‘Luna’ signifies a ‘new beginning’. Joe Ollis liked the name when trawling through a book of name meanings and his partner Marie Black agreed it would be a suitable symbolising a new start. Following incessant persecution by Norwich County Council they had decided to leave the UK in Autumn 2011 to start a new life in France where Luna was born in early 2012. Nowadays Joe, Luna and excitable puppy Lola (as well as Joe’s mother who has long lived in the region) are terribly missing Marie – who I visited three times at Ashford HMP. I made a video recording of the authority persecution of Marie and her family from Joe’s perspective having rekindled their 4 year-long teenage sweetheart romance during which Marie became pregnant…
I uploaded to this blog the middle part of the script Joe prepared which highlights the unlawful action of Norwich Country Council who claimed Luna was ‘at risk’ as Marie had been involved in a relationship that featured children and incidents of ‘Domestic Violence’. The script describes how 10+ armed French police officers sealed off the ‘contact session’ building where Marie and Joe attended to 3 months old Luna. She had been taken into ‘Foster Care’ as Social Services of Norwich County Council made to their French counterparts false allegations e.g. claiming that Joe was a violent person who had broken Marie’s arm. When Marie requested her medical records (that she is legally entitled to) the NHS refused to release the documents which would have proven that there was no such incident. When Norwich County Council lost the appeal case (bravely fought by Brendon Flemings on behalf of Marie and Joe) and Social Workers eventually returned Luna to France they reportedly hissed that Marie ’had not heard the last of this’ echoing similar ‘Psycho Terror’ incidents over the previous 3 years back in Norwich.
Norwich County Council
Why such defamation and unlawful authority conduct? Why such an incursion into a foreign country to essentially ‘kidnap’ a baby? Unfortunately NCC is at the top of the ‘Child Snatching’ league pursuing a very aggressive policy of ‘child snatching’. At the same time its social services department has been threatened with losing its responsibility for children due to poor performance. For those familiar with the clandestine interplay of police, social services and judiciary it is disturbing that the local police boss, Chief Constable Simon Bailey, is also the national lead on so-called ‘Child Protection’ (in practice seemingly closely intertwined with ‘Abuser Protection’). Recently NCC was heavily criticised for wrongly removing children from Foster Carers:
Courageous Ray in the video is taking a very active interest in the ‘Norwich Three’ visiting Marie in prison. It is helpful that unfairness concerns of foster carers are attended to. However the bigger picture is that 10k biological parents are ‘wrongly treated’ each year by the barbaric UK ‘Forced Adoption’ practices. The public reminiscences about the movie ‘Philomena’ and some are pushing for a Public Inquiry into ‘historic’ forced adoptions. Who is speaking out and demanding investigations into children being wrongly removed and suffering serious harm as a consequence right now?
Forced Adoption & Criminal Court Persecution
Sir James Munby does not (want to?) understand the reasons why last year the number of children taken into care had risen again by 25%:
The answer is simple – it is a £2 Billion growth industry. The relevant facts are provided on the excellent website of veteran campaigner Ian Joseph (based in Monaco):
I agree with estimates that up to 85% of the children taken into lucrative ‘Long-term foster care’ or ‘Adoption’ are probably ‘false positives’ i.e. unnecessary removal from birth parents. I used to agree with Ian that the remaining ‘true positives’ should be dealt with through the criminal justice system. However I am less sure about this having looked into the case of the Norwich Three, read about Vicky Haigh and heard about the case of the Musa family from Nigeria. It appears to me that the ridiculous shenanigans (e.g. routine concealment and fabrication of evidence; legal aid representatives letting authorities win cases; biased judges) frequently played out in the Family Courts seemingly also apply in Criminal Court settings with the same vested interests producing even more devastating travesties.
