The www.thereset.org Source Document

I have decided to publish the RE-SET source document to lay to rest the many “interesting fiction” nonsense being said about it, frankly peoples paranoia astounds me!

I have spent time (ten years) listening to the concerns of flesh and blood people in many many groups and seen and been involved in many serious issues involving thousands of people. I simply came to the conclusion that dealing with things case by case or issue by issue was not working, there needed to be a lets fix this approach and looked at the ways that others had tried that and failed but taking the best of all and tried to find a way that would not be factional, political or vested interest group based that could benefit all.

This document and a presentation that I did several times started to inspire people who helped develop voluntarily with out any organisation what has become the reset, I believe because it speaks to peoples hearts and is rooted in our history, it spoke to them, they owned it for themselves and other and they enabled it to speak to others for them to own it. 

I like others want solutions, I am not left wing or right wing or affiliated with any group, though I have spent time with many, we are all just people despite our differences. I AM ANTI CORRUPTION AND ABUSE and have been and am still prepared to do something about it. I do not take credit for the solutions in the reset, these are a synthesis of many many others work. And there are many others to come. I do say I proposed addressing things in this way and the document below is the hinge source for the reset.

There is no NWO agenda, hey the reset is saying central control is a part of the problem, there is no SOROS involved, big money is a part of the problem, there is no agenda 21 involvement this is about us having control over decisions not someone abroad, thats a part of the problem. The reset is not funded by anyone. People are just doing what they can from their own resources.

I am certainly no bodies man,  I know my liberties and those of others and have stood up mainly for others, despite what others might say, because I know my sons future depends on you all having your liberties.

The reset does however recognise constitutional facts of life, some people wont like some of these but I did not write them, but if the constitutional reset is whats needed and has worked before, we have to accept those facts too or propose something different and get unanimous agreement to that, personally I think we need to be bold and pragmatic and address the imperative issues that are causing abuses of  the people of our four nations on an epidemic scale by using what has proven to work in the past.  All are welcome to assist and later all can object to or refine any solution and propose others.

It has been said the reset will be infiltrated and controlled and even has been, and this is good reason to reject it, it has not and how I ask is it going to be possible to infiltrate control 10,000+ different communities that are not centrally administered? Especially without that being noticed by people in those communities? I suggest I watch mine and you watch yours and then cry foal if you need to.

This document is rough thesis notes only with key points it DOES NOT COVER ALL THE ISSUES I AND MANY OTHERS ARE AWARE OF and do need addressing, just the overarching ones that can enable the others to be addressed. The re-set is a process we can all take part in or say good by to your children and their children having a free future.

 

OUR PROBLEMS FROM A ENGLISHMANS PERSPECTIVE
A short analytical treatise as Basis for

CONSTITUTIONAL RE-SET:

1. Constitutional Convention
2. A Great Charter of Liberties
3. Private Bill in Parliament
2. Platform for Local Referenda in Parishes &c.

By Paul Randle-Jolliffe Esq (c) 2013

PREPOSITION:

The biggest current problem areas (for now) are three Legal Fictions; Money, Governance Hierarchy and the Administration of Law as they are currently implemented and run.

 fact assumed or created by Law or use. Legal fictions are mostly encountered under common law systems. The term “legal fiction” is not usually used in an uncomplimentary way, and has been likened to scaffolding around a building under construction.

So in these contexts the legal fictions are the frameworks within which each system operates.

It is obvious to me and many others that many of our current frameworks are dysfunctional and damaging the opposite of enabling and yet study shows though not ever perfect they did work better in the past so what has gone wrong and what can we do about it?

OUR BUILT IN FAULT IN THE CURRENT BRITISH SYSTEM

Our Party Political System hails from after the English Civil War when the Monarchy was restored but the Civil War then continued in Parliament where the factions would fight, but without Swords, Pikes and Muskets. The Core issues were never resolved and the original complaints were institutionalised into what has become a national bun fight in general elections and can be seen played out at PM’s question time every week.

We get invited to join the fight and choose a faction.

THE CIVIL WAR ISSUES WERE

  1. TAXES
  2. FREEDOM OF PERSONAL THOUGHT (Conscience)
  3. GOVERNMENT (The King) to impose A. & B. or Balanced by local Self Governance.

What we know as the Cavaliers (The Kings Men) became ‘The Tories’ (The Conservative Party) and the Roundheads (The Radical Factions) became ‘The Whigs’ (The Liberals) with ‘The Socialists’ (Labour Party) later replacing the Whigs as the bigger collection of more Radical factions.

The Civil War continues but in parliament with whomever wins elections (without Swords, Pikes and Muskets) imposing their views on the country for a period effectively with us choosing a Mobocracy.

THE FAULT NOW

The central issue is that the English Civil War issues were never resolved and have not been for 370+ years, THE WAR CONTINUES. (and we have exported this in the name of something called “Democracy” based on a conflict model)

All that happens is that one Faction or Another gets to impose their:-

  1. TAXES
  2. IDEA OF PERSONAL THOUGHT (Conscience) AKA Political Correctness

As :

  1. THE RIGHT FOR GOVERNMENT (The King) to impose A. & B. and the progressive centralisation has resulted over the centuries

They just continue to make things worse by Centralising the Power in the name of Democracy, (Which “Constitutionally” is a misnomer) increasing Taxes and imposing their will, but really this is no different to the reason for the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the executing of Charles 1st for insisting on his Dictatorial Divine Rights in the same areas.

We now have the equivalent of the divine right of Prime Ministers?!

Yes it’s the Civil War Continuing! Except the Parties take turns in being the Divine Dictator backed by our limited choice of one political mob or another.

But the war was fought to deal with prior despostism, here is a extract of the Scottish Convention complaining about King James the Seventh (The English James the Second)

Whereby the King, at his access to the government is obliged to swear…..to rule the people according to the laudable laws; and did by the advice of wicked  and  evil  counsellors,  invade the fundamental constitution of this Kingdom and altered it from a legal limited monarchy, to an arbitrary despotic power; and in a public proclamation, asserted an absolute power, to cass, annul, and disable all the laws .

Hello same problem now except its PM’s controlled by corporates and a thing called the EU

To enable this and entrench the central power (for no good reason), freedom under the common law system, which has been built up over centuries under freedom to do what is not forbidden, has been reversed into a Corpus Jurus (Roman Napolionic Law) EU Legal System, (including by giving EU Law superiority to English Common Law), which is the reverse of the English Common Law so we are only free to do what is permitted, thus setting in stone the New System with the Parliamentary Sovereignty (AKA Divine) Of “Democratic” Despotism but controlled from the EU and beyond..

This is not the lawful structure of our Constitution, so the above claim of right has been adjusted to speak today’s issues:

Whereas Governments & Parliaments have  in recent decades By the advyce of wicked and evill Counsellers Invade the fundamentall Constitution of this Kingdome And altered it from a legall limited monarchy to ane Arbitrary Despotick power by Political Faction Government and others not of this Realm through the House of Commons as controled by various Paritys and they have in a publick proclamation asserted ane absolute power as a lie as to the Sovereignty of Parliament to cass annull and dissable all the lawes and have subverted law and equity, the rights, interests and duties of the Estates of the Realm and this has caused fear, distress and harm to many and unneeded deaths.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the issues and resulting problems and propose concrete solutions.

Analysis & Solution

  1. MONEY

THE PROBLEM

The Pre and Post Civil War problems were/are taxes, the war was a as result of oppressive taxes.

Since that time the state and its needs have continued to grow and yet even high and diverse taxes do not produce enough state income to meet those needs.

AN ANALOGY

Imagine you are continually hungry and can never be satisfied as there is never quite enough food to go round, yet your appetite gets larger.

THE RESULTS

Political factions compete for the interests of their own group but no one is ever satisfied.

HISTORY

Historically taxes were to cover the costs of:-

  1. Protecting from invasion.
  2. The Administering of the Common Law.
  3. Ensuring that people had the right to a place to live and work.
  4. Limited right to tax (mainly on trading) to enable the above.
  5. Acting as Trustee of Nation for the people.

And yet private interests, the Banks received £500 billion when total taxes were under £500 billion and the gov has withdrawn services resulting in many distresses.

In English History, when the taxation and other faults became unbearable the people responded to correct things as per the following examples:-

  1. Magna Carta 1215
  2. Petition of Right 1869
  3. Many others upto 45 times inbetween
  4. English Civil War
  5. Peasants’ Revolt
  6. Poll Tax Riots

THE FALLACY

We are stuck with this way of doing things.

THE ANSWER

TOTAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY LEVY

TEAL IS THE ANSWER AS IT MEANS OTHER TAXES CAN BE ABOLISHED WHOLESALE.

Abolish all Personal: Income Tax, Council Tax, Inheritance Tax, VAT, Fuel Duty, Road Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Stamp Duty and all other taxes as well as corporation taxes on small businesses.

TEAL WOULD BE A VERY SMALL LEVY ON THE USE OF THE £

All who use it benefit from the use of the Pound Currency therefore TEAL is the ultimate FAIR TAX that is paid solely in direct proportion to Currency use!

 

TEAL WOULD ENABLE AN EVEN SPREAD OF TAX BY ECONOMIC ACTIVTY THAT WOULD SPREAD THE TAX BY ABILTY TO PAY. IF YOU’RE NOT ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE YOU WON’T PAY AND THE COST AND COMPLEXITY OF TAX COLLECTION IS ELIMINATED.

TEAL would remove this complexity as it would be a levy based upon economic activity (the use of the currency) therefore it would be ultimately fair and leave no room for any one group to argue for different treatment to another. It would be based entirely upon the ability to pay when you pay and would be 100% proportionate.  It would be beyond the so called Robin Hood Tax.

 

“TEAL is pro bono publico” [Ed.: for the public good.].
Legal as a proper tax, where all benefit nationally.

 

TEAL @ 1%  on both sides of any transaction would produce THREE TIMES more tax revenue than all existing taxes. [Ed. Sources: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963%5D

2013 taxes under £500B
TEAL at 2013 figures would produce £1.5Trillion

 

It could provide for paying off the national debt of £1.2T and the £40B + PA interest
It could enhance all services
It could enable millions to be put into the hands of local people
It could provide for a national income

University fees abolished?
Unemployment would not exist
Fuel Poverty would not exist.

 

REINTRODUCE BRADBURY POUND

 

  1. Governance Hierarchy

 

THE PROBLEM

 

Current political systems have removed power from the edges and concentrated it in the middle. The main left or right parties have all added to this over the last 40 years including unlawfully giving it away to other countries the EU and UN.

