Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

ALLOW PARENTS TO CONTEST EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDERS

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

Why is this idea important?

Social workers can too easily obtain emergency protection orders without the knowledge or presence of parents who then have their children removed without having had any opportunity to oppose or contest such removals.

Ex parte hearings ,meaning without the opposing party present  result too often in a magistrate granting powers of removal to social workers purely out of caution even when there is little evidence to justify such drastic action; Such orders only last 2-4 days but that is enough to traumatise young children from life when they have been dragged out of bed late at night by a posse of social workers backed up by policemen in uniform.

Parents should always be offered the opportunity to contest such orders before they are made.

Brutal parents who are alcoholic,bullies, or drug addicts are most unlikely to contest in such cases but parents who are respectable but may have very minor defects would certainly oppose the abrupt "confiscation" of their children if they were allowed to and I believe they should be given the chance!

IMPRISON VIOLENT CRIMINAL TAG OTHERS ELECTRONICALLY

THE PUBLIC FEAR MOST OF ALL, CRIMINALS WHO ARE VIOLENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY:-

Suerly there is no need to keep fraudsters,pickpockets,verbal abusers,tax evaders, perjurers illegal whistleblowers,and the like behind bars ?They could all be tagged electronically where they normally live (or in a hostel if they've got nowhere else) with one hour's liberty per day and immediate prison if the curfew is broken.At present electronic tagging is not monitored strictly enough due to cost but that cost if monitoring were ruthlessly thorough would still be a lot less costly than keeping the non violent prisoners in jail !

Murderers,muggers,rapists,burglars,thugs,dope dealers,knife users, physical bullies,violent drunkards,and violent road ragers should all serve 3 times the sort of sentences they are at present given as there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep them with all the non violent prisoners "cleared out"!

Various laws would have to be changed to give effect to these proposals.Legislation could be a little complex, but a great deal of money would be saved in the long run;

Why is this idea important?

THE PUBLIC FEAR MOST OF ALL, CRIMINALS WHO ARE VIOLENT TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY:-

Suerly there is no need to keep fraudsters,pickpockets,verbal abusers,tax evaders, perjurers illegal whistleblowers,and the like behind bars ?They could all be tagged electronically where they normally live (or in a hostel if they've got nowhere else) with one hour's liberty per day and immediate prison if the curfew is broken.At present electronic tagging is not monitored strictly enough due to cost but that cost if monitoring were ruthlessly thorough would still be a lot less costly than keeping the non violent prisoners in jail !

Murderers,muggers,rapists,burglars,thugs,dope dealers,knife users, physical bullies,violent drunkards,and violent road ragers should all serve 3 times the sort of sentences they are at present given as there would be plenty of room in the prisons to keep them with all the non violent prisoners "cleared out"!

Various laws would have to be changed to give effect to these proposals.Legislation could be a little complex, but a great deal of money would be saved in the long run;

Stop jailing parents for contacting their own children !

Very recently parents have been handcuffed and jailed for contacting their own children,by sending a birthday card,waving as they passed by,or communicating via u-tube !

Judges should NO LONGER have the power to issue injunctions forbidding contact between parents and children unless the parent in question has been convicted of a criminal offence on a child .

Right now, the power of family court judges over parents is overwhelming,intimidating,and unjust.If a parent has never been convicted of an offence on any child there is no reason why they should be refused all contact for up to 18 years and sometimes for life , and worse still jailed if they so much as wave a hand  or send a card !

The law that allows judges to issue draconian injuctions forbidding parents from contacting their own children should be repealed ! Only if a criminal offence has been committed against a child (any child) can such an injunction be justified.

Why is this idea important?

Very recently parents have been handcuffed and jailed for contacting their own children,by sending a birthday card,waving as they passed by,or communicating via u-tube !

Judges should NO LONGER have the power to issue injunctions forbidding contact between parents and children unless the parent in question has been convicted of a criminal offence on a child .

Right now, the power of family court judges over parents is overwhelming,intimidating,and unjust.If a parent has never been convicted of an offence on any child there is no reason why they should be refused all contact for up to 18 years and sometimes for life , and worse still jailed if they so much as wave a hand  or send a card !

The law that allows judges to issue draconian injuctions forbidding parents from contacting their own children should be repealed ! Only if a criminal offence has been committed against a child (any child) can such an injunction be justified.

