Campaign to Stop the Family Court’s conducting ‘committal proceedings in secret’.
I unequivocally and unreservedly disagree with the policy of the Family Courts imprisoning persons after a ‘secret trial’. It is a fundamental principle in a democracy that no person should lose his /her freedom, without having first been tried in an open court in which the ‘rule of law’ applies and independent observers allowed to witness that ‘justice has been seen to be done’. In keeping with the stated aims of the campaign, to put a stop to the Family Court’s conducting ‘committal proceedings in secret’, I wish to record my sincere displeasure and fundamental disagreement with ‘committal proceedings being conducted in secret’. I am angry and much disaffected.
Please add my name to the list. I wish to ‘register my intention to be considered a ‘conscientious objector’.
Campaign to Stop the Family Court’s conducting
‘committal proceedings in secret’
The public and Parliament are gradually learning about the tragic consequences of the epidemic of false and incorrect evidence given by ‘public officials’ ( social workers, paediatricians, psychologists, police officers, etc) in Family Court cases, resulting in children wrongly being taken into Care and then given away for adoption, to strangers. What isn’t so well known is that the Family Courts harbour another guilty secret.
A huge number of innocent and vulnerable members of the public have been, and continue to be imprisoned, after ‘secret trials’ in the Family Courts. This is completely wrong, illegal and runs counter to one of the most basic principles of justice in a democracy; “ justice must be seen to be done”.
On 13 June 2006, Harriet Harman MP QC, the Justice Minister, in a Parliamentary reply to Sally Keeble MP ( Northampton, North ) confirmed that “ in the last year, something like 200 people were sent to prison by the Family Courts, which happens in complete privacy and secrecy”.
Note the telling phrase in a Parliamentary reply by the minister, that was meant to be precise! ‘Something like’; because even the Minister does not know the exact figure. It would appear that counting up to 190 or 220 poses a problem for the Justice Department. Indeed, neither does the Home Office keep these figures and deliberately confuses the recording of how many persons have been imprisoned after ‘secret Family Court trials’. The numbers are far far greater than Harriet Harman MP admitted in Parliament and even the Home Office figures of those imprisoned in jails would not include those members of the public held in police cells after being arrested. Many of these persons would have been arrested and detained for over 24 hours. Many would have been subsequently released without charge. Nonetheless they would have lost their freedom, been aggressively treated and seriously inconvenienced; yet must remain mute! They are sworn to secrecy, to protect the corrupt system.
The whole purpose of these summary arrests is to rough up the public at the behest of social workers or ill informed police officers, to intimidate and frighten the public. (There are documented cases of such conduct ) . Because they are all aware that the public are not allowed to inform the press & media of their experiences.
The true figures of those imprisoned after a ‘secret trial’ in the Family Courts would alarm Parliament, the public and the world community generally. Taken together with the huge number of CCTV cameras, the maintenance of Stasi type files by over 400,000 ‘public officials’ and the almost continual surveillance of the public, especially families; Britain is very close to becoming an official police state under this Labour Government.
It is fundamental principle of democracy that the ‘rule of law’ is observed by independent sentinels; universally accepted as the press and media. The procedures and protocols of the ‘rule of law’ must be open to scrutiny and reporting. Even the Al- Queida terrorist trials and those at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay, are reported by the press and media. However, such is the scandal that has enveloped the Family Courts, that fearful that the huge number of miscarriages of justice will be exposed, were the press to report the truth about these cases, that it has become routine for those parents, grandparents and others who question or complain to the press about documented criminality, breaches of Family Court ‘contact orders’; to be tried ‘secretly’ and then imprisoned. And once imprisoned, all reference to the ‘prisoner’ (parent/ grandparent/campaigner) and the experiences of the ‘prisoner’, including possible further victimisation in prison, also become ‘secret’. Should the ‘prisoner’ attempt suicide or God Forbid, commit suicide, this too is covered by secrecy.
In fact, no one is allowed to know anything about the ‘prisoner’ or how he/she came to be in prison. The prisoner would be committing a further offence if he/she was to inform other ‘prisoners’ of the reason for his/her imprisonment. And it also affects the ‘prisoner’s’ ability to seek an appeal. Because the Guligans claim that this could result in the identification of the child in the Family Court case. This clever judicial ploy has allowed huge injustices to be concealed.
