  Speaker 2: able to give the parents that diagnosis without any proper
• 27:19
  Speaker 2: assessment for all. Now, the parents normally can go for
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: a brain scan and they will show that in their
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: frontal cortex or the Brocker region of the brain, there's
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: absolutely no damage, so they can't be a personality disorder
• 27:33
  Speaker 2: because that's where personality comes from, those parts of the brain.
• 27:37
  Speaker 2: And also that they've got no emotional disorders because they
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: can go to an endrochronologist who is responsible for looking
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: at their hormonal levels and checking that hormone levels are fine,
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: and hormone levels as you know control the emotions. So
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: the thing that the courts are using and hiding behind
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: is this future risk of emotional harm, which the parents
• 28:06
  Speaker 2: are calling crystal ball ideology. So we put it to
• 28:13
  Speaker 2: the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and we
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: put it to the High Court this week. The parents
• 28:20
  Speaker 2: sort have committed no crime, that have harmed, not never harmed,
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: their children, have got no mental health diseases. You've got
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: no evidence, like Lady Hale said, of any harm that
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: they've ever done, any significant harm that they've ever done,
• 28:34
  Speaker 2: So there can't be any future risk of emotional harm.
• 28:38
  Speaker 2: So what we said is where you've got the border
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: where a lot of the contra bound trafficking there is
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: historical evidence for it, is that the Irish and the
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: Northern Irish border. Well, the Court of Appeal is serving
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: families from that border as well, they're serving paramilitaries, they're
• 28:58
  Speaker 2: serving gin and Yet I mean those people have been
• 29:03
  Speaker 2: in conflict, armed conflict for decades. So where is the
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: future risk of emotional harm and where are those families
• 29:13
  Speaker 2: they're having their children snatched by exactly the same Court
• 29:17
  Speaker 2: of Appeal Lord Justice that we are here, And there
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: hasn't been an armed conflict in London as far as
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: I know, or any other part of England, and not
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: an official one that I know know about. See the
• 29:35
  Speaker 2: same lord justices that are looking at border conflicts like that,
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: they are they using some sort of other measuring tool
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: because the future risk of emotional harm. Presumably if the
• 29:50
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,
• 29:54
  Speaker 2: well the United Kingdom includes it includes you know, Belfast
• 30:00
  Speaker 2: includes Northern Ireland. So how can shinfein families and paramilitary
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: families from Belfast that have had horriable time and awful
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: time over twenty thirty years they're keeping their children, Brian,
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: they're allowed to use the law. Brian.
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: Well, you're really making me think here as you so
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: this is live for us now and you're really making
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: me think about this subject. And what came into my
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: head was you have mentioned in this discussion that you
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: feel that vulnerable families are being are clearly being targeted
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: by the system here in England to take their children,
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: vulnerable families. And I've got a feeling that if the
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: state was to try taking the children of the people
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: you're describing who have demonstrated, whether we like it or not,
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: we've demonstrated, they have demonstrated their ability to stand up
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: and be counted and to fight. I have a feeling
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: that the state is not brave enough to simply march
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: in and start taking the children of people who've been
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: involved in the troubles in Northern Ireland. That's what I
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: would say.
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: Well, I just make two points there. First of all,
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: the vulnerable families in England are being made to be vulnerable.
• 31:37
  Speaker 2: I've spoken to fathers have lost their businesses because people
• 31:41
  Speaker 2: came in, agencies came in and just took them. So
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: some of the people that have attempted to be successful,
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: they're being made to become bankrupt and lose their businesses.
• 31:52
  Speaker 2: They're being made to become vulnerable. If there's anything to
• 31:56
  Speaker 2: be had, a business, be in an asset, be it's money,
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: and now children, so the children are used as assets.
• 32:05
  Speaker 2: And yet having a debt is not a crime. So
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: if you know, how can those both those things be true?
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: How can it not be a crime to have debt?
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: But the children and people's businesses and livelihoods are then
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: used as assets to be snatched. And the other thing
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: I would just say to anybody listening, because you know
• 32:27
  Speaker 2: many men went and died to make sure that we
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: got that Good Friday Agreement. It's a celebration that everybody
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: has the Good Friday Agreement. In fact, there's a lot
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: of countries around the world that could really follow suit
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: that piece that has been brought in Northern Ireland. Well,
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: those families are protected by all of us. So if
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: the Good Friday Agreement protects the families in Northern Ireland
• 32:56
  Speaker 2: of shin Fein and paramilitaries, well then why is that
• 33:01
  Speaker 2: not extended to us. Why we were not involved in
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: the armed conflict down here. So presumably the law of
• 33:10
  Speaker 2: the future risk of emotional harm, if it doesn't apply
• 33:12
  Speaker 2: to them, it doesn't apply to us.
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: My best answer to the really good point that you're
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: making here is that on my bookshelf I used to
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: have a copy I have, I've got a PDF copy,
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: but I don't. Unfortunately I loaned the book and it
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: was never given back to me. But the book was
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: called the The EU Collective Enemy of its Member States
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: and it was a very It is a really excellent
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: book and very detailed book with a lot of footnotes
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: describing what the political European Union really is and what
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: it was about But in the opening few pages of
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: that book written by the late author Christopher's Story, there
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: is a table, and the table comes from the work
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: of former Soviet agent Besmanov, Yuri Besmanov under the cover
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: name of Thomas Schuman, I think if I remember correctly,
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: But there's a table. And according to Besmanov, Western society
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: was to be broken down, and it was to be
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: broken down by first of all demoralizing it and then
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: destabilizing it, and then taking it to a point of
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: complete breakdown and revolution. Well, the revolution was called normalization.
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: This is the imposition of a new system of government.
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: But it significantly in the destabilization table, it talked about
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: areas of society Western society that would be attacked in
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: order to help foster break down. And one of the
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: key areas to be attacked was law and order, and
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: it said that law was to be made inconsistent and
• 35:28
  Speaker 1: it was to victimize the victim. And what you are
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: describing to me is a massive and very dangerous inconsistency
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: at law in relation to the way the state deals
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: with families and indeed steals children from families in one
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: part of the country under one set of rules, but
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: doesn't take the children from another part of the country
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: under those same rules. That's inconsistency, and to me, this
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: is not accidental. This is part of an orchestrated breakdown.
