so we recieve the care plan. Unbelieveably it states my wife must refer to womens aid, and we must both attend domestic violence units for courses. That I should seek a psychological assessment from my G.P, that i must attend a calm course and complete my probation sentence (too late they have already breached me!!).
The fact we are both saying there is no incident of domestic violence seems to go over these idiots heads.
The fact the evididence put in the report to conference was false means nothing these poeple, for example when we pointed out i do not actually suffer from bipolar and never have, they simply replied " THAT IS YOUR OPINION"
it is impossible to work with these poeple, they are hellbent on taking our children, we will not let that happen. The fight is on
Wednesday 15 June 2011
Scumcial workers now taking us to court for our 3 and 5 year old
after a malicious referral from our landlord Mr Terry Buckingham Rampton, through his 'freind' sergent Chriss Huss, stating shouting could be heard from our house and a little girl could be heard saying "daddy dont push mummy over" social services attended our home, initally they stated the above but after a couple of weeks the wording of the referral changed to "shouting that resembled domestic violence could be heard from the house on the 19th May 2011. A little girl could be heard saying "daddy dont hit mummy again"
firslty we were not in the house on the 19th May 2011 we were away. Secondly the landlord lives 1 mile away so even if he had heard what he allegges he would have to have supersonic hearing. Whenour children were seen by social services we made it abundantly clear that this would only be able to take place if they only veiwed the children, did not speak to them other than niceites and not assessing, and that they did not veiw the children without an apropriate adult (grandfather) with them at all times.
The grandfather took the younger child to the toilet for a matter of 90 seconds, at the most, In that time social services state our daughter simply turned around and made statements that mummy and daddy argue millions and that daddy pushed mummy over. Our 5 year old daughter vehemently denies this, she says the social worker is lying and in fact she was asked is there anything at home you would like to change and her answer was yes, "i would like to have an elephant". However the social workers are adamant they assessed her under section 47 investigation in a total of 90 seconds. They are confirmed by the grandfather as not saying anything to the children other than hello and goodbye and asking them general questions about what their favorite toy is. On their way out of the house they told the grandfather there were no concerns and the children were obviously very happy and contenct children.
We are aware the landlord did this because he boasted of it to us in a phone call " ha ha ha your goping to lose your kids, thatll teach you to rip me off, its who you know not what you know", he then went on to make threats against me and my wife that in the end we had to inform the police who are investigating. I later called Sergent Chriss Huss at Hinckley police station who admitted the landlord and herself had passed the information to social services. ((this is the same officer who sat at the back of the court with the landlord for 8 hours in a trial where the landlord accused me of breaking his sink,.(criminal Damage) i was found not guilty) only 4 weeks previously))
Do social services takle any of this information into account ? NO
so there is a core assessment meeting, did we recieve the report to that meeting> NO
did we recieve the minutes from that meeting? NO
a child protection conference conference is then called. We arrive on time but the conference room is not ready, we sit and wait and at 2 minutes to 11 (11 o'clock being the starting time of the conference) Linzi English (head of the child protection unit) throws a conference report to each of us. With 2 minutes before the start of the conference we were certainly not prepared to consider the report at that time.
Therefore we passed them back and refused to read them, Liar Linzi then said the report had been posted on wedneasday before hand, this was a blatant lie. I called her a liar, she took offence to this and an argument ensued, no witnesses were in the room, we actually walked out of the room to find the chair Sara Bosun Hayes, however Liar Linzi had asked the police to attend and they were sat in the foyer, SET UP!! we walked toward them and liar linai started histrionics demanding we leave the building. To be fair the police were unhappy and did try to negotiate with her for 15 minutes to allow us to attend but she refused as did the chairwoman. The conference took place without us.
No 1 person attending the conference was there to defend any of the information provided to the conference by the Liar.
Therefore she had free reign to make whatever allegations she wanted. Frightening the life out of the attendees at the meeting, school teachers, school health workers, council housing officers, invironmental health officer, and many other poeple. Some of these poeples attendances was dubious, Jo Wykes of Hinckley Council is a housing officer who made a referral against me in 2010 because she didnt like the "way he spoke to me on the phone". However they all had a part in the decision to place our children on a child protection plan.
It was some time later we recieved the report the conference recieved and the evidence relied upon.