Mass Media Coverage
On the face of it media present a clear cut case concerning the Norwich Three (see previous blog entry for URLs). In spite of the reporting restrictions (that obfuscate the shenanigans) a few observations can be made:
The criminal case was in Summer 2015. Marie left the UK in Autumn 2011. What happened in those 4 years? It seems like all allegations are rather ‘historical’ i.e. without physical proof, unless perhaps someone has found a used condom, other items and ways to link them?
Who are those children? Who are their parents? How much do they know each other?
There is a clue in one of the articles that Marie Black used to be known as Marie Adams. Same surname – any family relationship with Jason Adams by any chance? Could be siblings but why then the name change if there is no ‘Mr Black’ in sight? I can add to this that co-defendants in the case Anthony and Carole Stadler are visiting Marie Black in prison every two weeks. How are they related? Was Marie Black perhaps also known as Marie Stadler???
The most critical question however is:
How did the allegations of the children come to the attention of authorities?
Disclosure of the full court case history and associated documents would reveal chilling irregularities on top of those acknowledged in the media coverage.
Child Abuse, False Memories and Mind Control
Child abuse allegations are notoriously difficult to investigate. What I have seen in my volunteer work at the ‘sharp end’ is systematic cover up. Protective parents are routinely persecuted and their off-spring silenced. Why are sexual abuse allegations handled by SS rather than police? Efforts to establish physical evidence through specialists at A&E departments are rarely yielding conclusive evidence but at least usually create a document trail that would help an adult to confront a historical abuser. Nevertheless protective parents taking this action are routinely persecuted and labelled ‘delusional’, ‘obsessed with child sexual abuse’ (‘overvalues sexual abuse’ was a pseudo-diagnosis proffered by the Psychiatrist against whom a GMC complaint was made – see previous blog entry) or ‘liar’. Family Court judges routinely rule that listening to child disclosures constitutes ‘emotional abuse’ – very confusing for the mothers and anyone hearing about it! Current practices where conjecture, (anonymous) calls by vested interests and ‘hired gun’ testimony prevail conflict somewhat with the generally laudable idea of ‘mandatory reporting’. In one case a jealous neighbour alleged that a child was left unsupervised at home. In fact the au pair was at home but admitted at times being in a different room – child taken into care. When the mother confronted the neighbour she reportedly admitted that she had her eye on her boyfriend who had been single until recently i.e. revenge. In another case an anonymous call was made claiming that children had been left alone – a brick in the wall towards another child snatch.
Child Smuggling & Arson Murder?
In my most chilling case an anonymous caller claimed that the mother had a mental health problem and ‘at the end of the toddler group session throws her child violently into the buggy’. It turns out that another mother in the same toddler group was actually doing that. A good friend of the nursery teacher was found dead in a village river around that time:
Note how allergic South Wales police officers are to crime investigation:
‘The spokeswoman said investigations were continuing but said there are not believed to be any suspicious circumstances surrounding the death.’
One months later a row of cottages overlooking the location where the body had been found went up in flames:
In between (!) a woman was found in the hallway of her burnt out house ‘on top of roof tiles’ with ‘broken legs and a broken arm’:
Six officers ‘overlooked’ the artefacts. 2 years ago a submission was made to the Coroner requesting a reinvestigation of the Open Verdict case. Local, regional and national police authorities continue to refuse investigating! And even if there was an investigation could you trust those ‘professionals’ with the evidence? Would the evidence ‘disappear’ (it usually does in this context)? Or would the DNA be tampered with?
A toddler lost his godmother in that house fire, was subjected to a stalking and harassment campaign for 6 months and got sexually assaulted in broad day light. People getting bumped off so that a clandestine child smuggling process could succeed through ‘child protection’ and ‘family court’ processes claiming the mother was ‘delusional’?
The URL below provides access to my 45mins web radio interview on the Richie Allen Show talking about ‘Ritual Violence & Child Smuggling’ – probably the two greatest horrors and secrets of our world (which underpin many other matters that may come to mind more readily):
Police in South Wales and across the Irish Sea are obstinately refusing to investigate!