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: And I believe that the second rule follows that we're
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: also now seeing in courts in a regular basis the
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: victimization of people who are unable to properly defend themselves.
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: They're victims already in it. Maybe they've been through the
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: abuse system through child protection themselves in their earlier lives.
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: They then stabilize, they have a partner, or they get married,
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: they have children, and then the state takes their children,
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: largely on the basis that there's a risk of future
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: emotional harm because those adults had previously been abused in
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: the system themselves. So we're getting into it. I think
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: a really really interesting but I'm generly going to say
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: I think we will probably have to save that for
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: another session because there is really so much to it.
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: Can I say that I know how I can't say
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: I know all of it because I haven't experienced what
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: you've experienced. But because we've been speaking to each other
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: fairly regularly over the last two years, I at least
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: have some understanding of the immense stress that you have
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: been through in your battle to keep your children and
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: to get your children returned. And you are still a
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: new mother who doesn't have her children. And I asked
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: a mother recently, how often do you think about your children?
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: And her answer to me was, with a pause, every
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: minute of every day. And I would imagine that holds
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: true for yourself and your partner.
• 38:11
  Speaker 2: It's every second of every day. I dream of them,
• 38:15
  Speaker 2: and they call me. I know that when I look
• 38:20
  Speaker 2: at them, I know that the law that we were
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: taught when we were younger was right. It tells me
• 38:29
  Speaker 2: that our Bible, the Holy Christian Bible, is right when
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: it mentions mothers and the power of God to look
• 38:39
  Speaker 2: over children, to protect children, and that the rule has
• 38:44
  Speaker 2: always been And I dream about protecting my children in
• 38:49
  Speaker 2: my dreams, and every second of every day I just
• 38:53
  Speaker 2: think about how I can look after them, how I
• 38:55
  Speaker 2: can get to them, how I can protect them, how
• 38:57
  Speaker 2: we can all protect them. And this is this is
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: an effort. I think it's a country wide effort. They
• 39:06
  Speaker 2: say it takes a village, at the moment, it doesn't.
• 39:08
  Speaker 2: It takes a country. I think all the parents, without
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: probably knowing it, they're protecting each other. They're protecting each
• 39:18
  Speaker 2: other's children as well. With this effort that's going on
• 39:20
  Speaker 2: at the moment throughout the country, you've got parents thinking
• 39:25
  Speaker 2: about protecting other people's children, and it's that part of
• 39:29
  Speaker 2: it is remarkable. No one else is doing it. I've
• 39:33
  Speaker 2: got other parents that are dreaming to have their children returned.
• 39:38
  Speaker 2: Every second of every day, that are praying for me
• 39:41
  Speaker 2: to have mine. We're saying prayers for them. We came
• 39:46
  Speaker 2: up with this idea that sort of I don't know,
• 39:49
  Speaker 2: seven o'clock on a Friday or the parents should stop
• 39:52
  Speaker 2: what they're doing in England in Wales and just say
• 39:55
  Speaker 2: a prayer at a particular time and see if that
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: changes anything.
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: I think that sounds a really good idea. And the
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: other thing I want to say to the audience, and
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: it's really the wider audience, because it's anybody and anybody
• 40:10
  Speaker 1: who listens to this interview or sees it in the
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: coming weeks or maybe in future years, is that the
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: body of evidence to demonstrate the stealing of children by
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: the British state. The body of evidence is not in
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: the thousands of pages of documents that are submitted in
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: those horrible court bundles. The body of evidence is in
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: the testimony, the spoken testimony of the parents who have
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: been through the system and they've been witnessed to the
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: crime that their children are taken from them unlawfully. So
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: we need parents to come forward to speak out about
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: their experiences. But in saying that, we fully recognize that
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: the discussion has to be conducted very carefully because of
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: those extremely onerous family court secrecy rules. It is perfectly
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: possible to be talking about procedure in a measured and
• 41:20
  Speaker 1: calculated way which takes us a long way towards exposing
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: what is happening and telling the truth without placing individuals
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: at unnecessary risk. So I look out at this country
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: at the moment, and to stop child stealing by the
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: state as it's occurring, and indeed stop the abuse of
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: children by the state, we need hundreds, we need thousands
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: of parents who've been through this system to step forward
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: and speak out. So I'll just make that plea in
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: this video. Thank you very much for joining us me.
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: I'm going to say that it's been really interesting because
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: I know that where you're always working, and I've been
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: saying to you recently. Make sure you look after yourself
• 42:12
  Speaker 1: and take some rest. But it's been interesting to watch you.
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: I'm going to say, come alive as you've got through
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: this interview, and I think that's because that as we've
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: talked through it, your mind has got more and more
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: into what can be done and what you can talk about,
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: rather than feeling this oppressive, this oppression that you are
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: a mother who's not even allowed to speak out because
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: you've lost your children. So I think you've done brilliantly
• 42:45
  Speaker 1: today and I want to thank you very much. Hello
• 42:47
  Speaker 1: to our viewers and listeners. For those of you that
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: are watching and listening to this video. We've had a
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: break of a couple of days and I've got Mum
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: back with me. There's been some events and she's kindly
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: agreed to speak to me about what's been happening. So
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: welcome once again.
• 43:10
  Speaker 2: Hello Brian.
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so tell us what's what's been happening.
• 43:17
  Speaker 2: So on Wednesday we were meant to have a hearing
• 43:21
  Speaker 2: at the Raw Courts of Justice and it was meant
• 43:24
  Speaker 2: to start at ten thirty in the morning and at
• 43:30
  Speaker 2: nine thirty five. You have to get there an hour
• 43:33
  Speaker 2: earlier and at nine thirty five, I had an email
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: on my phone and thank goodness, I had my phone
• 43:39
  Speaker 2: on and you're meant to get forty eight hours before
• 43:43
  Speaker 2: there's any venue change, And we had an email at
• 43:49
  Speaker 2: nine thirty five, so just fifty five minutes before it
• 43:53
  Speaker 2: was meant to start saying that it had been postponed,
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: and it had been postponed to another judge, and it
• 44:03
  Speaker 2: had been made remote and they knew that we were
• 44:07
  Speaker 2: turning up with Mackenzie friends that had traveled hundreds of miles,
• 44:10
  Speaker 2: paid a lot of money for train tickets and travel,
• 44:13
  Speaker 2: and other supporters that had come all the way from Wales,
• 44:16
  Speaker 2: some people from Salisbury, Portsmouth, Liverpool, Birmingham. So we just
• 44:28
  Speaker 2: had an awful day. Everybody was there and we were
• 44:32
  Speaker 2: kept there the whole day. The judiciary and staff and
• 44:37
  Speaker 2: the clerks refused to acknowledge any of our rights, even
• 44:42
  Speaker 2: the inalienable rights that's meant to be heard on that
• 44:44
  Speaker 2: day by the judge. We had a few constitutional experts
• 44:47
  Speaker 2: or in attendance who clearly and frequently explained these rights
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: to everybody that we met. We met certain administrators, we
• 44:57
  Speaker 2: met the operations directors and met secure team at Clark's.
