Latest / UK Column Radio / Child Stealing by the State: A Mother Criminalised for Speaking Out – Part 1

Transcript

Child Stealing by the State: A Mother Criminalised for Speaking Out – Part 1 · UK Column Radio

0:00
Speaker 1: Good afternoon to the UK Column viewers and listeners wherever
0:03
Speaker 1: you are in the world. I have to say it's
0:06
Speaker 1: a pretty dark day here in UK. The weather is
0:10
Speaker 1: pretty appalling over most of the country. We've got a
0:13
Speaker 1: lot of heavy cloud and rain, so I'm afraid we're
0:17
Speaker 1: not able to do this one against the backdrop of sunshine.
0:21
Speaker 1: But also we've got some fairly dark things at play
0:24
Speaker 1: in the country as a whole, which I had no
0:27
Speaker 1: idea that was going to be taking place when I
0:30
Speaker 1: did this particular interview today. And what am I referring to, Well,
0:35
Speaker 1: I'm referring, of course to the fact that in Parliament
0:39
Speaker 1: we have what I regard as a pantomime taking place
0:44
Speaker 1: over the serious subject of child abuse child protection, and
0:49
Speaker 1: we have not so illustrious Prime Minister Keir Starmer at
0:54
Speaker 1: loggerheads with head of the Tory Party, but essentially just
0:59
Speaker 1: terrible to watch making political or trying to make political
1:03
Speaker 1: gain of the serious subject of the protection of children,
1:07
Speaker 1: the abuse of children. So my guest today is a
1:13
Speaker 1: lady called who I've known for a lot of years
1:16
Speaker 1: and kindly agreed to come onto the UK Column today
1:21
Speaker 1: to talk about her experiences through the family court system.
1:27
Speaker 1: And I have to say to the audience straight off
1:30
Speaker 1: that once again, as we try to do this interview,
1:34
Speaker 1: we do it against the backdrop that the family court
1:39
Speaker 1: system in the United Kingdom runs a very onerous system
1:47
Speaker 1: of censorship as to what you can and cannot say
1:54
Speaker 1: with regard to what did and did not take place
1:57
Speaker 1: in the family courts. And ultimately this means that families
2:01
Speaker 1: who've experienced truly breathtaking, quite often horrible and sometimes criminal
2:10
Speaker 1: actions against them are not able to speak out to
2:14
Speaker 1: the why the public and tell the truth. So I'm
2:18
Speaker 1: going to say to you, thank you very much for
2:19
Speaker 1: joining me today, and I know that this is a
2:23
Speaker 1: difficult thing for you to do, but you and I
2:27
Speaker 1: have had some discussions and you felt you were at
2:31
Speaker 1: the point where you wanted to speak out. But welcome
2:34
Speaker 1: to the UK column.
2:36
Speaker 2: Thank you, Brian, Thank you very much.
2:39
Speaker 1: Okay, let's do some really simple things at the beginning.
2:43
Speaker 1: And here you are in front of the camera. You
2:47
Speaker 1: are a mother, you have two young children. What can
2:52
Speaker 1: you tell us about those children?
2:56
Speaker 2: I'm not allowed to tell you anything, and also I'm
3:00
Speaker 2: too frightened to do so. I've been told that if
3:03
Speaker 2: I mentioned my children or the circumstances of their birth,
3:09
Speaker 2: or what happened to me and their father since we
3:13
Speaker 2: will go to jail. I'm not allowed to talk to
3:17
Speaker 2: you about what happened at the hospital. I'm not allowed
3:21
Speaker 2: to talk to you about what happened in the court.
3:23
Speaker 2: I'm not allowed to mention the local authority's name, or
3:26
Speaker 2: the names of any of the judges, or any of
3:29
Speaker 2: the names of the social workers, or what they did
3:32
Speaker 2: to us. And we are very scared all of the time,
3:36
Speaker 2: and we are threatened all of the time about practically everything.
3:40
Speaker 2: All I want to do is let people know what
3:47
Speaker 2: we're going through and what they are going through, what
3:50
Speaker 2: my children have been through. I don't even know if
3:54
Speaker 2: I'm allowed to mention that I have children.
3:59
Speaker 1: Right all pausing theirs because what you've just said to me,
4:06
Speaker 1: what you've said to the audience is one of the
4:08
Speaker 1: most fundamental points about all of the cases that we've
4:14
Speaker 1: dealt with over the years relating to parents, mums and
4:17
Speaker 1: dads in relation to the family court at the moment
4:21
Speaker 1: they become involved in family court proceedings. The whole system
4:28
Speaker 1: is secretive in the way it works, and it does
4:32
Speaker 1: its deeds in the dark. It uses a court system
4:36
Speaker 1: where there is a solitary judge, there is no jury,
4:40
Speaker 1: There is usually no member of the press. There can
4:43
Speaker 1: be occasionally, but even if there are press present, which
4:47
Speaker 1: is very rare, they are usually tightly controlled as to
4:52
Speaker 1: what they can and cannot say. And so any parent
4:56
Speaker 1: who was experienced wrongdoing within that secretive family court system
5:03
Speaker 1: is then faced with the problem that if they try
5:06
Speaker 1: to speak out to tell the truth about what's happened
5:09
Speaker 1: to them, the courts simply says, well, if you say
5:12
Speaker 1: too much, I shall put you in prison. And I
5:16
Speaker 1: was happy to say to another person that I interviewed
5:20
Speaker 1: in the last few days, that many many years ago,
5:24
Speaker 1: that was the threat that a judge made to me
5:27
Speaker 1: when I had attended court as a McKenzie friend in
5:31
Speaker 1: order to try and help a particular family that were
5:35
Speaker 1: facing difficulties inside the family court. So the family courts
5:40
Speaker 1: are inherently secret. Many people described them as a star chamber.
5:46
Speaker 1: There is only one law, and that is the law
5:49
Speaker 1: of the solitary judge inside the family court itself, and
5:56
Speaker 1: alongside that judge are a range of officials, all of
6:01
Speaker 1: whom or the majority of whom are paid for by
6:04
Speaker 1: the public purse, and they can simply enact their will
6:08
Speaker 1: against the parents. The parents usually trying to fight back
6:14
Speaker 1: with little or no financial resources and to do their
6:18
Speaker 1: best to get justice for themselves. I've said quite a
6:22
Speaker 1: lot there, but is there anything that you think I
6:25
Speaker 1: said there which isn't true or doesn't ring true to
6:28
Speaker 1: what you've experienced.
6:31
Speaker 2: They're definitely sort of like a Diplock styled court or
6:37
Speaker 2: a star chamber, but it's worse than that in that
6:42
Speaker 2: we're not being allowed to use the Court of Appeal properly.
6:45
Speaker 2: We're not allowed to have oral hearings. We're not allowed
6:49
Speaker 2: to change discrepancies or inaccuracies on the files. We're not
6:54
Speaker 2: allowed to use king spent, we're not allowed to make
6:58
Speaker 2: any complaints. What we're being told that the Eate are
7:03
Speaker 2: in alien or right the Court of Appeal. We're told
7:08
Speaker 2: the Court of Appeal is in partition and it has
7:11
Speaker 2: an administrative division that I can find no evidence that
7:15
Speaker 2: it's been set up by Parliament, and the same for
7:19
Speaker 2: King's Bench. King's Bench now has an administrative division. So
7:23
Speaker 2: we're not allowed to use the Court of Appeal proper
7:27
Speaker 2: We're not allowed to use King's Bench proper, and we
7:33
Speaker 2: can't make complaints either to the local authority or to
7:37
Speaker 2: any of the court. The officers of judiciary just don't
7:40
Speaker 2: want to know. Some of the characters that we're coming
7:42
Speaker 2: into contact with are can only be described as completely lawless.
