Paedophile ring hidden in the British Care System
everyone told me it couldn't be done
In 1991 I arrived in the drugs field and quickly discovered I had a natural ability to work successfully with crack - cocaine users, my boss at the time was so impressed that he instantly offered me a job. I initially enter the field as a volunteer.
At that time services were not provided for crack users, they were a hidden group and in a sense that suited most people working in the drugs field, cos their only knowledge of crack users was what the media was portraying/ and with no medication carrot to offer,the users; workers felt inadequate, whereas with heroin users they would be told by them they were the best counsellors, just could they have a little more methadone prescribed.
Therefore my role by default was to develop services for crack users, with an emphasis on developing services for Women crack users. The media soon were informed of my existence and decided I was an expert, which I wasn't at all but it was clear I best learn all I could because no-one else was taking the role and Crack was destroying lives everywhere.
I studied all I could but there was not much info available back then and all literature had to come from the states, they were further ahead to us. I went on to develop training for others working with crack users. this was successful, but come 1996 the health Authorities decided they wanted to account for public money being spent and therefore requested outcome and assessment be done. That is asking loads of question to clients on first visits, I knew this wasn't going to help me in my work.My clients being often paranoid, so I had to think of a solution. I found one, due to the fact I could provide the much needed training , and at that time I was the only person offering it, I could raise enough money to live on and provide my own service free of any funding requirements, so I did. In 1997 I left the voluntary sector an set up my own independent service at a community centre, a free service that asked no personal questions.
I don't believe this independents was approved of by some power that be and I found my phones intercepted , which wasn't a new experience for me for that started in 1996, or should I say was brought to my attention in 1996 via a click occurring on my phone when I spoke to a certain individual on a certain topic. Now with my own service the interception evolved to clicking with a range of callers and sometimes it seemed I was being watched. I think this was to induce paranoia but I shrugged it off as I knew I wasn't doing any wrong, so I worried not.
I was doing fine and then one day a woman arrived for appointment........... , one whom I had seen before , whom I had taught weights to.
She was pleasantly surprised when Louise Clarke turned out to be Lou, as I am known.
She was very hyper like a 24/7 user and relieved to see me.
She showed me a picture of her daughter , saying to me 'they've got my daughter. I need to get her back'.
I had requested the meeting to find out why she wasn't being invited to case conferences. The social worker said she would invite her. I told her she would only be getting stronger and i was prepared to fight for the child all the way. We left the meeting. She still wasn't invited to any case conference , not til 6 months later. And there wasn't much contact arrangement with the child.
In April she went to court to ask for an assessment. Social services played dirty , I had provided them with a positive court report and had ordered urine tests from USA (weren't in England yet) but social services dismissed them saying I needed to do them twice a week, so I did.
Social services and the gardium adlitem usually came to see me, re my clients , but not in this case. they were not interested.
Due to the fact that they were not including her in conferences, I went to see the chair of social services. I had previously worked for him and had good relations with him. I told him what was happening and he said leave it with him. My client then received an invitation to a case conference and a lovely form she could fill out, stating her wishes. I had never seen one of those forms before, how nice. I attended with her everyone behaved professional; althoughone social worker was introduced as someone I had previously met , and she wasn't her. I stated so, but she smiled and said she had changed her hair; and acted like she remembered me. But no the social worker I knew was west Indian descent and this one was African , and the one I knew was very fit but this one was very fat, and same for looks opposite, this one was ugly, unless it was the wig.
I just smiled and got on with the farcical meeting. All the focus was on the adoption and how they were doing, in finding adoptive parents.
Following on from this meeting I was visited by the gardium adlitum . Amongst other things she wanted to know was who I knew in social services . I told her the Chair. She shock my hand on leaving and said 'keep up the good work'.
Soon after I heard the chair was forced to resign from being chair and the case conference invites changed for the worst, and contacts with the child were rare.
This was going on for nearly 2 years. Social services had been refusing to assess at all so a independent social worker was required for fairness. The same day this was agreed in court a flight had been booked to take the child to Ghana, for a month ;so the assessment had to await until her return.
The mother always bought new cloths for contacts and dressed the child in them. They both enjoyed this experience, but at the assessment when she went to change her cloths , the child wouldn't let her take her cloths off, so the mother left the matter. Although in trying she did notice a chain around the child's waist. She thought it was probably for decoration, more on significance later. The social worker assessing said they were a pleasure to watch together and wrote a positive report. At the end of the assessment the foster carer commented 'I bet she didn't let you change her cloths', to which the mother responded 'no she didnt'. it didn't really make sense.
