CHILD CRUELTY BY RICHMOND SOCIAL WORKERS
CHILD CRUELTY BY RICHMOND SOCIAL WORKERS
The Director of Social Services for the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames is Mr Terry Earland. We would like to know more about this gentleman. Can you help, please? (Surface-mail replies only please to Gerry, NCRO, 89 Upper Lewes Road, Brighton, BN2 3FF). Thank you.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES IGNORING THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Gerry Howard, Chief Executive of the National Child Rescue Organisation (NCRO), exposes a cover-up technique frequently used by some local authorities after wrongly taking a child into care
The fundamental right of every child in a civilised world is the right to protection against abuse. The UK Children Act 1989 clearly states that ‘the interests of the child are paramount’. And this, of course, is how it should be.
THANK GOD FOR THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 – ‘Time to protect a child’ (Council)
The Children Act 1989 also makes it clear that it is the responsibility of every local authority to ensure that children in their area are safe and free from any influence that may cause them harm. It is this legislation that local authorities rely upon when making an application to the court for an order that will (in theory, but seldom in practise) provide protection for any child they feel is at risk. And, again, this is how it should be.
THANK GOD FOR THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 – ‘Time to demonstrate my power over parents (Social Worker)
There is, however, one mammoth problem with the Children Act 1989. It is wide open to abuse by any child-care professional who feels inclined to abuse it. And from experience gained over the past fourteen years, the National Child Rescue Organisation knows the system is being abused time and time again by dishonest child-care professionals trying to make a name for themselves, or who need to win personal battles with parents who oppose them.
Regrettably, very few of these abusers are identified before or during a court hearing and many others are not identified at all. This means that many, many, children are being wrongly taken into care every year.
It is only occasionally that NCRO investigators are given access to documents that prove conclusively that social workers (or other child-care professionals) have successfully perverted the course of justice and had a child wrongly taken into care. There are many more instances where it is obvious that judges have been manipulated, but where little or no positive proof exists.
THANK GOD FOR THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 – ‘We can now rescue a child from the local authority’ (NCRO Organisers)
In all such instances, it is the responsibility of NCRO organisers to approach the appropriate local authority with the findings of any investigation conducted. We usually communicate directly with the director of social services and say words to the effect, “We have good reason to believe that Mrs Jones’ son, Jason, has been wrongly taken into care and we would be grateful if you would take a personal interest in this case with a view to returning the boy to his natural parents as quickly as possible”.
At this juncture, the local authority usually does one of two things. (a) It thanks us for our concern and conducts an enquiry with a view to putting matters right, or (b) it immediately refuses to acknowledge that a ‘mistake’ may have been made and claims that its case was properly tested by the court that made the care order.
TO HELL WITH THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 – ‘Time to protect council employees’ (Council Employees)
Fortunately, most local authorities are happy to look again at their case. But, surprisingly, some are not and it is these that create the most problems for, once they are in denial, the only way they can protect themselves and their social workers is to abandon any pretention that it has the child’s interests at heart and concentrate instead upon how it can hide or justify the ‘errors’ that have been made.
The guilty local authority is now fighting to protect its reputation and all the good intentions behind the Children Act 1989 are quickly forgotten. Suddenly the interest of the child are no longer paramount for this local authority dare not put the child first anymore. It doesn’t want to know the truth and will dig its heels in to ensure that its errors, mistakes and failings will never be revealed to anybody who does.
The Law protects the guilty
By this time the unfortunate child (and its innocent family) is already a victim of CHILD ABUSE BY THE STATE and will remain a victim of CHILD ABUSE BY THE STATE until properly equipped defence lawyers (and there aren’t many of them) are able to bring the case back to court. And this could take years, if ever at all, because the Law, as it stands today, will present every obstacle to ensure that the mistakes and errors are not revealed and that the child and its family remain the victims of CHILD ABUSE BY THE STATE.
Nobody protects the innocent
Sixteen or more years could pass before the child is old enough to leave the child-care system and its State child-care abusers. By which time, it is almost certain that social workers will have fabricated a reason to stop all contact between the child and its natural family – and the child will have been indoctrinated to such an extent that it has no wish to rejoin the family that ‘abandoned’ it all those years ago.