Court Appointed Experts
I recently reviewed (see previous blog post) some of the guidelines issued by the British Psychological Society (BPS) related to this topic and found that they all fail to adequately outline the full range of complexity from ‘extreme abuse’ at one end to ‘extreme framing’ at the other.
What kind of experts would we expect to be consulted in the case of the ‘Norwich Three’?
A proper investigation and prosecution could have benefitted from the expertise of Psychology Professors Bernice Andrews and Chris Brewin who got numerous publications on child trauma and recently published a focus article debunking some of the myth put forward by the ‘False Memory’ lobby while at the same time explaining that certain techniques (mind control?) are available to implant memory in various ways to some degree:
The focus article invited commentaries and caused quite a stir as the rejoinder title indicates ‘False Memories and Free Speech: Is Scientific Debate Being Suppressed?’
The defence could have solicited the expertise of Psychology Prof Martin Conway who has written extensively about ‘false memories’ and headed the development of the ‘Memory & Law’ guidelines of the BPS 2008/2010. While Conway succeeded in a particular case he has since been criticised publicly by appeal court judges (see previous blog post) e.g. LADY JUSTICE HALLETT DBE in ‘ EWCA Crim 1785’:
‘9. Although not now relevant to this appeal we feel we should mention that this is not the first time that Mr Barlow and his instructing solicitors have attempted to overturn a conviction on the basis of Professor Conway’s evidence as to the reliability of childhood memories. His reports are controversial. Only once to our knowledge, in an “unusual” case, has this court accepted his evidence (see R v JH and R v TG  1 Cr App R 10). However, the court was unaware at that time of significant criticisms of Professor Conway’s methodology which have led to the court’s declining to receive his evidence (see R v S  EWCA Crim 1404, R v E  EWCA Crirn 1370 and R v H  EWCA Crim 2344). In the light of those decisions, we have our doubts as to whether JH and TG, which was restricted very much to a specific set of facts, would be decided the same way today. Professor Conway may wish to consider amending his CV in which, we note, he mentions only R v JH and r v TG.’
Many prisoners in HMP Isle of Wight proclaim their innocence and state that reports in their case were commissioned from Prof Conway but point blank rejected by the judge. What is going on here? I recently talked to an expert who spent most of his life commissioning, evaluating and deploying medico-legal reports. Anthony Stadler explained that he always sought out the most reputable experts whose evidence would be accepted by the court. What ‘game’ is being played here that repots are commissioned by the defence that are very likely to be rejected? What is the BPS doing about this?
Nowadays a good expert to call would probably be Susan van Scoyoc who I bumped into at the BPS Office when she was running a course on Wechsler Memory Scales (which I hope to attend). She was voted ‘BPS Practitioner of the Year’ in 2014, gave evidence across a multitude of cases and recently got asked to train US police on how to work with Psychology expert testimony:
I would hope that either side in a court case – whether criminal or civil proceedings – would refrain from soliciting testimony from Consultant Clinical Psychologist Roy Shuttleworth whose evidence was rightly rejected by Mr Justice Baker:
It would also be inappropriate to instruct Psychiatrist Dr Adam Osborne who was suspended by the GMC in February 2010 from practising medicine for six months after being found guilty of ‘dishonest and misleading’ behaviour and struck off the medical register on 11th February 2016:
How about Psychiatrist Dr Hibbert? The GMC commissioned a seemingly ‘meek’ Psychiatrist so that Dr Hibbert got cleared (which was very convenient as otherwise cases would have had to be revisited):
It is simply beyond comprehension that Courts are still accepting testimony from Psychiatrist Dr Anthony Baker:
UK psychiatrist Anthony Baker’s sordid past spurs call for overhaul of child protection system
April 3, 2012
A TOP psychiatrist hired to assess teenagers was once suspended for forcibly kissing a vulnerable young patient.
The man is still practising but this revelation by the Sunday Express has led to calls for an overhaul of the child protection system.
MP John Hemming said councils and courts were “playing fast and loose with the lives of vulnerable young children” and demanded more rigorous checks on the background of the experts they commissioned.