It was agreed after the assessment that the contact should increase, with view for the child's return. Still the contact was held at the nursery with supervision. On the last date for this the child wet herself. Her mother changed her only to find she had discharge swelling and soreness in and around her vagina. The child is black yet the skin was pink. The mother showed it to the social worker. Later phoned myself to discuss. The next morning we went to social services . We spoke with the team manager, she seemed unconcerned. She said she would speak to the foster carer. We suggested she should be seen by a doctor. Later they phoned to say they had spoken to doctor and he said it was thrush, caused by anti bio tics so there wasn't any concern. I told them i would therefore be going to the police. This we did straight away. The police listened intently. Said they would investigate and have her examined. So 8/9 days later they had her 'examined' by a Doctor who claimed there were 'no abnormalities', this was obviously untrue but the Mothers lawyer recommended not to fight the issue or it would take even longer to get the child returned. The Guardian adlitum called an emergency court hearing , claiming the mother was sabotaging the case, and not to return the child. It was decided to return the child to her mother , but the care order was still belonging to the borough. So mother at this stage did not have full parental rights.
On the last day of supervised contact at the mothers home , whilst the child was jumping on the bed , her mother noticed a chain around the child's waist; it seemed to be rubbing her skin. She looked for the clasp to undo, but no clasp, so she pulled it to break it. The social worker said 'I don't think you should do that', but she did. She broke it and the child went into a trance state, then seemed free.
when the child was returned to stay she complained of pain in her vagina and described sexual abuse. So the mother went back to the police , they said they would be around to investigate. They apologised for taking so long, one month. And questioned the child alone , she wasn't able to speak. They said it was no good they had other children where it rolled off their tongue.
The mother placed the child in the local nursery. Soon after I noticed the child's fringe looked like it had been hacked at. I asked her who cut your hair, she said children did it. It looked so.
I must add throughout the whole case , professionals did everything they could to obstruct the smooth return of the child, messing with dates regularly contacts; giving one date to mother and another to the foster carer. She received hostility and a extremely difficult time contacting social workers, via phone to arrange contacts. Case conferences were hostile and dismissive of her view. The contact records where pertinent things happened like the witnessing of sore vagina and chain removal became absent from their files , when raised at meetings, yet the social workers showed no concerns for such matters; even though a lawyer was present. They seemed to have the confidence and arrogance of people above the law.
A few months later the final court hearing came and full custody was given to Mother , with a years supervision order for social services. Hooray it took 2 and 1/2 years , the child was now 3 years old ; it was March 2002.
Paedophile ring hidden in the British Care System
(part 1 of 9)
Meanwhile what had happened to my career?
Well, on taking up this case it seemed someone somewhere didn't want me to. I was used to the phone tapping , hearing a click I assumed because I used certain words. And the squeak that had arrived on my leaving my employment and stopping when my spine collapsed and returning on my return from surgery.
But with the taking of this case I started to experience further interference ; my phone began to hiss every time I used to discuss my clients case. So persistent was this that if I deliberately changed the topic and discussed something else it immediately stopped hissing. I took this to mean someone was trying to tell me to leave the case; but I chose to continue and therefore so did the hissing. In addition my cell phones began to become unreliable , messages were delayed , not given . the volume would become so low I couldn't hear the caller . It would tell callers my phone was switched off when it wasn't. I tried various new phones and it was shown to me they had them as soon as I got home. My clients were also getting interference ;thus I needed to inform them I was being tapped and for crack users this isn't helpful.
In addition to phone interference , to render my service unworkable my training sales dropped as soon as the court agreed to return the child. People who had previously booked phoned and cancelled. They were told by their superiors to do so. and their cheques were returned , they were from the health authorities; whom were the funders whom required the 'Out come and assessment'.
By the time the child was returned I couldn't sell enough training , my fax machine didn't like sending reports or training details. I seemed to be black listed for care work with agencies and my spine collapsed. It was time to claim benefit for me.
My clients I could no longer reliably communicate with. So wound the service down to just calls.
By the end of the final court hearing I was no longer training and rarely counselling. The Internet on my land line cut out on every connection of importance.