 

AN ANALOGY

 

Imagine if you plug you computer into the power socket but you get no power because it is only available near the power station.

 

THE RESULTS

 

YOU ARE DISEMPOWERED this leads to being unable to function and to complaints being made but as there are no local solutions things get worse.

 

HISTORY

 

Historically in Common Law Countries (The English Model) Power was mostly local as this is the principle of common law you are free to do what is not forbidden and to self-govern. Central Government (The King) was responsible for:

 

  1. Protecting from invasion.
  2. The Administering of the Common Law.
  3. Ensuring that people had the right to a place to live and work.
  4. The limited right to tax (mainly on trading) to enable the above
  5. Acting as Trustee of Nation for the people

 

HISTORICAL FAULTS

 

In English History, and it was never perfect, when the faults became unbearable the people responded to correct things as per the following examples:-

 

  1. Magna Carta
  2. Bill of Rights
  3. English Civil War
  4. Peasants Revolt
  5. Poll Tax

THE LEGAL FALLACY

 

The legal fallacy in what has been done is contrary to the maxim that “the common law knows no superior”

not king, not parliament, not judge and not people!

 

This is confirmed by each Monarch upon being crowned.

 
 

 

But through parliament which is subject to the law, the safeguards that it can act beyond have been removed and this has been being done for a long time.

 

As an extreme example: Neither parliament nor judges can decide that murder is lawful, even we the people in a referendum cannot.

 

THE ORIGINS

 

The Charter of Liberties, also called the Coronation Charter, was a written proclamation by Henry I of England, issued upon his accession to the throne in 1100.

 

The full text of the Charter of Liberties of Henry I, 1100, issued by the King when he ascended the throne. The Charter recognised that the King granted the laws of Edward the Confessor, as amended by William the Conqueror, to the people.

 

Further Great Charters (there have been 40 in total).  Of which the current one says:-

 

“these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.”   

 

You cannot usurp or take what is not yours and you cannot give away what is not yours.

 

“Parliament, Politicians cannot giveaway the rights of the People” David Cameron

 

THE INEVITABLE RESULTS

 

I CANNOT FIX MY OWN PROBLEM WITHOUT THE POWER TO DO SO OR WITHOUT THE HELP OF MY LOCAL COMMUNITY.

 

Various degrees of harm that can lead to political polarisation, social fracture and rebellion. 80 year olds are commonly saying we need a revolution.

 

THE ANSWER

 

The Answer is easy

  1. To rescind or abolish Statutes that unlawfully centralised or gave away powers
  2. And  massive reversal and devolving of powers to Local Communities at Parish, Ward and Town Council level with open Community Level Consensus Democracy
  3. And to make the outcomes of Parish (etc) Referenda binding in law locally.
  4. And to make the outcomes of Parish (etc) Referenda binding on MPs & Parliament.

 

  1. Law

 

 

THE PROBLEM
As discussed (in part 1. Hierarchy) the English Common Law has been subverted by the introduction of “Corpus Jurus” EU law system, which is alien and incompatible with Common Law.

 

Confirmation of this came in the Court of Appeal where a key part of the Common Law and Statute since 1297 was said by the then Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger (Now president of the Supreme Court)

 

The two systems cannot co-exist, as they are not compatible, one must be superior

 

AN ANALOGY

 

If you mate a Thoroughbred horse with a Donkey you get an Ass (a mule) which cannot produce any offspring, nothing productive comes out of it except as a work machine.

 

THE RESULTS

 

The rights of everyone under English Law have been removed, from the monarch on down. THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN WIPED OUT IN PRACTICE.

 

But our constitution does not allow that!! And just as in the past we have the right to have this addressed.

 

HISTORY (HOW IT WAS DONE)

 

(ONLY A POTTED LIST)

  1. Parliament claims IT is Sovereign and can decide anything it chooses.
  2. Parliament Act 1911
  3. A process of Centralisation (1970s) Local Government and other Acts
  4. Joining the EEC and EU LAW becomes Supreme
  5. Human Rights Act (Less rights than 1,000 years of common Law)
  6. Removal of Lords as constitutional Guarantors
  7. Supreme Court Act
  8. Access to Justice Act (1999) (denied access to justice except in EU)
  9. EU Membership & Treaties
  10. Removal of Monarch from Parliament (2013)

 

HISTORICAL

 

In English History, the law was never perfect and parliament’s job was to enable acts that:-

 

  1. Restated & Confirmed the Common Law when that was departed from
  2. Remedied where the Common Law was deficient

An example of restatement, (codifying) is the Habeas Corpus Act.

Judges could also develop the law by its Judgements and a Judge’s job, once an act was passed, was to decide if such an act of parliament was compatible with the common law. Only then did it pass into law.

Excesses of the Courts in the past have been dealt with, such as the abolition of the Star Chamber in the 1640’s, much as needs to be done with the Secret Family Courts now.

PUBLIC JUSTICE

Public Justice is a common phrase that most understand as Justice being “SEEN TO BE DONE”, whilst this is true it is much more. Public Justice in Common Law Systems is done by the Public under a Jury System, this is ancient.

One important aspect of Public Justice were Local Grand Juries which were only to be suspended in times of War.

Juries in Civil and Criminal Proceedings were the norm and Grand Juries were an especial protection for the more serious crimes, both to ensure they were dealt with and to protect from state misuse of indictments, there were other protections.

“The sheriff of every county was required to return to every Quarter Sessions and Assizes (or more precisely the commission of oyer and terminer and of gaol delivery), 24 of the county “to inquire into, present, do and execute all those things which, on the part of our Lady the Queen, shall then be commanded them” (The Sherriff could also call a local posse.)” Statute of Winchester which ran for 600 years.

They acted like a clearing house and anyone could bring a crime to a Grand Jury including against a state official and an indictment could then be preferred.

Juries have been systematically removed and replaced. The Grand Jury ceased functioning in England in 1933 and was entirely abolished in 1948.

PRIVATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS

It used to be that all prosecutions for crime were private criminal prosecutions

OUR CURRENT BRITISH SYSTEM

Most of our administration of law is dealt with administratively unless it involves indictable offences, there is no right to a jury and most crimes by public officials do not get addressed and there are secret courts that deal with the family.

 

Private Criminal Prosecutions are routinely denied.

 

In addition Corpus Jurus rules the law now, not common law, and if you want satisfaction the end of the line is in Europe not London.

 

The supreme court was established to stop any challenge to the Human Rights Act, which is an illegal act, parliament cannot stop judges from ruling on the lawfulness of the law.

 

THE FAULT NOW

The central issue is that the protections of the Public Justice Jury Systems (Petty & Grand) have been removed, which disables Public Justice and the common law no longer exists.

 

THE LEGAL FALLACY

 

The legal fallacy is that there can be Public Justice without the Public deciding the Justice of a matter.

 

  1. Is it just to indict (Grand Jury)
  2. Is it just to find guilt (Petty Jury)

 

It is said that one person cannot be judge jury and executioner but that, in effect, is what happens unless you are in crown court.

 

THE ORIGINS

 

At one time all Justice was Local and Public, it was done in Moot, (Tribal Courts), and later the king travelled dispensing justice, Constables became elected as did the magistrates who had to be from the Elected Alderman, the only place in the UK to retain its Moot System and elected Alderman & Magistrates and “Locally Controlled Police” today is the City of London.

 

Except it is the Corporations that have usurped the control in the City from the people there and from the control of the country country’s people.

 

But corporations are not one of the estates of the realm protected by the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights etc.

 

THE INEVITABLE RESULTS

 

JUSTICE IS DENIED

 

#Hillsborough
#BloodySunday
#LynetteWhite
#DanielMorgan
#PhoneHacking
#BankingScandals

#StateChildStealing
#ChildAbuseScandals
#CrimeFigureManipulation
#DeathsInCustody
#PoliceUnacountability
#CorporateFraud
#BankBailout

#Treason

#SecretCourts

#MyriadsOfOtherInjustices

 

These don’t get dealt with or not until years later as there is no effective Public Justice System Left.

 

For instance IPPC is non functional and all the above can be dealt with by the below.

 

THE ANSWER

 

The Answer is easy

  1. A constitutional convention process of the Estates of the Realm to be convened which Parliament is in the constitution is subject to
  2. Local Referenda to enable the convention
  3. The rights of the estates of the realm to be restored by a New Charter of Liberties
  4. Monarch to Seal a Modern Confirming Charter of Liberties and declaring Void all unlawful statutes and treaties that usurp the common law
  5. A Truth, Peace and Reconciliation Commission be established by the Constitutional Convention
  6. Abolish the Supreme Court
  7. A new constitutional Court
  8. Reintroduce the Treason Laws including Treason against the Constitution
  9. Remove the Corporations Control of Elections in the City of London
  10. Abolish Secret Courts
  11. Reintroduce Local Elected Alderman as Magistrates
  12. Restore Juries and Grand Juries
  13. Grand Juries able to prefer indictments at any level
  14. Enable Private Prosecutions via Grand Juries
  15. Reconfirm the Sheriff’s Powers to form a Posse.
  16. Grand Juries to be able to issue a Warrant to Sheriff
  17. Local Commanders of Police to be Elected and Accountable to the Parishes and Wards as Moot Courts
  18. Local Officials (Elected or Not) Accountable to the Parishes and Wards as Moot Courts
  19. Abolish TAXES and introduce TEAL
  20. Remove Larges Banks ability to “make money” through the creation of credit and reintroduce the “Bradbury Pound.”
  21. Etc as the Re-set develops
  22. LOCAL AREA SOLUTIONS

 

 

 

 

 

Published in: on June 9, 2014 at 10:20 pm  Leave a Comment  

Dear London Borough of Haringey & its LSCB (Is the law an option?)

A PUBLIC LETTER (Sarcasm Deliberate)

Dear London Borough of Haringey & its LSCB

Yes hello London Borough of Haringey Children’s Social Care Dept its me again and I have things to say

  • Oh dear you are in trouble AGAIN!
  • You’r giving good social workers a very bad name you know.
  • Is the law an option on your planet or are they entirely different laws?
  • Can London Borough of Haringey Social Workers, Managers & Lawyers read I ask or just only what they want to?

But lets get to the point……

You will notice from a recent judgement of LJ Sir James Munby, who if you did not know happens to be the President of the Family Division, that he has given a judgement Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam) which means you will have to change your ways, to wit you will now have to abide by his judgement that requires you to abide by the law,  as you should have before, namely the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963,  regarding consular access to foreign national children you have in care, as if you did not already have to as I previously pointed out several times  in the Musa case that you know so well.

