Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

The Defense Industry is not a Defense Industry, it is an assault industry. If you want to see what those people are doing to the Human Species just look at the birth defects from depleted uranium at http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html .

The US Administration falsely claimed that they had to go into Iraq to stop Hussein from using nuclear weapons. But the US tested 4th generation nuclear weapons in Iraq that did not make mushroom clouds. Then they used depleted uranium to pretend that all the radiation was do just to that. It was not. In any case, the use of the depleted uranium was inexcusable. It has a half life of 4.5 million years and is destroying the human genome. Neither dust nor people stay in one place. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes is the future their shortsighted policies are making. The human race needs to give up playing war games and start a Manhattan Project style push to learn how to defend without weapons.

delete

I read with some anger, frustration and disgust about a case of utter and appalling injustice.

Once again, it involved the idiotic management at the RSPCA. However, it seems this time that lots more idiots were involved: Mindless uncaring beaurocrats; over zealous policemen; stupid social workers; immoral lawyers and stupid judges - 74, yes, 74 different court hearings (!!!); a bad Parliamentarian Law; childcare "experts" (???) - See how many of them you can count for yourself.

Also, do have a read at the Comments that follow this article. From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8148987/Forced-adoption-another-win-for-the-child-snatchers.html

Forced adoption: another win for the child snatchers
The case of Tony and Debbie Sims illustrates the cruelty of our child protection system, says Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
20 Nov 2010

In 43 years of medical practice, said the familys GP, he had never encountered a case of such appalling injustice. To their neighbours, it was so shocking that up to 100 of them were ready to stage a public protest, until being banned from doing so by social workers and the police.

This was the case of Tony and Debbie Sims, which I first reported in July 2009 under the headline  'Evil destruction of a happy family, and whom I can now name because their daughter, torn from them for no good reason, has finally, after three years of misery in foster care and 74 court hearings, been adopted.

The story of Mr and Mrs Sims was my first introduction to that Kafka-esque world of state child-snatching which I have so often reported on since. It illustrates so many of the reasons why, hidden behind its self-protective wall of secrecy, this ruthless and corrupt system has become a major national scandal.

Until April 2007, Mr Sims, a professional dog breeder, and his wife, then a branch vice-chairman of the local Conservative Party, were a respectable middle-class couple living happily with their five-year-old daughter, who was the apple of their eye. Shortly after Mr Sims was interviewed by the RSPCA over his unwitting infringement of a new law banning the tail-docking of puppies, their home was invaded by two RSPCA officials and 18 policemen, who had been given a wholly erroneous tip-off that there were guns on the premises.

When the dogs were released from their kennels and rampaged through the house, ripping apart his daughters pet boxer, Mr Sims strongly protested verbally but not physically. He and his wife were arrested and taken away, leaving their little girl, aged five, screaming amid the chaos. Social workers were called and the child was removed into foster care. While Mrs Sims was being held for several hours in a police cell, she had a miscarriage. She returned home that night to find her daughter gone.

When the couple next saw their child months later, at a contact she said she had been told they were dead and had gone to heaven. For three years they tried to get her back through those 74 court hearings. The social workers claimed the child had been maltreated, because her home was an unholy mess. But this was only because of the police raid and the dogs a WPC who had visited the house a month earlier on other business reported that it had been neat and tidy.

The child could not understand why she was not allowed to go back home with her parents. The courts were unable to consider a report by an experienced independent social worker which the couple were told described them as responsible and loving parents. The only evidence the court heard was that from the social workers and their own experts.

When the couple were eventually told that their child would be adopted, they appealed. In a judgment last year, which the media were permitted to report, Mr Justice Boden ruled that because the parents had not shown sufficient co‑operation with the authorities (after four psychiatric assessments of the couple, the father refused to submit to a fifth), the adoption had to go ahead.

One of the first people to contact the parents when this was made public was that independent social worker, who expressed astonishment, saying he had assumed that, because the social workers case seemed so flimsy, the family would have long since been reunited. Last week, however, Mr and Mrs Sims had a two-sentence note to say their daughter has now been adopted.