7:48
Speaker 2: Some of them are out of control. They are mindful
7:54
Speaker 2: of what we're going through, that some of them their
7:57
Speaker 2: hands are tied.
7:59
Speaker 1: Or.
8:01
Speaker 2: I find that many of them are actually mentally unwell.
8:05
Speaker 2: I don't think that they themselves are inherit the cruel
8:09
Speaker 2: or attempting to harm, deliberately attempting to harm my children
8:16
Speaker 2: and my family. But they are aware of the restrictions
8:20
Speaker 2: placed upon them and what the consequences of us not
8:25
Speaker 2: being allowed any justice would be, and that would be
8:28
Speaker 2: that we would cease to have a family and we
8:30
Speaker 2: would cease to have life. So some of the comments
8:35
Speaker 2: in writing that we've had from places like the Court
8:38
Speaker 2: of Appeal King's Bench are just utterly lawless. They don't
8:42
Speaker 2: consider the common law jurisdiction of England and Wales. We're
8:47
Speaker 2: not being allowed to use the common law at all.
8:50
Speaker 2: As you probably know from all your experience, the common
8:55
Speaker 2: law of England and Wales contains within it a lot
8:58
Speaker 2: of remedy so that we can approach judges in their
9:05
Speaker 2: full capacity, not restricted to administrative or executive orders, so
9:14
Speaker 2: that the due process of law can be followed. The
9:17
Speaker 2: blocks that are placed in front of us or the
9:19
Speaker 2: impediments have no meaning. They are not written in law.
9:25
Speaker 2: So there's slip rules and all sorts of other judge
9:30
Speaker 2: made law that we don't know exists. We can't research it,
9:35
Speaker 2: we can't find case law on it anywhere. It's being
9:39
Speaker 2: created ad hoc at a moment's notice. So when we
9:45
Speaker 2: actually go into court, we look like fools because these
9:49
Speaker 2: bus these sort of magical things that we were unaware of,
9:52
Speaker 2: that are unwritten, that are made on the spot. And
9:55
Speaker 2: Monday was an example of that. And you know, how
10:02
Speaker 2: do we fight that? How does anybody fight something that
10:07
Speaker 2: is just constantly being created in the mind of a judge.
10:13
Speaker 1: You've got straight into the heart of the matter about
10:17
Speaker 1: the court system itself. Let me just tease at that
10:22
Speaker 1: a little bit to see if we can, you know,
10:25
Speaker 1: we can get some simple points out for people who
10:28
Speaker 1: are watching and listening and might not have any experience
10:31
Speaker 1: of the family courts. You have had your children removed
10:38
Speaker 1: by the family court system, and that process could only
10:43
Speaker 1: come about by initially the involvement of agencies. So that
10:50
Speaker 1: includes the NHS, it includes local authority, it includes social services,
10:56
Speaker 1: child child support services. And then around those main agencies
11:03
Speaker 1: there will have I'll say presumably because I don't know
11:08
Speaker 1: all the details, but presumably there will be other professionals,
11:14
Speaker 1: perhaps psychologists who are brought in to give opinions or psychiatrists.
11:20
Speaker 1: All of these people from the agencies and professionals brought
11:25
Speaker 1: into court by the agencies in order to build up
11:30
Speaker 1: a case against you and your partner in your particular case,
11:36
Speaker 1: and what they have submitted to the court has ultimately
11:42
Speaker 1: been a case with supposedly sufficient evidence to justify the
11:51
Speaker 1: fact that your children were taken away from you. So
11:57
Speaker 1: that is the weight of people and capacity, the bodies
12:03
Speaker 1: that were all ranged against you to take your children
12:07
Speaker 1: from you. Can I ask you a key question which
12:09
Speaker 1: I think you can answer, and that is have you
12:13
Speaker 1: ever directly harmed your children? Have you have you harmed
12:17
Speaker 1: them physically or mentally? Have you starved them? Have you
12:21
Speaker 1: have you kicked them? Have you beaten them? Have you
12:24
Speaker 1: done anything to harm your cha?
12:27
Speaker 2: No, I'm not allowed to talk about the case. I'm
12:31
Speaker 2: too scared to. But they were taken from a hospital.
12:36
Speaker 2: I was very sick postpartum, and we only saw the
12:41
Speaker 2: children at the hospital under supervision, and then we were
12:45
Speaker 2: not allowed to see them again. They've never been home,
12:47
Speaker 2: We've never never harmed anybody. And the immunity surrounding these
12:56
Speaker 2: so called professionals, I mean, it's very strange because the
13:00
Speaker 2: medical professionals at the hospital, we are allowed to approach
13:06
Speaker 2: by law to have witness statements off them to prove
13:11
Speaker 2: that we did nothing wrong, and that's not being allowed.
13:15
Speaker 2: And these other professionals that are court appointed, they're from
13:20
Speaker 2: a pool of usual people that the court uses, but
13:25
Speaker 2: they refuse to give their evidence under oath in the dock,
13:29
Speaker 2: in the stand. So they tell us that these are
13:35
Speaker 2: technicalities and that these are procedures. But we find no
13:40
Speaker 2: evidence of how these professionals are meant to work when
13:45
Speaker 2: it comes to subject access requests or freedom of information requests.
13:50
Speaker 2: It's like the immunity is it's a blanket immunity, some
13:57
Speaker 2: sort of tacit agreement between the police and the hospital
14:02
Speaker 2: and the local authority, so that the people that do
14:06
Speaker 2: know that we've never harmed our children, we never would
14:09
Speaker 2: harm our children, that we are well, and that we
14:14
Speaker 2: are healthy enough to care and parent our children. Those
14:17
Speaker 2: people are never allowed to come into court or give
14:22
Speaker 2: their evidence, or if they do give their evidence, it
14:24
Speaker 2: is ignored. And then we even found a law called
14:30
Speaker 2: Section ninety seven of the Children and Families at twenty fourteen,
14:35
Speaker 2: which is inserted by Section ninety six of the Children
14:40
Speaker 2: at nineteen eighty nine, which allows us to present such
14:44
Speaker 2: evidence from friends, from family, from our treating physicians. And
14:49
Speaker 2: again when we present it, they say, oh, it's of
14:54
Speaker 2: no consequence. Even those people are more qualified and they
14:58
Speaker 2: have exis aed me and physically. So the professionals also,
15:04
Speaker 2: one of the biggest kind of problems we've had is
15:08
Speaker 2: we're not allowed to talk to them. We're not allowed
15:11
Speaker 2: to put questions to them. If we put questions to them,
15:14
Speaker 2: those questions have to go via the court. So I
15:18
Speaker 2: had by middle of last year, I had over five
15:23
Speaker 2: questions that came out of a report of one of
15:27
Speaker 2: these professionals, and she said, I'm not prepared to answer
15:32
Speaker 2: any of them. The judge made her answer five, and
15:36
Speaker 2: then all the other professionals said, well, actually we'll only
15:39
Speaker 2: answer five for such a complex case. Five questions gave
15:44
Speaker 2: gave the judge, you know, no favoritism towards us in
15:51
Speaker 2: any shape or form, And it just our case just
15:56
Speaker 2: keeps on falling because of these these magical rules, this
16:00
Speaker 2: crystal ball kind of predictive. Well, I can describe it
16:05
Speaker 2: as nonsense.