Scrap emotional abuse as an excuse for removing children


 
 
The cold facts are as follows:-
1;-Thousand of young children and even babies at birth are taken by social workers for a prediction of "risk of emotional abuse" .Far more than those suffering physical abuse who are like baby P often left to die.
2:-The judges agree with social services 99% of the time and allow these children to be given away to strangers for adoption against the will of parents who fight to no avail in countless expensive court cases.
3:-If the parents protest publicly with names they are jailed "to protect their own privacy !".Journalists can name parents in criminal cases but cannot name any parties or witnesses in family court cases so they rarely bother to go!
4:-Adoptions are closed (adopters are secret) in spite of research showing that open adoptions where parents know where their children are work better. Parents who manage to locate their children after adoption are jailed if they dare to wave at them in passing or send a birthday card !
5:-Lord Justice Wall (The Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an "unsatisfactory care system" away from their families was "quite shocking".In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the West of England" !
6:-The remedies are simple .When permanent or long term separation of parents from children is envisaged parents should have the same rights as a burglar or libelled person and demand to be heard by a jury.(Most judges are NOT like Lord Wall or Lord Aikens) Hearsay,(testimony from absent witnesses) must be banned as it already is in "normal" UK courts.
Lastly the gag must be removed from parents (not necessarily the press)who like rape victims should always be allowed to talk freely about their own case if the choose to do so, and to converse freely with their children at "contact" without censorship !

Why is this idea important?


 
 
The cold facts are as follows:-
1;-Thousand of young children and even babies at birth are taken by social workers for a prediction of "risk of emotional abuse" .Far more than those suffering physical abuse who are like baby P often left to die.
2:-The judges agree with social services 99% of the time and allow these children to be given away to strangers for adoption against the will of parents who fight to no avail in countless expensive court cases.
3:-If the parents protest publicly with names they are jailed "to protect their own privacy !".Journalists can name parents in criminal cases but cannot name any parties or witnesses in family court cases so they rarely bother to go!
4:-Adoptions are closed (adopters are secret) in spite of research showing that open adoptions where parents know where their children are work better. Parents who manage to locate their children after adoption are jailed if they dare to wave at them in passing or send a birthday card !
5:-Lord Justice Wall (The Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an "unsatisfactory care system" away from their families was "quite shocking".In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as "more like Stalin's Russia or Mao's China than the West of England" !
6:-The remedies are simple .When permanent or long term separation of parents from children is envisaged parents should have the same rights as a burglar or libelled person and demand to be heard by a jury.(Most judges are NOT like Lord Wall or Lord Aikens) Hearsay,(testimony from absent witnesses) must be banned as it already is in "normal" UK courts.
Lastly the gag must be removed from parents (not necessarily the press)who like rape victims should always be allowed to talk freely about their own case if the choose to do so, and to converse freely with their children at "contact" without censorship !

ban injunctions preventing non criminal parents contacting their children

Parents with no criminal records  are often served with injunctions forbidding them to contact their own children by email,phone,or face to face.I refer especially to cases where children have been taken from them for "risk of emotional abuse",or for "witnessing domestic violence" (often only verbal) and then forcibly adopted by strangers.

Parents who find out where their adopted children have got to, via facebook,utube,twitter,and other sites are jailed if they so much as wave at their children as they pass by in a car ! The father concerned was a month in jail but eventually his daughter returned to him.

A mother was recently handcuffed publicly and jailed for sending her son a birthday card,and yet another mother was jailed because her brother (without her permission) put photographs of mother and children on a video for utube !

I believe that any judge serving an injunction on any parent who has no criminal record forbidding them even long distance contact with their own children is breaching the Human Rights of both children and parents and there should be legislation to prevent similar injunctions in the future.  

Why is this idea important?

Parents with no criminal records  are often served with injunctions forbidding them to contact their own children by email,phone,or face to face.I refer especially to cases where children have been taken from them for "risk of emotional abuse",or for "witnessing domestic violence" (often only verbal) and then forcibly adopted by strangers.

Parents who find out where their adopted children have got to, via facebook,utube,twitter,and other sites are jailed if they so much as wave at their children as they pass by in a car ! The father concerned was a month in jail but eventually his daughter returned to him.

A mother was recently handcuffed publicly and jailed for sending her son a birthday card,and yet another mother was jailed because her brother (without her permission) put photographs of mother and children on a video for utube !

I believe that any judge serving an injunction on any parent who has no criminal record forbidding them even long distance contact with their own children is breaching the Human Rights of both children and parents and there should be legislation to prevent similar injunctions in the future.  