Since I first wrote about this case in 2009, I have come to recognise many of its features in dozens of others I have followed: the mob-handed involvement of the police; the seizing of children for no good reason; the inability of social workers to admit they have made a mistake; the way lawyers supposedly acting for the parents seem to be on the other side; the refusal of judges to look objectively at all the evidence, and their willingness to accept nonsense if told to them by social workers and their experts. Too often, these proceedings get away with standing every honourable principle of British justice on its head.

Such is the Frankensteins monster created by Parliament in the 1989 Children Act. Yet apart from the tireless John Hemming, and a handful of other MPs shocked into awareness by individual cases in their constituencies, the majority seem wholly unconcerned. So what do we pay them for?

And, talking about 'injustice', here's hoping, that you never get caught up in any kind of a legal problem in Dubai:

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/dubai/8149056/Millionaire-owner-of-Dubais-Little-Britain-attacks-jail-term-over-bounced-cheques..html

Millionaire owner of Dubais "Little Britain" attacks jail term over bounced cheques.
A British property tycoon, famous for buying a 43 million man-made island in the shape of Great Britain off the coast of Dubai, has branded the Gulf state backward and unjust after it jailed him for seven years over a series of bounced cheques.
By Jason Lewis, Investigations Editor
21 Nov 2010

Safi Qurashi, from Balham, south London, appealed to David Cameron to intervene, claiming he had been wrongly convicted after hearings lasting just a minute each.

Two years ago Mr Qurashi, 41, was featured in Britains Got Talent judge Piers Morgans ITV programme on how Britons were cashing on the Dubai property boom and becoming overnight millionaires.

But, in a letter from jail, he reveals how, since his arrest, his business collapsed and the strain of the ordeal caused his pregnant wife to lose their baby and his mother to suffer a near-fatal heart attack.

The letter, handed to the Sunday Telegraph by his family, says he was mistreated by the Dubai police, who, he claims, handcuffed him to a chair for eight hours, denied him access to lawyers, and that he was convicted without any chance to put his side of the story. He also claims the Foreign Office have refused to help.

I could not believe what I was going through, he wrote. I kept on thinking this is a modern country, it has laws, it depends on foreign citizens and investment, surely its legal system cannot be this backward and unjust?

One of 200 Britons jailed in the United Arab Emirates, where the Queen is due to visit later this month, he added: David Cameron has the power to enforce change. How can we as a nation entertain a regime that allows our citizens to invest money and then (be) jailed?

He wrote: We went from having five staff to almost 100 within two years. We started to enjoy the better aspects of life. We sent our kids to the best school in Dubai and we could enjoy amazing holidays. Our business turnover was 600 million.

His company specialised in beach front properties sought after by stars like David and Victoria Beckham and Rod Stewart, who reportedly invested in the Gulf State as it was transformed into a playground for the rich and famous.

The firm survived the countrys property crash which saw newly built luxury apartment blocks and hotels left empty. But last January, without warning, Mr Qurashi and his business partner were arrested by plain clothes police.

They told me I was being arrested for bouncing a cheque. They said not to worry, in two hours we would be let go.

I was held for eight hours in a cell. No phone calls. No lawyer. Then I was kept handcuffed to a chair for another eight hours.

We were asked two questions: our names and whether we signed the cheques. As I answered yes, we were sent to Port Rashid jail, built to house 80 prisoners, (but with) over 200 people inside.

It was shocking. At night it resembled a refugee camp. For our first few days we slept on a concrete floor, taking it in turns to sleep.

After two days they were met by the prosecutor who said they were being charged over three bounced cheques, made out for millions of pounds.

But Mr Qurashi claims the cheques were handed over as security in a series of property deals and should never have been cashed as the deals had been completed.

The prosecutor said they would face a hearing in two weeks. Just like that, two weeks in jail, Mr Qurashi wrote.

After six days our lawyer arrived. We had been in the same clothes for a week, with no place to wash, no soap or shampoo. The lawyer, who we had hired, omitted to tell us that he was the defence lawyer in a (unconnected) civil case we had filed in 2009. His offer was simple: drop all charges...and I will help you.

Suddenly the Dubai I knew, trustworthy, clean, crime free, non corrupt, all disappeared.

Meanwhile Mr Qureshis wife, Huma, was struggling, looking after their young children, Sara, 12, Maaria, nine, Yousuf, four, dealing with lawyers and trying to keep the business afloat.