Systematic oppression, Interception/Interference in British paedophiles case
(part 2 of 9)
The case for the child meanwhile hadn't ended. No it seemed people weren't happy with the child's return. The Mother was constantly followed and made aware that this was the case. For example one woman whom she never knew always got on the same bus , any time of day. and talked to her. the mother one day tried to avoid her by taking the first bus of the day, but no the woman was there at the bus stop to greet her. When taking her daughter to nursery men would be outsidein their cars and would say hello to her daughter in a tone like she knew them. The mother had to ignore it as she knew this was done to incite anger in her. When she went out of her house smalls signs were left to indicate someone had been in. burn marks on the carpet , small things missing black stuff down the toilet.
During the court case the mother had another child that was now 1 1/2 , he came and pinched his mother. Consequently she thought he had learnt it from her daughter. so she went to cut her nails to show disapproval of such behaviour; but her daughters nails had already been cut. she asked her who has cut your nails and her daughter replied 'nursery did it'. The mother went to the nursery to enquire why they had cut her nails. The head told her, none of her staff would have done this. The following day she took the child to nursery and had as usual made 4 twists with her hair. but when she collected her daughter she had a ponytail. and about 2 inches chopped off. Her daughter was cryng on the way home , saying the teacher had cut her hair. She kept repeating ' I did it to my sister and I'll do it to you'.
Eventually we realised she was repeating what had been said to her. I asked her did the teacher say this, she said yes , and added 'if you tell anyone I will give your brother one tump in the face'. she also said the teacher had told her if anyone asks , to say children did it. Now this made sense of how the first time i had noticed her hair had been cut, and when at the time I had asked her who cut it she gave one child's name then another. Her mother took her back the next day to the nursery to see the head. She told her what had happened and the head called in all the staff to her office. and asked who had cut her hair. The child pointed to and named the teacher. The mother took the child outside and asked her are you sure it was that teacher that cut your hair. The child said yes. The head challenged the teacher but she dismissed it saying 'where's the hair then ? The head was not taking on the child's allegations. Therefore the mother removed the child from the nursery.
The harassment around her home increased to a point where her neighbour was threatening her life.
I was no longer working and she had already been using my house as a sanctuary to escape the harassment. and now she had come for refuge. She went to her housing association and they said she needed to report the death threats to the police, this she did. They helped her collect her belongings from her home by giving her protection as she did so. But then thehousing association said they couldn't help her yet so she would have to stay at her home and wait for a transfer. This she wasn't prepared to do as it wasn't safe. but because she left the property to stay at mine the housing association claimed she was no longer their problem. So they all came and lived with me.
so now living at my house , still under supervision order for one year. The mother informed social services she had moved borough. But they said they would keep the case, even though she didn't live in their catchment area. They put her with a new team who didn't seem to know who I was. They visited twice with the local health visitor, even though the children were registered with a health visitor at my local doctors. The visiting social worker and health visitor reported they had no concerns.
Then the harassment moved to my home , little things would go missing.
Previous to them moving in my home I asked my cousin to put up my speakers. he used a electronic detector for finding wires in the wall. He found a signal that went right across my front room window. He pointed to the telegraph pole outside my house. And said 'your bugged'. I asked to play with the machine, whilst he put up the speakers and found a signal going across the window at the back of my house, in the kitchen. I called him and he said to me 'look at the satellite dishes they are pointing that way (to the left) but look at that one directly opposite , it is pointing straight at your window. No one actually lived in the house opposite, it was being renovated a light was on in the roof conversion 24/7.
Oh I thought. I asked him to put up a CCTV camera in my house.
But these guys are comedians , I returned to find my tape had been replaced with a clip of someone like john Wayne, asking if there were any jobs in the area , at some bar. the rest of the tape was blank.
Christmas at my home then.
(part 3 of 9 ) Childs returned from care brought systematic harrassment: British Paedophile case
Time to move
My housing association got wind that I had someone living with me and informed me they had to leave (due to overcrowding ) or they would take me to court.
On the corner of our road were a black couple hugging as I came out of the shop. They looked out of place to be honest, this was mainly white area and black people that did live there presented themselves in a professional manner. We lived near the countryside. These 2 stood out as they looked untidy. He had dusty uncombed hair and she wore a faded shell track suit from about 2 decades ago. As we passed I heard the guy say 'come on lets go'. They walked behind me down our road. The child was pulling on the reigns, to run on the grass verge as usual. Which I let him do whilst I pushed the chair. Then the woman called from behind me ‘Do you want any help?'