Dr Anthony Baker, 64, is currently used by several large local authorities, including Kent County Council, to assess children in their care. He also assesses the mental condition of their parents as part of care proceedings. He was visiting professor at Kingston University in Surrey between February 2010 and February 2011.
However, Dr Baker has appeared twice before the General Medical Council’s fitness to practise panel, accused of inappropriate behaviour towards young women patients.
He was cleared in 1998 when the burden of proof was “beyond reasonable doubt” but found guilty of an incident 10 years later after the GMC had moved to a “balance of probabilities” threshold.
There is no suggestion he has acted inappropriately since.
The 2008 hearing concerned “an extremely vulnerable and young patient” who was in his care between 2004 and 2006.
The minutes of the GMC hearing state: “You do not dispute that at the end of this consultation, shortly before Christmas 2005, you held Patient A’s head in your hands and ‘went to kiss’ Patient A. You have admitted that you ended up kissing Patient A on the face.
“You told the panel that you had intended to kiss her forehead. The panel has noted the inconsistencies in your letter of explanation to the GMC and it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Patient A’s recollection is more likely to be credible and accurate.
SEARCH UK NEWS for:
“She told the panel she had been drinking prior to the consultation and that when you went to kiss her she moved her face away from you as she did not want you to smell the alcohol on her breath.
“The panel accepts Patient A’s evidence that she did not tilt her head upwards towards you, as you have stated. For these reasons, the panel has found that you tried to kiss Patient A on the lips.
“The panel is clear that trying to kiss a young, vulnerable patient on the lips is clearly inappropriate, not in her best interests and below the standards expected of a consultant psychiatrist.”
Dr Baker now runs the Ashwood Practice in Woking, Surrey, where he assesses children in foster care and provides expert witness advice to family courts. His practice has a contract with Kent County Council and was also paid several thousands of pounds by West Sussex County Council and West Berkshire Council last year.
He has declined to comment.
Source: Ted Jeory, “Sordid past of council’s child care psychiatrist,” Sunday Express, March 25,2012.
‘Comments Sue O’Callaghan 2013-01-16 03:50:01
I took Dr Baker to the GMc and he received a warning. In 2003 he diagnosed me with Borderline Personality Disorder when I was never his client and having sent it to social services. He used it to have my children removed from me. Social services had NEVER met or assessed me. The children were 1, 3 and 5 and I was pregnant with my 4th and it took a year to secure the residence order and get them home by which time they had been abused and were severely traumatised. Nine years later they have suffered from severe PTSD, nightmares, fear, anxiety, poor concentration and learning. He ruined their lives. I do not suffer from BPD, nor did I ever, I was actually being abused by my alcoholic husband who has since gone on to abuse the children. Who will wake up and see the damage this man continues to do? Below is an account of an article I wrote to the Justice Minister and NONE of the below could have happened without Dr Bakers (Dr B) report: On 1st October 2003 my husband returned from work at lunchtime, he took our 1 year old saying he was going for a walk, but collected our 3 year old from nursery, 5 year old from school and never came home. I called the police who took full statements but they phoned once back at the police station to inform me that their system showed “child protection” and that they could do no more. They explained that it meant social services were involved.’
‘In front of a new Judge and without presenting the court bundle, my husband once again presented a case for the abrupt removal of the children. It was an ex-partie order, so I was unaware of its hearing. At 6pm there was a knock on the door and social services appeared with 2 child protection officers in uniform and removed the children from their baths, as I was ordered to pack their belongings. I was handed the High Court Order with a penal order attached but not informed why they were being removed. The next day social services visited the house for the first time and informed me that they would remove my baby at birth. I went into Kingston Hospital and delivered on 9th June under the watchful eye of social services and was kept monitored for 6 days, unable to leave my room. Their report stated I was ‘obsessed’ with the baby if I was holding her and was ‘not bonding’ if she lay in her cot.’