There is a massive effort made to disguise and conceal what is happening in the Family Courts and the disclosure of these ‘secret trials’ exposes an absolutely huge scandal that all concerned with it, wish to conceal. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is considered persona non gratis to a number of world forums and official government meetings. Were the truth about the ‘secret Family Court trials’ revealed, the UK judicial delegations are very likely to be face similar exclusion and ridicule. Hence the attempts to silence all who dare speak out.
In early June 2007, Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor and one of Tony Blair’s cronies and flat mate from his student days, was interviewed by the BBC about the Russian request for the extradition from the UK, of Boris Bereshovsky, the Russian businessman who has been given asylum in London. The Russian Government has provided extradition papers and wishes to have Bereshovsky returned to Russia, to face trial for alleged huge financial frauds. The BBC reporter asked Lord Falconer if the British Government would accede to the Russian Government’s request for Bereshovsky extradition. Falconer replied; “we cannot do that. The Russians do not have an open system of justice. Justice must be seen to be done”.
On the 20 June 2007, Lord Falconer announced the results of a ‘public consultation’ into the current banning of the media & press from reporting Family Court proceedings. This report had already been twice delayed. He announced without any twinge of embarrassment, that the press were to remain excluded from reporting Family Court proceedings and that the ‘secrecy’ was to increase and the penalties for breaching the ‘secrecy’ were to be made even more draconian. He stated that he based his decision on the responses from children, to the ‘public consultation’. However, though Lord Falconer has been challenged to show the evidence; he has not been able to produce the evidence. This because there is no evidence that the children he referred to, did voice such opinions. The public consultation ‘organised’ by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, like much about Tony Blair’s Government, was laced with spin and misleading information. There is irrefutable evidence that social workers, lawyers and the others involved with the secret Gulag that is the Family Courts and who benefit from a judicial system bereft of independent scrutiny and accountability, pulled the wool of the eyes of a complicit Lord Falconer, to avoid the press and media exposing the huge Family Court scandal.
And neither can members of Parliament take up the issues of documented unlawful and criminal conduct in Family Court cases, reported to them by their constituents. Judges are not allowed to be criticised by MPs and have established for themselves, ‘no limit to their judicial indiscretions and misbehaviour’. The salaries of judges are paid out of a pool of money specifically set aside and known as The Consolidated Fund. Parliament is not allowed to debate this payment and in addition, judges have a ‘security of tenure’; they are almost un-sackable.
A recent article in The Times sought to convey the impression that judges were now subject to monitoring and being disciplined by the Office for Judicial Complaints. On closer scrutiny it has become obvious that once again, the spin machine has been working overtime. None of the judges complained about are allowed to be identified ( under the Constitutional Reform Act ) and John Hemming MP disclosed in a letter to The Times, that complaining about a judge in private proceedings, is a ‘contempt of court’. Well, if registering a complaint against a judge is itself considered a criminal offence; so much for the ‘monitoring’!
Which brings me back to the purpose of this communication? The imprisonment of persons after a ‘secret trial’ in the Family Courts because they have breached an injunction relating to Family Court secrecy. A number of parents have been jailed ‘in secret’ after disclosing that the court orders relating to ‘contact’ with their children had been broken by a partner or social services. How can it be right that a person is imprisoned merely for bringing to public attention that the law was being defied, ignored and broken? In Early Day Motion No. 128, tabled before the House of Commons on 18 May 2005, Teresa May MP (Maidenhead) made a plea “for the presumption of contact and the enforcement of contact, between separated parents and their children and also including grandparents and their grandchildren.”
In reply, on 31 May 2005, Parmjit Dhanda MP, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Children & Families stated, “With regard to EDM 128 on Equal Parenting, I must clarify that the Government does not support a legal presumption of contact for parents. The fundamental principle for the Children Act 1989 is the interests of the child that are paramount, not the rights of the parents.”
This is preposterous! Parmjit Dhanda MP’s Parliamentary reply has confirmed that the government is committed to parents not having ‘contact’ with their children, because this Labour Government is wedded to an ideology that is anti- parent, has no regard for traditional core family values and is prepared to encourage the breaking of legitimate court orders. Those members of the public, who have sought to bring their personal and documented experiences to the attention of the press and media, have therefore been pounced on and imprisoned, to silence them.