• 45:02
  Speaker 2: The theme of the day was basically to obfuscate and
• 45:05
  Speaker 2: waste as much time as possible to five o'clock and
• 45:10
  Speaker 2: wipe down the clock. And then then our group was
• 45:14
  Speaker 2: forced to leave without any satisfaction. Some of the attendees
• 45:19
  Speaker 2: had disabilities and very uncomfortable, were made to feel very unwelcome.
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: And can I just just ask here to set the scene.
• 45:33
  Speaker 1: What was this hearing about? Are you allowed to say
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: what it was actually about? And was this going to
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: be a public hearing?
• 45:41
  Speaker 2: So it was not going to be public in the
• 45:44
  Speaker 2: sense of public gallery, but I did believe that we
• 45:48
  Speaker 2: were allowed to supporters either outside or inside the court
• 45:51
  Speaker 2: and McKenzie friends and witnesses that it would be relevant too,
• 45:57
  Speaker 2: and the hearing was considering of reporting restrictions. There's a
• 46:03
  Speaker 2: lot inside the case that is a public interest. We've
• 46:08
  Speaker 2: had things happen to ourselves that have happened to other
• 46:13
  Speaker 2: families and members of the community that if the public
• 46:16
  Speaker 2: don't know, it's harmful. It's harmful to children, and it's
• 46:24
  Speaker 2: harmful to the parents and the families.
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: Okay, so this was this was you challenging decisions that
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: have been made. I've got to press you on this,
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: because we need to understand this was the hearing of
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: family court hearing or was this external to the family court.
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: Well, I asked the question as to whether, because what
• 46:51
  Speaker 2: I'd applied for was the family division of King's Bench,
• 46:58
  Speaker 2: I don't know where that's disappeared to. But we are
• 47:01
  Speaker 2: told that there's a family division and a King's Bench division,
• 47:06
  Speaker 2: and this was, according to them, meant to be in
• 47:08
  Speaker 2: the family division. But the family divisions then seems to
• 47:11
  Speaker 2: be divided further and so does King's Bench. So there's
• 47:14
  Speaker 2: actually two family divisions and two King's bench the King's
• 47:17
  Speaker 2: bench proper than the King's Bench administrative division. So saying
• 47:23
  Speaker 2: with family, there's a family division and there's an administrative
• 47:28
  Speaker 2: division part of it, and it's just you know, there's
• 47:33
  Speaker 2: supposed to be some sort of semblance of a higher
• 47:38
  Speaker 2: facility to a county court, and having been in it
• 47:44
  Speaker 2: last month, there's no semblance of that tool that you're
• 47:48
  Speaker 2: in a court that is higher than a county court,
• 47:51
  Speaker 2: because we experienced a county court last week.
• 47:54
  Speaker 1: Okay, so just see whether I understand this. You been
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: trying to challenge what has taken place through the Family Court,
• 48:06
  Speaker 1: and you've already talked to me in this this interview
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: about these difficulties between understanding indeed what the family court
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: is and relationships between the family court system and higher
• 48:21
  Speaker 1: courts in the land. You were trying here to challenge
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: what has taken place in the family court, and therefore you've,
• 48:33
  Speaker 1: let's just say, you've you've put paperwork into a what
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: you believe is a higher court. But even saying that
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: it's it wasn't entirely clear to you what the what
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: the actual construction of this court that you were talking about.
• 48:54
  Speaker 1: You weren't entirely clear what type of court it was yourself.
• 48:59
  Speaker 2: We weren't clear because I had previously experienced with Dad,
• 49:08
  Speaker 2: I'd expence experienced court what's known as Court seventeen, Court
• 49:12
  Speaker 2: thirty seven and up until when the proceedings started some
• 49:18
  Speaker 2: sort of like twenty twenty two. These courts are open
• 49:23
  Speaker 2: to the public. It's our way of it's the way
• 49:27
  Speaker 2: of the people being able to have access to justice
• 49:33
  Speaker 2: on ground level. So I have previously just walked into
• 49:37
  Speaker 2: Court seventeen and seen a judge there and then within
• 49:44
  Speaker 2: I mean the time that I did it in twenty
• 49:47
  Speaker 2: twenty two, I saw a judge within ten minutes, and
• 49:52
  Speaker 2: he helped me probably within ten minutes, and it made
• 49:56
  Speaker 2: a huge difference to my case. And it's a very
• 49:58
  Speaker 2: important part of our apparatus that if our people have
• 50:03
  Speaker 2: any form of emergency, especially involving children, that they've got
• 50:07
  Speaker 2: this wonderful facility where we can access and have an
• 50:11
  Speaker 2: audience in front of our High Court judges. And as
• 50:15
  Speaker 2: far as I know, Court seventeen, Court thirty seven were
• 50:18
  Speaker 2: always constructed like that that you know for decades. So
• 50:27
  Speaker 2: in my use of them in twenty twenty two, I
• 50:29
  Speaker 2: believe with me and Dad also used the Central Family
• 50:36
  Speaker 2: Court and also the Court of Protection. And after we
• 50:40
  Speaker 2: used them in a regulated, good fashion and we were
• 50:44
  Speaker 2: getting favorable results, when we'd go back, they would stop
• 50:50
  Speaker 2: communicating with us or they'd tell us that we're not
• 50:52
  Speaker 2: allowed to use that facility anymore. And that's some of
• 50:55
  Speaker 2: what we had on Wednesday. So on Wednesday, what was
• 51:02
  Speaker 2: supposed to happen was I was told at the Family Court,
• 51:05
  Speaker 2: the lower tribunal Family Court to make an application to
• 51:09
  Speaker 2: High Court to have reporting restrictions lifted so that I
• 51:13
  Speaker 2: could talk to the press freely, so that we could
• 51:16
  Speaker 2: show our faces, we could show our family. We could
• 51:20
  Speaker 2: talk about what happened to us and how it had
• 51:23
  Speaker 2: happened to us, maybe even show you photos and videos,
• 51:26
  Speaker 2: ask any member of the press or legal bloggers or
• 51:33
  Speaker 2: social media that we wanted, so long as it obviously
• 51:36
  Speaker 2: it's within the confines of behaving lawfully. So that's what
• 51:42
  Speaker 2: we went to the court for on Wednesday, and it
• 51:46
  Speaker 2: was pre booked, so we had this ten thirty you know,
• 51:52
  Speaker 2: appointment with the justice and fifty five minutes beforehand it
• 51:59
  Speaker 2: was cancer and everybody was devastated. We were all milling
• 52:04
  Speaker 2: about and trying to find a way in. And one
• 52:08
  Speaker 2: of the ways in is that we can then resort
• 52:12
  Speaker 2: to relief, seeking relief and seeking remedy, because English law
• 52:17
  Speaker 2: is all about remedy. English law is all about relief.