In this case you did not just not take notice of the requirements in international law, you actively refused to abide by them and actively refused access to the children in the case by their consulate, (how rude is that),  you did this directly and among other things, including before the prior president of the family division, LJ Wall and in front of  LJ Thorpe head of international both at the Royal Courts of Justice, both Judges also did not require you to abide by the Law, (what a family court judge who ignores the law, not common I hope??) It is evidentially so and this is clearly on the record.

The bit in the Judgement about the Vienna Convention comes about as a result of an Curiae submission I made to  President Munby in another case and all this was originally resulting from your,  (London Borough of Haringey) actions in refusing to abide by it. What an excellent Judge he is.

For your information (again):

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963

Article 36

“1 With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending States

(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;

(b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph;

(c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.

2 The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.”

Article 37 (b)

“If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities of the receiving State, such authorities shall have the duty:

(b) to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a national of the sending State. The giving of this information shall, however, be without prejudice to the operation of the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning such appointments; …”

Sir James says in his Judgement:

    1. This is not the occasion for any elaborate discussion of the effect of these provisions as a matter of either public international law or English domestic law (as to which see the Consular Relations Act 1968 and the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987). I am concerned only with what they suggest as good practice in care cases. But in that context there are, as it seems to me, three points to be borne in mind:

i) First, Article 36 enshrines the principle that consular officers of foreign states shall be free to communicate with and have access to their nationals, just as nationals of foreign states shall be free to communicate with and have access to their consular officers.

ii) Second, the various obligations and rights referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Article 36(1) apply whenever a foreign national is “detained”; and where a foreign national is detained the “competent authorities” in this country have the obligations referred to in paragraph (b).

iii) Third, Article 37(b) applies whenever a “guardian” is to be appointed for a minor or other foreign national who lacks full capacity. And Article 37(b) imposes a particular “duty” on the “competent authorities” in such a case

The Daily Mail reported on the case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539601/UK-courts-not-decide-fate-foreign-children-says-judge.html#addComment

The Consular Office of the Children in the Musa case has now been informed of the judgement and I expect they will want not only free and clear access to the children, finally, but also the case papers and no doubt you will have to send the children back, they have family that want them as you well know.

Though if your wriggle they can no doubt bring a case to Sir James attention.

But in any case by high authority you now HAVE TO CONTACT the Consular Office and invite them round to see the kids, tea and biscuits might be a good idea along with a card maybe saying:

Dear Mr Frances Enya
“We are profusely sorry for being so rude and ignoring the law that protects children’s best interests by denying you access. Its a bad habit we have, but we are tying to deal with it but there just is not the funding for therapy you see and in any case our lawyers tell us what to do.  We have in any case arranged a travel warrant to defray your costs.”

In addition when it was discovered that you were actually holding the children unlawfully for several months, I believe that is called kidnap, (awkward stuff law isn’t it) under improperly gained Interim Care Orders and Justice Hogg at the Royal Courts of Justice issued an order for a proper hearing to be held both you and the lower court ignored this, and another illegal order was made (oops I believe this is contempt of court by you AND THE COURT and conspiracy to pervert justice and to hold a child unlawfully aka kidnap)

When you were made aware of a spoof retrieval of the children by a private plane out of the country to France (it really would be impossible to fly seven people out in a two seater plane you know) you had the parents and the pilot arrested for attempted kidnap. The fact that you were holding the children illegally means that it would have been quite legal for them to do so as I pointed out to the officer concerned. He really did not want to hear that. and making these a false arrests and imprisonment. (Whoops there is that law thing again.) Of course the charges were dropped but quite improperly the police did not investigate LB Harringey for unlawfully holding the children. I DID CLEARLY POINT IT OUT TO SEVERAL OFFICERS. Isn’t that called assisting an offender? (annoying stuff law unless like you seem to think it’s optional for you, it isn’t you know!)

I remember attending with them a report for bail in North London with the parents (not mine), speaking in detail with an inspector and then another time in Croydon, imagine my incredulity that I then hear that they are accused of not appearing on only BOTH those occasions. On the 1st instance they got thrown out of the Station for what was it, insisting that they have their own record of attending.  On the Croydon one the mother begged in tears that I go because they were fearful of just this sort of thing.

Do you know I spoke with others in Haringey, including an Elected Member lots of people inside and outside Haringey are very concerned about your Children (in Care) Services.

Oh I nearly forgot the time I was with the Parents in the Musa in Gee St London Family Court as their McKenzie Friend for a finding of fact hearing and your Social Worker lied through her teeth on the stand, clearly an offence, but the parents were to scared to bring it up. I could not as the Judge refused me audience. So on the next day, before the hearing started, I clearly said in court to your SW, I may have to arrest her, the judge brought this up, I got to speak raised the issue and he threw me out of court. (Ignoring perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice) The parents tried to continue on their own but no longer trusted the process, it was part way through a weeks hearing. Despite the judge writing to almost beg them to come back, he did not address their concerns It continued to without them.

On leaving the court building I bumped into  beat officer, I asked if he could advise me and that I was not making a report as I said I knew that police were not allowed near crimes made by those involved in family law, he knew that and said “tell me about it” indicating that he and other officers did not like it and though it wrong, he took a report, I was stunned as it was so unusual. I later found out that he was stopped from investigating by a senior officer and later I saw the judgement in the finding of fact hearing, I am mentioned as being told to get out. as were the parents not taking part after they left and SO WAS THE POLICE OFFICER, the Judge actually put in the Judgement, that the officer had left me and the parents to make enquiries at the court office and that the court manager had refused to assist and told him he had better talk to a senior officer, the Judge had endorsed that. ( I will not even begin to specify what laws this breaches, though I could as it boggles even my mind but I will mention public officers, inc a judge concealing an offence and refusing to assist an officer in his enquiries, there is a lot more her )

It is interesting to note that the parents did on my advice ask the judge above to recuse himself and he refused. Another judge in the case said when the parents raised the issues judged that no one should interfer with a criminal investigation, this was of course refused.

On raising some of the above with Haringey LSCB (Local Safeguarding Children Board) Chairman  and the Manager of Haringey LSCB said to me on the phone “we don’t believe you and will not be investigating” I said can I quote you on that, she said “no”, to which I said actually I can and you cannot stop me, (Oh dear its law AGAIN) she replied “I will deny it.” (what law is that covered by, oh yes misconduct in public office among others), I wonder if I recorded that or not??????

One more small detail at this time, there is so much more. Haringey the time line at the hospital in the case that sent the parents to prison does not fit, and there was evidence presented that was never an issue in the Family Case, I did tell the parents this is what you would try an do long long before, even they did not believe that.  Still they have an appeal pending, I am not called as a witness yet, but that can change. But this is about you and the children Haringey and law not the parents.

And people wonder what is wrong with Family Law, I am quite clear,  lots of those involved have gone clearly mad and do not live in the same world as the rest of us, but shhh that’s a secret.

In the mean time, you might like to consider how the above are quite significant acts with liability claims of harm, your are it would seem open to serious claims of “Tortfeasory”, you are TORTFEASORS. (Oh the law is interesting is it not.)

I have submitted a petition for a Parliamentary Enquiry in to all of Family Law, it is being check over, and you are still subject to my criminal investigation so don’t even think about doing anything against me, it would be an offence. However if you really do wish to address any of the issues or would like help to become the example to all in a good way, rather than the opposite, I am genuinely happy to assist you as I have said before.

Of course even if you do ignore me I will not give up until you and any others like your are constrained properly by law like the rest of us and I am a man of my word. Please count on that in the mean time consider your self busted, at least partially. so far.

Sincerely (in the real best interests of children.)

Paul Randle-Jolliffe Esq

NB:

An  curiae is someone who is not a party to a case who offers information that bears on the case but that has not been solicited by any of the parties.

Curiae Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action

An  curiae educates the court on points of law that are in doubt, gathers or organizes information, or raises awareness about some aspect of the case that the court might otherwise miss. The person is usually, but not necessarily, an attorney, and is usually not paid for her or his expertise. An  curiae must not be a party to the case, nor an attorney in the case, but must have some knowledge or perspective that makes her or his views valuable to the court.

Whilst I have no direct evidential confirmation of an agreement between senior officers and the judiciary regarding police not investigating allegations of criminal offence by parents and others like me unless a judge refers it, it has been suggested that there is and it certainly in this and other cases seems to be how it operates.

The police will normally say its a civil matter and the judiciary do not report in any case.

There is a higher court judgement that the police do not take account of Perjury in proceedings unless judges refer, this has the effect of staking the statute out of law entirely.

But there are other crimes that are not perjury that they do not deal with as well.

There is a case in Wakefield Magistrates Court of a private prosecution by two parents in a child removal, I advised how to do it, where the judge refused to allow it to proceed saying that there was evidence of multiple crimes but family law is separate from the rest of the law and cannot be prosecuted, she was also a family judge and would know those that were being accused.

This is not the law but it is how it opperates

Published in: on January 18, 2014 at 6:06 pm  Comments (5)  

DWP & ATOS complicit in organised crime

The DWP & ATOS policy on no recording and ATOS policy of no advocate allowed without permission is unlawful and amounts to a number of criminal offences inc: Section 1 (1A) Harassment, Conspiracy to Commit Harassment and anyone involved is an accessory and abettor, this would include the DWP Minister and the ATOS MD. 

This would also include the requirement to provide a copy of what is private and copyright material. 

No one can be required to cooperate with any process that involves a policy that breaches criminal law. 

In addition the acts would also amount to harm and can give rise to claims for damages in Tort. 

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 
Section 1(1A) was inserted by section 125(2)(a) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. It prohibits a person from pursuing a course of conduct “which involves harassment of two or more persons” with the intention of persuading any person (not necessarily one of the persons harassed) to do or refrain from doing something they are lawfully entitled to do or not do.

Published in: on January 11, 2014 at 6:47 pm  Leave a Comment  

www.judiciary.gov.uk breaks High Court Reporting Restriction Order!

How curious the High Court Reporting Restriction Order, in the case of the Italian mother who had her child taken into care by order of a court from her  womb, has been broken by it’s own website judiciary.gov.uk  (see below for link)

The published order names  THE CHILD and the mother  in the explanatory in Schedule 1. in contravention of the order!

REPORTING RESTRICTION ORDER MADE BY MR JUSTICE CHARLES ON 4th
DECEMBER 2013 SITTING IN OPEN COURT.