I called back no thank you. She then said 'you seem to be struggling with the child, why don’t you put him in the push chair? You sure you don’t want any help. ?' . I turned and said 'no thank you, I'm ok'. And as I looked at her she lit up in spirit like a crack user just about to get some crack. I sensed she had an agenda and moved swiftly home with our lollies. She followed us to our street door. We ate our lollies.
Getting a PAEDIATRICIAN
The doctor responded it's coming shortly. It came for June 2003, we moved into new house in may 2003 and we attended the paediatric appointment in June 2003. He examined the child and said she needed to be referred to a paediatrician. but what was he? Oh a paediatrician. I questioned this contradiction, he said she needed a paediatrician who specialised in sexual abuse. he warned us police would probably become involved, but he would arrange it. He wrote on his notes 'hypo -pigmentation of skin. No appointment came by the time social services visited in summer 2003.
Nothing came before school started Sept 2003.
Then October police arrived unannounced. A Sergent came with a social worker, and wanted to discuss the issues the mother had raised with the police,who first visited. The mother told her it was a legal issue. and would let her know when she got a lawyer. Which was extremely hard to find.
A letter with a hospital appointment came, but it didn't say paediatrician it said neuro dept. No she didn't need to see a brain specialist. The mother therefore wrote to the previous paediatrician telling him she had received an appointment for wrong specialist so could he arrange for a correct one. No response.
Eventually got a lawyer so could offer to answer questions, but next day social services called a 'initial case conference'. No one explained what the initial case conference was being called for, so the mother gave them a statement explaining all case history, as they were in a new borough and may not know or be told the truth. Included was the lack of interest shown regarding the child's claims of sexual abuse, whilst in care. Also was added facts that indicated some form of black magic involved. eg hair and nails samples taken and the sealed chain around her waist. She also added the problems she had getting a paediatrician to examine her, maybe they could help , as it happened in their care.
They claimed she had been seen by 2 paediatricians ( not acknowledging the previous one who noted hypo-pigmentation), naming a new one. They felt for the child to see another would be too intrusive.
At the case conference even though the mother had a lawyer present they all agreed that because of the claims the mother was making , they felt the children could be at risk of 'emotional abuse'. All the staff agreed , all white, one black police officer said she didn't think they had reached the threshold , but in the interest of working together , she agreed toput both children on the at risk register. The chair suggested if you don't agree you can appeal.
As we were leaving the police officer said anymore concerns on black magic let us know.
So appeal she did.
In the appeal she argued the grounds were insufficient . They wrote swiftly back saying they weren't .
Also she sent a letter to the Police Complaints Authority saying how concerns were not being investigated by police and social services.
Professionals were not taking on what mother was saying they were relating to her like she was mad.
Better tell Tony Blair
So I wrote to Tony Blair the prime minister, and cc'd David Blunkett the home office minister and MI5 British intelligence. saying this is what was going on and I thought they should know.
Yes after the case conference i could see we weren't getting anywhere and the conduct of the professionals was indicative of that. They sneered at our expression of the situation and they were clearly not listening. They had their own agenda it seemed and selectively picked out words that we used and played with them.
The mother used the situation to request the support of getting the child the necessary paediatric examination. But it was refused.
Because they had placed children on register they decided they should visit every 2 weeks. Both social worker and health visitor separately . This was December 2003. Happy Christmas.
2004 came , then came the letters of responses.
Now when i wrote to Tony Blair I explained what was going on as i felt they needed to know. My letter was typed and was 3 pages long, so believe it was detailed.
Tony Blair's response was short; 'it has been carefully noted'.I don't quite know what that was meant to mean. The home office response was longer; it stretched to 2 pages but it didn't relate to any of that which i had written to them , other than it picked up on an issues of my phone interception; which i had informed the police of when they came regarding the lolly issue. In their response letter they stated the legal regulation allowing interception. and that if anyone is aggrieved by, they should complain to the 'investigatory powers tribunal'.
MI5 wrote the security service is responsible for protecting UK national security , and is therefore unable to be of assistance. ......if you believe that your communications have been illegally intercepted you may wish to contact your local police or write to the investigatory powers tribunal .at......