And it should be noted that there can be but one reason for the ‘secret trials’ to imprison members of the public; the whole process, procedures and reference to earlier hearings would identify a judicial charade played out, once again, ‘in secret’, in a number of cases.
The Family Court proceedings to take a child into Care are themselves flawed and packed with legal irregularities that necessitate ‘secrecy’. However, the maintenance of the ‘secrecy’ can only be achieved by draconian threats of immediate imprisonment. In order to execute the threats of imprisonment, it has become necessary to conduct ‘committal proceedings in secret’. Though the absence of the press and independent observers from such trials invalidates the democratic process and confirms a gag on the press and the freedom of speech. In truth this is a renegade court, living up to its reputation of disrepute.
A few days ago, it was reported through the ‘grapevine’, because that is the only way these incidents come to light, that a grandmother had been imprisoned after one of these ‘secret trials’. The grandmother had challenged a decision of the Family Court to take her grandchildren into Care and had informed the press. That was sufficient reason for her to be rushed through one of these kangaroo courts and be imprisoned, like many others before her. It is well to remember that the government has repeatedly announced that the prisons are so overcrowded that even illegal immigrants, who have committed murder and rape, could not be housed in our jails. Though somehow there is no end of space in the jails for grandmothers who inform the press of documented Family Court criminality. And whilst illegal immigrants who commit murder and rape are tried in an open court where the press are present, the UK grandmother is rushed into prison, after a ‘secret trial’ in a kangaroo court. No prizes for guessing what is going on then!
This then was the catalyst for my campaign.
Are you pleased that our fellow citizens are being treated like this and that they have absolutely no recourse to the public and Parliament being made aware of their plight? Are you sanguine that this could not happen to you? Don’t be so sure! Remember, even members of Parliament have absolutely no way of knowing what is going on in the secretive Family Courts and Harriet Harman MP QC, the Justice Minister, the Minister in charge of the Family Courts, admitted in an article she wrote in the Mail on Sunday on 4 June 2006 “ I have concluded that it is now impossible to defend a system from accusations of bias and discrimination, if it operates behind closed doors. Even as Minister for Family Justice, I find the rules make it hard for me to establish what is going on.”
So faced with a situation that the judges and the Guligans in the Family Courts believe is beyond challenge; what are we to do?
We know Parliament cannot assist us. The Minister herself has admitted as much.
We know the judges are leaning back on their chairs and laughing their socks off.
We know that the social workers, paediatricians and other ‘public officials’ paid out of the public purse, aware that the public are cornered and ‘done up like a kipper’, are therefore motivated to continue in their ways and are subject to no independent accountability or scrutiny. They have created a gulag of complete opacity.
We know that the usual political response of ‘using one’s vote to affect a change’ makes not a blind bit of difference; for the reasons given above and that local government officials threaten and intimidate elected representatives of the people anyway. (See Eric Pickles MP’s speech to the House of Commons on 2 March 2006. Adoption Bill Debate & Essex County Council were intent on seeking a custodial sentence for County Councillor Barry Aspinell on 29 April 2005, because he went to the aid of his constituents in Brentwood. Essex…..Read “The Gulag of the Family Courts” Book 1…..ISBN 9 781430 316350)
There is though something each of us can do, that will send a clear message!.
We can serve notice that should there be any further imprisonment of persons after a ‘secret trial’ in the Family Courts, then we will begin the process of registering our intention to be considered ‘conscientious objectors’. (We are not against ‘committal proceedings’ being brought against persons who it is alleged have broken the law. However, ‘committal proceedings’ must be in an open court, accessible to independent scrutiny, the press and media)
What you ask is a ‘conscientious objector’ and what effect will registering have?
A ‘conscientious objector’ (CO) has normally been associated with someone who refuses to serve in the armed forces during war time conditions, on the grounds of conscience. In World War 2 ( 1939-45 ), those who registered as ‘conscientious objectors’ were generally not involved in forward fighting positions. Most were employed on farms and factories in the UK. Some though were First Aid medics in forward positions. Some were actually imprisoned.