16:07
Speaker 1: We're being careful here, You're you're being very careful. I'm
16:11
Speaker 1: just going to keep asking some questions to see what
16:16
Speaker 1: we can get out, and will look at the answers
16:20
Speaker 1: very carefully. You state and equivocally that you've never harmed
16:26
Speaker 1: your children in any any way. No, and yet your
16:32
Speaker 1: children are taken away on the principle of what that
16:39
Speaker 1: you have harmed them or you may harm them in
16:42
Speaker 1: the future. Are you able to give us an indication
16:47
Speaker 1: of of the thinking of the institutions as opposed to
16:52
Speaker 1: what was said in court?
16:55
Speaker 2: So I can't tell you the way that it was
16:56
Speaker 2: said in court, But what I can talk to you
16:59
Speaker 2: about is a conversation and I had this morning with
17:01
Speaker 2: somebody who's experienced in other court cases around the country,
17:06
Speaker 2: and there's a sort of pseudo threshold that doesn't exist
17:16
Speaker 2: in law, and it's called future risk of emotional harm
17:20
Speaker 2: or future risk of psychological harm, and Lady Hale has
17:25
Speaker 2: actually written extensively on that subject, and that is that
17:30
Speaker 2: if parents have caused harm, it still can't that harm
17:35
Speaker 2: cannot be used to predict that they will cause harm
17:38
Speaker 2: in the future. And she's also written that if parents
17:42
Speaker 2: haven't caused any harm in the past, then that also
17:45
Speaker 2: cannot be used to predict that there would be future
17:48
Speaker 2: harm of any kind. And again, the evidence that we
17:55
Speaker 2: put forward for that that we did not meet that threshold,
18:01
Speaker 2: that all these other parents have not met that threshold,
18:03
Speaker 2: is not being considered in any way. It seems as
18:08
Speaker 2: though it's some sort of excuse to take children.
18:14
Speaker 1: Is this a simple analogy that under English law, under
18:21
Speaker 1: common law, you're innocent until proven guilty, but in a
18:27
Speaker 1: family court you are overwhelmingly presumed to be guilty, and
18:34
Speaker 1: it's then up to you to prove that you're innocent,
18:38
Speaker 1: and that includes having to try and prove that if
18:42
Speaker 1: somebody says, oh, but in the future you may do this,
18:47
Speaker 1: you are supposed to somehow prove to them that that
18:51
Speaker 1: isn't true and you're not going to do anything in
18:53
Speaker 1: the future. Do you talk a little bit about how
18:58
Speaker 1: you feel about the system when when you're in the
19:01
Speaker 1: family court system, do you feel that you're there being judged,
19:10
Speaker 1: judged openly and accurately as an individual, or is there
19:15
Speaker 1: another agenda?
19:20
Speaker 2: The only agenda that I have seen, and my friends
19:24
Speaker 2: and family have seen is driven by money and driven
19:28
Speaker 2: by fostering and adoption budgets and commissions. Because the councils
19:33
Speaker 2: are privatized, These agencies, and these companies and these brokers
19:37
Speaker 2: are private. And what we learned only this morning is
19:43
Speaker 2: what's supposed to happen is an interim care order. It
19:49
Speaker 2: actually is normally made without any solid grounds, and it's
19:55
Speaker 2: a draconian measure, and within twenty one day, the local
20:01
Speaker 2: authority is meant to involve the police and either charge
20:05
Speaker 2: the parents for the crime or a caution of some
20:10
Speaker 2: sort for any criminal act and law breaking which never
20:14
Speaker 2: took place. And if that doesn't happen within the first
20:18
Speaker 2: twenty one days with the police, which doesn't apply to
20:22
Speaker 2: our case anyway, because if the parents have done nothing wrong,
20:27
Speaker 2: then the interim care order is normally extended. And then
20:31
Speaker 2: if up to twenty six weeks there is no charge
20:36
Speaker 2: against the parents, no law has been broken, no crime
20:40
Speaker 2: has been committed, then the children are meant to be
20:43
Speaker 2: given back to the parents. And if it so means
20:48
Speaker 2: that the parents need support because they're unwell and the
20:52
Speaker 2: children are unwell, then that support must be given at home.
20:56
Speaker 2: But then we get into the realm of money again,
20:59
Speaker 2: but in a day, and that is that your average
21:02
Speaker 2: contact session is costing two hours with one supervisor for
21:11
Speaker 2: only one child is costing about four hundred pounds. So
21:16
Speaker 2: if you multiply that that they're saying that the parents
21:20
Speaker 2: don't have enough experiences with the children at home. And
21:25
Speaker 2: then you ask what that figure would be. The figure
21:28
Speaker 2: that you're given is that an average time for the
21:32
Speaker 2: local authority to return the children home would be say
21:35
Speaker 2: five hours, five times a week. Then you look at
21:38
Speaker 2: the figure that the foster care is getting paid versus
21:42
Speaker 2: what the four hundred foot one supervisor for two hours
21:46
Speaker 2: at four hundred would be, you're looking at sort of
21:48
Speaker 2: like twenty five thousand pounds a week. Now, they're not
21:52
Speaker 2: going to pay that to send children home, So we
21:55
Speaker 2: just get we get mixed up in what is a
21:59
Speaker 2: money driven industry. It's the child legal services industry, and
22:04
Speaker 2: it has to be said for what it is. The
22:07
Speaker 2: parents aren't there for money or for damages. They're just
22:11
Speaker 2: desperate to get their children home. But all the sort
22:15
Speaker 2: of the remedies for getting the children home are all
22:20
Speaker 2: based in common law, in proper English common law. But
22:25
Speaker 2: we're not allowed to use any of the common law
22:28
Speaker 2: to get the children back, and we're not versed in
22:32
Speaker 2: using contract law or business laws in order to be
22:36
Speaker 2: able to manipulate that money to say, well, actually we
22:39
Speaker 2: can apply for a grant. You know, the people can
22:44
Speaker 2: apply to the States directly for a grant for the transition.
22:49
Speaker 2: It doesn't you know, there's no law that says it
22:52
Speaker 2: has to be done through practitioners or privateers at the council.
22:58
Speaker 2: And then we hit another hurdle about money, which is
23:02
Speaker 2: that the payment of the council comes from various sources,
23:08
Speaker 2: but the payment had anything to do with children at
23:11
Speaker 2: Social Services comes from the Department for Education. So when
23:16
Speaker 2: we then approach the Department for Education, they can we
23:20
Speaker 2: have a grant from you, they send us back to
23:22
Speaker 2: Social Services. When we then say to the court that
23:27
Speaker 2: this should be you know, we want a case where
23:31
Speaker 2: we are dealing with our state government, our central state government.