The order details that:

IMPORTANT WARNING: ANY PERSON OR BODY WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER
AND DOES ANYTHING TO BREACH ITS TERMS MAY BE HELD TO BE IN
CONTEMPT OF COURT AND MAY BE IMPRISONED, FINED OR HAVE THEIR
ASSETS SEIZED.

I wonder how long before this is realised. (Update they have since removed the order entirely)

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/reporting-restriction-order-in-matter-of-child-a%20.pdf

This is just one example of how nutty secret family law is.

Published in: on December 10, 2013 at 2:46 pm  Comments (1)  

Publishing Family Law Judgements is not lifting the cloak of secrecy!

Publishing Family Law Judgements is not lifting the cloak of secrecy!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374415/The-cloak-secrecy-lifted-family-courts-Councils-witnesses-routinely-named-cases-evidence-decide-homes-broken-up.html

Any body who spent any time in these secret courts will know that what is not said in judgements is just as if not more important that what is written.

Many judgements are what I call judicial fudge as they dress up the outcomes in language that looks oh so good.

Lifting the veil of secrecy will only be done when these courts are fully public.

Why? Because these courts do not operate a system law that any normal person would recognise as law.

Lord Neuberger, said hearing evidence behind closed doors was ‘against the principle of justice’.

But he missed a vital word out, “PUBLIC”, care proceedings are PUBLIC law cases, it is against the principles of “public” justice. Please don’t miss that word out in future.

Published in: on December 9, 2013 at 7:53 pm  Leave a Comment  

Essex Child Womb Child Snatch: Advocacy Fund Evidence Part of Motion In Parliament

The Research of the Advocacy Fund

https://www.academia.edu/5242647/PRESS_RELEASE_and_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY_THEY_TAKE_YOUR_KIDS_TOO_#1

Has been used to help underpin a motion in Parliament, the Advocacy Fund has hard evidence of 6,500 Foreign National Children taken from 115 countries with the majority of Local Authorities in breach as in the motion as follows:

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/830

In addition as the Chairman I am releasing some of the data: The Countries Concerned and the Local Authorities Summary Data (who does what to whom!)

Press and Countries may contact me on chairman@advocacy-fund.org for more details

CARE PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING FOREIGN NATIONALS

  • Session: 2013-14
  • Date tabled: 03.12.2013
  • Primary sponsor: Hemming, John

That this House notes that from time to time foreign nationals are taken into care in the UK; further notes that under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention and also under Brussels II Bis revised (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) articles 15, 55 and 56, foreign authorities should be contacted when this happens; further notes that in 2011 Essex County Council stated in respect to a Freedom of Information request that it had no contact with high commissioners or embassies, notwithstanding the fact that it had 21 foreign national children looked-after in 2010-11; recognises that it is clear that Essex County Council is not properly following the Vienna Convention and Brussels II regulations; believes that there are other local authorities that are similarly lax in following international law relating to care proceedings; calls on the Government to take steps to ensure that local authorities do follow international law; and further calls on the Government to maintain records, ideally through the SSDA903 return of the nationality of foreign nationals taken into care in England.

Advocacy Fund Research Report Extracts

The report, with information from the files of the 170 plus Care Local Authorities in England and Wales shows that:
• Over a five year period, more 6,500 Non UK Foreign National Children from 115 countries, were directed to be removed from parents and taken into care in closed evidence proceedings. Many were forcibly removed at birth.
• Some were ‘forcibly adopted.’ (Forced adoption is a term used for removing children and ‘freeing’ for irreversible adoption orders in closed evidence* proceedings which are contested by the parents. Legal obligations to consider paternal or kinship care, or ‘open’ adoptions, are flouted.
• Some Local Authorities detail taking over 1,000 children each.
• In many cases, it is not known what has happened to these children.
• It is rare for the authorities to inform Consulates. There may be can be 30 or more state employees involved in any one case and barely any act in accordance with the State’s Obligations.
o In at least one case where the respective Consulate was informed, the child was repatriated with its own parents.
• OFSTED regulators measure and reward care performance, but not compliance with law.
• MPs, Local Authority Members and Police Commissioners do not have access to files to ensure compliance or account for what may be criminal acts. It is a criminal offence to reveal case details.
• Police refuse to investigate wrongdoing within the UK family court system. **
The Law & Convention (Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963), regarding children taken into state care, which has been ratified across the Globe, is that: ANY STATE AGENCY or OFFICIAL:
including: FCO, Police Constables, Local Authority Social Workers, Local Legal Departments, CAFCASS, & JUDGES have an absolute Duty to inform or see that Consular Offices are informed and to enable Consular access WITH COPIES OF CASE FILES so that rights and obligations are protected. The Duty is ignored, with the active collaboration of senior officials.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests made between October 2011 and May 2012 reveal that the majority of Local Authorities in England and Wales do not conform or abide by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. Most have neither policy nor practice with due regard to the basic tenet of s.37 of the Convention: the receiving State’s duty to inform relevant sending state Consuls regarding their foreign children that have been removed from parents in UK care proceedings.

The UK signed the Convention in 1964. Signatories have the following duty, without exception, under Article 37 (b) of the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations 1963:

Article 37 (b):  “If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities of the receiving State, such authorities shall have the duty:

–          to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a national of the sending State.”(emphasis added)

Nothing in the Convention states that adherence to Article 5 (h) is to be interpreted so as to exclude obligations under Article 37 (b).

Article 5 (h): “safeguarding, within the limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, the interests of minors and other persons lacking full capacity who are nationals of the sending State, particularly where any guardianship or trusteeship is required with respect to such persons;”

There appears to be no domestic law or Convention signatory limitation obviating UK any of the UK authorities involved with removing and caring for foreign children from informing the sending states of their parents under legislative “limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State” Art.5(h) above. 

The usual pattern appears to be that the UK local authority does not inform the relevant Consul once a foreign child is taken into care and judiciary refuse to uphold the same duty to the child and other States Parties to the Convention when the omission is raised in court. Other involved agencies, such as the Police, CAFCASS, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministries and regulators, also have no regard to their respective duties as State bodies under the Convention.

The practice is widespread, with foreign children stealthily processed with the full knowledge of previous Presidents of the Family Division including Lord Justice Wall – alongside Lord Justice Thorpe who currently heads UK International Family Law who had directly been involved in such cases receiving notification of the requirements and ignored them.

The dilemma for parents of what appears to be the unlawful removal of children is compounded when subsequent statutory safeguards and processes are ignored by both local authority and judiciary. For example, interim care orders are routinely renewed by post without written consent of the parents. Recent changes to law obviate previous duty to hold monthly interim hearings before care order renewal, making lawful practices previously unlawful. Those hearings now need only be applied for only when affected parents can produce evidence of ‘change’ to the circumstances claimed as justification for the removal of their. Few of the local authorities fully particularise their claims.

Police have been known to assist local authorities with unlawful removals, including immediately after birth by forceful restraint and assault of the mother, enabled by the presentation of false court documentation to hospitals. Many removals effectively amount to kidnap.

Rt.Hon Mr Edward Timpson, MP, Secretary of State for Education, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Looked After Children and Care Leavers and Vice Chair of the APPG for Runaway and Missing Children (the last of which has produced a report of 10,000 children going missing from UK care each year, some permanently) has stated, before the Education Select Committee’s investigation on child protection, that “the UK system is so good” he wanted to export it to Barbados. The reality is that the export process is well underway to many who seek guidance from the UK model which frankly is bankrupt.

Statutory Instrument 2009 No. 857 (L. 8) indicates that the UK is producing legal framework without due consideration to obligations under Treaties. Consulates are not listed amongst those to whom details of family law proceedings can be disclosed. The UK family judiciary have a ECtHR record of proven human rights abuses in relation to the suppression of leakage by use of directions and secret imprisonment for several months of those considered to have breached the restricted disclosure list.

The Countries that these children are from are as follows:

THE LIST OF COUNTRIES FROM WHICH OVER 6,500 (at least) FOREIGN NATIONAL CHILDREN WERE TAKEN INTO UK LOCAL AUTHORITY CARE OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
with the numbers of children affected:

  1

Afgananistan (AF)

41

Hungary (HU)

81

Portugal (PT)

2

Albania (AL)

42

India (IN)

82

Romania (RO)

3

Algeria (DZ)

43

Iran (Islamic Republic of) (IR)

83

Russian Federation (RU)

4

Angola (AO)

44

Iraq (IQ)

84

Rwanda (RW)

5

Australia (AU)

45

Ireland (IE)

85

Saint Lucia (LC)

6

Azerbaijan (AZ)

46

Israel (IL)

86

Saudi Arabia (SA)

7

Bangladesh (BD)

47

Italy (IT)

87

Serbia (RS)

8

Belize (BZ)

48

Jamaica (JM)

88

Senegal (SN)

9

Bosnia and Herzegowina (BA)

49

Japan (JP)

89

Sierra Leone (SL)

10

Botswana (BW)

50

Kenya (KE)

90

Slovakia (Slovak Republic) (SK)

11

Brazil (BR)

51

Korea, D.P.R.O (KP)

91

Slovenia (SI)

12

Burundi (BI)

52

Korea, Republic of (KR)

92

Solomon Islands (SB)

13

Cambodia (KH)

53

Kurdistan

93

Somalia (SO)

14

Cameroon (CM)

54

Kosovo

94

South Africa (ZA)

15

Canada (CA)

55

Kuwait (KW)

95

Spain (ES)

16

Central African Republic (CF)

56

Latvia (LV)

96

Sri Lanka (LK)

17

Chad (TD)

57

Lebanon (LB)

97

Sudan (SD)

18

China (CN)

58

Liberia (LR)

98

Sweden (SE)

19

Congo (CG)

59

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (LY)

99

Switzerland (CH)

20

Congo, the DRC (CD)

60

Lithuania (LT)

100

Syrian Arab Republic (SY)

21

Cook Islands (CK)

61

Macedonia (MK)

101

Taiwan, Province of China (TW)

22

Cote D’Ivoire (CI)

62

Malawi (MW)

102

Tanzania, United Republic of (TZ)

23

Czech Republic (CZ)

63

Malaysia (MY)

103

Thailand (TH)

24

Dagestani

64

Mali (ML)

104

Trinidad and Tobago (TT)

25

Denmark (DK)

65

Malta (MT)

105

Tunisia (TN)

26

Dominica (DM)

66

Mauritania (MR)

106

Turkey (TR)