So there you are, I told everyone i could what was going on but whatever...
The letter to the police complaints went all around the houses via serious crime squadand back to the local police station.
What did the police do? in a bit more detail
Initially we report the case to the police, they said they would have the child examined, 6? days later they did. and from where I sit, I question whether it ever was really done .
The named paediatric, an used by the police isn't registered as such. he is a GP. He claimed in his report 'No abnormalities' , yet when looking at the skin it is clear there is.
The child has no memory of the examination. And the child has an amazing memory of significant events;all with fine detail. Her version of doctors appointments is very different, she describes doctors of a different race , never including the claimed examination.
wrote answers down in case she forgot them when she got there. But No she was told to stop making allegations or they would blame her. She expected certain question regarding the paedophile ring but was asked nothing. She had already written out the reasons for what she had initially said to the police , so handed them to the inspector , she didn't seem pleased to receive them.
Statutory services collectively create case out of thin air; British Paedophile case
(part 4 of 9)
The health visitor couldn't examine her apparently.
Consequently the health visitor and everyone else could carry on acting towards us like we were making it all up. They could pretend there is no evidence. so they continued to say 'she has been examined there is nothing there'. The health visitor couldn't verify what we were saying.
No no one could examine her , only a paediatrician , and she couldn't keep seeing them, seen already and nothing there they all said.
And the paediatrician we had seen earlier that year , who wrote hyper-pigmentation in his notes, well they had no record of him, and were not interested in our claims of otherwise.
Tony Blair didn't want to help. 'The contents of your letter have been carefully noted'. Signed by Matt Dawdling. Saying 'the prime minister has asked him to thank me for letter.....carefully noted.'
MI5 not their thing
Home office only saw phone tapping in letter.
So there you have it up to January 2004 .
What is going on I asked Happy New year.
Tony Blair told of obstruction and failings by paediatricians; British Paedophile case
(part 5 of 9)
All services involved surely they would resolve the issue
The social workers were meant to come every 2 weeks , plus health visitor every month. Plus education, (tell me this isn't harassment). Basically we were to see workers nearly every week. Except no we didn't see anyone not to begin with, that seemed only to be used for the power of threat. For in reality the first social worker completed her first assessment without even seeing the children or mother(obviously they were so concerned for the children's welfare. )
When social services did eventually visit, they asked that they could see the children alone. NO they couldn't this was refused. They were told they could ask anything they wanted; but in front of the mother. They said they could take the mother to court, if she didn't allow it. And I tell you the reader now, she never did let them be alone with the children, and they never took it to court; only threatened in all sorts of ways. they never really ever spoke to the children throughout their whole investigation in front of responsible adults.
The registering seemed more a reason to create stress than concern for the children.
The social workers visits were irregular and our words spoken were misconstrued in reports; whole conversations omitted or blatantly denied etc. and on every visit the workers tried to provoke the mother to anger.
Well education was informed that the child's hair was cut in school, also they attended the initial case conference and they read the submitted statement saying it also happened in nursery and within the first 2 hours of school.
Education were asked in case conference by mother to give reassurance that they would address issues were the to happen again, they didn't , so she had no alternative other than to home educate her , So I did. education were to visit 5 hours a year.
the home visits were done by head of education for the borough , along with ,at first the educational welfare officer. Whom the child told , she couldn't go to school , cos they cut her hair. These words floated straight over her head . And after that visit she was never seen again. This officer was replaced by a head teacher . Both top workers attended the home visits; thereafter with happy smiles and no concerns.
Such qualified people for such mundane work. home visits by head of education , head teacher , social services team manager and imported extra qualified social worker from America and Canada,. Always 2 staff coming yet no complications. about case other than the issue we claimed ; that the child was abused in statutory care , which they didn't believed happened.
The hair cutting was of no interest to them and consequently was never investigated. Education did threaten court if the children didn't socialise enough.
They were so interested in the children's education that they came once /twice a year, after trying to put pressure on.
So there it stood , no one was concerned about the claims being made , but children remain on the register , indefinitely . What should we do?
Second case conference summer 2004
In the following case conference they said they required the mother to be assessed by a psychiatrist; for what she was claiming. . I tried to defend her and asked for their justification. To which the chair threatened she could have me assessed too.
On the decision sheet (which is what is written up after the case conference, showing the decision made in the meeting), They had written it had been requested that all of us were psychiatrically assessed.