• 52:21
  Speaker 2: And we asked the veterans present with their burrows on.
• 52:26
  Speaker 2: They were disabled, people were women, a lot of them,
• 52:31
  Speaker 2: most of them were parents or grandparents, and we asked
• 52:34
  Speaker 2: to see a judge in court seventeen, in court thirty seven.
• 52:39
  Speaker 2: Now those are actually walk in services that we've always had,
• 52:43
  Speaker 2: Like we used to have a walk in magistrate service
• 52:44
  Speaker 2: where you could just go and see a grand magistrate.
• 52:46
  Speaker 2: I've noticed that's gone. So we were told that there
• 52:52
  Speaker 2: were no emergency mechanisms that we were allowed. And one
• 52:56
  Speaker 2: of the young ladies who's training to be embarrister, she
• 52:59
  Speaker 2: actually said, but is there an emergency service actually available
• 53:04
  Speaker 2: to the public, And she said yes, so it all
• 53:08
  Speaker 2: why is it not being made available to us? And
• 53:10
  Speaker 2: they had no reason for that apart from the fact
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: that they didn't want to make it available to us.
• 53:14
  Speaker 1: Can I just ask what is what's the definition of
• 53:18
  Speaker 1: an emergency service? What do you mean by that?
• 53:21
  Speaker 2: In the emergency services when, for instance, there's been a
• 53:24
  Speaker 2: hiccup like there had been on Wednesday where we were
• 53:27
  Speaker 2: meant to be seen. People had traveled from hundreds of
• 53:29
  Speaker 2: miles and to get all the supporters, the family supporters
• 53:33
  Speaker 2: together like that is quite exhausting for us, especially people
• 53:37
  Speaker 2: disabilities that spent a lot of money trying to get there.
• 53:40
  Speaker 2: So that would it's sort of constitute an emergency because
• 53:46
  Speaker 2: it's also for a children's case and where both the
• 53:52
  Speaker 2: children and the parents have got disabilities, and so.
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: So what would the provision be that a judge is
• 54:00
  Speaker 1: made available at short notice to actually hear the case?
• 54:03
  Speaker 1: Is that what the emergency service does.
• 54:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, so it checks us to see whether a judge
• 54:10
  Speaker 2: is available, A small brief is given to him, and
• 54:14
  Speaker 2: then he decides whether he will see you. So we actually,
• 54:19
  Speaker 2: by sort of lunchtime, managed to do that with a
• 54:24
  Speaker 2: lot of noise making, and we were told that a
• 54:27
  Speaker 2: particular justice had decided to see us all in one
• 54:32
  Speaker 2: of the courtrooms, and everybody was made to feel very happy,
• 54:37
  Speaker 2: and people were elated and relieved that the time hadn't
• 54:42
  Speaker 2: been wasted and that we were going to get somewhere
• 54:44
  Speaker 2: and you know, we're going to get a chance to
• 54:48
  Speaker 2: talk about the situation of our children and then about
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: so if we then got told that that was happening,
• 54:57
  Speaker 2: we got told to go to another part of the building.
• 55:00
  Speaker 2: So we went to another part of the building, and
• 55:02
  Speaker 2: then we got there we were told that it all
• 55:05
  Speaker 2: been canceled again, and then people just got very upset.
• 55:11
  Speaker 2: There was lots of tears, and quite a few gentlemen
• 55:17
  Speaker 2: that attended were they've advocates in constitutional law, some of
• 55:26
  Speaker 2: them trained as slicters or barristers themselves, and so everybody
• 55:34
  Speaker 2: sort of started to talk to either clerks or counter
• 55:39
  Speaker 2: staff or security. They were on the telephone trying to
• 55:43
  Speaker 2: trying to get trying to find out what other sort
• 55:47
  Speaker 2: of facilities could be available to us. So we then
• 55:50
  Speaker 2: retorted back to the Court seventeen. The Court thirty seven issue,
• 55:56
  Speaker 2: which is that in England, the English, British public and
• 56:03
  Speaker 2: the guests, Commonwealth guests, all the nations around the world
• 56:08
  Speaker 2: are able to approach Court seventeen, Court thirty seven, especially
• 56:14
  Speaker 2: if they're seeing they're empty, and they are therefore what
• 56:20
  Speaker 2: I've always understood to be twenty four to seven service,
• 56:24
  Speaker 2: and a member of the public who has a pressing
• 56:27
  Speaker 2: issue can see a justice at very short notice. Now,
• 56:33
  Speaker 2: the emergency one you've asked about and Court seventeen Court
• 56:36
  Speaker 2: thirty seven are different in that the emergency one is
• 56:41
  Speaker 2: kind of to squeeze you into a schedule at the
• 56:44
  Speaker 2: Family Division that is part of that justice. Those judges
• 56:53
  Speaker 2: timetables for that day, whereas Court thirty seven and Court seventeen,
• 56:59
  Speaker 2: any any judge or justice can come and hear it.