My wife who was pregnant at the time of my arrest suffered a miscarriage. That was a particularly difficult thing. Trying to suppress the anger and frustration was difficult and the environment in which we were in was not easy.

We hired a new lawyer who had two five minute with us. He said this is not England, we do things our way.

There were two hearings each one a minute long and I was sentenced. The judge had not read any of our evidence. I was assumed guilty even before I attended court.

After his conviction he was transferred to the countrys main jail. Conditions are better, but the other inmates include murderers, rapists and drug dealers.

He has now been in jail for nine months and is allowed to see his wife each week through a glass window, over a dodgy intercom system.

His final appeal was dismissed last month. My children have been told and they cried for days. They wrote me great letters of encouragement, although it is very hard to read them through all the tears that would flow.

He added: Dubai boasts that it has a very fast judicial process. Thats right. In a one hour court session a judge hears between 30-40 cases - only 90 seconds per case. Guilty or not guilty. This is the legal system of modern Dubai.

Last night Mr Qureshis family said they had asked for help from the Foreign Office but were told they could not intervene.

His brother Farhan Qurashi said: They say a lawyer in Dubai has to say due process has not been followed. But no lawyer in Dubai is willing to put their name to that. In the meantime my brother rots in jail and his family suffer. This is a terrible miscarriage of justice.

See also:

Property tycoon who bought a 43m 'Little Britain' jailed 24 Jul 2010

Safi Qurashi's open letter from Dubai jail cell 21 Nov 2010

I think the US government should pay him for finding the wide open flaw's in their security. What if it was the Chinese or terrorist who hacked in.


Home Office: Your views on extradition wanted (by 31 December 2010)
By fg on November 11, 2010 10:24 PM | No Comments

The Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition government is allowing members of the public (that means you!) to have a say in a review of the appalling mess which the incompetent and authoritarian previous Labour government made of the whole process of Extradition:

Remember that there was no public consultation whatsoever, and no informed debate and careful scrutiny in Parliament either, when the notorious and twice disgraced David Blunkett forced through the Extradition Act 2003 into law, which he and his apparatchiki then applied retrospectively to Gary McKinnon and to other cases. such as the Nat West 3 Bankers and Babar Ahmed. etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7l4jD-EZ3k&feature=player_embedded

The President sound's a bit uneasy answering the question.

ExecLine,

Re the forced adoption case. As a regular reader of The Sunday Telegraph I have been following such cases for months. It is frightening what is happening in this country to some innocent families. No doubt the Social Services see these cases a 'easy options' over those genuine cases were they are too scared to take action.
No doubt many will have read your post and thought as I first did when I started to follow such cases, is that there must be more to it that what has been disclosed, but there often is not.
Strange how in the same newspaper it was reported that the main reason why the government is going to pay several suspected Muslim terrorists over 1,000,000 each(bear with me there is a connection) was because they have been advised that if these people were not paid, they would take court action that could result in sensitive security information being released in court, 'and that as it is the main thread of our law that justice must be seen to be done, and therefor such proceedings could not be in a closed court'. and yet all family courts are closed courts.
As the author of these reports stated a few weeks ago, most people on reading these case studies would think that they were occurring in a third world dictatorship , not our so called democracy.
No wonder some people are reluctant to contact Social Services if they need help, or are reluctant to take there children to hospital if they get a bad knock from play.

And for those who make excuses for the social services, saying that it is a very difficult job to define accidental injury to intended injury (abuse), it is not as hard as you think.
As many know, in my career as a Police Officer I had many dealings with this agency.
A few in this profession are very good, but many are degree holding kids, that although very bright academically have about as much common sense as my little finger. Their managers are also of a similar ilk

A family ripped apart for little or no reason is a scandal.

.

Like the police, the social services deal with simple (easy) cases effectively.

One problem with those working in social services are that many of those recruited, are from a pool of those who have an fixed "ideological base" and associated zeal.

Many others are from the same background of their clients and wish to change the social circumstances of those they see as partial victims of "society".

