We support faith schools in general

Faiths and Faiths can be quite different. Whilst it is known that in England alone, 2.000 suspected child victims were identified, yet that is only the tip of the iceberg and the real figure may be much higher. Victims can suffer abuse because of exorcism, violence against witches and of course FGM plays a major part.

Whilst our home-grown faiths like Church of England, Methodists, Catholics all work hard to expel child abuse and whilst our domestic laws outlaw even parental violence against children like smacking, some foreign religions bring their bad habits to Britain when they immigrate.

Our laws make no distinction between faith schools. That is the problem with our non discrimination laws. We do not discriminate against bad practises but accept anything.

We then only deal with problems as they arise. Once the problems have arisen, the child has already suffered or is dead.

I have seen a film about Africa where a child is expelled from the family, declared a witch and left to starve to death in the street unless the begging child finds doners. Victoria Climbie died aged 8 after sustained torture and abuse from her aunt  here in Britain. She was accused of being obsessed by evil spirits and starved to death.

Children are often targeted for abuse because of financial problems in the family. We used to publicly flog people in the streets hundreds of years ago but other countries are still in that phase of social development and bring those beliefs with them.

As a society we either stop having faith schools or we allow only schools with faith associated and fully acceptable to our social norms.



Against brothels

What I really hate is legalised prostitution. Having to sell your body is just about the one thing that people must not be forced to do. My biggest fear of Germany is that prostitution is legalised in that country and that is why I would never have had children in that country I suppose.

You just imagine, you send your kid to school and then, once they finished education, they get a letter from the Department of Employment telling them to go for an interview in a brothel and if they do not attend, they loose their entitlement to unemployment benefit.

How horrible is that!!!

Because if sex work is a legalised activity, then children will be groomed into the profession from a very young age, as it is already happening in India, where girls as young as 7 get prepared into sex work. Further up in Asia they sell girls from the age of 7 into marriage, a similar slave trait.

Personal freedom must be that the one bastion that is us, must be our body. Just as our home is our castle, so our bodies have to be our first priority to choose what we want to do with it or not.

We have some very good personal protection laws in Britain and we have to be careful not to overstep the mark and loose the right to protect our bodies from harm.

So being against Brexit doesn’t mean that I would want to accept German employment laws, I am only in it for the close proximity of land mass.

I have not heard much about that point in for or against Brexit discussions.



Child Exploitation taking place all over the country

I am very worried by a report I picked up from the BBC website today in which there is a warning that child exploitation is taking place all over the country, a warning made by a committee of MP’s.

A report from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre warns that Internet images of child abuse are becoming more extreme and sadistic. It is thought that those who download such images are very likely to attack children.

Yet it is quite clearly equally shocking that the Secretary of State supports the cutting off from unemployment benefits of young mothers with young children once they have been forced to change from Income Support to Job Seekers Allowance for the most trivial reasons.

For example a mothers child might be ill and she is unable to look for work as required by her DWP contract and then when the woman signs on, as under the new rules, she has to learn that her Unemployment Benefit is suspended, pending an investigation.

The mother, who is often single will miss out on £130 of fortnightly payment. Mothers are usually never given the advice sheet that says they can continue to get their benefit under hardship rules and even then it takes extra long to get the money, that they would be entitled to if they were still on income support automatically.

The Secretary of State supports that policy and encourages it to happen because letters that then refer mothers to a work programme are signed by him.

Parent coordinators in local schools often come across distressed mothers that have no food and have to be referred to local food banks, which have been set up by mostly church run charities.

This government supports in my view that vulnerable mothers fall victim to scrupulous exploitation and puts innocent children at risk of exploitation. Even as Neighbourhood Watch coordinator I am deeply concerned about this practise that cuts mothers with young children off from their regular income very suddenly and it often takes a long time to get any help.

In my case I was told that I did not do enough to find work when I was funded to organise a Queen’s Jubilee Party in the weeks preceding the period where I forgot to fill in writing a job search sheet and although I gave a verbal account of my job search, the DWP advisor threatened to have me removed by security just because I used the word ridiculous. I have a small child but luckily I am too experienced and wise to ever allow that child to get in any type of danger but there are many mothers out there who might be vulnerable with little knowledge how to deal with such situations.