• 57:03
  Speaker 2: It's more to do with the openness of Court seventeen
• 57:06
  Speaker 2: Court thirty seven, And we were told things like we
• 57:10
  Speaker 2: shouldn't say, and there's actually quite a lot of security
• 57:15
  Speaker 2: staff that was making these comments, things like they likened.
• 57:19
  Speaker 2: They belittled us in there's lot of condescension. They likened
• 57:23
  Speaker 2: us when we were sort of complaining to people like
• 57:28
  Speaker 2: stop or you'll which we just couldn't understand. We were
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: saying that it's children's case and we're really desperately need
• 57:37
  Speaker 2: to see somebody, and they said, you can't just come in,
• 57:41
  Speaker 2: no matter who you are and demand to see the judge.
• 57:44
  Speaker 2: We said, but we can. These are our courts. Courts
• 57:48
  Speaker 2: belong to the people, and they said, no, no, they don't,
• 57:52
  Speaker 2: Yes they do. They belong to the people, and we're
• 57:55
  Speaker 2: all subjects of the king and he's not aware of
• 57:58
  Speaker 2: how we're being treated. How are children being treated? And
• 58:03
  Speaker 2: then I, myself and a few of the other people
• 58:06
  Speaker 2: were saying that we really want to have the justices
• 58:11
  Speaker 2: know that we're here. Do they do they know that
• 58:14
  Speaker 2: we're here? Is the king in justice today? Do they
• 58:18
  Speaker 2: know that we're here? And are they refusing us? And
• 58:22
  Speaker 2: we never got any answers. We kept on getting fobbed off,
• 58:25
  Speaker 2: just told that there was no public services anymore, that
• 58:27
  Speaker 2: Court seventeen and Court thirty seven, even if it was there,
• 58:30
  Speaker 2: wasn't available to us. So a few people went over
• 58:34
  Speaker 2: both courts were closed, not being used. There was a
• 58:38
  Speaker 2: lot of courts that were closed, shut and not in
• 58:42
  Speaker 2: use at all. They didn't they didn't like it when
• 58:47
  Speaker 2: we talked about English law, and it was very upsetting
• 58:52
  Speaker 2: and I think somebody one of the guards actually made
• 58:56
  Speaker 2: that had previously made a similar comment. He found them
• 58:59
  Speaker 2: ment of English law and the fact that we said
• 59:03
  Speaker 2: that kind of number of people were Englishmen and Welshmen
• 59:07
  Speaker 2: and from regiments. They found this type of thing to
• 59:10
  Speaker 2: be somewhat upsetting. And we couldn't quite understand why we
• 59:16
  Speaker 2: were being made to feel unwelcome to saying that we
• 59:19
  Speaker 2: weren't allowed access free access to public services in England
• 59:27
  Speaker 2: where we're born. So you know, we were made to
• 59:32
  Speaker 2: feel as though we were saying something rude or not acceptable.
• 59:37
  Speaker 1: I'm going to say here that that probably there's two
• 59:41
  Speaker 1: things we should highlight. One is, to the best of
• 59:45
  Speaker 1: my knowledge, security within the court system isn't something which
• 59:50
  Speaker 1: is carried out by civil servants. It's not something that's
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: carried out within the overall organization of the court system.
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 1: It's outsourced to private security companies. So I think that
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 1: when you try and engage some of these people in
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 1: the issue of its my if you like it's my court,
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 1: I'm entitled to use this court. They can't understand this
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 1: because they have no concept of what the court is.
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: Their job is just to be the on call hard
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 1: man to protect the court system. And then the other
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: thing I think you're coming up against is that those
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: individuals have themselves been trained in inverted commas, and in
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 1: that training they will have been told about the types
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 1: of people who might come into court and how they
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 1: should deal with them. And I would suspect that many
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 1: of those security staff will have been led to believe
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 1: that anybody that comes into the court and starts to
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 1: talk about common law or being English or Welsh, these
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 1: are extremists. I believe that you would would have been
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 1: dealing with essentially reframed people. So that's that's just my
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 1: personal comment, but that's my.
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 2: Take on Well, I actually agree with you, and I
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 2: think that's why because we ask for a public gallery,
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 2: which we're allowed, and because of a supporter is going
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 2: to be present, that the reason for the making it
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 2: remote is for the exact reasons that you've said, and
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: it seems to be when you go there, I mean,
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 2: because we've been we've been going there now for the
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 2: best part of over two years. You can slowly see
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 2: it being chained to everything remote. And one of the
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 2: things that all the supporters did feel was that part
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 2: of this closure of some of the family courts that
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think there's only two at the moment,
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 2: which is Portsmouth and Preston, is that they're trying to
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 2: make all of these hearings remote, which would be absolutely unlawful.
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 2: In children's cases, I mean, the children's cases were previously
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 2: dealt with by the Home Office. I mean it's not
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 2: okay to work in this arena and not know that
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 2: children's cases were dealt by the Secretary State and Home Office,
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 2: I mean just over ten years ago.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: Yes, well, I think your observation is correct, because the
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 1: government is openly talking about changing the court system, and
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: because of a supposed backlog, they need to have more
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: remote cases. But of course, a simple observation about remote
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 1: cases is that people don't get the opportunity to actually
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 1: get a feel for the people who are perhaps not
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 1: only being accused of things, but people who are presenting information.
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: Because to be a human being is that we watch
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 1: other people's faces and we see what sort of expressions
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 1: they make when they are speaking as part of our
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 1: judgment as to whether somebody's telling the truth or being deceitful.
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 1: So to simply have a remote hearing where you can
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 1: only have a glimpse of part of a court through
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 1: a camera, to me, strips out really key things about
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 1: what obtaining justice as a human being is really about.
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 1: And as you say quite rightly, it's vital that the
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 1: human the human interest parts stays central to family court
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: hearings because those courts are about children and they're about families,
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: they're about human beings.