Did we recieve the minutes of the conference? NO
The report itself was frighteningly misleading and full of inacuracies. The watered down version is the following.
Nigel suffers from Bipolar Disorder .. NO I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE
Nigel suffers Tourettes Syndrome .... NO I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE
Nigel has been diagnosed with explosive personality disorder ... NO I HAVE NOT
Nigel has many convictions for assaults against council officers, police officers, court officials and social workers............. I DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE CONVICTION NAMED ABOVE
There is further inacuracies, that amount to a false and malicious character assessment.
when you consider the above and then align it with a apparent referral for what is alleged to domestic violence, from a man with tourettes, bipolar and explosive personaltiy disorder, Is it surprising the attendees at the conference were sufficiently concerned to support the child protection plan.
The problem is by taking away our right to defend and question these allegations in the conference the children now face care proceedings due to our refusal to co-operate with the care plan.
Why on earth would anyone co-operate with a plan that was made upon false information.
firslty we were not in the house on the 19th May 2011 we were away. Secondly the landlord lives 1 mile away so even if he had heard what he allegges he would have to have supersonic hearing. Whenour children were seen by social services we made it abundantly clear that this would only be able to take place if they only veiwed the children, did not speak to them other than niceites and not assessing, and that they did not veiw the children without an apropriate adult (grandfather) with them at all times.
The grandfather took the younger child to the toilet for a matter of 90 seconds, at the most, In that time social services state our daughter simply turned around and made statements that mummy and daddy argue millions and that daddy pushed mummy over. Our 5 year old daughter vehemently denies this, she says the social worker is lying and in fact she was asked is there anything at home you would like to change and her answer was yes, "i would like to have an elephant". However the social workers are adamant they assessed her under section 47 investigation in a total of 90 seconds. They are confirmed by the grandfather as not saying anything to the children other than hello and goodbye and asking them general questions about what their favorite toy is. On their way out of the house they told the grandfather there were no concerns and the children were obviously very happy and contenct children.
We are aware the landlord did this because he boasted of it to us in a phone call " ha ha ha your goping to lose your kids, thatll teach you to rip me off, its who you know not what you know", he then went on to make threats against me and my wife that in the end we had to inform the police who are investigating. I later called Sergent Chriss Huss at Hinckley police station who admitted the landlord and herself had passed the information to social services. ((this is the same officer who sat at the back of the court with the landlord for 8 hours in a trial where the landlord accused me of breaking his sink,.(criminal Damage) i was found not guilty) only 4 weeks previously))
Do social services takle any of this information into account ? NO
so there is a core assessment meeting, did we recieve the report to that meeting> NO
did we recieve the minutes from that meeting? NO
a child protection conference conference is then called. We arrive on time but the conference room is not ready, we sit and wait and at 2 minutes to 11 (11 o'clock being the starting time of the conference) Linzi English (head of the child protection unit) throws a conference report to each of us. With 2 minutes before the start of the conference we were certainly not prepared to consider the report at that time.
Therefore we passed them back and refused to read them, Liar Linzi then said the report had been posted on wedneasday before hand, this was a blatant lie. I called her a liar, she took offence to this and an argument ensued, no witnesses were in the room, we actually walked out of the room to find the chair Sara Bosun Hayes, however Liar Linzi had asked the police to attend and they were sat in the foyer, SET UP!! we walked toward them and liar linai started histrionics demanding we leave the building. To be fair the police were unhappy and did try to negotiate with her for 15 minutes to allow us to attend but she refused as did the chairwoman. The conference took place without us.
No 1 person attending the conference was there to defend any of the information provided to the conference by the Liar.
Therefore she had free reign to make whatever allegations she wanted. Frightening the life out of the attendees at the meeting, school teachers, school health workers, council housing officers, invironmental health officer, and many other poeple. Some of these poeples attendances was dubious, Jo Wykes of Hinckley Council is a housing officer who made a referral against me in 2010 because she didnt like the "way he spoke to me on the phone". However they all had a part in the decision to place our children on a child protection plan.
It was some time later we recieved the report the conference recieved and the evidence relied upon.
Did we recieve the minutes of the conference? NO
The report itself was frighteningly misleading and full of inacuracies. The watered down version is the following.