‘Conscientious objectors’ though are not necessarily only those who refuse to take up arms, although they could be that as well. Pacifists are persons who absolutely refuse to bear arms. I am not suggesting such a course. A ‘conscientious objector’ might disagree with the government decision to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, but would robustly insist on bearing arms to defend the United Kingdom.
A ‘conscientious objector’ might be someone who has become thoroughly disaffected with the government of his/her country because a situation has developed that has effectively excluded or marginalized the person and it has become obvious that that there is no recourse for official redress, change or to put a stop to the victimisation.
The reasons for taking such a step.
1……. ‘Conscientious objectors’ might be persons who fundamentally disagree with a system of government that is manifestly unjust, which victimises them or others, which has shown itself completely unresponsive to their plight and there has been no way to seek redress through complaint or the courts, as in the case of children being forcibly taken from their parents and either given to foster carers or placed with strangers for permanent adoption. Or parents who have valid court orders awarding them ‘contact’ with their children, but these court orders are not enforced. Indeed, they are encouraged by the judicial system itself and the local authorities, to be breached and ignored. Or ‘contact’ by the parents with their children has been discouraged or made so infrequent, as to be effectively stopped, or actually be officially curtailed by a court order. You are welcome.
2…….’ Conscientious objectors’ might be persons who having become aware of 1 above, are also aware that there is no avenue of redress to even bring their plight to the attention of the press & media. Unlike any other group of persons in the country who could mobilise and seek to influence change; those who have been through any part of the Family Courts have been so effectively silenced, that even identifying official criminality to the press and media, is itself subject to immediate imprisonment. The Family Courts actually pose a continuing threat to the mere identification of the plight of members of the public. You are welcome.
3………’Conscientious objectors’ might be persons who having become aware of 1 & 2 above have also discovered that the BBC, which is obliged under statute to be the ‘public service broadcaster’ & ‘keep the public informed’ and which receives a levy of £3.2 billion annually, from the collection of the TV licence fee; has completely abrogated its responsibilities in favour of toadying up to the present government. Instead of broadcasting programmes that identify the restrictions on freedom of speech, the illegal ‘secret Family Court trials’, the wilful gagging of the press, the huge anomalies and irregularities in conduct and performance of public sector employees and in particular, local government; the BBC has almost completely ignored all of these.
The BBC has continued to focus its attention on competing with the commercial TV and radio stations, exposing the failings and scandals of the private and commercial sectors, broadcasting programmes about corruption in Kenya, pollution in Bhopal, discrimination in Pakistan, paedophilia in the Catholic Church, etc. The corruption under its nose is embarrassing for the BBC, because of its linked ideology and cultural empathy. When the BBC has covered the Family Courts, it has approached it from the angle of ‘the drama of parents who are about to or who have lost their children’. So the public’s right to expect that a scandal of such proportions, their plight and the salient issues, such as the ‘gagging of the press’, the ‘breaches of our democratic rights’ would be covered by the BBC; has been treated dismissively and ignored.
Never has the BBC focussed on the issues that have caused the drama and the tragedies. Though abroad, the BBC is a veritable tiger. At home it is a tame pussycat!
If you too feel this way; you are welcome.
4……. .‘Conscientious objectors’ might be those who harbour a number of different major grievances against the government and the system and are convinced that they are being deliberately and systematically ignored. They might feel that the plight of the parents and children, victimised in the Family Courts, just tips them into joining this campaign. You are welcome.
The possible focus of ‘conscientious objectors’ activities.
‘ Conscientious objectors’ might consider a number of different options.
1…..‘ Conscientious objectors’ could serve notice that they will no longer take part in local elections because local government officials, who are themselves concealing their ‘conflicts of interest’, are involved in directing and intimidating elected councillors. Such allegations have been made by a number of elected councillors. This has been evidenced. See above. There are other serious anomalies.
In addition, local government officials (social workers, town hall officials etc) are not required to complete a register of their ‘outside’ interests. Whilst simultaneously, members of Parliament and elected councillors are required to complete a register of ‘outside’ interests. This anomaly has allowed local government officials to have interests they have not disclosed, yet be involved in planning and decision making that could benefit them and which included the ‘outside interests’ they have not disclosed..