23:37
Speaker 2: They say no, and we say, well, we want to
23:41
Speaker 2: talk to the Department for Education because this is who
23:46
Speaker 2: is dictating these executive orders on our children. Again the
23:49
Speaker 2: answer is no. So it's all stitched up and sewn
23:53
Speaker 2: up in such a way, all led by money. None
23:56
Speaker 2: of it's being led by law, and we it's like
24:01
Speaker 2: a cul de sac all the way up to the
24:04
Speaker 2: Court of Appeals, partition and all the way back down again,
24:07
Speaker 2: and you just the parents are just stuck in this
24:10
Speaker 2: and the clock is constantly ticking. The Council's the council's
24:17
Speaker 2: aim seems to be to wind down the clock. And
24:21
Speaker 2: the commodity for the parents, if they could use the
24:24
Speaker 2: word commodity at all, is time. So they have all
24:28
Speaker 2: the resources. There's a total, utter, utter imbalance, and they
24:34
Speaker 2: have all the resources and money, and it's sort of
24:39
Speaker 2: like a coercion by attrition almost. And then there's another
24:44
Speaker 2: thing which again relates to money, which is the short staffedness,
24:47
Speaker 2: the constant changing of staff, and that that causes the
24:52
Speaker 2: parents a lot of problem again related to during COVID,
24:58
Speaker 2: which was the problem that we had because I gave
25:02
Speaker 2: birth during COVID. During the COVID restrictions and the short
25:07
Speaker 2: staffedness and bank staff in our case just being thwarted,
25:15
Speaker 2: and many things being misconstrued and overlooked. I don't know
25:20
Speaker 2: if I've answered your question, Brian. I'm sorry.
25:23
Speaker 1: You're answering the the you're answering. You're answering by providing
25:30
Speaker 1: detail on the subject. I'm going to say to you,
25:33
Speaker 1: don't don't apologize. So you've raised You've raised a lot
25:38
Speaker 1: of points there. You're talking about the imbalance in forces. Really,
25:44
Speaker 1: there's a term used in the court's equity of arms,
25:48
Speaker 1: which is effectively saying that when people go into court
25:52
Speaker 1: there has to be balance in the weapons and means
25:56
Speaker 1: available to them. If I were to give an example
26:00
Speaker 1: of that, an extreme example, it would be for an
26:03
Speaker 1: ordinary member of the public to try and take on McDonald's,
26:07
Speaker 1: for instance, would be would have to require special sensitivity
26:12
Speaker 1: in court because, of course, armed with its billions of
26:14
Speaker 1: pounds of corporate resources, McDonald's could invest millions into legal
26:22
Speaker 1: expertise and capability to quash an ordinary member of the public.
26:27
Speaker 1: So the legal system, if it's to operate properly, would
26:31
Speaker 1: have to achieve equity of arms inside the court in
26:36
Speaker 1: order there is a fair trial under the law of
26:40
Speaker 1: the land. And one of the key points that we've
26:44
Speaker 1: touched on already and you're expanding on a little bit,
26:48
Speaker 1: is that is that when parents have faced with the
26:53
Speaker 1: issue of their children and losing their children to the state,
26:57
Speaker 1: the state has all the assets, pays for the courts,
27:01
Speaker 1: it pays for the judges, it pays for the local authority.
27:05
Speaker 1: The local authority pay for their legal teams. They then
27:09
Speaker 1: use taxpayers money to bring in their barrister to ensure
27:13
Speaker 1: that your child doesn't come home. And then the local
27:18
Speaker 1: authorities very often have an extremely cozy relationship not only
27:23
Speaker 1: with contact centers, which are predominantly run as profit making
27:31
Speaker 1: commercial organizations these days, but the charities are also working along. Sorry,
27:36
Speaker 1: the local authorities are also working alongside charities who are
27:41
Speaker 1: also making vast amounts of money from the supposed care
27:48
Speaker 1: of children who have been taken into care or via
27:53
Speaker 1: the route for fostering an adoption. So you mentioned money there,
27:59
Speaker 1: and I'm going to echo back to everywhere you move.
28:03
Speaker 1: When the state gets hold of the child, you can
28:07
Speaker 1: see that money, very big money is starting to change hands.
28:14
Speaker 2: Yes, that's true, but we've met some on the ground.
28:20
Speaker 2: We've met some wonderful people and you can do nothing
28:25
Speaker 2: but pity them. They're involved, and thank god, some of
28:29
Speaker 2: them are there because they're protecting everybody's children. They just
28:34
Speaker 2: can't get the jobs that they want in the way
28:36
Speaker 2: that they want them, and they're almost stuck in some
28:40
Speaker 2: sort of stalemate where their only way to work with
28:44
Speaker 2: children is to work inside the system. And one of
28:46
Speaker 2: the examples that you mentioned earlier was a contact center.
28:50
Speaker 2: We understand that caf CASS runs a lot of these
28:53
Speaker 2: contact centers. Some of them that I have come in
28:56
Speaker 2: contact with are not run by caf CASS. There's a
29:00
Speaker 2: big difference I notice in the staff and the way
29:02
Speaker 2: that the staff behave. Caf CASS, for instance, refuses to
29:07
Speaker 2: accept that it is a private limited company, which is
29:12
Speaker 2: just bizarre. It believes that it's some sort of department
29:14
Speaker 2: of government. And that's how a lot of the people
29:18
Speaker 2: that the staff that we're seeing, they've just described to
29:25
Speaker 2: us that they know what the parents are going through.
29:27
Speaker 2: They know that it's wrong, but they say that they
29:31
Speaker 2: need a job. They have to pay for their mortgages,
29:34
Speaker 2: they have to pay for their children, they have to
29:38
Speaker 2: earn a crust so again that side of it is
29:43
Speaker 2: about money. And I notice that the people that work
29:46
Speaker 2: for caf CASS are almost behaving is if they are
29:53
Speaker 2: you know, am I five, m I six agents. Some
29:57
Speaker 2: of the social workers behave as if they're police. Some
30:01
Speaker 2: of the contact workers' behaviors if they're working for HM
30:05
Speaker 2: prisons and the Prison Service. So you feel as though
30:08
Speaker 2: you're not talking to staff that are adequately trained to
30:13
Speaker 2: deal with vulnerable children, vulnerable parents, and definitely not patients.
30:18
Speaker 2: A lot of the staff don't have any medical training,
30:22
Speaker 2: so when they're approaching babies that have come out of
30:25
Speaker 2: the hospital, they don't understand the condition of babies and
30:30
Speaker 2: mother's postpartum and they ask for training. They don't get it.
30:35
Speaker 2: Children and parents and staff are asking for rehabilitation, even
30:39
Speaker 2: for staff's own mental health. And then I noticed you
30:46
Speaker 2: mentioned earlier. I don't remember your exact comment, but I'd
30:52
Speaker 2: just like to say that what we've noticed is a
30:56
Speaker 2: change that the artificial intelligence programs on the Internet are
31:02
Speaker 2: having not just on staff but the parents, So that
31:06
Speaker 2: when we look up case law links on different computers,
31:10
Speaker 2: like the computer of the judge, you might have sent
31:13
Speaker 2: a link through to desperately say this is the law
31:17
Speaker 2: that we rely upon. You know. Please click on the
31:21
Speaker 2: following link. It says that we can have our children back,
31:24
Speaker 2: or it says that we can have support. And what
31:27
Speaker 2: these AI links are doing is when the judge or
31:30
Speaker 2: the person you're writing to is opening that link on
31:34
Speaker 2: their computer, they're seeing something completely different. And often this
31:39
Speaker 2: is making the parents and staff that are trying to
31:42
Speaker 2: help us actually genuinely trying to help us, it's making
31:46
Speaker 2: them look like idiots. And then part of this AI
31:50
Speaker 2: is when we keep we've had a very long, exhausted time,
31:55
Speaker 2: we keep getting given pages of people that can help,
32:01
Speaker 2: and those people are either already in the system. They're
32:05
Speaker 2: either friends of social workers that have set up a charity,
32:10
Speaker 2: or they're friends of lawyers, or the lawyers themselves are
32:14
Speaker 2: part of the local authority. They're called in house lawyers,
32:19
Speaker 2: but they're not actually based at the council at all.