REWARD ALL WHISTLEBLOWERS !!

At present all whistleblowers are persecuted and sometimes even prosecuted when they uncover a major scandal involving either Local or National government.

This should change completely and legislation should be introduced to REWARD any person publishing information that uncovers a gross inefficiency,a gross illegality,or gross negligence in any government department whether local or national.Government departments should be targetted by their own employees and should be grateful instead of outraged.The rewards could be decided by an arbitrator who would see that the sums awarded were commensurate with the size of the fraud or wastage uncovered;I myself as a businessman am grateful to any employee who uncovers and reports wastage or bad practice in my company.I believe that  government departments should have the same attitude if they really want to make economies.

Why is this idea important?

At present all whistleblowers are persecuted and sometimes even prosecuted when they uncover a major scandal involving either Local or National government.

This should change completely and legislation should be introduced to REWARD any person publishing information that uncovers a gross inefficiency,a gross illegality,or gross negligence in any government department whether local or national.Government departments should be targetted by their own employees and should be grateful instead of outraged.The rewards could be decided by an arbitrator who would see that the sums awarded were commensurate with the size of the fraud or wastage uncovered;I myself as a businessman am grateful to any employee who uncovers and reports wastage or bad practice in my company.I believe that  government departments should have the same attitude if they really want to make economies.

Allow freedom to build without planning permission outside green belts

I AM NOT CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING TRADE IN ANY WAY, but I often read of householders being forced to demolish improvements to their properties or sometimes entire houses and that seems wrong.

If it's your land you should build whatever you like on it as long as it is not part of a designated green belt.Freedom to build and freedom to charge whatever rent a property willfetch with freedom to evict those who do not pay their rent !

All this sounds impossible and old fashioned,but I THINK REMOVING REGULATION WOULD SOLVE THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND THROUGH COMPETITION RENTS WOULD GO DOWN NOT UP !

Why is this idea important?

I AM NOT CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING TRADE IN ANY WAY, but I often read of householders being forced to demolish improvements to their properties or sometimes entire houses and that seems wrong.

If it's your land you should build whatever you like on it as long as it is not part of a designated green belt.Freedom to build and freedom to charge whatever rent a property willfetch with freedom to evict those who do not pay their rent !

All this sounds impossible and old fashioned,but I THINK REMOVING REGULATION WOULD SOLVE THE HOUSING SHORTAGE AND THROUGH COMPETITION RENTS WOULD GO DOWN NOT UP !

scrap emergency protection orders leaving child removals to police

Social workers remove too many babies and young children without good reason.They are seldom refused emergency protection orders by magistrates who take no chances but never hear what parents have to say until 2 or 3 days later!

These orders should be abolished and child removals should be left to the police who should only do so if armed with a police protection order to show to the parents.Police should only apply for such an order if they can show reasonable grounds for believing the baby or young child is at serious risk of significant physical harm;

Why is this idea important?

Social workers remove too many babies and young children without good reason.They are seldom refused emergency protection orders by magistrates who take no chances but never hear what parents have to say until 2 or 3 days later!

These orders should be abolished and child removals should be left to the police who should only do so if armed with a police protection order to show to the parents.Police should only apply for such an order if they can show reasonable grounds for believing the baby or young child is at serious risk of significant physical harm;

Replace income tax and nh contributions by a payrolltax

Income taxes and nh contributions are simply a penalty on working and are also highly intrusive placing the worker in an adversarial position to the government !

A payroll tax similar to that in France of around 60% for which the employer alone is responsible would bring in more revenue,and would crush the "black economy" since only the employer would have to declare the payroll and its total amount . If he did not declare an employee  he would be at that person's mercy thereafter since the employee would be committing no offence ,only the employer ! There would be no more tax dodging by working "on the side" since there would be no benefit to the employee to do so ! The "worker would keep every penny he earned;

The system would of course have to be phased in over a period of time and vat on luxury goods would be increased as would high value property taxes so that if the rich made themselves employees they would still have to pay more for what they wanted in order to live their customary  lifestyle.Tax havens and tax dodging would become redundant !

Why is this idea important?

Income taxes and nh contributions are simply a penalty on working and are also highly intrusive placing the worker in an adversarial position to the government !