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 2: Well, the Mental Health Act in many places, in many
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 2: sections talks about how the Secretary of State says that
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 2: there's very clear guidance in all examinations have to be
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 2: are preferred to be carried out face to face. Now,
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 2: some of the quote unquote so called experts for the court,
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 2: the court appointed experts who are not found on the
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 2: GMC specialists register, many of them all chosen from a
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 2: particular pool, and then they're all the usual ones that
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 2: work on the circuit. They are carrying out carrying out
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 2: remote assessments mental health health assessments, and a High court
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 2: actually banned that, so they're carrying out remote mental health
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 2: assessments on the parents. The parents are being given misdiagnoses
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 2: and disdiagnoses of things like personality and disorder, and then
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 2: the High Court says, well, actually we don't want to
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 2: see the parents face to faith because they're unwell. So
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 2: the parents aren't even unwell, and a judge is meant
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 2: to be higher than a doctor in the High Court
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 2: because a High court can deal with medical matters like
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 2: I said before, that can't be adjudicated on in the
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 2: family court. So they created like a catch twenty two
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 2: and there's no way out of it unless we actually
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 2: walk you know, English law through back to sort of
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 2: pre Tony Blair and the Children at nineteen eighty nine,
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 2: when this all worked very nicely in the county court.
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 2: In a county court you can have trial by jury.
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 2: A county court can look at psychological assessments, psychiatric assessments,
• 1:06:04
  Speaker 2: medical it can adjudicate on medical matters and the jury,
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 2: I think it's a jury of eight, so there's like
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 2: a mini jury of eight people, and then it can
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 2: send it to the proper jurisdiction of the High Court
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 2: where more serious medical matters can be taken into consideration
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 2: and again a trial by jury for twelve twelve with
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 2: twelve jurors. So there's no I haven't found any legislation
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 2: that says that remote hearings are legal. I've found a
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 2: lot of stuff on COVID because our experience two years
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 2: ago was during lockdown Brian, so we had a lot
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 2: of COVID related issues, lockdown issues and things like that
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 2: in the case. So we have apart from remote hearings
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 2: mentioned or assess being mentioned because there was lockdown and
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 2: because of COVID and the pandemic, there isn't anything that
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 2: exists outside of that the pub There's been no public consultation.
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 2: There's been no act or bill through Parliament that says
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 2: that this isn't the new way of life, and that
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 2: certain laws that we rely upon have somehow magically been abolished,
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 2: that we're only allowed statutes led courts or judge made law.
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 2: I can't find anything on that. But the Mental Health
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 2: Act has a lot to say about remote hearings and
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 2: why they are not any good and obviously that the
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 2: judges are aware of the trauma of care proceedings, which
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 2: itself should be I think you know, if any of
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 2: your listeners are psychologists or psychiatrists. I think it's about
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 2: time somebody made that as a heading, and maybe even
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 2: some of the insurance companies, so that trauma of care
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 2: proceedings is actually a listed item as a head of
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 2: damage that can actually happen to well, it does happen
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 2: to the families, especially the children and new mothers, and
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 2: it's happening throughout the country as far as I can
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 2: I can tell.
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 1: I think that's a really astute point, whereas pertinence and
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 1: astute point, because it's clear that family court proceedings are
• 1:08:35
  Speaker 1: hugely stressful. Anxiety, stress, depression, fear, A whole heap of
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 1: negative reactions take place in the family court hearing around
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 1: the parents and of course around the children themselves, including
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 1: as we know, very very young children. So I think
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 1: what you're saying is absolutely correct. To me, there's an
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 1: irony in this because on one hand, we look at
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 1: the family court system and say, what is this thing?
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 1: Because we've got a court running with just a judge,
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 1: there's no jury, there's no press, so it's closed court.
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 1: Now we seem to be taking the close court model
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: across the whole arena, and we're saying we're also going
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 1: to do it remotely. And I believe this is very,
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 1: very dangerous because justice is being effectively dissolved before our
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 1: eyes under the premise that we have to have major
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 1: change in the court system to deal with the backlog
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 1: of cases. But I believe that the backlog of cases
• 1:09:53
  Speaker 1: is created. But okay, let's we wanted to do this
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 1: little segment on the hearing that you've just been through.
• 1:10:02
  Speaker 1: What was the what was the final result? You got
• 1:10:09
  Speaker 1: to the end of the day. You didn't get in
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: to see anybody. Were there any highlights to the fact
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 1: that you were there with quite a substantial group of supporters.
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 2: Yes, Towards the end, one of the lady I mentioned
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 2: for who's studying to be a barrister, she just went
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 2: round the whole court until she found somebody, and she
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 2: found an operations director of the Royal Court of Justice,
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 2: and that lady came up to us and she said,
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 2: I personally want to apologize to you, and I want
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 2: to apologize to you on behalf of the whole family
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 2: division that you should have been given forty eight hours
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 2: noticed change of venue, which you weren't, And she said
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 2: that she was happy to accept that people have been
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 2: sort of hurt and upset and also cost them quite
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 2: a lot, so she was willing to accept their complaints
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 2: any combursement for train tickets and things like that. Everybody
• 1:11:29
  Speaker 2: that was there that attended, I think in total it
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 2: was over twenty five. People are very passionate about England
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 2: and Wales. I mean that's where they came from, so
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 2: I wouldn't have anybody come from Scotland, Northern Ireland or Ireland,
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 2: and they're very passionate about English law. And just going
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 2: back a step to answer your question, I want to
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 2: bring this in because you mentioned I just talked about
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 2: remote hearings. So the list seems to be that there's
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 2: no public gallery, there's no trial by jury, there's a
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 2: blanket consent, and there's tacit agreements, and there's a remote hearing.
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 2: See with those sort of five things, and I'm sure
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 2: I could add a few more. With those five things,
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 2: it really is as oppressive as pre what I've read
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 2: from pre World War Two. This is some sort of
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 2: sort of it's like some sort of old East Germany regime.
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 2: I mean, if you do those five things, you annihilate
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 2: the thing that makes all of us have freedom, which
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 2: is English law. You can't have English law if you've
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 2: got if you remove trial by jury, the public gallery,
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 2: and everybody's allowed to use tacit agreements and blanket consents
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 2: behind your back without even notes being used, and this
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: remote remote hearing staff, which is I think mister Cornwell,
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 2: who is a famous quote, he said Parliament was to
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 2: require the examination to be carried out personally by the
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 2: person whose recommendation was being relied upon. So that applies
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 2: to judges as well, because most of the family cases
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 2: involve some sort of medical matter. Definitely psychology, definitely psychiatry,
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 2: possibly domestic violence, the use of drugs. All of that
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 2: is medical. It's a welfare and the wellbeing of the
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 2: children and the parents, So it is a medical matter,
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 2: and there's no consideration of the duty of care. And
• 1:13:52
  Speaker 2: I mean the court had a duty of care to
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 2: everybody on Wednesday. You know, it's not just the staff
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 2: to each other. They're there to protect the public. There
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 2: was no passion for law going on in any room anywhere.