ARROGANCE BEYOND BELIEF
NCRO Organisers find it unbelievable that local authorities using this cover-up technique can one week be claiming, ‘The interests of the child are paramount’ only to find that a few weeks later the same local authority is refusing point-blank to investigate claims that the interests of the child were ignored when their social workers gave wrong evidence which resulted in a Care Order being wrongly obtained.
These arrogant local authorities cannot have it both ways. Whether they like it or whether they don’t, they do not have the right to pick and choose the times when a child’s interests are paramount.
THE INTERESTS OF THE CHILD ARE PARAMOUNT AT ALL TIMES. That means before social workers become involved, after social workers become involved, during the court hearings and after the judge has made an order, whatever that order may be.
It is also beyond belief that any local authority employee can have the audacity to suggest that once a judge has made a care order, it is totally unreasonable to suppose that order may be wrong, or may have been obtained by sleight of hand. But this is frequently what happens in these badly managed social services departments.
Are these so-called child-care professionals so naive that they really think we can’t see through them? Or have they got away with it for so long that they believe their cunning will continue to protect them no matter how dangerous they become?
These people should know. Their luck is beginning to run out!
* * * *
In October, 2000, we started a series of correspondence with Mr Terry Earland (Social Services Director for the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames) advising him that we had evidence suggesting that his local authority had provided wrong evidence to a court and, that as a result, a young child had been wrongly taken into care. We said, if we were right, it would be Mr Earland’s responsibility to put matters right as quickly as possible and to return the child to its parents without delay. We asked Mr Earland to conduct an internal enquiry straight away.
Mr Earland refused, saying the family would have to pursue the matter through the courts (which will take several months). We replied, telling Mr Earland that it would not be in the child’s interests to remain in care when, with Mr Earland’s cooperation, he could probably be returned to his parents within just a few days. We also reminded Mr Earland that by forcing our client to go through the courts he was, in fact, forcing the taxpayer to pay the huge costs involved – costs that could probably be avoided if only he would cooperate.
Mr Earland has again refused to conduct an internal enquiry and the child will now remain in the care of the local authority until the court hears the case in several months time. Mr Earland has also said he can see no point in maintaining contact with us.
So now you know. Mr Terry Earland – director of social services for the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames has not the slightest intention of doing anything that might re-unite a loving family quickly, or that might save the taxpayer several thousands of pounds.
Could it just be that Mr Earland is afraid of exposing skulduggery within his own social services department which, in turn, could lead to allegations of his own incompetence?
My feelings are, if Mr Earland wants to avoid exposure, he has a much better chance of doing this by insisting that the courts be involved, for I have yet to know of a Family Court judge who is capable of recognising skulduggery when he sees it.
Never mind. The National Child Rescue Organisation is investigating this case and, if there is skulduggery to expose, we will do our best to expose it – and, of course, the names of the people who are involved.
Gerry Howard – 22/12/2000
THE MAIL ON SUNDAY LEADS AGAIN
Exposed…..Another case of child abuse by social workers
On Sunday, October 15, 2000, the Mail on Sunday revealed a shocking case of child cruelty by four social workers employed by the London Borough of Richmond on Thames.
A terrified and screaming four-year old black girl was forcibly wrenched away from her white foster parents by social workers for no other reason than Richmond Social Services’ determination to place black children with black foster parents – a view deemed ‘misguided’ by the Government. The fact that social workers had allowed the child to bond so well with these foster parents over a period of almost two years (half the child’s life) meant absolutely nothing to this half-baked local authority.
Social services attempt a cover-up
Following an immediate uprising and protests by neighbours witnessing the horrific street scene, social service chiefs made what they believed would be a successful attempt to prevent public criticism of their actions. They obtained a High Court injunction designed to prevent the case being taken up by the media and which threatened to jail the neighbours if they as much as talked about the case between themselves.
However, the editor of The Mail on Sunday, Mr Peter Wright, successfully challenged the gagging order in the High Court. Mrs Justice Bracewell (hearing the application) said: “The right of freedom of expression is an essential function of a democratic society and any restraint of that freedom calls for the most careful scrutiny. I am satisfied that there is, in this case, a legitimate public interest in publishing information about alleged controversial doctrines in relation to the fostering of children as set out in the statement of Mr Peter Wright.”
M.P. for Twickenham, Dr Vincent Cable is tabling questions and calling for a debate in the House of Commons. Councillor Tony Arbour (Cons.) has tabled a motion calling for an enquiry by the full council. We can only hope that these two gallant gentlemen won’t allow themselves to be fobbed off with social services own brand of hogwash and tripe, like so many of their colleagues have been in the past.