Nigel suffers from Bipolar Disorder .. NO I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE
Nigel suffers Tourettes Syndrome .... NO I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE
Nigel has been diagnosed with explosive personality disorder ... NO I HAVE NOT
Nigel has many convictions for assaults against council officers, police officers, court officials and social workers............. I DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE CONVICTION NAMED ABOVE
There is further inacuracies, that amount to a false and malicious character assessment.
when you consider the above and then align it with a apparent referral for what is alleged to domestic violence, from a man with tourettes, bipolar and explosive personaltiy disorder, Is it surprising the attendees at the conference were sufficiently concerned to support the child protection plan.
The problem is by taking away our right to defend and question these allegations in the conference the children now face care proceedings due to our refusal to co-operate with the care plan.
Why on earth would anyone co-operate with a plan that was made upon false information.
Tuesday 14 June 2011
Sunday 12 June 2011
Anyone else in leicestershire had dealings with Linzi English andrea Rowbotham contact me
if you have have had dealings with Linzi English, Andrea Rowbotham, Nicci Collins, Rachael Sutton or Darryl Clark contact me on witt36@hotmail.com
big hearing Tuesday
application to Not renew the interim care order for our lad. We have unmasked a morning hearings worth of evidence proving the social services lied to the judge, the guardian lied to the judge, and the judge has been misled for a total of 10 months, it is provable and we, for the first time in 8 months are fianlly getting a chance to put the evidence to the judge. I can not wait to watch the scum that are the social workers and the guardian squirm in their seats and listen to the bullshit they use to try and squirm out of the situation. Fully expecting the court to refuse the renewal of the Interim Care Order. We also have a card up our sleeve!
Sunday 5 June 2011
home affairs committee enquiry damning of the work by social services and other agencies
Home Affairs Committee Enquiry
The Harm Caused By False Accusations
Abstract
As media hysteria and judicial activism have escalated, family life has increasingly become a province of the state. The highly selective cause celebre abuse cases are notable because the children have not usually been from two-biological-parent families. The justifiable outrage these incidents provoked has unfortunately led to targeting of two parent families.
The majority of all accusations (or referrals as they are called by the social services) turn out to be false. In 1995 [Child protection Messages from Research 1995 HMSO] there were a total of 168,000 referrals with 10,500 resulting in a child being taken into care. In other words in only 6% of referrals is care action taken.
No one can imagine the horror of a false accusation until it happens to him or her. This paper considers the consequences of these false accusations on families and on society in general. It will be suggested that the most serious consequence is the harm done to children as a result of these false accusations. Also of concern is the way in which case law is used to erode fundamental civil liberties.
The reasons for this situation have much to do with the mechanistic nature of modern law, which has little regard to whether changes made are actually beneficial to society. Gradual and piecemeal changes have been made by an unholy alliance of children’s charities, psychiatrists, police, social workers, judges, lawyers and the media. The burden of proof in children’s cases has been reversed so far that innocent families are actually being harmed by these agencies. The paper concludes with several recommendations on how the current unsatisfactory situation can be improved.
http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/commons_select_comm
The Harm Caused By False Accusations
Abstract
As media hysteria and judicial activism have escalated, family life has increasingly become a province of the state. The highly selective cause celebre abuse cases are notable because the children have not usually been from two-biological-parent families. The justifiable outrage these incidents provoked has unfortunately led to targeting of two parent families.
The majority of all accusations (or referrals as they are called by the social services) turn out to be false. In 1995 [Child protection Messages from Research 1995 HMSO] there were a total of 168,000 referrals with 10,500 resulting in a child being taken into care. In other words in only 6% of referrals is care action taken.
No one can imagine the horror of a false accusation until it happens to him or her. This paper considers the consequences of these false accusations on families and on society in general. It will be suggested that the most serious consequence is the harm done to children as a result of these false accusations. Also of concern is the way in which case law is used to erode fundamental civil liberties.
The reasons for this situation have much to do with the mechanistic nature of modern law, which has little regard to whether changes made are actually beneficial to society. Gradual and piecemeal changes have been made by an unholy alliance of children’s charities, psychiatrists, police, social workers, judges, lawyers and the media. The burden of proof in children’s cases has been reversed so far that innocent families are actually being harmed by these agencies. The paper concludes with several recommendations on how the current unsatisfactory situation can be improved.
http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/commons_select_comm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)