32:24
Speaker 2: Some of them are linked to the actual adoption brokerage companies, again,
32:31
Speaker 2: which are all private. So when you click on the
32:33
Speaker 2: internet link for that firm or that broker or that agency,
32:38
Speaker 2: it's actually the same thing behind. But the skin that
32:42
Speaker 2: you're being shown is deceptive. It's not nothing's true about it.
32:48
Speaker 2: So sometimes what we do is we use a completely
32:50
Speaker 2: different telephone number, a completely different name. And it's been
32:56
Speaker 2: happening since the summer with the courts. I was phoning
32:59
Speaker 2: the courts under my name and asking when the counter
33:03
Speaker 2: was open for us to be able, if the public
33:05
Speaker 2: counter was open for us to have an appointment, and
33:08
Speaker 2: they had said it has never opened since COVID. So
33:13
Speaker 2: I plucked up the courage to ring again off a
33:15
Speaker 2: different number and unknown number. I rang again. They said,
33:18
Speaker 2: of course it's open, because I was seen as a
33:20
Speaker 2: different person. Of course it's it's open from tental whatever
33:24
Speaker 2: in the morning. But what happens is again, when you
33:28
Speaker 2: go into this system, the information that you're provided on
33:32
Speaker 2: the internet, even about the courts or the law or
33:34
Speaker 2: the law firms or the structure of this system, is
33:40
Speaker 2: highly deceptive. On the ground, It's untrue. These are either
33:46
Speaker 2: paper towns. I don't know if one could call them
33:49
Speaker 2: paper departments, but they either do not exist or their
33:55
Speaker 2: structure is in some way exaggerated, and the power behind
34:01
Speaker 2: and the authority behind those structures is exaggerated. We have
34:10
Speaker 2: in all of it, we have met some very nice
34:13
Speaker 2: people and like I said, they are being controlled. They're
34:20
Speaker 2: under a lot of coercion. When they're at work, they're
34:23
Speaker 2: led to believe that what they're working for is true
34:28
Speaker 2: and that it exists. And it seems to be because
34:32
Speaker 2: I gave birth to my babies during COVID and court COVID,
34:38
Speaker 2: and so did father, and there seems to be a
34:42
Speaker 2: lot linked to all of you know, like a further
34:48
Speaker 2: oppressive stage of all of this being set up during COVID.
34:55
Speaker 2: In fact, I would say that a lot of the
34:58
Speaker 2: behavior when the parents fight, these people seem to make
35:03
Speaker 2: a note of what that fight is, so if it's
35:06
Speaker 2: a law, or it's a particular charity, or it's a
35:09
Speaker 2: particular court, even such as we went to the Central
35:14
Speaker 2: Family Court and the Court of Protection for help, and
35:17
Speaker 2: initially we were offered a lot, and then when that
35:23
Speaker 2: proved useful to us, those avenues were closed down. Those
35:28
Speaker 2: people were scolded, they were moved to different departments, and
35:33
Speaker 2: they were never to be seen again. We couldn't contact
35:35
Speaker 2: them again. So that it's like a forever changing beast
35:41
Speaker 2: that basically has been controlled, I would say, by a
35:45
Speaker 2: certain pool of people that constantly are aware of the
35:51
Speaker 2: fight that the parents have got or any of their allies,
35:54
Speaker 2: and then they're changing it so that those avenues are
35:58
Speaker 2: shut down, so that the just gets greater and greater
36:02
Speaker 2: and greater, and you're left with absolutely no power. Yet
36:07
Speaker 2: everyone knows that all the power in England and Wales
36:11
Speaker 2: is in the common law, because we live in a
36:14
Speaker 2: common law jurisdiction. So we then were taught to the
36:18
Speaker 2: common law. We take it, we seek its protection, we
36:23
Speaker 2: take sanctuary in it, and that is obviously what the
36:27
Speaker 2: King and God protect in England and Wales, and that's
36:30
Speaker 2: what we believe. And again we're not allowed to believe that.
36:34
Speaker 2: We're told. When I've mentioned in the courtroom that I
36:38
Speaker 2: want to rely on any part of the Christian Bible
36:42
Speaker 2: or even the Sikh Bible, I've been told I can't.
36:45
Speaker 2: There's no room for God anywhere. Apparently God does not exist.
36:50
Speaker 2: And also we mentioned the King. Now, I was told
36:54
Speaker 2: on Monday by a judge that he didn't work for
36:57
Speaker 2: the King or the Crown, and I just couldn't understand it.
37:01
Speaker 2: I was standing in the court saying that you know
37:04
Speaker 2: you're wearing a wig. The purpose of you wearing a
37:07
Speaker 2: wig is before God and the King to in order
37:12
Speaker 2: to as a public servant, to serve, serve their people,
37:14
Speaker 2: to serve as people. So we're also made to look
37:18
Speaker 2: like idiots if we have any any faith in God.
37:24
Speaker 2: Not just not just the common law, I mean the family.
37:30
Speaker 2: But I'm not allowed to talk to you about today,
37:32
Speaker 2: which is my family is a unique, unique mixed race family,
37:37
Speaker 2: and I'm not even allowed to talk about my background
37:39
Speaker 2: as a Sikh. I was born as a Sek. I'm
37:42
Speaker 2: converting to Christianity, and I've been mocked because of it
37:48
Speaker 2: inside the courtroom by one of the judges and some
37:52
Speaker 2: of the social workers. I'm told I'm not allowed protection
37:56
Speaker 2: of treaties from amrits are and neither are my children,
38:03
Speaker 2: and or I'm told that those things don't exist the
38:08
Speaker 2: other other than money. One of the things that we've
38:12
Speaker 2: experienced a lot of is hatred towards different different races
38:22
Speaker 2: and mixed races, and also the hatred towards veterans. So
38:29
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't I don't know whether I'm free
38:31
Speaker 2: to speak about the fact that you know, Baby's dad
38:37
Speaker 2: is a veteran, but he's been treated like he is
38:41
Speaker 2: almost non human because he went to Northern Ireland to
38:45
Speaker 2: fight what.
38:46
Speaker 1: You're what you're talking about here, I think is basic
38:49
Speaker 1: human kindness. You're talking about the fact that that one nobody,
38:56
Speaker 1: nobody should be just judged on their religion, religion or
39:00
Speaker 1: the color of their skin within society. They shouldn't be
39:03
Speaker 1: certainly shouldn't be judged within the court of law. And
39:07
Speaker 1: you've clearly experienced that, and it's been extremely unpleasant, and
39:14
Speaker 1: you've now got into the area that and I think
39:17
Speaker 1: this is a really critical one that in the beginning,
39:22
Speaker 1: when you'd had your babies, like any other meant and
39:26
Speaker 1: like any other mother, you needed some help and a
39:29
Speaker 1: support around you. And it's not unreasonable to say that
39:35
Speaker 1: you should be able to expect normal human kindness and
39:40
Speaker 1: support by members of the local authority, even if they're
39:47
Speaker 1: coming to you with a particular professional role, you would
39:50
Speaker 1: still expect them to treat you as a human being
39:53
Speaker 1: and to give you the support that you needed. And
39:57
Speaker 1: the other factor that goes along with that is that
40:00
Speaker 1: that actually, in the beginning, it was your right, your
40:05
Speaker 1: entitlement that the local authority did give you support to
40:11
Speaker 1: help deal with your newborn babies, because they're supposed to
40:16
Speaker 1: be giving that support to any family that needs that
40:20
Speaker 1: kind of help. To me, that doesn't seem to have happened.