27

Ecuador (EC)

67

Mauritius (MU)

107

Uganda (UG)

28

Egypt (EG)

68

Mexico (MX)

108

Ukraine (UA)

29

Eritrea (ER)

69

Monaco (MC)

109

United States (US)

30

Ethiopia (ET)

70

Mongolia (MN)

110

Viet Nam (VN)

31

France (FR)

71

Morocco (MA)

111

Yemen (YE)

32

Gambia (GM)

72

Neatherlands (NL)

112

Yugoslavia

33

Georgia (GE)

73

New Zealand (NZ)

113

Zambia (ZM)

34

Germany (DE)

74

Niger (NE)

114

Zaire (ZR)

35

Ghana (GH)

75

Nigeria (NG)

115

Zimbabwe (ZW)

36

Grenada (GD)

76

Norway (NO)

116

Unspecified Africa

37

Guatemala (GT)

77

Pakistan (PK)

117

Unspecified Asia

38

Guinea (GN)

78

Palestine (PS)

118

Unspecified Eastern Europe

39

Guinea-Bissau (GW)

79

Philippines (PH)

119

Unspecified  Caribbean

40

Guyana (GY)

80

Poland (PL)

120

Unknown

SUMMARY OF FOI RESPONSES

Response to FOI Key :

x No notification policy
+ Has a policy and/or notifies
? Uncertain
?? Did not respond

LONDON

London and abroad Child Protection procedures. – P261, section 5.45

(5.45.4 Professionals should contact national embassies and consulates in London for the countries concerned. Embassy and consulate details are available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, at: http://www.fco.gov.uk.)

x London Borough of Barking and Dagenham do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They do not notify Embassies except in cases where adoptions have already completed. They have taken 172 Children of Foreign Nationals into care, of which 3 adopted, from NG, AF, AL, IR, ER, GH, SO, CG, KE, DZ, RO, US, BD, BI, CM, CN, DM, NL, ET, IQ, LT,, PK, PL, PT, SL, LC, UG and ZW.

x London Borough of Barnet have no written policy but do have a full time agent from UKBA on staff who assists with issues surrounding Children of Foreign Nationals. It could be assumed that this individual is aware of the legislation and contacts the Embassies on a case-by-case basis but without a policy this cannot be assured. Of the 239 Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care, 8 adopted and from AF, AL, DZ, AO, AZ, BD, CF, CN, CG, ER, GN, IR, IQ, IE, JM, KE, KW, KR, LV, MW, NZ, NG, PH, PL, PT, RO, RU, SA, SL, SK, SO, ES, LK, SD, SE, TT, TR, UG, US, VN, ZM, ZW, Kosovo, Palestinian Territories and Yugoslavia.

x London Borough of Bexley have no information concerning numbers and have no written policy or procedure in place to notify Embassies.

? London Borough of Brent have no written policy, but do notify Embassies on a case-by-case basis. They have no information on numbers.

x London Borough of Bromley do not have a written policy and claim most Children of Foreign Nationals are either UASC or have no discernible or recorded nationality (what?). They have taken 51 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from ER, IR, SL, CN, SO, IQ, AF, AL, PK, MN, SD, VN and CI.

x London Borough of Camden have no statistical information beyond 2007, therefore is limited to the following: 229 Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care and 2 adopted from AF, AL, DZ, AU, BD, CA, CG, ER, ET, GH, GN, IR, IQ, IE, IT, JM, LV, LT, MA, NG, PK, PL, PT, RO, RU, SL, SO, UG, US and Kosova. They have no written policy and do not inform Embassies.

x London Borough of Croydon have no written policy and do not inform Embassies as a matter of course. They have taken 1118 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, AL, DZ, AO, BD, BI, TD, CN, CG, CI, EG, ER, ET, GM, GE, GH, GN, IN, IR, IQ, KE, KW, LY, MY, ML, MR, MN, MA, NE, KP, PK, RU, SL, SO, LK, SD, TR, UG, UA, VN, CI, Africa, Asia, Europe, Palestine Territories and Syria.

x London Borough of Ealing do not have a written policy and do not consult with Embassies as a matter of course. They refer to the London Child Protection Procedures.

x London Borough of Enfield do not have a policy but as a matter of course, they do consult with Embassies when required. They have taken 37 Children of Foreign Nationals from AF, AL, CN, CG, ET, IR, IQ, MW, RO, RU, SO, TR and VN.

x London Borough of Greenwich do not have a written policy but they do liaise directly with local authorities in EU sending States. They seek advice from Embassies in “some” cases. They offer no details on numbers or nationalities.

x London Borough of Hackney have a written policy and refer to the Pan London Child Protection Procedure.

x London Borough of Hammersmith And Fulham have no policy and do not notify Embassies. They offer no further details.

x London Borough of Haringey have not responded to enquiries though it is known via wide alternative media coverage of at least one family of seven Children of Foreign Nationals that were removed and are now considered “missing” by most commentators, on the grounds that they had in fact been smuggled into the UK by the two individuals who accompanied them – who, by proof of DNA matching, turned out to be the biological parents of said children. LBH continued to claim that they were not the parents, which was accepted by the Proceedings and the children were subsequently put up for adoption (we think). The parents are currently languishing in separate prisons with no contact with each other, no access to legal advice or Consular access and no contact with their children. They will be deported when they have served their sentences with no further contact with their children. See  http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august152012/musa-sentence- jg.php for more details.

?? London Borough of Harrow have yet to respond to enquiries.

x London Borough of Havering have no written policy and do not notify Embassies. They liaise with the Home Office in cases involving Children of Foreign Nationals and have taken 17 into care and adopted 1 from AF, AL, DZ, BR, GN, IR, KW, LB, PT and Kosova.

x London Borough of Hillingdon have no written policy and only consult Embassies when looking to return Children of Foreign Nationals to their families in their country of origin. They offer no informaiton on numbers, but do offer that they have taken children from AF, ER, ET, IR, IQ, CN, VN, NG, SL, PK, IN, LR, GN, SN, GH, DZ, UG, ZA, RW, ZW, SO, LK, KW, BD, KE, SD, CM, TR, TD, TZ, AL, PT, DRC, the Palestinian Territories and South Korea.

x London Borough of Hounslow do not have a written policy and do not contact Embassies as a matter of course. They have taken 151 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and adopted 10 from IE, PT, LT, SO, ER, ZA and LK.

x London Borough of Islington do not have a written policy and are of the belief that it’s not a statutory requirement to notify Embassies. They do not offer details on numbers or nationalities.

x Royal Borough of Kensington And Chelsea act upon the Hague Convention but have no written policy concerning Children of Foreign Nationals. They have taken 99 children into care and adopted 29 from CN, RU, US, ET, GH, LB, MA, PH, IN, TH and BZ.

x London Borough of Kingston Upon Thames say they do not record the origins of Children of Foreign Nationals nor do they notify Embassies.

x London Borough of Lambeth do not have a written policy, and while they are not forthcoming with numbers, they do tell us that they have taken Children of Foreign Nationals from AF, US, DZ, AO, BD, BR, CM, CA, CH, CG, NL, EC, ER, FR, GH, GD, GW, IN, LB, MC, NG, IR, IQ, IE, IT, CI, SL, SO, ZA, ES, SD, JM, KE, PK, PL, PT, RO, TZ, UG, VT, ZM, ZW and Zhiran. They do not, as a rule, inform Embassies.

x London Borough of Lewisham have a written policy concerning Children of Foreign Nationals however this does not include Embassies’ notifications. Their assessment process is completely proprietary and is biased in every case (to which they offer no details or statistics) toward the Local Authority in Public Law Family Proceedings.

? The City of London Corporation refers the Inquiry to individual Local Authorities and to the now-defunct General Social Care Council.

x London Borough of Merton does not have a written policy and informs the Inquiry that of the 20 Children of Foreign Nationals they taken into care from ER, AF, IR, PK, AL, SH and SY, not a single one has had or been informed of their right to Consular Access.

x London Borough of Newham has no written policy and are unwilling to divulge statistics for reasons unknown.

?? London Borough of Redbridge refused all enquiries citing cost of process.

x London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames do not have a written policy, however claim that is because they have taken no Children of Foreign Nationals. Which is known to be untrue.

x London Borough of Southwark have no written policies in place nor are they forthcoming with any other information.

x London Borough of Sutton have no written policy and no differentiation is made on any children due to nationality.

x London Borough of Tower Hamlets do have a written policy which includes notification of Embassies, however they do not record nationalities hence have no statistics to offer.

x London Borough of Waltham Forest claim they do not hold any information. They do not have a written policy.

x London Borough of Wandsworth are of the belief that Consular notifications are not a Statutory requirement, hence have neither written policy nor statistics of Children of Foreign Nationals.

x London Borough of Westminster City have no written policy and treat Children of Foreign Nationals as they would any other children.

 ENGLAND

 + Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council claim to have taken no Children of Foreign Nationals for care or adoption in the past five years. The contact informs that they use an organisation/guideline called Family First, however the only online reference we can find to Family First is the giving charity which operates a number of furniture warehousing projects up and down the UK and supplies beds, cookers and other whitegoods and basic furniture, to families in need by way of reference from Social Services. That said, they will attempt to place a Children of Foreign Nationals with family or friends in the first instance after consultation with the relevant Embassy/HC.

x Bath and North East Somerset Council deal with each case on an individual basis. They have no policy on Children of Foreign Nationals, and claim to have taken no Children of Foreign Nationals in the last five years.

? Central Bedfordshire Council deal with each case on an individual basis. They deal with cases involving Children of Foreign Nationals as part of the care proceedings; there is no further information for this Authority.

? Birmingham City Council claim not to have any statistical data concerning Children of Foreign Nationals in care or adopted. This suggests a number greater than zero but with Birmingham having such a large multicultural community this is highly unlikely. Cases are dealt with on an individual basis. They deal with cases involving Children of Foreign Nationals as part of the care proceedings; there is no further information for this Authority.

+ Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council deal with relevant Embassies. They do not keep statistical information, or keep records of countries of origin although they do attempt to determine country of origin. They liaise with International Social Services, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and relevant Embassies.

? Blackpool Borough Council deal with each case individually. They claim to follow the relevant regulated practices, and say they have taken no Children of Foreign Nationals into care or adoption in the last five years.

x Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council did not divulge their practices, however they do admit that they have no written policies concerning Children of Foreign Nationals. They do also admit that they have taken 21 Children of Foreign Nationals in the last five years from the following nationalities: CD, ZW, IR, AF, NG, PK, SL, BD.

x Bournemouth Borough Council base care/adoption decisions based entirely upon reports of their Children Services department. Data is held on ethnicity not nationality, however they are not willing to share this information.

