EDWARD TIMPSON MP: I hope this reply is helpful. Is it really???

13 08 14 Ed Timpson_0001 13 08 14 Ed Timpson_0002How many more ‘helpful’ letters do we need?

Would S.C.O.T. UK have bothered to get banners made, leaflets printed, if ‘the clarity of the law’ was applied and working?

Here it is as a pdf file, should you have problems with the image files.

MIND THE GAPS, Mr Cameron and Mr Timpson MP:

  • between the Minister’s fantasyland and the reality of suffering families;
  • between ‘the law’ and those who ignore it;
  • between ‘realities’ on paper and children screaming to be heard in ‘real life’!

Old men, very, very young lovers, money and Justice???

Writing your interpretation of the law down, doesn’t mean it’s applied! Since you don’t seem to know that, let us tell you, Mr Timpson MP!

Battle BusWe’ll also put this Battle Bus on the road to provide a ‘rolling haven’ for parents who are grieving for their children!

However, as ‘parent in proceedings’, you can use this letter to put Social Services and Judges into their place! You may find it useful to quote these phrases: 

Para 3: local authorities cannot, and should not, remove children without first referring the matter to a court.

Were your kids taken without paperwork???

… the courts must consider all the evidence and then conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is suffering from, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.

Was your ‘evidence’ flawed / fabricated or simply ‘bought’?

…the authority will work … with a view to the child returning home.

Was your child promised to be returned?

Para 4: In many cases the child will be able to return home to their parents.

Oh, really? Why do people demonstrate, sign petitions, join groups, make videos and publish websites?

Para 6: The court’s paramount consideration is the welfare of the child.

How come this multi-million industry has emerged???

Regarding the media being allowed to attend court hearings: how are they expected to find out about them?

Why would some hearings exclude also the media?

Questions to victims and McKenzie Friends:

  • Who has experience with the complaints procedures of their local council?
  • And the Local Government Ombudsman?
  • Will you let us know what happens when you quote this letter in court proceedings or written statements, i.e. when you REMIND people of the law and hold them to it?

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Forced Adoption, Public Interest Advocacy, Stolen Children of the UK and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to EDWARD TIMPSON MP: I hope this reply is helpful. Is it really???

  1. Very true I am afraid to say… They have run a hate campaign against me that will ensure my son never come home yet in the Local Authorities OWN evidence they suggest I treated my son different and more favorable to my step children…

  2. Pingback: TO EDWARD TIMPSON MP: Return our Stolen Children – our letter to the Prime Minister | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy

  3. John Love says:

    I have forwarded this and other email and comments and I believe that in the position of an MP I would sit up and take notice because the writing is on the Wall.

  4. 7rin says:

    Of course, what they fail to take into account is the utterly devastating impact being kept away from OUR OWN families does to us. That in itself is far far more abusive than any “may be at risk of future emotional abuse” can ever be.

    If we could get http://adoptedintheuk.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/stop-trashing-adoption/ through it’d at least be a start on mitigating =some= of the damage done to us adoptees, but nooooooooo, can’t have adoptees getting help nor getting THEIR OWN identity back.

  5. tanedwards says:

    i made them aware of what i knew and was walked all over..they blatantly made things up and lied in court the judge ignored the lies we exposed and ruled for the kids to be taken despite my daughter ‘thriving at home’ his own words…and my son, weve had no written judgement..probably to stop any potential appeal…lets hope every one signs this petition..ive never come across such nasty devious people as i have in social services and their legal team and going through the court process,,,its a farce!