40:24
Speaker 1: It's the opposite, is that any any struggle that you had,
40:29
Speaker 1: or any need you had, has been used against you,
40:34
Speaker 1: has been used to build up a case ultimately to
40:37
Speaker 1: take your children. That's my impression. You don't need to
40:41
Speaker 1: comment on that because to comment might cause you a problem,
40:45
Speaker 1: So don't comment on it. But I give the audience
40:48
Speaker 1: them my impression on it. But when you talk about
40:51
Speaker 1: the fact that professionals are not treating you with proper,
40:57
Speaker 1: normal human kindness and respect, this is extremely worrying because
41:04
Speaker 1: this shows some serious breakdown in society and it leads
41:10
Speaker 1: to some very nasty places which we've seen in other
41:14
Speaker 1: nationalities as the state has declined from a democracy into
41:20
Speaker 1: a more brutalistic dictatoratorship type form.
41:26
Speaker 2: I will branch just interject there. What I mentioned the
41:30
Speaker 2: kindness of some of the people. We had nurses and
41:34
Speaker 2: doctors that wanted to help us, and some of them
41:37
Speaker 2: said we can't because things have changed during COVID and
41:42
Speaker 2: I actually had one very senior member of the hospital
41:45
Speaker 2: come and see me before birth, and she described the
41:48
Speaker 2: hospital because she'd been there since the time it had
41:50
Speaker 2: opened in the nineties and she just said to me,
41:53
Speaker 2: it was never like this. She said, COVID has ruined it.
41:57
Speaker 2: And I asked many of them over quite a long time,
42:01
Speaker 2: which was for over forty days in hospital and staff
42:04
Speaker 2: and I ventured to over five hospitals during the pregnancy,
42:10
Speaker 2: and they said the same thing is that things were
42:13
Speaker 2: changing because staff were being threatened. They couldn't keep their
42:16
Speaker 2: jobs if they didn't have boosters. So one of the
42:22
Speaker 2: one of the feelings that we had was that it
42:26
Speaker 2: was led by COVID. A lot of what was or
42:29
Speaker 2: was not available to us was being led not by
42:33
Speaker 2: the hospital policy. And what we saw was staff that
42:37
Speaker 2: were mentally unwell. They weren't mentally unwell because of the
42:40
Speaker 2: pressures of the oppressive pressures of pressures that we mentioned earlier.
42:46
Speaker 2: Some of the mental illness was due to fear because
42:51
Speaker 2: of COVID and what would happen to their jobs and
42:54
Speaker 2: their contracts if they didn't behave in a certain way.
42:58
Speaker 2: And one of the behaviors that we witnessed but one
43:04
Speaker 2: of the foreign nurses, she was having an argument with
43:08
Speaker 2: the hospital staff because she said, you're lying to the
43:12
Speaker 2: pet to people including social services about the bathing of
43:17
Speaker 2: the babies. The babies have not been bathed. No babies
43:21
Speaker 2: have been bathed properly and had a bath during COVID.
43:26
Speaker 2: You say that that's a COVID measure, but I've been
43:29
Speaker 2: here longer and you haven't been bathing them before. So
43:33
Speaker 2: obviously when I when I raised that issue, I was
43:37
Speaker 2: seen as as as belligerent and then sort of earmarked
43:42
Speaker 2: as the cancel culture, and the virtue signaling started. And
43:48
Speaker 2: then when it came to one of the senior specialists
43:51
Speaker 2: who is found on the GMC specialist register because a
43:54
Speaker 2: lot of these other people aren't, he said that it's
43:58
Speaker 2: okay for me to delay the non essential vaccines and
44:03
Speaker 2: also some of the essential ones, and some of the
44:07
Speaker 2: staff agreed with that, and those that didn't, we're not
44:12
Speaker 2: allowed to help us make those decisions. And then we
44:17
Speaker 2: were labeled anti vaxer. Also, they brought up our political
44:22
Speaker 2: affiliations as well, so we were actually not getting help.
44:29
Speaker 2: It wasn't just because we were this unique mixed race
44:34
Speaker 2: family Babe's dad's veteran status, but it was also because
44:41
Speaker 2: we were seen as either anti vaxers or asking what
44:46
Speaker 2: would be a normal thing it during the time of COVID,
44:51
Speaker 2: so self isolation, social distancing, the exemption for wearing the
44:57
Speaker 2: masks while feeding, because you know, just restrictions on being
45:03
Speaker 2: able to feed wearing a mask and an advisor. So
45:07
Speaker 2: these types of things, we were made to feel isolated
45:11
Speaker 2: and as if we were doing something wrong, and it
45:16
Speaker 2: was brought up again and again, as if they were crimes,
45:20
Speaker 2: if they were crimes of the mind, even like almost
45:25
Speaker 2: like thought crime to even think that a professional might
45:31
Speaker 2: have got it wrong. And we pointed out many times
45:34
Speaker 2: where actually we got it so right. There was at
45:38
Speaker 2: least a couple of occasions where the doctors missed something.
45:42
Speaker 2: I intervened and I saved the lives of my children
45:48
Speaker 2: by asking them to do extra tests, and and and
45:53
Speaker 2: and get getting some some some more feedback from a
45:58
Speaker 2: second opinion. Mentioning the word second opinion is as if
46:03
Speaker 2: it's some sort of swear word or profanity. Also, we're
46:07
Speaker 2: not allowed to mention our education. They frown upon it,
46:11
Speaker 2: all of them. There's some sort of culture going on
46:14
Speaker 2: between the social care teams that are at the hospital.
46:17
Speaker 2: They don't want to know if you're even And I've
46:21
Speaker 2: had comments from a psychiatrist that came to the house
46:24
Speaker 2: who's working for them now her children were snatched. We've
46:31
Speaker 2: had a barrister as well that has given an opinion
46:34
Speaker 2: his children have been snatched. He's actually featured in the
46:38
Speaker 2: national press. If people mention any education that they have,
46:44
Speaker 2: even if they're just you know, parts of degrees where
46:46
Speaker 2: they've finished a particular component of postgraduate education taught education
46:53
Speaker 2: at a university of a reputable university. You're not allowed to
46:57
Speaker 2: talk about it because it's apparently not relevant and it's
47:02
Speaker 2: got nothing to do with the training of the parents.
47:05
Speaker 2: But the whole point of the training of the parents
47:07
Speaker 2: is to learn what the parents know and what can
47:11
Speaker 2: be built upon. So the foundation of what they're claiming
47:16
Speaker 2: that they want to do is it's never pure. There's
47:19
Speaker 2: no they don't care, there's no duty of care towards
47:25
Speaker 2: the parents, care towards the family.