+ Bracknell Forest Borough Council have taken 4 children from ZM and ZW in the last five years. They made contact with three Embassies during proceedings and one after, following efforts (presumably with 100% success rate) to identify nationalities.

+ Bradford City Council do not have a written policy however they do check with Embassies. Of the 91 Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care (none adopted), 48 were asylum seekers, and the embassies of the following States were consulted: AF, BD, BA, CM, CN, CZ, ET, FR, IR, IQ, IE, JM, LR, MW, NG, KP, PK, PL, SI, VN, ZW.

x Brighton & Hove City Council liaise with the Home Office (surely the wrong people to talk to in cases involving Children of Foreign Nationals), and say this fulfills obligations under the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption & Children Act 2002 – neither of which makes any consideration for nationality a priority (or even mentions it) – other than which there is no written policy and the claim that there is no requirement for the Local Authority to notify High Commissions/Embassies in respect of inter- country adoptions. This is completely incorrect, as it is the responsibility of the Local Authorities and/or Department of Health to send the relevant paperwork to the source State Embassy for notarisation before the adoption application can be made (source: SSIA/Cymru [Attached PDF at Appendix I] & Vienna 1963).

x Bristol City Council do not have a written policy concerning Children of Foreign Nationals and have thus far refused to divulge any further information.

x Buckinghamshire County Council do not have a policy concerning Children of Foreign Nationals except to state that they deal with adoption cases as legislated through the High Court according to the Adoption & Children Act 2002.

? Bury Metropolitan Borough Council cite confidentiality as the reason for sharing no information on policy or numbers, other than to state that they liaise the FCO regarding Consular visits to Children of Foreign Nationals in care.

x Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council do not make enquiries as to nationalities of Children of Foreign Nationals, nor do they follow legislated procedures for informing Embassies.

x Cambridgeshire County Council do not make enquiries as to nationalities of Children of Foreign Nationals, nor do they follow legislated procedures for informing Embassies. They liaise with the UK Border Agency on matters of immigration.

x Chester Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedure: it is left to the biological parents to inform the Embassy of the situation. It is however the duty of the authority and not the Parents.

x Cornwall County Council do not have a written policy and do not attempt to determine nationality.

x Coventry City Council do not have a written policy and holds no information on nationalities, suggesting that they make no attempt to determine nationality.

? Cumbria County Council cite risk of identifying individual children as a reason for not divulging information. They have provided no further information.

? Darlington Borough Council have taken three Children of Foreign Nationals from IR and AF. Cases are considered individually; there is no further information on policy.

+ Derby City Council does not keep statistical data, however they do state that proper liaison is kept with the relevant Embassy.

x Derbyshire County Council do not hold any information on Children of Foreign Nationals, and have no written policy.

? Devon County Council have been in touch with one single Embassy concerning a single Children of Foreign Nationals; this was “around 7 years ago”.

x Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure concerning Children of Foreign Nationals; they do notify the Home Office after proceedings have completed, and have taken 20 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and adopted 2 from AF, CG, GH, IQ, IR, NG, PK, PL, TR.

x Dorset County Council do not have a written policy, but they do say they have taken 13 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, BD and IQ.

x Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council have chosen to seek legal advice on the question of written policy, suggesting they do not have one, and they do not follow legislated procedure on Children of Foreign Nationals. They have taken 9 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, AL, CN, IN, IR, PK, and continental Africa.

x Durham County Council do not have a written policy, and they claim to have taken no children into care or for adoption in the last five years.

x East Riding of Yorkshire Council do not hold any information on Children of Foreign Nationals, and they do not follow legislated procedure in dealing with such cases.

x East Sussex County Council do not follow legislated procedure unless it satisfies a proprietery “best interests” test to do so. They have taken 9 into care and 2 for adoption, out of which 7 were notified to the Embassy. Those taken were from CG, PL and GH.

x Essex County Council do not make contact with Embassies. They have taken 138 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from CN, RU, GT and MU. They have no written policy.

x Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council does not follow legislated procedure in Children of Foreign Nationals cases and does not notify Embassies. They do not have a written policy. They have take one Children of Foreign Nationals into care but refuse to divulge her nationality.

+ Gloucestershire County Council does not have a written policy, however they do liaise with Embassies in cases (numbers unrecorded) dealing with Children of Foreign Nationals from Nigeria, South Africa, Australia, Pakistan, India, Slovakia and Poland.

x Halton Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure in dealing with Children of Foreign Nationals. They have taken 4 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and 1 for adoption from AF and IR in the last five years.

x Hampshire County Council do not follow legislated procedure, do not liaise with Embassies nor the FCO in Children of Foreign Nationals cases, and have taken 118 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and 3 for adoption from AF, BD, BR, CN, ET, PH, IN, IR, IE, JM, JP, PK, PG, PL, PT, ZA, LK, TR, VN and ZW.

x Hartlepool Council do not have a policy in place, nor do they have any information on Children of Foreign Nationals.

x Herefordshire Council follow West Midlands Safeguarding Procedures which does not include information on Children of Foreign Nationals procedure, hence it can be said that they do have a written policy.

x Worcestershire County Council has no written policy regarding Children of Foreign Nationals; they do not inform the Embassies particularly concerning UASC as they are of the erroneous belief that in such cases (asylum seekers) they do not have to inform those Embassies.

x Hertfordshire County Council does not follow legislated procedure on Children of Foreign Nationals nor do they have a written policy. They have no liaison with Embassies.

x Isle of Wight County Council does not follow legislated procedure nor do they have a written policy.

x Kent County Council do not have a written policy. They liaise with Embassies on an advisory basis only, and have taken 55 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, AL, BA, CZ, DE, IR, IT, LV, MA, PT, RO, SI, ZA, ES, VN, ZW and NL.

+ Kingston Upon Hull City Council have taken two Children of Foreign Nationals for adoption, one from TN and one from NG, one in accordance with International Law. They do have a written policy in dealing with Children of Foreign Nationals.

+ Kirklees Borough Council have taken 5 Children of Foreign Nationals from UG, PK and ZW into care, following notification requirements.

+ Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and do not follow International law regarding care/adoption of Children of Foreign Nationals.

? Lancashire County Council are currently revising their written policy (they have none in effect). They make some effort to determine nationality, however beyond that there is no information on whether or not they follow legislated procedures in subsequent liaisons.

x Leeds City Council liaise with UKBA and the Home Office to determine immigration status, but they do not follow legislated procedure on notification of Embassies. They have taken 258 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and adopted 1 from AF, BD, CM, CH, CG, ER, FR, GH, GN, IR, IL, IQ, CI, KE, MW, NG, PK, RU, SB, SY, TR, VN, ZM, ZW, Dagestan, and some unspecified.

x Leicester City Council have no written policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They describe Children of Foreign Nationalss exclusively as UASC, with 37 taken into care, 68 described as “in need” and 9 adopted from AF, IQ, IR, CG, ER, IT, AL, VN, SO, ZW, ZA, BR, NG, NO, NL, LR, Ivory Coast, the Palestinian Territories, and the Caribbean region.

x Leicestershire County Council do not have a written Children of Foreign Nationals policy and refuse to divulge any information.

x Lincolnshire County Council refer all Children of Foreign Nationals cases to Nottingham County Court sitting as the High Court. They do not follow legislated procedures on determination nor of notifying Embassies. They have taken 63 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and adopted 4 from AF, DK, EC, ER, ET, IE, IE, LV, LT, PK, PL, RU, PT, SD, VN, and the Palestinian Territories.

x Liverpool City Council do not follow legislated procedures, and have taken 183 Children of Foreign Nationals from CN, BD, IN, PK, described as “other Black”, “other Asian”, and “African”. This suggests that no attempt is made to determine nationality. They do not have a written Children of Foreign Nationals policy.

x Luton Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure, and have no records concerning Children of Foreign Nationals. They have no written policies concerning Children of Foreign Nationals.

x Manchester City Council do not follow legislated procedures, have no written policy and no attempt is made to contact Embassies. They have taken 295 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from Africa, Asia, Europe, middle East, Oceania and “Not Known”.

x Middlesborough Borough Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They have taken 25 Children of Foreign Nationals from CN, US, NL, PL and RO into care.

x Milton Keynes Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They make enquiries of the UKBA as to immigration status, and have taken 49 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, ER, IR, IQ, NG, VN, and “African”.

x West Berkshire Council have no written Children of Foreign Nationals policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They have taken 49 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, AL, ER, IR, IQ and SU.

x Norfolk County Council do not follow legislated procedure and have no written policy. They have taken 61 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, HU, CH, PT, and “others”. They do not liaise with Embassies.

x North East Lincolnshire Council sometimes follow legislated procedure and notification requirements but only in cases where wider families are already identified. They have taken 6 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, BR and ZA.

x North Lincolnshire Council do not follow legislated procedure nor do they have a written policy. They do not hold statistical data on Children of Foreign Nationals removals.

x North Somerset Council do not follow legislated procedures, and they do not liaise with Embassies. They have taken 10 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and adopted 7 from RU, AF, IQ, TH, GT and Eastern Europe.

x North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedures. They do not liaise with Embassies unless it is in accordance with and satisfies the “Best Interests” test. They have taken 55 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, BD, CN, CZ, IR, IQ, PL, UG, ZA, US and “African”.

? North Yorkshire County Council are currently drafting a policy on Children of Foreign Nationals with the stated intention to have had one in place by January 2012. Enquiries are in motion to determine whether or not they have a policy in place. They cite protection of the child in refusing to give the country of origin of the one child they have taken into care.

x Northamptonshire County Council have no written policy in place and do not follow legislated procedure; indeed they have stated their intention not to follow legislated procedure in removing Children of Foreign Nationals, of which they have 1,000 (countries of origin not disclosed and a suspiciously round number), only that they sometimes consult with UKBA in determining residence status.

x Northumberland County Council claim they follow legislated procedure in informing the sending State’s Embassy/HC at the earliest opportunity. However, of the three Children of Foreign Nationals in care in the district, none were notified to the Embassies of AF or IR.

x Nottingham City Council have no policy on informing Embassies. They hold no information on numbers or nationalities.