So I went to get myself a lawyer. I got a lawyer and she told me that if they asked for me to have a psychiatric assessment I couldn’t refuse, but I could request a copy of the letter of instruction to the psychiatrist. This would have to include the reasons why they wanted me to be assessed by a psychiatrist.
So my lawyer wrote to social services asking for the letter of instruction. And the mother’s lawyer did the same. But they didn't receive anything.
So no one was listening only trying to bring to anger and we apparently needed psychiatric assessments, all of us, based on??? Who knows?
People who knew me laughed and said go on your run circles around the psychiatrist.
As already mentioned the health visitor was due to come every month. And they did , always in twos. Don't know why. same sort of behaviour was conducted; trying to incite arguments by patronising , talking at cross purposes and trying to create the idea that the mother had mental health issues. The health visitors showed no interest in the child regarding the abuse. dismissing it as made up. Never asked the child about it and tried to minimize the issue of her skin discolouration.
Initially the skin discolouration issue was ridiculed and denied, later she said 'it is probably vitiligo and nothing to worry about'. .
So social services don't want to investigate , don't even want to ask the child, only want to speak to her on her own. Threatened taking to court if they were refused. But mother continued to refuse and continued pushing them for paediatric examination. and told them no examination no cooperation. They said you cant blackmail us to do examination.
The health visitor came and didn't ask the child anything that could indicate that we were telling the truth, and not in need of a psychiatric assessment.
No interest was shown regarding our claims and apparently the health visitor was not allowed to examine the child anyway. So what was the point of her seeing the child, the mother therefore refused for her to see the child and I therefore took the child out when visits were scheduled.
So court was threatened again. But the mother didn't give way , she saw it as they wont listen , maybe a judge will.
The second case conference was held summer 2004. The mother was unable to get a lawyer to attend this day, so she decided she would refrain from answering questions.
They required the mother to be assessed by a psychiatrist; for what she was claiming. . I tried to defend her and asked for their justification. To which the chair threatened she could have me assessed too.
On the decision sheet (which is what is written up after the case conference , showing the decision made in the meeting) , they had written up after the case conference showing the decisions made in the meeting. They had written it had been requested that all of us were psychiactrically assessed.
So I went to get myself a lawyer. I got a lawyer and she told me that if they asked for me to have a psychiatric assessment i couldn't refuse, but I could request a copy of the letter of instruction to the psychiatrist. This would have to include the reasons why they wanted me to be assessed by a psychiatrist.
So my lawyer wrote to social services asking for the letter of instruction. And the mothers lawyer did the same. But they didn't receive anything.
People who knew me laughed and said go on your run circles around the psychiatrist .
Amongst other things they all expressed wonder of how things were going to progress.
They wanted to do their assessment of the children on their own. The mother was refusing until her daughter had been examined by a paediatrician.
they said she couldn't do deals with them. they expressed she has been examined and they would never provide her with a paediatric examination.
But in the decision sheet after the meeting they wrote, they had agreed to provide her with an appointment.
That was 2004 done and nothing changed.
We made reference to our lawyers and they ridiculed us saying 'what lawyer? What are their names ? . We told them.
After they had questioned us and the children , the detective filled out a search warrant , they had been all over my house and then left.
No reference to this police visit ever appeared in submitted social workers statements.
No help from the care profession, best start complaining
It seemed the child wasn't going to get the paediatric appointment she required. The lawyer suggested the mother wrote and complained to the council , then when they refused the mother could ask for a judicial hearing.
It had been apparent throughout this case that no professional body wants to go anywhere near a court. They continually threatened it ,but never carried it out. It seems they made every effort to stop the truth coming out and still are.
March 2005 the mother wrote to the council re the delay and the obstruction experienced , and cc'd it to the social services manager.
It was ignored.
So consequently she had to write to the 'local ombudsman', and he said he would give them 3 months to sort it out.
The social services manager responded with mis-information which the mother challenged and followed the complaints procedure. all the way to the chief executive for the borough.
May 2005 a case conference was held, here it was decided to de-register the childrenand arrange another paediatric appointment then leave the rest to the mother.
It seemed they weren't concerned about the results.
So de-registered May 2005.
De-registration gained without justice and much intimidation;British paedophile case
(part 6 of 9)
In fact it took until July 2005 for social worker to write saying she was liaising with paediatrician and would let the mother know about it, when she did her home visit next.