47:30
Speaker 1: I put a little bit of extra context in here
47:33
Speaker 1: because I suspect that you are. You're describing the things
47:38
Speaker 1: you're describing now, you're doing that against the background that
47:44
Speaker 1: for family court cases across the boards, not just yours,
47:48
Speaker 1: the local authority will send in a supposedly qualified person
47:53
Speaker 1: whether they're qualified or not. That varies. Sometimes they are
47:58
Speaker 1: and sometimes they're not. That person then scores the parents
48:03
Speaker 1: as to their parenting ability. They have a tick box
48:08
Speaker 1: sheet and they go through a number of points, and
48:11
Speaker 1: this individual makes a judgment as to whether a first
48:16
Speaker 1: time parent is a capable parent or is not a
48:20
Speaker 1: capable parent. And so I suspect that you're particularly making
48:25
Speaker 1: the comments. You just have against that backdrop that when
48:29
Speaker 1: a parent says, well, I haven't had any prior training
48:32
Speaker 1: to be a parent. Most new parents haven't. But I
48:38
Speaker 1: am intelligent and I have completed part of a degree.
48:43
Speaker 1: Instead of that being used to enhance your capability as
48:48
Speaker 1: an individual, it's used against you, and you're being mocked
48:53
Speaker 1: for trying to claim that having part of a degree
48:56
Speaker 1: has helped you. Is that a is that.
49:03
Speaker 2: It is? Brian, and I would take it further. I
49:07
Speaker 2: mentioned on Monday that it was a family court, not
49:13
Speaker 2: a children's court, to all of the duty of care
49:16
Speaker 2: towards the parents, especially if all the children and the
49:20
Speaker 2: parents are patients, that makes it a medical case. If
49:26
Speaker 2: the children are unwell and the parents are unwell, especially
49:30
Speaker 2: at birth, that makes this a medical case, and a
49:34
Speaker 2: medical case cannot be adjudicated on in any shape or
49:38
Speaker 2: form in a family court. A family court is an
49:41
Speaker 2: administrative court and one of the judges actually last year
49:44
Speaker 2: who's training, she actually said to the court, I cannot
49:50
Speaker 2: talk to the mother and father about this part of
49:55
Speaker 2: law because I can't adjudicate on it. And just to
50:00
Speaker 2: of say what that is. That includes any form of
50:03
Speaker 2: equity and trust law, which is what NHS trusts, and
50:10
Speaker 2: the live birth record and the maternity records are embroiled
50:13
Speaker 2: in which is the superior right of possession to your
50:18
Speaker 2: children under the law of England and Wales. But it's
50:23
Speaker 2: also to do with the fact that she can't interpret
50:28
Speaker 2: any medical results, whether they're psychological, psychiatric, parenting assessments, that
50:33
Speaker 2: they're not allowed to do it by law because it
50:37
Speaker 2: comes under the medical law taught and in fact the
50:41
Speaker 2: duty of care is also a taught law. Now, if
50:45
Speaker 2: I could, just for your audience, just just clarify taught
50:49
Speaker 2: as in t o RT and not taug h T.
50:54
Speaker 2: The taught law is a tangible sort of it's a
51:00
Speaker 2: major part of English law and it's how we as
51:04
Speaker 2: the people come into contact with law. So anything to
51:08
Speaker 2: do with flesh and blood. It's all a medical medical matters,
51:15
Speaker 2: so patients would have relied on a thing called the
51:19
Speaker 2: Delayed Discharge Act, which doesn't seem to exist. So these
51:25
Speaker 2: formal qualifications of the parenting assessments don't actually exist. By law,
51:31
Speaker 2: parents are not regulated. There's no Parent Act regulating parents.
51:36
Speaker 2: There's no Mother Act regulating parents. There's no Father Act
51:41
Speaker 2: regulating parents. The only one parenting assessment which is statutory
51:47
Speaker 2: compliant is Section ninety seven of the Children and Families Act.
51:51
Speaker 2: And we're not allowed to use it for our children.
51:54
Speaker 2: We've not been allowed to use it for our children.
51:57
Speaker 2: We've not been allowed to use it for ourselves, even
51:59
Speaker 2: though we all four of us were patients at the time.
52:03
Speaker 2: And also no formal qualification by any examining body actually exists,
52:09
Speaker 2: so you could have you can have a parenting assessor
52:13
Speaker 2: who's just from a trading as PO box number, without
52:18
Speaker 2: any public indemnity insurance for her professionalism at all. We
52:23
Speaker 2: had another that's actually based internationally, isn't even in the
52:27
Speaker 2: country paying taxes, so she's got no eligibility for jury service,
52:34
Speaker 2: let alone to be an expert. She's not found on
52:37
Speaker 2: any of the experts institutes in fact, most of the
52:40
Speaker 2: references that we called they refused to acknowledge that this
52:47
Speaker 2: person even existed or they'd even met them. There's a
52:51
Speaker 2: particular part of the case I'm not allowed to talk
52:53
Speaker 2: to you about as a result of there was some
52:57
Speaker 2: harm that was done explicitly physically, and when I've complained
53:02
Speaker 2: about that, or when I'm trying to start a criminal
53:06
Speaker 2: complaint about that, it falls foul because the police take
53:10
Speaker 2: the side of whoever the local authority, and the courts
53:14
Speaker 2: tell them to take the side off. So when again
53:18
Speaker 2: we're not allowed to use the law. But one of
53:21
Speaker 2: the things that happened over Christmas is when I attempted
53:24
Speaker 2: to use the law Brian and I issued baby's father
53:28
Speaker 2: did when he issued a against individuals whoever these individuals
53:37
Speaker 2: can be because they're not immune. According to the law
53:39
Speaker 2: of England and Wales. It doesn't matter whether you're charge
53:43
Speaker 2: or executioner, the same law applies. So when the application
53:49
Speaker 2: was issued in these corporate stroke business courts administrative courts,
53:56
Speaker 2: the sent round three menacing police officers to the house
54:02
Speaker 2: to intimidate us. And it was an intimidation display done
54:05
Speaker 2: specifically so that we thought twice about ever using her
54:13
Speaker 2: contact details as an individual, even though we've been directed
54:16
Speaker 2: by the court to serve those papers. There's things like
54:21
Speaker 2: that that are going on, and they're stopping our family
54:25
Speaker 2: and all the other families that we've spoken to. They're
54:29
Speaker 2: not being allowed to access anything.
54:33
Speaker 1: I just come in here if I may. I always
54:37
Speaker 1: have my thinking cap on. With the audience and people
54:40
Speaker 1: that are listening to this, I just want to recap
54:43
Speaker 1: a bit. What this whole discussion is about is about
54:47
Speaker 1: the fact that you, as with thousands of other parents,
54:50
Speaker 1: have had children taken away from you by the family court.
54:56
Speaker 1: You have been fighting for an extended period time to
55:01
Speaker 1: try and get your children back, and you are faced
55:05
Speaker 1: with a system which we could say is out of control,
55:09
Speaker 1: but in fact, for me, when I hear what you
55:12
Speaker 1: have to say, and I hear what other mums and
55:15
Speaker 1: dads have to say, it doesn't seem to me that
55:18
Speaker 1: it's a system out of control because it is a
55:21
Speaker 1: highly controlled system. But it's a highly controlled system which
55:26
Speaker 1: is a law run to itself, and it is clearly
55:29
Speaker 1: often breaking the law and or rewriting the law to
55:35
Speaker 1: suit its own purposes, which is to be able to
55:38
Speaker 1: take people's children and to ensure that despite the best
55:44
Speaker 1: efforts of parents in the court, they're not able to
55:49
Speaker 1: get their children back. So you're describing, we could say breakdown,
55:57
Speaker 1: but it's orchestrated breakdown. It's people acting in common purpose
56:05
Speaker 1: in order to deprive you of your children. It's happening
56:09
Speaker 1: within the local authorities. It's happening within the charities that
56:13
Speaker 1: they associate with. It's happening within the contact center facilities.