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 2: Everybody was miserable because they weren't being You could you
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 2: could tell that people weren't being allowed to do what
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 2: they wanted to do. In terms of why they got
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 2: themselves into the profession.
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 1: Yes, a question for you. You turned up, A lot
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 1: of other people turned up support you, and they were surprised.
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 1: You were surprised to find the court hearing was canceled.
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 1: Were there also representatives from social services there who were
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 1: surprised that it had been canceled?
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 2: No, Brian. They wrote us over a week ago and
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 2: said that they were a no show. And kath Cass
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 2: wrote to us and said that they were a no show.
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 1: And by that, by that you mean that they'd written
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 1: to you to say we are not attending this hearing.
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 2: They've written to us to say they weren't attending. But
• 1:15:07
  Speaker 2: they said it was because the Legal Aid Authority was
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 2: not happy to pay their fees and it seemed as
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 2: though they were unable to secure any funding for such
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 2: a sort of type of type of hearing. Because I
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 2: think the way that Legal lab authority would see is
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 2: that there's a transparency order already in place from the
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 2: Family Courts. There's a sort of preliminary transparency order in
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 2: place already through one of the justices of the High
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 2: Court Family Division. So I think they thought, well, we
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 2: don't need to show and you, you know that the
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 2: parents can just go in by themselves and get told
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 2: to go away, and that they've got no because their
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 2: favorite thing is no merit. Nothing we say or do
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 2: has any merit. So that's what I know that they expected,
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 2: and we've not had a peep out of them. Right.
• 1:16:16
  Speaker 1: So what I strongly suspect, of course, is that the
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 1: local authority and the social services teams and anybody engaged
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 1: on their side was absolutely made aware of the hearing
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 1: and what you were trying to do in that hearing,
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: and they took a decision that they weren't to attend.
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 1: Of course, for any member of the public, if you
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 1: fail to attend the hearing and engage with proceedings, the
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 1: normal result is you lose, or at least you're penalized
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 1: by the court for not attending. But I think what
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 1: you're demonstrating here is that the local authority and its
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 1: team seems somehow to be above the law. Their case stands,
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 1: and as you've said, the accusation for the for the family,
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 1: for the parents is that no matter what they say,
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 1: it is deemed that it doesn't have merits. So this
• 1:17:19
  Speaker 1: is this is orchestrated bias by the court system against
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 1: family members.
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 2: I mean, yes, that's true. But the way that they
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 2: see it, in the overwhelming response they gave to everybody
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 2: on Wednesday and the people from all walks of life,
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 2: was that those are their courts. So us questioning whether a,
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 2: you know, any mistreatment or malpractice to them, it's like
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 2: it's like a when we're complaining about the remote courts,
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 2: it's like some sort of oxymoron. It's not a to them,
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 2: they it's you know, a remote court is perfect definition
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 2: of an oxymoron and also the perfect definition of a
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 2: miscarriage of justice. They don't if we talk about any
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 2: of our rights, any of our legal rights, the lawfulness
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 2: of things, it's just laughed off because they don't see
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 2: them as the people's courts. They see them as their
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 2: court for them. It's if I was to say one
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 2: word for us for Wednesday, it was as if we
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 2: were a nuisance, or if we were maybe like museum visitors,
• 1:18:51
  Speaker 2: you know, we should go in there, see how wonderful
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 2: the building is and leave quietly, or if we wanted
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 2: any any kind of execution of Lauri in a shape
• 1:18:59
  Speaker 2: or form, and then we were deemed a nuisance.
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: Yes, So so to respond to that an extraordinary arrogance
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 1: by the legal system. It has to be arrogant to
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 1: treat you in that way. But I think you've really
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 1: spelt it out. We're probably at the close here. So
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 1: you've had another really bad experience with the court system
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 1: and trying to get justice your children have been taken.
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 1: You've told us very clearly that you and your partner
• 1:19:40
  Speaker 1: have never harmed the children in any way physically or mentally.
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 1: You've lost your children and you are now two years
• 1:19:51
  Speaker 1: down the line battling for recognition as to what's taken
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: place in the courts, the abuse of power within the
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 1: family court system, and now you're demonstrating that when you
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 1: try and take the battle away from the family court
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: and into the higher court system, you're faced with this arrogance.
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 1: And I think your example that you might just have
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 1: been a group of people trying to get into a
• 1:20:23
  Speaker 1: museum was the way you I think that's a very
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 1: telling comment. While I was waiting to speak to you
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: again today, I was able to speak to yes, another
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 1: family that's had children taken away, and the story which
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 1: I hope to be able to talk about very shortly.
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 1: But of course also involves the fact that when the
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 1: children are taken and put in the so called care
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 1: of the child protection system, those children are clearly not
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 1: being cared for. They're being harmed and abused. And so
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 1: I say this really because I'm speaking to the audience
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 1: and I'm saying, if you think that the case that
• 1:21:08
  Speaker 1: we're doing this interview for is just one, no, what
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 1: we're dealing with is a system which is designed to
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 1: take children and place them in remote care as a minimum,
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 1: or place them in remote care where they are going
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 1: to be abused. This is massive in UK and it's
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 1: inherently and throughout the whole court and legal and child
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 1: protection system. And I'm going to say once again, if
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: anybody thinks that the key players in the taking and
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: trafficking and abuse of children are simply Asian grooming gangs,
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 1: you need to think again, because the key facilitator is
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 1: the court's stem and the child protection system itself. I've
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 1: given my opinion there and come back, but that's how
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 1: I see the system that you are operating in.
• 1:22:16
  Speaker 2: I'd love to agree with you. I haven't met any
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 2: people that actually love children. They seem to be to phobic,
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 2: child phobic, and they don't care most of them. I mean,
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 2: when people say that they're seeking the administration of justice,
• 1:22:43
  Speaker 2: that's just all the wrong words. This system that they're
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 2: using against us is my registrant administrators. That's the full title,
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 2: and everyone keeps shortening it down to admin. So and
• 1:23:00
  Speaker 2: I think we discussed the future risk of emotional harm
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 2: last time as well back Northern Ireland.