She visited and said the doctor needed the mother to write the request, She did.
The appointment never happened.
The ombudsman was informed and referred the case back to social services complaints dept. They wrote to mother asking to investigate; the letter had a crime number on it. She wrote back saying she wasn't prepared to answer any questions until her daughter had been examined by a paediatrician , as this was the reason for her complaint ; an investigation was secondary. and a complete picture would not be obtained until this was done. This was cc'd to the ombudsman.
La la la la time past.
January 2006 the ombudsman wrote saying to get a paediatrician she needed to ask her GP. He added he would no longer would be writing to her unless after the paediatric examination she wanted him to investigate. (so no concerns there either).
Another year had past and still no appointment. The mother had gone full circle from asking first GP in 2002, 4 years later ,through all the services there to help the public and protect children, jumping every hoop.
What do you reckon readers, do you think the GP helped? No proof no action.
The Mother contacted the GP and requested the referral; after much delay a paediatric appointment was provided. We attended but she didn't do any examination for sexual abuse ; even though the mother requested she did. The doctor glanced at the discolouration and said she wasn't sure whether it was Vitiliglo or post inflammatory infection. She said she would write to the Mother (she needed to think).
the mother requested a skin specialist.
June 2006 the skin specialist said vitiliglo - didn't want to address the issue of sexual abuse, in fact she became very hostile insisting she wasn't going to say it was caused by abuse, she got so irritated she stormed out of the consultancy room; her conduct was totally unprofessional and rude. But later one found her writing up of the event is very different.
So to recap:-
Social services cant help
Police can't help
Health professionals can't help
Ombudsman cant help
News papers can't help
Tony Blair prime minister can't help
David Blunkett home Secretary can't help
MI5 can't help
No one can help
Can't or won't
Unless mother can prove child has been abused and no doctor prepared to examine the child.
September 2006 as a result of not getting her daughter examined for sexual abuse and because of all the obstructions she experienced from professionals, she wrote a complaint to the GMC = general medical council.
They stated back they only deal with serious allegations and therefore would forward the complaints to each health authority involved; but requested they inform them of the results of their investigations. Still today some haven't responded , guess which ones! Yes the ones who did the physical examination of her.
The mother did forward correspondence to the investigating officer at the GMC dealing with the complaint, but she wrote stating she would not be writing to the mother anymore, unless a health authority involved found a doctor unfit to practice. She added if mother wasn't satisfied with their responses to complain to the health commissioner,
No proof no action.
Couldn't prove abuse but maybe could prove neglect.
So the health complaints system failed to help. But some doctors could see depigmentation, some 'couldn't' . The strange thing was the 'paediatrician' who examined the child for the police couldn't see any abnormalities, (also couldn't responded to the complaint and never did).
But no one in our care system seemed worried about that.
The 'paediatricians' examination for the police child protection said 'no abnormalities' , where with doctors there after they could see abnormalities; in skin discolouration. Yet no one wanted to know the cause. no one wanted to know why it wasn't noticed when it was a police issue.
No one realised the mother was right saying this was the case all along.
Yet seeing is believing I thought.
so what about a lawyer , could they see the contradictions? that no one ever wanted to investigate the skin discolouration whilst the child was in care. Surely that is neglect on social services part. Surely if a child in care skin losses pigmentation the carer would/should take them to the doctor. To see what is causing it. Isn't that what care is about?
So found lawyer and he said yes he would take the case. Needed different papers eg medical reports. Health authorities’ responses tocomplaint etc. He needed mother to sign forms to request previous lawyers files. All of which were given.
He began his work around March 2007, If one can't prove abuse then surely can prove neglect. Applied for medical records and broke them down lie by lie. Pointed out the mis-information , sentence by sentence. The lawyer wrote and got one lawyers files, said he would read and then contact mother, this was August 2007 , the following summer 2008, he returned all paper work , saying hadn't heard from mother so here are the files. He won't do anymore unless she directs him to do so.
Now that smells like a mason to me , but what do you think.
So there's the case. What else can be done except expose the truth.
I have outlined the case from a professional perspective, but there are other elements of this case that are more sinister. But this is the red tape finished.
I continued to home educate the children with a rare visit from a local education officer. Whom asked no questions and just said everything was fine and that the children were very intelligent, blah blah blah.