A payroll tax similar to that in France of around 60% for which the employer alone is responsible would bring in more revenue,and would crush the "black economy" since only the employer would have to declare the payroll and its total amount . If he did not declare an employee  he would be at that person's mercy thereafter since the employee would be committing no offence ,only the employer ! There would be no more tax dodging by working "on the side" since there would be no benefit to the employee to do so ! The "worker would keep every penny he earned;

The system would of course have to be phased in over a period of time and vat on luxury goods would be increased as would high value property taxes so that if the rich made themselves employees they would still have to pay more for what they wanted in order to live their customary  lifestyle.Tax havens and tax dodging would become redundant !

Scrap ALL laws passed since 1960 that impose penalties

Too many laws passed in the last 50 years that are completely unnecessary !The UK was in many ways a better place before the swinging 60's.Acts of Paliament are passed couched in language that no ordinary person can understand by MPs,most of whom have never read them! They say ignorance of the law is no defence,yet the only way we know when a new law comes into operation is through the press or when someone is convicted !

Scrap all new laws passed in the last 50 years that penalize those who break them !What a change ther'd be ,what a breath of fresh air !

WE COULD ALL SHOUT JOYFULLY ,THE NANNY STATE IS DEAD !

Why is this idea important?

Too many laws passed in the last 50 years that are completely unnecessary !The UK was in many ways a better place before the swinging 60's.Acts of Paliament are passed couched in language that no ordinary person can understand by MPs,most of whom have never read them! They say ignorance of the law is no defence,yet the only way we know when a new law comes into operation is through the press or when someone is convicted !

Scrap all new laws passed in the last 50 years that penalize those who break them !What a change ther'd be ,what a breath of fresh air !

WE COULD ALL SHOUT JOYFULLY ,THE NANNY STATE IS DEAD !

repeal non life threatening health and safety laws

If the State tries too hard to protect us from minor incidents we will be unprepared for major incidents when they occur.This applies particularly to children;

Quite simply the health and safety authorities should be forbidden to interfere with any activity unless a there is reasonable expectation that there is a risk of death or serious injury likely to occur.

Children will then be free to play "conkers" and take part in"egg and spoon races" and adult functions will be able to take place without restrictions from hordes of officials.

Why is this idea important?

If the State tries too hard to protect us from minor incidents we will be unprepared for major incidents when they occur.This applies particularly to children;

Quite simply the health and safety authorities should be forbidden to interfere with any activity unless a there is reasonable expectation that there is a risk of death or serious injury likely to occur.

Children will then be free to play "conkers" and take part in"egg and spoon races" and adult functions will be able to take place without restrictions from hordes of officials.

Ban employment tribunals and rent tribunals !

It's called "the law of unintended consequences"!

Give tenants security of tenure and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? A shortage of cheap rented furnished accommodation and a requirement of at least one month's deposit and one month 's rent in advance when previously a week of each would have sufficed,putting tha accommodation within the reach of an awful lot more people !

Give employees security in their jobs and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? Unemployment alas ! Nobody can force you to continue to buy meat from your local butcher if the quality deteriorates,so nobody should force you to continue to buy labour from someone who no longer give the service you want ! If you force employers to keep those they no longer want or require it's bad for business and it makes employers a bit more hesitant about employing someone who has been out of work for some time or who has a criminal record.

One reason that the USA is still the richest and most powerful country in the world is because people in general work harder and longer and value their jobs because they will get fired if they don't ! Nobody should be able to force an unwilling employer to keep them in a job because that demeans the value of the job and reduces the mobility of labour that eventually ensures a prosprous society.

I am sure I am preaching heresy here to the proponents of the politically correct,but the sad fact is that security of tenure of jobs means inefficient businesses and unemployment,whilst security of tenure in rented accomodation just means a shortage for those who cannot raise the resulting increased downpayments !

Why is this idea important?

It's called "the law of unintended consequences"!

Give tenants security of tenure and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? A shortage of cheap rented furnished accommodation and a requirement of at least one month's deposit and one month 's rent in advance when previously a week of each would have sufficed,putting tha accommodation within the reach of an awful lot more people !

Give employees security in their jobs and it sounds good ! What are the consequences? Unemployment alas ! Nobody can force you to continue to buy meat from your local butcher if the quality deteriorates,so nobody should force you to continue to buy labour from someone who no longer give the service you want ! If you force employers to keep those they no longer want or require it's bad for business and it makes employers a bit more hesitant about employing someone who has been out of work for some time or who has a criminal record.