  6. Pingback: US MOTHER to be deported whilst her child is kept for adoption | Victims Unite!

  7. Pingback: Tragedy of 4,000 babies placed on ‘at risk’ register… before they’re born | Punishment without Crime

  8. Pingback: Tragedy of 4,000 babies placed on ‘at risk’ register… before they’re born | Anti Oligarch

  9. Pingback: I WANT TO SING, I Want to Shout, I Want to Scream: Parents and Grandparents Unite! | Victims Unite!

  10. The battle goes on here in York(Eabhrac). Report of York”authorities” 1995: son found hanged 6/6/1995 could’ve, should’ve, would’ve, prevented! They weren’t listening then. Blinded by their own malice, keeping me, Declan Garrett Matthew Curran’s da(d)! Anglo-Saxon expletives might melt wax in ears, they have eyes, yet do not perceive, they have ears, yet listen not, nor comprehend, or fail to fathom the depths of depravity they encourage, inculcating into innocents, gross violations of human nature, passing such evils off as good, whilst authentic faith followers jeered at, spat upon, from viper spitting forked tongues, my children abused, as yet. Stop abuse? Let’s all speak at the same time…. babbling on… these pathetic pretentious priests, perfidious-minded politicians, as they do, do this, do that, when we say, with whom we say, where we direct…. Enough is enough, we say. British (Ulster) Irish TRUE … Waiting for the beggars and the thieves, to be gone, from sight, from mind, truthful truths to find…. Yield not to evil:Cor mundum in me crea Deus:FORWARD. PUT THE SPOTLIGHT ON YORK. Now/anois, asp(as soonest possible);ate(at the earliest), le do thoil/please. Thank you for all the practical help to date to STOP ABUSE YORK /UK. “May your God be with you”? Remember DECLAN GARRETT MATTHEW CURRAN. Awaken The Light. Do it, today. I don’t like Mondays??? Straight the path, clear the way!:faugh a ballagh! Judgment Day. Labhair an teanga Gaeilge liom…. Ar nAthair(versus nathair?) have a good day, let’s it a happy one, for Christ’s sake? Amen:Cinnte. K.N.G.Curran. Awaiting, illuminating, enlightening, truth not frightening, if walking in the light.

  11. Pingback: I WANT TO SING, I Want to Scream, I Want to Shout: Parents and Grandparents Unite! | Anti Oligarch

  12. Pingback: THE SOVEREIGN asks the Prime Minister to consider the points we raise | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy

  13. —– Original Message —–
    From: Charles Pragnell
    To: david@mortimers-removals.co.uk
    Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:42 PM
    Subject: RE: 30th Spetember protest

    Hi Dave

    Its good to hear from you again.

    It is horrifying what is happening in Britain – so many children’s lives being destroyed by unnecessary removal from their families.

    I’d suggest that the group need to engage the public and the media in their struggle and I’d suggest the central theme should be:


    The British government are using billions of pounds of British taxpayers to destroy British families. Under government instruction, social workers are being made to remove children from their families and into State Care and rapidly into adoption at immense financial cost to British taxpayers and an even greater cost to the families involved. Children are being denied their genetic, cultural, and ethnic heritage merely to satisfy the ideological beliefs held by the government and its Ministers.

    Children have the right to live and be brought up by their natural families and to destroy such rights without good cause is an atrocity, a crime against humanity, and a gross abuse of every child’s right to a family life. Nothing has been learnt from the times when religious organisations used to take children from their families and deport them to the colonies to be enslaved and abused, or tore them from the arms of mothers in maternity wards to be given into adoption by wealthy families.

    Such practices are still continuing today and with the full encouragement and support of the government and using taxpayers money to fund such atrocities.

    It is the right of every child, mother and father, grandparents, and extended family to live and grow together and it is the duty of the government to help and support them in doing so. Yet every day, in every town and city in the UK, the government is destroying families by removing thousands of children without cause and often in a brutal and callous manner.

    There are a small number of families who face immense difficulties and can become dysfunctional, but the vast majority of such families can be kept together with the right kind of support and assistance if the resources which are currently expended in destroying those families were re-directed for that purpose. But the majority of families whose children are being removed are not facing major difficulties and are not dysfunctional. They have merely become the target for social workers, desperate to maintain government adoption quotas and to earn billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money for doing so.