In another BBC report Ian Duncan Smith, the Works and Pensions Secretary,  is reported as saying: “Of course money is important and will always play a part in future measurements of poverty. But increased income from welfare transfers is temporary if nothing changes,”. Yet Ian Duncan Smith is directly responsible for the withdrawal of benefit that afflicts so many mothers with children and helps to put them at risk.


The moral fibre of society

I think that a lot is at stake to keep our society functioning well and the latest shocking revelation about inter-marital affairs make me doubt what I believed in. I am so surprised that the people I thought most decent and old-fashioned almost have now come out to break fundamental rules of moral standards.

There is no point in hiding this from the media as it gnaws on the most fundamental corner stones of our society and threatens a breakdown in public morals if leaders of the community, folk heroes, break the normal rules of decency and moral standards. It doesn’t help to keep it all a secret because such secrets always come out in the end and in fact it is very harmful if secret sex lives can remain secret in privacy injunctions because it will help and aid the sexual abuse of children. Often sex abusers use the “secret” code to abuse children and if the prominent figures of today can use secrecy laws to have secret sex lives then this will endorse sex abusers using the mantle of secrecy with underage victims.

I ask myself does high-profile living and/or lots of money alter the sex drive of people so that they cannot cope with the fame any longer or is it just carelessness and jobbish behaviour of some individuals? I can’t answer this because I have never been in that position but feel that something has to be done about it.

Obviously not even the most money can ever put away indecency and bad morals, this will simply not be forgotten and remain with a family for generations to come. In most cases one doesn’t end in just one incident but bad behaviour becomes the norm and settles in until it comes to breaking point and then the sheer amount of abuse of public morals will swamp the unsuspecting readers of the tabloid press.

Unfortunately personal morals are not standard in employment contracts with the famous but I think they should be, so to speak that personal behaviour cannot damage the reputation of the employer or something of that sort. Maybe some people have just gotten too much money and cannot cope with this. I think it cannot be easy to be in charge of lots of money every week AND keep abreast of personal behaviour.  Maybe there should be more advice available for rich people on how to cope with money without losing morals or something.

When I now think how much less punishment is handed out for sex offenders and how rich people appear again and again in the media over allegations to do with sexual implications, I wonder whether the government shouldn’t do more to lay down the law and enforce a stricter code of conduct and punishment for sexual demeanor.

It cannot be the purpose of the pricacy laws to protect immoral conduct because it does not protect a person’s private family life if things that go on outside of the family and impact on the whole of society are reported about.

Prime Minister is on the ball

And again, David Cameron shows leadership when he says that a minister must have the ultimate power to sack employees of a service as he, the minister is in charge of the service.  David Cameron criticises a ruling, in which Sharon Shoesmith wins her case on unfair dismissal. She had learned from TV that she had been sacked.

Isn’t it the nature of sudden events that they can harbour also sudden sackings? It is a clause in almost every employment contract that sacking can occur spontaneously under certain circumstances.

This is not the first time that David Cameron has queried the powers of judges. The other occasion were the privacy rulings of late, whereby prominent persons can have a secret double life, protected by the law.

It almost seems as if the law wants to protect social workers who protect child killers. Sharon Shoesmith is quoted as saying: “You cannot stop the death of children”. This is an astonishing statement from someone whose job it is to save children and protect them from harm. equally perplexing is Sharon Shoesmith’s statement that it was really Ed Balls who brought the Social Work Department into malfunctioning by sacking her instead of admitting that her department had been in disarray all along.

I just wonder where it all goes wrong in Mrs Shoesmith’s mind, that mind that thinks that children die anyhow. Does the woman even belief that Social Workers can do any good at all? I am asking myself why did she want her job back if she beliefs that children die in any case?

Again I would like to strengthen my call for a better qualification structure for Social Workers, who should have to go through much tougher qualifications, which are standardised and are to the highest expectations.

Clarke looks a softie, is he soft in the head?

Even though Lord Justice Thomas ruled against me in my permission to appeal application, I must agree with him on his stance against Ken Clarke’s ideas to introduce American style plea bargaining for all sorts of crimes.