For example:
(a) ………Liz Railton (Director of Childrens Services. Essex County Council & Michael Anthony Sharpe, Essex County Council Adoptions Manager were both listed at Companies House as directors and trustees of the British Association for Adoption & Fostering (BAAF). Railton and Sharpe were responsible for adoption & fostering and implementation of adoption & fostering policy in Essex.
This is a classic ‘conflict of interests’ and had a private commercial company engaged in such conduct, it would be heavily penalised and the directors could even have faced imprisonment. No such a possibility faced Railton and Sharpe. Indeed, there are currently a number of other senior local government officials who are directors and trustees of BAAF. Anthony Douglas, the chairman of CAFCASS is a director of BAAF. BAAF sells hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of books annually to ….local authorities…..Anthony Douglas writes books….which are bought by….local authorities!
(b) …….Local government nominates ‘independent councillors to monitor elected councillors’. And if the councillors ‘misbehave’ (political speak for offend local government) they are reported to The Standards Board. The elected councillors could then face suspension, exclusion and even imprisonment. Now if you hadn’t already guessed; no such monitoring of local government officials exists. Indeed, the documented criminal conduct of social workers in the Family Courts is not only tolerated and protected, but those members of the public who try and raise these concerns are likely to be targeted and victimised. ( As I might be as a result of this campaign !)
(c)…… Despite elected councillors having a responsibility in law as ‘corporate parents’ to all the children within their constituency, local government officials have been evidenced obstructing, intimidating and threatening elected representatives of the people. In my book “Gulag of the Family Courts”…Book 1, I identify incidents in which Eric Pickles MP and County Councillor Barry Aspinell were the subject of Essex County Council’s ‘attention’. Efforts were made to seek a custodial sentence for Councillor Barry Aspinell. (See: pages 80, 69-70, 255-258).
In a number of Family Court cases, the judgements have gone against the local authorities, because of the conduct of particular social workers and the children’s department. In some of these cases the courts have awarded huge sums of money against the local authorities. In almost every case the social workers have not been identified, there has been no disciplinary sanction and the press and public have been kept in the dark about matters. The elected councillors too have been required to ‘sign off’ the financial accounts, without being made aware of what they were signing, or without being allowed to question the reasons and call for transparent disclosure of all information, including the sums paid out in court compensation awards.
2……‘Conscientious objectors’ under the age of 50, who believe they might be ‘called up’ in the event of a military conflict, could decide that unless the very survival of the UK was in the balance and unless the UK was going to be attacked/was already attacked by an enemy, they would not respond to the call to arms. This would have a relevance to Tony Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’, which convinced Parliament that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), which could be activated in 45 minutes. As we have since discovered, this was all spurious hogwash and presented to Parliament, to justify attacking Iraq. Now the troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan too. The loss of life and the huge number of injuries to young committed and trusting servicemen has been built on lies and shallow information whose purpose was to deceive. It has been very successful.
It is noticeable that none of the children of those members of the Cabinet, who made the decision to go to war in Iraq, are involved in the fighting. No member of the Blair or Brown’s Cabinet has ever put on a military uniform. Tony Blair even refused to join the cadet force in Fetters School. But of course, they are committed to sending you and me into armed conflicts. In this, the public in general have more in common with the Royal Family than with government ministers. At least it can be said that the future sovereign and his brother are both serving Army officers.
3……..‘Conscientious objectors’ could decide to hold their counsel to themselves and make a decision at the appropriate time. Or even change their minds. The purpose of this campaign is to ‘signal one’s intent to register as a conscientious objector’.
What purpose will this serve and will this worry the government?
The first impact of this campaign will be to publicise that imprisonment after a ‘secret trial’ has been taking place in the secretive Family Courts.. It will focus attention on what is happening in the Family Courts and will result in the government having to justify the situation. Which will immediately result in further confirmation that the sole purpose of the ‘secrecy’, is to conceal the huge judicial scandal and the personal tragedies caused by those involved with the Family Court industry; the Guligans. It will expose to the public, the huge number of miscarriages of justice caused by social workers and other ‘public officials’ giving false evidence in Family Court proceedings, resulting in children being wrongly being taken into care and then being given away to strangers, for adoption.