    Britain is now renowned and condemned throughout Europe and much of the rest of the world as the Capital of State-sponsored Child Stealing and State-sponsored Child Trafficking which have now reached epidemic proportions.

    Every mother, father, grandparent and other family member must oppose this government and its child-stealing policies and force the government into changing its policies into FAMILY SUPPORT AND PRESERVATION POLICIES and if the government are not prepared to change, then the government must be changed at the next election.

    Your money is already being used to destroy families and children’s lives, and you could easily become the next victims. So you are voting to protect your own families.

    Charles Pragnell

  14. Please will you tell me why you think the NSPCC ignores it’s own research which showed mothers are more violent?

    Best regards Dave


    Tim Loughton 2 Mar 2006 : Column 438

    It pains me to have to single out one organisation that has behaved reprehensibly on this issue. I would be the first to acknowledge that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done a lot of good work in raising awareness of child abuse and campaigning against it, promoting good practice by engaging children, and raising substantial funds for services for vulnerable children. Many members of my party in my constituency enthusiastically raise money for the NSPCC, as I have in the past. However, during the proceedings on the Bill in the Lords, the NSPCC put out a briefing note that attacked our amendments as a threat to the safety of children, yet produced no evidence to support its claim.

    In its latest briefing note, for our scrutiny of the Bill, the NSPCC has made the following claim:

    “NSPCC believes that any proposals to introduce into the Bill a legislative presumption of contact will be interpreted and put into practice by the courts in a way which is detrimental to the welfare of the child and could ultimately threaten the safety of the child.”

    In effect, it is saying that if a non-resident parent—predominantly a father—benefits from a presumption of contact, he is more likely to do harm to his own child.

    In support of its claim, the NSPCC cites the fact that 29 children were killed over the past 10 years during contact visits to non-resident parents. That is an appalling figure. However, it ignores its own research, which shows that over the same period some 800 children have died at the hands of resident parents or carers, and the 2000 publication “Child Maltreatment in the UK”, which showed that violent treatment was more likely to be meted out by female carers than male ones.

    The briefing is alarmist, sensationalist, misleading, empirically flawed, completely irresponsible and highly reprehensible. It is not worthy of an organisation such as the NSPCC, which claims to stand up for our children. I hope that our deliberations on the amendments will be based on balanced, rational and well-informed debate, rather than the arrant nonsense that I am sure will shock many dedicated and hard-working NSPCC supporters around the country.

    The NSPCC has said quite clearly—it has not minced its words—that if our amendments about a presumption of contact, in which many other people believe, were accepted, the safety of children would be compromised at the hands of their non-resident parents, but has not offered any evidence for that. That is not a helpful addition to the constructive debate that we are trying to have in the interests of children.

    We should not automatically consider a non-resident parent in some way to be inferior to that same parent when he or she was part of a married couple or a couple together, or inferior to the parent with whom custody resides. It is being strongly suggested by the briefing that the NSPCC has insisted on putting out again, and in stronger terms, that in some way non-resident parents are a threat to the safety of their own children. That is disgraceful and insulting to many thousands of parents who are not able to live with their children.

    I have not talked about parental rights. I have been clear in saying where I am coming from on this issue. We are constantly told that there is a presumption of equal contact that pervades in the courts, but that does not appear to be working. Why, therefore, is the NSPCC not complaining about the status quo? What harm will we do by putting explicitly in the Bill—something from which everybody starts—that there is that presumption? It will then be possible for everyone to argue why that should not be so in individual cases.

    The right hon. Lady needs to speak to her colleague in the upper House, Baroness Scotland, because, on 16 November, the day after consideration of Report in that House, she said in response to one of my noble Friends that a presumption “is only a presumption.” That answers the Ministers question. That does not fetter the courts. The issue is up for interpretation and a presumption is only a presumption.