How easy would it be for repeat offenders to get off time after time just because they plead guilty early enough. The streets would be littered with rapists and women could not walk around without fear.

If  the rapists’ plea bargaining was accompanied by some sort of surgery to castrate such offenders then I would agree to early release but as it is, men who rape women cannot control their bodily functions, their chemistry and just “have to rape”, they cannot control their sexuality. A combination of plea bargening and medical treatment would make trials cheaper and help save women the agony of having to go through lengthy trials to prove their innocence.

Certainly Mr Clarke’s policies would keep police forces busy and force an increase in the police numbers when the government just wants to reduce the amount of police officers on our streets.

Frankly I am very disappointed about my own party’s approach to safety and security of our communities, our country. Yes it is correct that it is better to fight the sources of crime but just releasing criminals early because they plead guilty just allows them to repeat the offence earlier.  Using therapy costs huge amounts of money and unless there is a quick physical solution like castration it would just increase the amount of sex offences. Germany for example offers child sex offenders to have themselves castrated so they escape a sentence but here in Britain, Clarke just wants to set them loose on our communities.

A government has to protect the rights of individuals and the population and do so cost-effective. We all want a better quality of life and allowing criminals to re-offend more often does not improve anything for anybody but just increases crime and costs.

Failing for protecting from abuse

I think that it is an excellent development that victims of abuse can now sue local authorities when their social services failed to protect children for example from abuse, as this BBC article reports. This is about social services not removing children from homes whereby they are abused by their parents or persons in their homes.

Yet that can only happen if the abused, in most cases probably children, become old enough and survive the abuse. In many cases, when it is about small children, they often enough end up dead and cannot bring a case. It is disturbing though, and it seems to be a grey area and hole in the law, that when parents abuse so much that a child dies, that then only the killers of the child, often the parents get held responsible and end up in jail on long prison terms. That is especially questionable when the killers are parents of limited intellect or even severely handicapped with IQ’s below 70. That is what the Americans would still call mentally retarded. The UK gotten rid of that classification in a fashion up-date of UK political correctness.

I think that this must be addressed. That it is predictable that vulnerable adults can easily be manipulated into doing the wrong thing. Yet it is extremely hard to proof that a vulnerable person was manipulated into doing the wrong thing, so that an accountable service, in this case the social services cannot be held responsible for the wrong-doing of the vulnerable adult.

Yet what the cases of victims of abuse in the home show, is that they can sue for not being rescued from an abusive home. Yet we know of many other instances when care providers themselves where sued for abuse taking place within the care home or other caring institutions. For example the Catholic church went through scores of abuse allegations and had to settle at a very high price.

Despite this up-beat in human rights for minors, we still hear cranky politicians ask for more corporal punishment to discipline children better. I think that is the one policy for which I admire Labour, is the introduction of a law that makes corporal punishment child abuse. Because it is the very fact that children are treated with respect that turns them into happier adults and less likely to become criminals. Often corporal punishment prevents victims of abuse to speak out because they are punished if they fall out of line so to speak. Odd behaviour is often enough a sign of abuse but not always.

In conclusion I would like to repeat my demand to make social services more accountable by introducing strict qualification requirements, so that all social workers have to go through years of training and not just become social workers because they cannot get another job. They need to become professionally trained and to a standard that is immediately recognisable. These days you get so many odd social workers and when you enquire what their qualifications are, you get the answer its a secret and protected under the Data Protection Act. Yet with doctors and nurses you know exactly what type of qualifications they have to pass to be able to practise.

Therefore I think it would be better all around if Social Workers came under NHS instead of councils because then they would fall under a category to do with the Hippocratic oath, promising care for each individual. Social Services have been pushed into a very bad position when it is more convenient for them to end up with dead child victims because then  Social Services cannot be prosecuted for the crime rather than living children who can sue them for failing to protect them. Yet the Baby P case led to the sacking of Social Workers, which is only one good but small step into the right direction. Yet those problems have been caused by the ‘Care in the Community’ system that allows all persons to reside within the community, cared for by family members or friends.