One reason that the USA is still the richest and most powerful country in the world is because people in general work harder and longer and value their jobs because they will get fired if they don't ! Nobody should be able to force an unwilling employer to keep them in a job because that demeans the value of the job and reduces the mobility of labour that eventually ensures a prosprous society.

I am sure I am preaching heresy here to the proponents of the politically correct,but the sad fact is that security of tenure of jobs means inefficient businesses and unemployment,whilst security of tenure in rented accomodation just means a shortage for those who cannot raise the resulting increased downpayments !

SCRAP THE COMPENSATION CULTURE !

RACIAL ABUSE AND SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION are both wrong and hurtful but the compensation to the so called victims has got right out of hand !

When a typist who sprains her thumb gets 3 time as much compensation as a soldier who has had both his legs blown off surely common sense should intervene? If some anti semitic slob calls me a yid I don't want to call the police and I certainly don't expect "compensation" if we both happen to be working for the same boss! I have a mouth too and I can use it to good effect without any  help from the State.Similarly if a policewoman cannot stand sexual banter at work she is in the wrong job and should not be seeking compensation for the hurt to her delicate feelings !

Quite simply there should be NO COMPENSATION for verbal abuse or "hurt feelings" of any kind and if that puts a few lawyers out of work I am sure I am very sorry !  Minor injuries should be covered by insurance not by lawsuits and simple legislation could enforce these reforms. 

Why is this idea important?

RACIAL ABUSE AND SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION are both wrong and hurtful but the compensation to the so called victims has got right out of hand !

When a typist who sprains her thumb gets 3 time as much compensation as a soldier who has had both his legs blown off surely common sense should intervene? If some anti semitic slob calls me a yid I don't want to call the police and I certainly don't expect "compensation" if we both happen to be working for the same boss! I have a mouth too and I can use it to good effect without any  help from the State.Similarly if a policewoman cannot stand sexual banter at work she is in the wrong job and should not be seeking compensation for the hurt to her delicate feelings !

Quite simply there should be NO COMPENSATION for verbal abuse or "hurt feelings" of any kind and if that puts a few lawyers out of work I am sure I am very sorry !  Minor injuries should be covered by insurance not by lawsuits and simple legislation could enforce these reforms. 

Reform family courts and the conduct of social workers

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Grammar schools within comprehensives and toughen up University entries

Entry to University should once again become much harder and much more competitive. Far too many who are not academically gifted get worthless degrees and end up with huge debts,no jobs,and a life on the dole when they could have been learning a useful trade.
Similarly we should restore a Grammar school system but not the iniquitous "11+" with its "one strike and you are out" mentality.Grammar schools could exist within our comprehensive schools as a sort of "elite" (don't faint ye who are politically correct !) so that those who develop late could be "promoted" at 12 or 13 without actually changing schools, and those who couldn't make the grade would simply return to the mainstream also without changing schools.
Rigorous "streaming" is essential to allow those who are able but from deprived backgrounds to make full use of their talents and put them at the service of the nation.

 

Why is this idea important?

Entry to University should once again become much harder and much more competitive. Far too many who are not academically gifted get worthless degrees and end up with huge debts,no jobs,and a life on the dole when they could have been learning a useful trade.
Similarly we should restore a Grammar school system but not the iniquitous "11+" with its "one strike and you are out" mentality.Grammar schools could exist within our comprehensive schools as a sort of "elite" (don't faint ye who are politically correct !) so that those who develop late could be "promoted" at 12 or 13 without actually changing schools, and those who couldn't make the grade would simply return to the mainstream also without changing schools.
Rigorous "streaming" is essential to allow those who are able but from deprived backgrounds to make full use of their talents and put them at the service of the nation.

 

VERIFY LANGUAGE SCHOOLS BY THEIR ACCOUNTS

Visas for language students from countries such as Russia and China are at present only issued to "accredited" language schools.This is because there were so many bogus language schools that were mere visa factories devised to let in otherwise illegal immirants to the UK;

The problem with "accreditation" is that it is orientated to the quality of the teaching not the genuineness of the school.Simple homestays offering conversation without formal lessons are barred and even homestays with lessons have to conform to a set pattern more or less dictated by the British Council that has nothing to do with whether visas should be issued or not;The whole system is at present geared to forcing laguage schools to conform to a near identical pattern and that conception is something that the new goverment is pledged to avoid in its search for enterprise and new initiatives in the business world.