The other implication would affect the government planners, who are apparently in a continual state of supposed preparedness, we are told; despite the much publicised Home Office debacles of violent illegal immigrant prisoners released to re-offend and the billions of pounds of wasted National Health Service budget, to name but two. . But let us suppose that the planners are ‘on the ball’. It will not come as welcome news that a number of persons have begun registering their intent to be considered ‘conscientious objectors’, well in advance of an incident that might require general mobilisation or participation in some national plan.
There is the cultivated perception that we, the public, are docile and waiting to be directed by ‘officialdom’. And to a large extent that is correct. We have been happy to answer any national call, because we have always assumed that our leaders have had a commitment to democracy, ‘the rule of law’ and the fundamental judicial principle; ‘justice must be seen to be done’. Indeed, as I have stated above. Lord Falconer repeated this in early June 2007, in an interview given to a BBC reporter. It has been our understanding and the covenant between our political leaders and the public, that they would not ignore evidence of great victimisation or abject neglect of the public and their families……..Well, you now know that this is not the case.
Ministers and members of Parliament of all the parties have been repeatedly informed over a number of years, about what has been happening in the secretive Family Courts. The Justice Minister has admitted this of her own volition. Yet nothing has been done to stop the horrendous victimisation. None of the major opposition party leaders either, have taken up the issues raised. In fact, the jailing of persons after a ‘secret trial’ has been officially undertaken, deliberately, to conceal the huge scandal and the miscarriages of justice. The covenant has been broken.
Hence the reason for this campaign.
Conclusion:
It is entirely in the hands of the government and the courts, to have us wind up this campaign. All they have to do is to stop imprisoning persons after a ‘secret trial’ in the Family Courts. If they wish to imprison persons, then they should present evidence in an open court at which the press and media have access and can then report the details, whilst anonymising the identity of the person, in certain specific cases only. If that cannot be done, it confirms unequivocally that there is no evidence to justify the imprisonment of the person. The present situation confirms the operation of kangaroo courts that are targeting and victimising innocent and vulnerable members of the public, but ‘in secret’. It would also identify that those involved in this scandal are social workers, paediatricians, ‘public officials’ and judges. It must also include the government. The Justice Minister, Harriet Harman MP QC, having already officially admitted in Parliament, her knowledge of these ‘secret Family Court trials’.
On reflection: by Pastor Neumoller (A Victim of the Nazis):
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for ME - and there was no-one left to speak out for me.
Campaign aim:
It is our intention to record a list of those who wish to register and then bring the list to the attention of the Prime Minster and the government. Should a single person from today be imprisoned after a ‘secret trial’, it will trigger our response and we will begin to compile the list and make a public presentation of the list to the Prime Minister, sometime in the future.
After giving this some thought, if you too are in agreement to ‘signal your intent to register as a conscientious objector’,
please complete the objectors FORM BELOW
You can decide to register and not have your registration publicised, or you may decide to register and have your name on a list that will be publicised. Tick the appropriate box.
If the Prime Minister and the government takes the view that they can dismiss such a petition and allow the ‘secret Family Court trials’ to jail persons, to continue, I am sure you will agree that others, including the public, the press & media, other foreign governments and major international institutions, including judicial institutions, will view this very differently.
Jack Frost (Author: “The Gulag of the Family Courts”)
http://www.gulagofthefamilycourts.com/
(OBJECTORS FORM)
Campaign to Stop the Family Court’s conducting ‘committal proceedings in secret’
I unequivocally and unreservedly disagree with the policy of the Family Courts imprisoning persons after a ‘secret trial’. It is a fundamental principle in a democracy that no person should lose his /her freedom, without having first been tried in an open court in which the ‘rule of law’ applies and independent observers allowed to witness that ‘justice has been seen to be done’. In keeping with the stated aims of the campaign, to put a stop to the Family Court’s conducting ‘committal proceedings in secret’, I wish to record my sincere displeasure and fundamental disagreement with ‘committal proceedings being conducted in secret’. I am angry and much disaffected.
Please add my name to the list. I wish to ‘register my intention to be considered a ‘conscientious objector’.