Often abusive carers/parents suffer from complex mental conditions that may include neurosis, low intellect, other learning disabilities, compulsive or clinical conditions in social settings are hard to detect for people not trained in the many conditions that are apparent in people today. We even occasionally find that the so-called ‘respected members of our community’ turn out to be ‘faulty’.

We have read about it frequently how difficult parents find it to sterilise severely disabled woman who cannot possibly care for children, they could have. Yet we not only have to look at the Human Rights issue but also at the cost issue because it is extremely expensive to allow inadequate parents to care for children, when those inadequate parents needs caring for themselves.

One good step was the introduction of a benefit ceiling, so that people are prevented from having countless numbers of children, whereby each indidvidual gets less attention and care from their parents and often parents are unable to provide adequate supervision for their off-spring.

Down the Hatch

Child killer Colin Hatch has been murdered in prison. This BBC story tells the gruesome circumstances of that killer’s conviction and it is very sad that the justice system failed to send that man to Broadmoor because he was thought not dangerous enough. How dangerous can one be who systematically abuses and kills little boys. Again, here we see that society does not think that children need better protection from child killers.

It is therefore one of those unusual cases where criminals amongst themselves have taken the law into their own hands and delivered rough justice. I do  not want to see lynch mobs running our land but would want to see more responsible jailing decisions to keep society save and stop criminals to strike again,when that can be prevented.  Still what many justice officials and especially those on parol boards do not understand is that many criminals know exactly what they have to say and how they have to act to appear pleasing to assessors but then go on to kill.

If Justice disciplines the killer of Colin Hatch with severe punishment and sets a precedence to show that criminals that kill almost certain child killers will be severly punished that will send a shock wave around the country.

The evil things money allows to happen

Following on to my most recent previous post, I would like to introduce you to this new article from C.H.R.I.S. who runs a group that children have rights too. He found out that Julian Assange has links to a dangerous, evil sect in Australia that was set up by a woman who has 50 million dollars to her name. The cult is called Santiniketan Park Association, also known as The Family and The Great White Brotherhood. The woman’s name is Anne Hamilton-Byrne.

All this evil was only possible because these days, its not morals that rules the world but money and any dangerous lunatic with enough money can seriously harm others and set up cults and ‘religions’, abuse children and mistreat people.

I would say in today’s legal framework morals are put far behind money and courts have become really corrupt and often justice is allowed only to those who have enough money to pay for it.

Would we have a better moral framework then these poor children would not have had to wait 30 years and would not have had to undergo all this terrible abuse before they could bring their cases before the law. Unfortunately some didn’t even make it so far and killed themselves over the abuse. If you read through the sickening reports on that story you can only wonder why society supports such abuse just because somebody somewhere has enough money to pay for it.

Kids asked to pose in underwear on Facebook scam, police warns

If I was asked to state my most hated crime, then I would say it is the exploitation and abuse of children. I do know that many parents and children circumvent the registration process on Facebook to allow children under the age of 13 onto the site. Kids enjoy Facebook for its games and also because often their parents and other friends are registered and the communications methods are easy to learn and use for children too.

There are users of Facebook who use the trademarks of popular children’s modelling agencies to get children to post photos of themselves in their underwear. Children are being approached and told that if they wish to get into modelling they have to pose in their underwear. Those photos then can stay online forever. This can have profound effects on a person’s career path.

It is also indecent and demeaning to do this. One well-known modelling agency, Pat Keeling, state on their own website, that they do not have a Facebook account, but someone set up a Pat Keeling ID on Facebook.

There are 2 issues for me here, one is how easy it is to impersonate somebody else on Facebook and the other is that people must be warned not to fall for such trickery as this is most likely a set-up of paedophiles that want to get children to expose themselves in their underwear.

I should say social networking sites of any type should include software, into their registration process, that double checks the ID of registrants against their addresses. So that if somebody uses a well-known trademark, that their e-mail address and address is checked against the registered details of that trademark, or that a verification process has to involve the proper registered trademark holder for example. This would eradicate the identity theft of well-known personalities and trademarks.

Of course the police are doing a splendid job in issuing a public warning against this menace.

Blog Stats

  • 53,791 hits