+ Nottinghamshire County Council refer to the Vienna Convention 1963 which puts the responsibility of informing Embassies of the status of Children of Foreign Nationals squarely in the laps of Local Authorities. However, they hold no data regarding numbers or nationalities.

x Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council rely on the consent of the parents to notify Embassies, which is an unnecessary and unlawful obstacle, in our opinion one which would allow them to claim that consent was sought but refused. They cite privacy of the Children of Foreign Nationals for refusing to divulge numbers or nationalities.

x Oxfordshire County Council treat Children of Foreign Nationals as they would those legally resident. Of the 217 Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care, none of the Embassies of the following countries were informed: AF, AL, DZ, BW, CH, CG, IR, EG, ER, ET, GH, IQ, KE, JM, MK, NG, RO, UG, SO, ZA, SY, VN, ZW, Kosovar, “Other” and “Not Recorded”.

x Peterborough City Council have no written policy; they are ignorant of Convention and do not follow legislated procedure. That said they regularly liaise with an organisation called Families Across Borders who then liaise with the Sending States’ Child Protection Service but this does not conform to law.

x Plymouth City Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They have offered no further useful information.

x Poole Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure; they leave the task of notifying to a private adoption agency, hence see no need for a written policy. They have taken 3 Children of Foreign Nationals for adoption from ET, TH and TW.

x Portsmouth City Council do not follow legislated procedure beyond the Adoption with A Foreign Element Regulations 2005 (UKSI2005:392/2) which makes no reference whatsoever with Consular access to Children of Foreign Nationals. Of the 74 Children of Foreign Nationals taken, 3 were adopted from MA, NG, CG, AF, BD, GM, AO, IQ, IR, VN, ER, SD, AL, UA, RO, PH, ET and Serbia.

x Reading Borough Council have not seen Children of Foreign Nationals in care and adoption proceedings as an issue to be dealt with.

x Redcar And Cleveland Borough Council do not have a written policy on Children of Foreign Nationals, nor do they follow legislated procedure.

x Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure and do not have a written policy. They are of the belief that should such a situation arise, that they would only be obliged to notify in “some” cases.

+ Medway Council are aware of the legislation and have a written policy. They do not keep records of nationalities in a searchable format.

x Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and are ignorant of the legislation surrounding the obligation to notify Embassies. They have taken 30 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, SK, DZ, NG, IR, LT, KE, RO, SO, ZW, MW, IQ, SD, VN, KP, MA, PK, CG. Recent media coverage has found that Rotherham seem to be more concerned with the political leanings of carers than of the cultural heritage of the children. See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9700001/Foster-parents-stigmatised-and-slandered-for- being-members-of-Ukip.html

x Rutland District Council do not have a written policy and do not notify Embassies. They have taken 9 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF and ER.

x Salford City Council have no written policy and do not inform Embassies. Of the 15 Children of Foreign Nationals taken, 3 are adopted. These are from CN, CK, LR, PL, IE, ER, RU, GM.

x Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council does not have a Children of Foreign Nationals policy and do not notify Embassies as a matter of course. They have taken 43 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, CH, CG, IR, IQ, JM, SD and Kosova.

x Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy nor do they follow legislated procedures. They do liaise with the International Social Service and FCO.

x Sheffield City Council do not have a written policy nor do they follow legislated procedures. They have taken 38 Children of Foreign Nationals into care but there is no more information offered.

x Shropshire County Council have no written policy nor do they consult with Embassies. They have taken 17 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, IR, CH, and Ireland.

x Slough Borough Council do not have any policy or information regarding Children of Foreign Nationals.

x Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and describe all Children of Foreign Nationals they have previously taken (no details given) as UASC.

x Somerset County Council do not hold any information on Children of Foreign Nationals, nor do they state any intention to follow legislated procedure or have a written policy.

x South Gloucestershire Council do not follow legislated procedure and do not have a written policy. They have taken 10 CN into care, 2 of which adopted, from PK, AF, SO, RU and ET.

x South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council are in the process of revising their written policy. They liaise with International Social Services and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association but not with Embassies. They have taken 2 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from Nigeria.

x Southampton City Council does not have a written policy nor do they follow legislated procedure on notifications. Of the 60 Children of Foreign Nationals taken, 5 are adopted but no further details are offered.

x Southend On Sea Borough Council have no written policy nor do they follow legislated procedure. They follow the National Assessment Framework which only caters for the “best interests” test. They offer no details on numbers or nationalities of Children of Foreign Nationals taken.

x St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure nor do they liaise with Embassies. Of the 9 Children of Foreign Nationals taken, 1 is adopted from IR, IQ, VN and HU.

x Staffordshire County Council have no written policy and they do not notify Embassies. They have taken 23 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, US, CA, ER, IR and VN.

x Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council have no written policy and do not liaise with Embassies. They have offered no further information on Children of Foreign Nationals.

x Stockton On Tees Borough Council have taken two Children of Foreign Nationals into care, although they are not willing to provide information on nationalities citing privacy issues. They have no written policy in place and do not liaise with Embassies.

x Stoke On Trent City Council have no written policy in place and do not follow legislated procedure. They have no information on numbers or nationalities of Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care.

x Suffolk County Council in Re H (a child) (unreported) sent facsimile messages directly to every hospital in Spain to locate an expatriate family and have a child (the contended) born in Spain, hence a Spanish national, removed from the family and transported to the UK without first hearing an application under Hague BII/R. This attempt to transport a child (a Spanish national) to the UK with the stated intention to adopt, failed when the child was removed by the Spanish authorities for ten months while the parents were assessed, and the child was subsequently returned to their full time care. In Re H (different case, same family), the Lord Justice in the Appeal Court dismissed the assessments by the Spanish as “Third World” while disposing of an appeal for sibling contact. See: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/6.html and connected Judgements. As to the question, Suffolk have no written policy nor demonstrably, do they liaise with Embassies. They have taken 134 Children of Foreign Nationals, of which 1 adopted, from AF, IR, IQ, VN, CH and LK.

x Sunderland City Council do not have any policies regarding Children of Foreign Nationals whatsoever. They have taken 15 into care although nationalities are not listed.

? Surrey County Council do not have a written policy although they do liaise with Embassies in most cases. Of the 357 Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care, 2 are adopted.

x Swindon Borough Council do not have a written policy and are ignorant of the Law concerning Children of Foreign Nationals. They offer no information on numbers or nationalities.

x Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated notification procedures. They have taken 1 Children of Foreign Nationals from Serbia.

x Thurrock Borough Council have no written policy regarding Children of Foreign Nationals. They are of the belief that they do not need one. Their justification of this is that “most” Children of Foreign Nationals are UASC and the risk of contacting the Embassies in question are a detriment to their safety. They do liaise with the UKBA in these matters, and have taken 86 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, IR and ER. They will not disclose how many they have taken for adoption.

x Torbay Council have no written policy regarding Children of Foreign Nationals and offer no information.

x Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy although they do offer Consular access to Children of Foreign Nationals who they consider to be of age and maturity to withdraw consent. They offer no information on numbers or nationalities.

Wakefield City Council do not have a written policy and only notify Embassies if they deem it necessary. They have taken 3 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF and LT.

x Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and offer no information on numbers or nationalities.

x Warrington Borough Council are not only aware of the Law regarding Children of Foreign Nationals, they apply it. They do have a written policy and they also liaise with Children & Families Across Borders. They have taken 6 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from LR and CN.

x Warwickshire County Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislate procedures. They will not divulge information concerning Children of Foreign Nationals and no reason is given.

?? West Sussex County Council have yet to respond to any query.

x Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council are of the belief that as they consider the circumstances arising to be unlikely, they have no need for a written policy.

x Wiltshire County Council do not have a written policy concerning Children of Foreign Nationals or notifications, and do not hold a searchable database concerning numbers/nationalities.

x Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead do not have a policy and can offer no information on Children of Foreign Nationals.

x Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council have a written policy but this does not include notifying Embassies as a matter of course. They have taken 7 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from SY, SO, CH, IQ and IR.

x Wokingham District Council do not have a written policy, however they do consult with Embassies as a matter of course during adoption proceedings only. They have not offered details on numbers or nationalities.

?? Wolverhampton City Council have yet to respond to enquiries.

x Telford and Wrekin Council follow DfE guidelines only in cases involving Children of Foreign Nationals, having no written policy and offer no details on numbers or nationalities.

x City of York Council do not have a written policy nor do they notify Embassies. They do consult with the Home Office and the Immigration Service and have taken 2 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF and IQ.

x Council of the Isles of Scilly do not have a written policy but claim they do follow legislated procedure. They do not offer any information on Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care or adopted or their origins.

WALES

 x Blaenau Gwent Council have taken one Child of a Foreign National but are unwilling to divulge nationality. They do not have a written policy on notification.

x Bridgend Council do not have a written policy and they do not inform Embassies. They have taken 9 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, IR, IQ, RO, ZA and US.

?? Caerphilly Council have refused all enquiries.

x Cardiff Council have taken 367 Children of Foreign Nationals from AF, BD, BI, CN, CG, CZ, EG, ER, FR, DE, GH, GY, IN, IR, IQ, IE, JM, KE, MT, NG, PK, RO, RU, SL, SO, SD, UG, VN, YE, ZW, Kurdistan and Slovakia. None of these have had Consular access and no Embassies were notified.

x Carmarthenshire Council claim that the 4 Children of Foreign Nationals they took into care from AF and BD, were all unaccompanied asylum seekers. Hence, no Embassies were informed.

x Ceredigan Council claim the two Children of Foreign Nationals they took into care (origins not specified) were unaccompanied asylum seekers. They have no written policy.

+ Conwy County Borough Council have a written policy in which is included mandatory notification of Embassies. They have taken 4 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF and IQ.

x Denbeighshire Council have taken one child from PH for adoption, however at the time the information was supplied the process was incomplete. They do not have a written policy, and refer the Inquiry to the All Wales Child Protection Procedures.

+ Flintshire Council have no policy on Children of Foreign Nationals, however the one child they have taken into care from PL was notified to the High Commission.

x Gwynedd Council have taken two Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF. They have not notified the Embassy, and have no written policy in this regard.

x Isle of Anglesey Council do not have a written policy, and have taken 10 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from VN, AF, IE and ZW with no Embassy notifications having taken place.

x Merthyr Tydfil Council claim to have taken no Children of Foreign Nationals into care or for adoption, and they have no written policy.

x Monmouthshire Council do not have either statistics or written policy.

x Neath Port Talbot Council have taken 11 Children of Foreign Nationals from AF, IQ and IK without having notified any Embassies. They have no written policy except to apply proprietary “best interests” tests as to whether it is to the child’s advantage to actually obey International Law.