56:21
Speaker 1: It's happening within the adoption agencies, and it's happening within
56:25
Speaker 1: the courts. It's happening within the judicial the judges system itself.
56:31
Speaker 1: So there is something extremely dark and unpleasant going on
56:35
Speaker 1: in this country. And it's not just you that's telling
56:41
Speaker 1: this story. It's a story that has affected thousands of people,
56:46
Speaker 1: and it's affecting tens and tens and tens of thousands
56:50
Speaker 1: of children who were taken from their parents and held
56:55
Speaker 1: in supposedly safe child protection facilities or palmed out to
57:01
Speaker 1: complete strangers for fostering and adoption. This is a beast
57:07
Speaker 1: system that you're up against. It seems to me. I
57:11
Speaker 1: don't know whether you like to comment on that.
57:15
Speaker 2: I go back to the people on the ground. We've
57:19
Speaker 2: met some wonderful people and they've all said the same thing.
57:23
Speaker 2: We want to help, but we can't. And if I
57:26
Speaker 2: had one message for all of them, it's for them
57:29
Speaker 2: to speak out, because if they say to their bosses,
57:35
Speaker 2: we can see what's going on, we're serving you with dignity,
57:40
Speaker 2: we're doing as you ask, but we don't. We didn't
57:44
Speaker 2: sign up for this. We didn't sign up for cruelty
57:48
Speaker 2: to parents. We didn't sign up for children to be
57:52
Speaker 2: snatched against the law. Children are being taken against the law.
57:56
Speaker 2: There is no fair trial at all. The Court of
58:00
Speaker 2: Appeal to say to us that the e c hr
58:04
Speaker 2: inaliable rights don't don't apply, and that we're not allowed
58:08
Speaker 2: to use the common law in any of the courts.
58:11
Speaker 2: We're not allowed access to the courts when our applications
58:14
Speaker 2: are not being treated properly, they're not being prescribed properly
58:18
Speaker 2: at all. My message would be to all of the
58:21
Speaker 2: people that we've spoken to is to to it is
58:26
Speaker 2: to speak, is to speak out, and and not not
58:29
Speaker 2: fear for their jobs, because how many of them will
58:32
Speaker 2: they sack? Will the Court of Appeal sack all its staff,
58:36
Speaker 2: Will these hospitals stackle sack all their staff, will will
58:39
Speaker 2: the local will the councils sack all their staff. So
58:42
Speaker 2: there's got to be sort of it's a nas it's
58:46
Speaker 2: a problem for the nation and what people have said,
58:51
Speaker 2: right to your MP, we've done that. The MP shrug
58:55
Speaker 2: shrugged his shoulders. We am I allowed to name the
58:59
Speaker 2: MP he Brian or would that be breaking the law?
59:04
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any problem in naming your MP
59:06
Speaker 1: at all. He's a public servant and if you've approached
59:09
Speaker 1: him with the case, you've approached him with the case.
59:12
Speaker 2: So we've approached John McDonell. We also approached Ray Puddyfoot.
59:20
Speaker 2: We also approached Tandsi TANDESSI is the only one that's
59:24
Speaker 2: trying to do something. We've approached police and crime commissioners
59:29
Speaker 2: like Matthew Barber, and there's others involved. But approaching the
59:36
Speaker 2: MPs doesn't work. Approaching the courts doesn't work. Writing to
59:41
Speaker 2: the judges to your hands bleed doesn't work. Appealing to
59:44
Speaker 2: friends and family doesn't work. What the country needs in
59:48
Speaker 2: this situation is a military grade hostage negotiator, because that's
59:56
Speaker 2: what the situation is. We have to name the situ
1:00:00
Speaker 2: situation for what it is. It is a very large
1:00:05
Speaker 2: group of parents who have had their children snatched, and
1:00:09
Speaker 2: the people that they are trying to get the children
1:00:12
Speaker 2: back from, who are behaving lawlessly, are private contractors. They're
1:00:20
Speaker 2: private contractors, they're private limited companies. So if it were
1:00:24
Speaker 2: a car or if this were a situation that the
1:00:28
Speaker 2: British armed forces were dealing with in Afghanistan against the
1:00:33
Speaker 2: Taliban or something, it would be a hostage negotiator that
1:00:37
Speaker 2: would stand up and say enough enough and negotiate the
1:00:41
Speaker 2: release of those children or those parents. Now there's no
1:00:46
Speaker 2: lawyer to go to, there's no law firm to go to.
1:00:50
Speaker 2: The brokerages are doing what they want, even though it's
1:00:52
Speaker 2: black market baby selling. And the I mean private option
1:01:01
Speaker 2: is illegal in England since nineteen eighty three. It's illegal
1:01:08
Speaker 2: any form of private adoption. And the courts are saying
1:01:12
Speaker 2: that we're in private proceedings. We're no longer in public proceedings,
1:01:16
Speaker 2: but we weren't in public proceedings in the first place,
1:01:19
Speaker 2: because for public proceedings to take place, the public has
1:01:23
Speaker 2: to be present, it has the proceedings have to be
1:01:26
Speaker 2: done with the public present. And there's another thing, Brian,
1:01:31
Speaker 2: I noticed you mentioned equity of arms earlier. When you
1:01:34
Speaker 2: first said equity of arms to me last year, I
1:01:37
Speaker 2: looked it up and it came up all over the internet.
1:01:41
Speaker 2: It's now been changed by this, probably by their AI system.
1:01:48
Speaker 2: It's now been changed to equality of arms. So I
1:01:53
Speaker 2: would say to your audience, please look up equity of
1:01:57
Speaker 2: arms and see if you can find Brian any more
1:02:00
Speaker 2: links to it, because it's just disappeared off the internet.
1:02:03
Speaker 1: Well, that's that's interesting. It's possible. I may have I
1:02:09
Speaker 1: may have got the phrase wrong, but that the it's possible.
1:02:14
Speaker 1: But my mind, from a long time ago, when I
1:02:17
Speaker 1: first understood the importance of this, I was pretty sure
1:02:21
Speaker 1: I had the right term. I may have made a mistake.
1:02:25
Speaker 1: But what we're what we're not uncertain about is the
1:02:28
Speaker 1: fact that we're talking about balance of defense, if you like,
1:02:35
Speaker 1: within within the court system, we know what we're talking about.
1:02:39
Speaker 1: I think you've you've raised a hugely important point here,
1:02:43
Speaker 1: for in describing this as a as a hostage situation,
1:02:46
Speaker 1: effectively terrorists are taking children, yes, because they're taking the
1:02:53
Speaker 1: children unlawfully, and therefore how you deal with that system
1:02:58
Speaker 1: is in the first instance, there's got to be some
1:03:01
Speaker 1: form of negotiated process to get the children back, and
1:03:05
Speaker 1: this is clearly not happening because the government itself and
1:03:10
Speaker 1: the Family Court Law Division does not want to admit
1:03:16
Speaker 1: what is actually taking place in UK's family courts, and
1:03:20
Speaker 1: that is that children are being snatched from their parents
1:03:24
Speaker 1: and the vast majority of those children are never returned.
1:03:28
Speaker 1: So what you've said is tremendously important.