The National Child Rescue Organisation is totally satisfied that, in this instance, the London Borough of Richmond on Thames has totally ignored all the principles of good child care and by so doing, has made it abundantly clear to the public that social workers can be equally as dangerous to children as any other child abuser.
Who were the four social workers involved in this appalling act of child cruelty? Please ring us on 01273 692947 if you know.
And yet another horrific story of child abuse by the same local authority
Yes! Once again it’s The London Borough of Richmond on Thames doing its utmost to destroy an innocent family for no good reason.
In an attempt to prove mum and dad had deliberately injured their baby, social workers wheeled out a battery of medical experts who said the child’s injuries could not possibly be accidental. As a result, a Care Order was made and the two young parents were told they would only be permitted to see their baby (now two years old), supervised, once a month.
The shocked parents, now desperate to save their family and to disprove their growing reputation as child abusers, started researching their own case and discovered what all the so-called child-care and medical experts had missed….all the symptoms showing the baby suffers from a not uncommon medical condition known to the layman as Brittle Bone Disease.
Investigations carried out by the National Child Rescue Organisation not only show that the medical evidence presented to the court was wrong, but that social workers involved in the case had seriously misrepresented the facts on a number of different occasions.
It is clear that, had social workers taken sufficient care to research their case PROPERLY at the outset, the taxpayer would have been saved the huge and unnecessary expense of a court hearing and the child would have been returned to his parents loving care several months ago.
The parents have now instructed new solicitors to bring the case back into court and NCRO has advised them to sue the doctors involved on the grounds that they have been negligent. In the meantime, NCRO investigators are looking for evidence of perjury with a view to bringing a criminal action against those professionals who appear to have attempted to pervert the course of justice.
MINISTER CONDEMNS SOCIAL WORKERS
Mr Paul Boateng, the minister in charge of the Government’s family policy, has condemned the track record of social workers. He said he had no faith in their ability to help the young and vulnerable.
The Daily Mail (Friday, October 20, 2000) says: “The criticism from Mr Boateng deputy to Home Secretary Jack Straw, is one of the most stinging attacks ever made by a minister on the performance of social service departments.”
If anybody is equipped to know about social services, it is Mr Paul Boateng. He is at the heart of the Government’s family policy and will have first hand information straight from the horse’s mouth. So let’s be perfectly clear about this, SOCIAL WORKERS AND THEIR BOSSES CANNOT BE TRUSTED. And that’s official!
CAN WE TRUST EXPERT WITNESSES?
A leading forensic scientist on the BBC programme, The Crime Squad (BBC1 – Monday, October 24, 2000) told reporters that many ‘expert’ witnesses can be induced to give false evidence for the right financial considerations. He also said you need no qualifications to set yourself up as an ‘expert’ witness and that in many instances courts can be fed false evidence without realising it.
This will not come as a surprise to the many innocent victims of the secret Family Courts who have, for years, had to listen to so-called ‘expert’ witnesses fabricating evidence in order to support the local authority’s trumped-up charges.
Of course, a capable and conscientious team of defence lawyers could make mincemeat of these false witnesses, but they seldom make the effort to do so. Instead they usually allow the court to make a totally wrong order and then return to their comfortable offices to wait for the Legal Aid cheque to arrive…and another unsuspecting victim to approach them for their ‘expert’ advice.
AND HERE IS SOMETHING YOU MAY NOT KNOW
If you believe your barrister has been negligent, incompetent or dishonest in the way he has handled your case, you may now sue him.
I wonder if this will help them concentrate their efforts a little better than in the past? Only time will tell
PLEASE WATCH THIS SPACE FOR REGULAR UPDATE
“The Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton is where stuffed pilots are put in glass boxes.” (7-year-old boy before visit).
- Earland retired from Richmond CC in 2003 – http://www.paedofiles.com/savile-forum/?pgno=2245
- Earland 2007 – http://www.colour-se7en.co.uk/DEUCHUXQ.pdf
- Earland 2010 – https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_childrens_services_consu
- Earland in Bourras 16200 – http://poitoucharentes.angloinfo.com/forum/viewtopic/62504/0/converting-car-for-french-registration/6
- Earland is an ‘old boy’ of Ottershore Boys Boarding School – http://www.osobs.co.uk/