    The system that we are talking about is best served if we can avoid reaching a certain stage by means of prevention. The best solution to acrimonious legal disputes is to prevent them coming to court in the first place. We favour concentrating more on preventive action, which keeps families together. We need to see much more work undertaken by properly resourced professionally trained social workers, who spend more time not fire fighting if something goes wrong, but more time on preventive action to keep families together in the first place rather than pulling them apart. For example, Kent has done some excellent work in that regard. That is one reason why the number of children in care in Kent has fallen dramatically.

    We need also to achieve an agreed settlement earlier. As my noble. Friend Earl Howe said in the other Chamber, there is a simple truth associated with contact disputes: if both parties to the dispute are content with the amount of contact that they have with the child, there is no longer any dispute. We must also agree to some form of mediation. We will have further debates about the extent to which that mediation should be imposed on, or agreed with, the parties.

    The Government initiated the promising form of mediation in what was called the early interventions project in the autumn of 2003. It was a successful and imaginative project. The prototype was due to be up and running by 2004, with a national roll-out by 2005. The aim was to defuse parental battles and dramatically to reduce the number of court cases. The project was mysteriously abandoned and replaced with the ill-thought-through family resolutions pilot project, which has been mentioned, having been scuppered by the Department for Education and Skills. Perhaps the Minister can give us more detail on that, though that happened under her predecessor.

    The family resolutions project, which ran for one year from September 2004 to 2005, with three pilots in London, Birmingham and Brighton, cost more than £300,000. Thousands of couples were expected to come through the process but only 47 couples started the process and only 23 of them finished it. We have already heard about that independent evaluation.

    As The Guardian put it, that project was a waste of time. That was a great shame because it replaced something that was rather more worth while. We need to set up an expectation that mediation will be used to try to get things sorted before they come to court. We think that it should be close to mandatory for parents to embark on mediation processes before they come to court, and that if they refuse to take up the offer, that should go on their record. Hence my intervention earlier about differentiating between a partner who is perfectly happy to go along with the mediation process and the other party who decides that they will not have anything to do with it, with the result that both parties are subjected to court proceedings. Surely that must count against somebody who had refused unreasonably the mediation process and count more favourably to the person who was prepared to go along with it.

    We want the early interventions project to be restored—it should be given a fair chance. That confidential mediation process would be privileged and could not be cited in subsequent court proceedings. However, there are question marks over the limited financial incentives for divorcing parents in opting for mediation. We are also concerned about the availability of people who are skilled in mediation within the Courts Service. There are many examples of where a more compelled mediation service has brought about dramatic results, particularly in Virginia where mediation has shown that after 12 years 30 per cent. of parents who had attended mediation were in weekly contact with their children as against only 7 per cent. who had been through litigation and had shunned mediation. This shows that mediation does work.

    NSPCC promoting an abuse of children 14th September 2006


    Consensus Major Distortions of Family Policy 26th April 2005


    Child Contact: Understanding the Reform Process

  15. Pingback: WHAT WOULD I DO if my Children were Taken Away by ‘Social’ Services? | Punishment without Crime

  16. Pingback: EMAIL to Council Leader Mike Bird | Phil Thompson & Family

  17. Pingback: EDWARD TIMPSON MP: I hope this reply is helpful. Is it really??? | wakemanclare

  18. Pingback: UN-BELIEVABLE FACTS about UK CHILD ‘PROTECTION’ to be heard in BRUSSELS | No Punishment without Crime or Bereavement without Death!

  19. My partner and I stumbled over here from a different website and thought I should check things out.

    I like what I see so now i’m following you.
    Look forward to looking into your web page repeatedly.

  20. These devices can be put into place to monitor calls that have been placed to your home
    that your significant other may have attempted to remove from your call
    log, or can be placed in rooms to record conversations and
    sounds. You need to see this on paper to determine whether or not you have
    valid cause for concern. Whatever the reason is that you want to find out if your spouse
    is being disloyal, below you’ll find informative tips on how to catch a cheating spouse easily with spouse spy software.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s