? Newport City Council have taken 28 Children of Foreign Nationals from AF, CZ, ER, IR, IQ, LT, PL, SK, VN and the Palestinian Territories. While they do not have a written policy, their standard operating procedure is to seek advice from the welfare sections of the relevant Embassies.

x Pembrokeshire Council do not have a written policy and offer no statistics. They default to the Welsh Assembly (who not only do not have the qualification or authority to advise on individual cases but they also do not have the authority to make blanket policy regarding Children of Foreign Nationals; this function is carried out by the UK Government in Westminster.

x Powys Council have clear procedures on overseas adoption (children being from the UK but adopted overseas) but nothing on Children of Foreign Nationals, beyond treating them as unaccompanied asylum seekers. They have taken 1 child into care and 1 for adoption from IR and RU.

x Rhondda Cynon Taff Council have no policies or procedures in place regarding Children of Foreign Nationals, however they do keep statistics: 4 into care from VN, IQ and NG, of which none were notified to the relevant Embassies.

x Swansea Council do not, as a rule, notify Embassies. They do not have a written policy and have taken 15 Children of Foreign Nationals (of which 2 adopted) from AF, KH, CH, ET, IR, IQ, PK and VN.

x Torfaen Council have taken one Child of a Foreign National but without a written policy and without notification to the Embassy concerned.

? Vale of Glamorgan Council has no specific policy regarding Children of Foreign Nationals and claim to have never encountered such a case.

x Wrexham County Borough Council have taken 8 Children of Foreign Nationals but neglect to mention their origins. They have no written policy and do not notify Embassies.

List of UK Local Authorities that listed US child citizens in their care since 2011.

USA:

Barking and Dagenham (London)

Barnet London Borough (London)

Bridgend Council

Camden London Borough (London)

North Tyneside

Lambeth London Borough (London)

Middlesborough Council

Staffordshire Council

Kensington & Chelsea London Borough (London)

Published in: on December 8, 2013 at 2:08 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Civil War Continues!

South Africa declared a peace and reconciliation and yet we in the UK endure the English Civil War in Parliament still being fought by the political parties for over 370 years later and all the people suffer.

ITS TIME FOR PEACE!
ITS TIME TO RE-SOLVE THE ISSUES

“Supposed Democracy is merely the export of our English Civil War Continuance Dispute Model” around the globe!
Mad Huh

Published in: on December 6, 2013 at 1:18 am  Leave a Comment  

Advocacy Fund Evidence Enables Motion in Parliament

I am pleased to say that the Advocacy Fund Evidence of massive child stealing by Local Authorities in the UK has enabled a motion in Parliament by John Hemming MP regarding Essex County Councils barbaric treatment of an Italian mother by ripping a child from her womb.

From JH’s Blog

http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/italian-mother-statement-by-john.html?m=1

Parliamentary proceedings
“Now that we know that the case is still live and to be heard by Munby P it is clear that the case is sub judice.  That limits the range of parliamentary proceedings that can be used.   I have, therefore, tabled a Motion in parliament relating to the failures of Essex County Council in terms of Communication with Foreign Institutions.  This should appear tomorrow.

Essex County Council’s failure to follow international law
Under the Vienna convention article 36 and also under Brussels II Bis revised  (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) articles 15, 55 and 56 the Italian authorities should have been contacted about both the mother’s imprisonment and the care of the baby.  However, they were not.

In 2011 Essex (in response to an FOI request) said they had no contact with High Commissions and Embassies. In 2010-11 they had 21 children who were foreign nationals who had become “looked after”.  This was as part of 138 who had become “looked after” in the previous 5 years.  It is clear, therefore, that they were not following international law then and have not followed international law in this case.”

The government are also at fault because they have refused to even try to keep track of which children in the care system are foreign nationals.  This could be done easily in the SSDA903 return.

However we have asked another MP to add to this that this should be for a full parliamentary enquiry in to all Family Law given that the Essex Case is just one of 138 children in that area and part of 6,500 children of Foreign Nationals taken into care nationwide over a five year period.

That old favourite of Children’s Care virtue London Borough of Haringey refuse to say how many they have taken…. 

 

Published in: on December 4, 2013 at 9:22 am  Leave a Comment  

Italian case Amicus Curiae submission

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10489831/Caesarean-case-mother-denied-chance-to-keep-baby-in-hospital.html

I have just emailed LJ ‘s clerk an Amicus Curiae submission in the Essex Council taking from case.

Dear Mr Pitchley

I understand you are LJ ‘s Clerk and I would be grateful if you would pass him this email and the enclosed from me, as an Amicus Curiae, in reference to the case of the Italian mother who had her child removed by C-Section and involving Essex Council that has been so in the news.

I and AF have had no involvement and have no direct interest in the case and are merely providing some of our research which we believe has direct bearing in the matter that I believe the LJ should be aware of in in regard to this case and generally due to the likely non compliance with international law, by both Essex, as well as other UK Children’s Services on an endemic scale.

Put simply under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 and in relation to its framework which is a legal requirement in international law.

It would appear that the majority of Local Authorities are not aware of their strict obligations under this convention that the UK is a party to and neither are most judges.

This requires urgent remedy as it brings us into disrepute.

In the Italian case under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963:
When the mother was sectioned the Italian Consulate should have been fully informed and involved.
When application was made to court regarding the (as yet) unborn child the Italian Consulate should have been fully informed and involved.
When the child was taken into care the Italian Consulate should have been fully informed and involved.
No application for adoption should be made without informing the Italian Consulate
No adoption can be made without the Italian Consulate and Gov agreeing to a change of Nationality.
The UK courts must also respect the rights in Italian Law of any other parent or kin as the child is Italian.
As the child has committed no wrong and is a foreign national habeas corpus would apply and courts should direct that any family member especially another parent can make such an application
The UK courts do not have full jurisdiction and have zero right to secret court to this county only adoption of a non UK national that is not an ICA child as it would remove nationality beyond the scope of law. This would be a breach of the child’s various rights under ECHR and our HRA.
In international Law such an adoption would be classed as Bloodline Genocide and be a crime by the UK with jurisdiction of both the ICC and ICJ.
NOTE: The above would include all papers and access to both mother and child which the consul can provide other family members as may be lawful for them
The consul would have right of access to the nationals and access to and audience in court and should be invited to.
It is not just involving the central authority that matters here the full obligations must be complied with
In addition if the laws of the country allow reporting in cases involving their own nationals UK courts should not act to forbid nor enable LA to restrict reporting, this would include non UK journalist to be in court here if that is allowed in that county with whatever level of reporting is normal as the UK courts do not have jurisdiction abroad. What may be contempt here is not contempt abroad that is for the non UK court..
NOTE: It may be then difficult in law for the UK courts to restrict reporting to a different standard in either non UK national’s cases or then UK nationals cases, can there be two systems in one UK jurisdiction? It maybe that the LJ should consider that this is an incompatibility in law and the need for justice to be seen to be done and just restrict names.
Maybe the reporting standards of criminal court should be adopted by the Family Court?

It would be our view that care orders and adoptions should be subject to appeals or revocation before a jury in a public court, they are that serious a matter.

I believe that this case given the above is an opportunity to remedy the matter not only in this case but as in the common deficient practices of Local Authorities across the UK as covered in the enclosed report by a full judgement.

Published in: on December 3, 2013 at 8:26 am  Leave a Comment  

Child taken from womb by social services is tip of massive iceberg

The case of the Child taken from womb by Essex social services is the tip of a massive iceberg that civil liberties groups like Liberty have been ignoring for years and yes hundreds of parents in the UK have tried telling them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10486452/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

As evidence as Chairman of the Advocacy Fund I started a research programme to gain evidence and the 1st press release on this was made on the 27th Nov 2013, 3 days before the womb snatch became public.

The research shows 6,500 children from 115 counties were taken by Local Authorities in England and Wales over a five year period and only a smattering of Local Authorities abide by their obligations in international law to inform consulates under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 which the UK is a signatory too.

The worst offender was London Borough of Croydon who took 1,118 children alone.

London Borough of Croydon have no written policy and do not inform Embassies as a matter of course. They have taken 1118 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, AL, DZ, AO, BD, BI, TD, CN, CG, CI, EG, ER, ET, GM, GE, GH, GN, IN, IR, IQ, KE, KW, LY, MY, ML, MR, MN, MA, NE, KP, PK, RU, SL, SO, LK, SD, TR, UG, UA, VN, CI, Africa, Asia, Europe, Palestine Territories and Syria.

The report, with information from the files of the 170 plus Care Local Authorities in England and Wales shows that:
  • Over a five year period, more 6,500 Non UK Foreign National Children from 115 countries, were directed to be removed from parents and taken into care in closed evidence proceedings. Many were forcibly removed at birth.
  •  
  • Some were ‘forcibly adopted.’ (Forced adoption is a term used for removing children and ‘freeing’for irreversible adoption orders in closed evidence
  •  proceedings which are contested by theparents. Legal obligations to consider paternal or kinship care, or ‘open’ adoptions, are flouted.
  •  
  • Some Local Authorities detail taking over 1,000 children each.
  •  
  • In many cases, it is not known what has hapened to these children.
  • It is rare for the authorities to inform Consulates. There may be can be 30 or more state employees involved in any one case and barely any act in accordance with the State’s Obligations.
  •  
  • In at least one case where the respective Consulate was informed, the child was repatriated with its own parents.
  • OFSTED regulators measure and reward care performance, but not compliance with law.
  •  
  • MPs, Local Authority Members and Police Commissioners do not have access to files to ensurecompliance or account for what may be criminal acts. It is a criminal offence to reveal case details.
  • Police refuse to investigate wrongdoing within the UK family court system.

https://www.academia.edu/5242647/PRESS_RELEASE_and_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY_THEY_TAKE_YOUR_KIDS_TOO_#1

https://www.academia.edu/5280206/They_Take_Your_Kids_Too_Sample_Extracted_Data

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights organisation Liberty, described the case as “the stuff of nightmares”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10486972/Deported-women-forced-to-leave-babies-in-UK-is-increasing-problem.html

She said: “Please God there’s more to this, but at first blush this is dystopian science-fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares that those responsible will struggle to defend in courts of law and decency.

But despite decades of 10s of thousands of families suffering in the secret family courts and 100’s of families contacting Liberty they have until now not said one word.

Local Authority Children’s Care has zero effective local accountability and the courts run as a secret cabal of Social Workers and Lawyers.

The family division should be abolished for crimes against humanity.

Published in: on December 2, 2013 at 6:32 pm  Comments (1)