They often have enthusiasm and work hard, but lack the ability to see the "overall problem" and the lack the tools and authority to "enforce" actions, which they may think appropriate. (To use the legal system effectively, you have to have provable and supported evidence not the ill informed prejudices and opinions which many operate on.)

It is a pity, that many of the "knowing" critics don't take sabbaticals and work for a 3 months for the social services, on the "salaries" they feel appropriate for others attempting to do the job.
I think, If they were brave enough to attempt the work, many of those critics would find it a harassing and soul destroying job.

Another challenge, where physical violence is involved, is having satisfactory witness to the causation of the injuries. Suspicion is one thing, evidence if another.

Many criminals/prisoners in police cells seem to hit themselves he door knob and cause self inflicted "violence".

Ummmmmm
====================

As far as the "payments" to the villains of probable "torture" is concerned.

I know the villains were "contained" for "good reasons", but haven't seen the evidence examined in a court of law.

I think the governments' actions in avoiding court proceedings, is to cover their own consenting behaviour and embarrassments.

I think the UN have been condemned American and British behaviour on rendition etc. and think Bush should be tried for War Crimes.

--------------------------
PS.

I wouldn't mind being hung for murder, if I have found to have committed the crime in a respected court of law, but, if I haven't, please allow me a day or two in court to plead my case and/or at least plead to ask for mitigation.


Slightly edited!

.

Well, Greek and Fred, I pretty much agree with everything you both have to say on this.

I do feel so very sorry for Tony and Debbie Sims.

Their problems seemed to start off, with what looks to me, like a malicious phone call to the RSPCA about the dog's tails being docked. Logically, since only two RSPCA people went first of all for a chat, I wonder where on earth the information came from about them having guns in the house?

The report above says,

"Shortly after Mr Sims was interviewed by the RSPCA over his unwitting infringement of a new law banning the tail-docking of puppies, their home was invaded by two RSPCA officials and 18 policemen, who had been given a wholly erroneous tip-off that there were guns on the premises.

When the dogs were released from their kennels and rampaged through the house, ripping apart his daughters pet boxer, Mr Sims strongly protested verbally but not physically. He and his wife were arrested and taken away, leaving their little girl, aged five, screaming amid the chaos."

Social workers were called and the child was removed into foster care. While Mrs Sims was being held for several hours in a police cell, she had a miscarriage. She returned home that night to find her daughter gone."

What the Dickens were all these 'troops' expecting?

This is all so absolutely 'over the top', it beggars belief.

How on earth did all of this escalate from the first visit by the RSPCA into what happened during the second visit?

There must be more to this. Was Mr Sims known to the Police , apart from the Boxer what breeds were the others ? pit bull ect:

Aldwickk

I think you might just have hit the nail on the head there.

My own take on things, is that Mr Sims might well have some difficulty in seeing the other person's point(s) of view. And then one thing leads to another and everything just gets out of control.

ExecLine,

You may well be right, that there is more to it re Mr Sims not seeing the others point of view. Still does not explain why they took the children away and kept them from their parents until they were later adopted. Anyway, the main point has to be that, these family courts should be fully open. The excuses that they are closed to protect the child, is hogwash. Yes in certain rare circumstances, I see the reason, but as long as they remain closed, we do not have a clue if the authorities are being fair or heavy handed. The Telegraph articles only give full details after a case is finalized, and often their appears very little justification for the courts actions.

Mnamreh,

Your post of 1144 hrs is spot on. My experiences of these professionals is the same as yours.

N,

The problem with the "truth, is that its observation is often biased by the observer's "prejudices".

It is frustrating, that when an intervention, which is thought to be socially beneficial and agreed to and then instigated by the responsible authorities , is found to based on less than perfect information or bias.

To bring in perfect legislation to deal with the complexities of a free society is impossible.

What confuses me is why God devised free will? (Especially in the case of women.)

Objectivity, on retrospection, is often found wanting.

I am glad that the most important decisions I have to make now, are whether, I should get up in the morning to have a pee, or whether I pour myself another drink in the evening.

.

I feel a little bit like Mole, sometimes wondering when he was in the Wild Wood, why he left his home to see the World.

Like the Welshman going to London for the first time, when asked what he though of it, replied " a little disappointed".

.

Elegant, or appealing?

(Both is not allowed.) 8-)

.