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 1: So a final final comment from you. I'm sure we'll
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 1: do more in the future, but a final comment to you,
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 1: what do you say to mums and dads out there
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 1: in UK that are listening to this and they're thinking
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 1: this just can't be true. What would you say to them.
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 2: I would have said two years ago that you have
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 2: to dig deep to find out whether it's true. I
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 2: wouldn't say that anymore. I actually don't understand why more
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 2: people don't know, because we've met so many parents, so
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 2: I'm actually of the opposite feeling. I don't understand why
• 1:24:06
  Speaker 2: there's not enough coverage, and I would say that it's
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 2: probably press related, and all the mums and dads can
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 2: do to give a message to the mums and dads
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 2: that don't know is to try to get the press
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 2: on side, because if the press report these things, then
• 1:24:30
  Speaker 2: the country gets a chance to get better politicians that
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 2: want to talk about these serious issues because they have
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 2: an interest in making people's lives better. And it was
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 2: one of the things that was said before by Nigel
• 1:24:45
  Speaker 2: Carriage before Brexit. He was saying that we wanted politicians
• 1:24:49
  Speaker 2: and administrators and council chiefs and police chiefs that you
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 2: cared about the way the community was, the way it looked,
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 2: the way it behaved, not just following things that are
• 1:25:05
  Speaker 2: now outdated and don't work. So if the parents look,
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 2: I don't think they have to go very far now
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 2: to see a family that is suffering at the hands
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 2: of social services. Social services is not fit for purpose.
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 2: It is not what the country requires, especially post COVID.
• 1:25:28
  Speaker 2: There's this idea that community services can't be friendly. It's
• 1:25:34
  Speaker 2: probably one of the most stupid things I've ever heard.
• 1:25:39
  Speaker 2: They ought to be and the social engineering that's going on.
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 2: Social workers are just counsel workers. They're not experts in
• 1:25:47
  Speaker 2: attachment theory, they're not experts in some sort of social engineering,
• 1:25:53
  Speaker 2: and nobody's asked them to do it. There's no FURA
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 2: standing there to say, oh, could you socially engine near
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 2: England for us nevers asked them to do it. So,
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 2: as far as I know, there's in two licenses that
• 1:26:06
  Speaker 2: any counsel in England and Wales has, which is the
• 1:26:09
  Speaker 2: license to connect taxes and the license for gas safety.
• 1:26:14
  Speaker 2: So if we could go back to a little bit
• 1:26:16
  Speaker 2: of simplicity with the councils and just get people to
• 1:26:19
  Speaker 2: be more humane, to use people with integrity that you know, like,
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 2: have no idea why Christianity has become a bad word
• 1:26:30
  Speaker 2: or why people are deciding to persecute Christians or those
• 1:26:35
  Speaker 2: that believe in the Church of England. That's got to stop.
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 2: That's not acceptable. And the same with English law. We
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 2: love English law. It's not going anywhere. We've got enough
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 2: books on it and there's enough students that want to
• 1:26:49
  Speaker 2: still read it and use it.
• 1:26:53
  Speaker 1: We need a change in the system and we certainly
• 1:26:55
  Speaker 1: need to change in the people who are involved in
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 1: the city. There's a lot more to discuss on that.
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 1: I think that probably brings us to the clothes at
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: this part too. I'm going to ask something of you
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 1: which you might find very hard. But you don't have
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 1: your two children anymore, but I know that you've still
• 1:27:22
  Speaker 1: got some items with you that are memories of your children.
• 1:27:29
  Speaker 1: You're not allowed to show the audience photographs of your children.
• 1:27:34
  Speaker 1: Have you got something you could just hold up in
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 1: front of the camera that you regard as a memory
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 1: of your children.
• 1:27:41
  Speaker 2: I think most precious memory I have is because they're
• 1:27:52
  Speaker 2: born at twenty five weeks. That is so small.
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 1: It's a dummy for anybody that it's.
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 2: A little dummy, and it is just so tidy. And
• 1:28:06
  Speaker 2: I remember the first time, okay.
• 1:28:11
  Speaker 1: So there we go, Okay, that's that's fine.
• 1:28:15
  Speaker 2: And it goes with this which was too big.
• 1:28:20
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 2: So that was way too big and it was big, big,
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 2: by about that much. And that was my little girl.
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 2: I got my little boys one here. And I remember
• 1:28:36
  Speaker 2: when when the dummies were given so so it's just
• 1:28:48
  Speaker 2: and I cried when when the nurse gave this one.
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 2: I said, no, don't don't put that in put that
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 2: in a mouth, little stretch of mouth. I don't worry
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 2: if I can't shay you pictures, I haven't, you know,
• 1:29:02
  Speaker 2: I would love to see pictures.
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 1: No, but for you, for you, of course, your mum.
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 1: The memories are there and they're very clear in your mind.
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 1: But I just I just wanted to emphasize to the
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 1: audience that the reality is that the UK State, under
• 1:29:21
  Speaker 1: Prime Minister Keir Starmer, for at least part of the time,
• 1:29:27
  Speaker 1: has simply removed your children and gives you no recourse
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 1: to challenge that decision or even the opportunity to see
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 1: your children and to know what stranger or strangers is
• 1:29:44
  Speaker 1: looking after them. And I wanted to really bring that
• 1:29:48
  Speaker 1: home to the UK column audience because if people are
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: looking at wars overseas and thinking that that is the
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 1: priority and meant suffering overseas, But for me, until we
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 1: understand that the British State, under our existing parliamentary system
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 1: is stealing our own children, we have no idea of
• 1:30:11
  Speaker 1: the viciousness of the real enemy which is standing up
• 1:30:16
  Speaker 1: against us. And my goodness, every adult man and woman
• 1:30:22
  Speaker 1: in this country, every parent, needs to understand the immense
• 1:30:27
  Speaker 1: danger that they and their families and their children are under.
• 1:30:34
  Speaker 1: Let's leave it there. Thank you, thank you very much
• 1:30:36
  Speaker 1: for joining me.
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 2: Thank you Brian, thank you very much.