I suggest that the present inspectors for visa purposes should content themselves with determining whether or not the language school or business was bogus or genuine!This would be a lot less costly and would allow less expensive programmes to be offered to genuine foreign students fron those countries needind visas for their citizens to enter the UK.

Why is this idea important?

Visas for language students from countries such as Russia and China are at present only issued to "accredited" language schools.This is because there were so many bogus language schools that were mere visa factories devised to let in otherwise illegal immirants to the UK;

The problem with "accreditation" is that it is orientated to the quality of the teaching not the genuineness of the school.Simple homestays offering conversation without formal lessons are barred and even homestays with lessons have to conform to a set pattern more or less dictated by the British Council that has nothing to do with whether visas should be issued or not;The whole system is at present geared to forcing laguage schools to conform to a near identical pattern and that conception is something that the new goverment is pledged to avoid in its search for enterprise and new initiatives in the business world.

I suggest that the present inspectors for visa purposes should content themselves with determining whether or not the language school or business was bogus or genuine!This would be a lot less costly and would allow less expensive programmes to be offered to genuine foreign students fron those countries needind visas for their citizens to enter the UK.

Scrap forced adoption and allow birth parents free speech !

Thousand of babies and young children are taken by social workers from their mothers for "risk of emotional abuse".These children are then ordered by compliant judges to be freed for adoption by complete strangers.If parents complain publicly they are jailed (around 200/year according to Harriet Harman) ,and more recently for sending birthday cards or waving as their children passed by in a taxi ! The UK is the only EU country with forced adoption(against the will of parents)  except "possibly Portugal" according to Baroness Hale in a House of Lords case and it is time for 3 reforms to remedy these flagrant injustices.

1:- In the interests of free speech the legal GAG on parents involved in family courts must be scrapped.Parents like rape victims should be FREE to make public the details of their personal histories and experiences in the family courts if they choose to do so.Parents visiting children in care should not have their conversations censored by social workers or their contact stopped if they dare to disciuss their case.

2:-Forced adoption  where parents oppose adoption in the courts) should be scrapped and all adoptions should be "open" so that birth parents know where their children are and cannot be jailed for communicating with them.Closed adoptions often mean that blameless loving parents lose track of their children for the rest of their lives because one parent may have mild learning difficulties,or be the victim of domestic violence,or quite simply being perceived likely in the future to emotionally abuse their children.FORCED ADOPTIONS AND CLOSED ADOPTIONS should be banned.

3:-A burglar facing  a possible 6 months jail can demand trial by jury ,but a mother can lose her children for life without that possibility.Judges hesitate to overule social services even when they criticise them in court probably because they themselves fear subsequent criticism whilst a jury becomes anonymous after the trial and would have no such inhibitions.In any case involving long term separation of parents and children the parents should have the right to demand hearing by a jury.Juries already act in the civil courts in libel cases and would be more than capable of deciding if children should or should not remain in the care of their parents. 

Why is this idea important?

Thousand of babies and young children are taken by social workers from their mothers for "risk of emotional abuse".These children are then ordered by compliant judges to be freed for adoption by complete strangers.If parents complain publicly they are jailed (around 200/year according to Harriet Harman) ,and more recently for sending birthday cards or waving as their children passed by in a taxi ! The UK is the only EU country with forced adoption(against the will of parents)  except "possibly Portugal" according to Baroness Hale in a House of Lords case and it is time for 3 reforms to remedy these flagrant injustices.

1:- In the interests of free speech the legal GAG on parents involved in family courts must be scrapped.Parents like rape victims should be FREE to make public the details of their personal histories and experiences in the family courts if they choose to do so.Parents visiting children in care should not have their conversations censored by social workers or their contact stopped if they dare to disciuss their case.

2:-Forced adoption  where parents oppose adoption in the courts) should be scrapped and all adoptions should be "open" so that birth parents know where their children are and cannot be jailed for communicating with them.Closed adoptions often mean that blameless loving parents lose track of their children for the rest of their lives because one parent may have mild learning difficulties,or be the victim of domestic violence,or quite simply being perceived likely in the future to emotionally abuse their children.FORCED ADOPTIONS AND CLOSED ADOPTIONS should be banned.

3:-A burglar facing  a possible 6 months jail can demand trial by jury ,but a mother can lose her children for life without that possibility.Judges hesitate to overule social services even when they criticise them in court probably because they themselves fear subsequent criticism whilst a jury becomes anonymous after the trial and would have no such inhibitions.In any case involving long term separation of parents and children the parents should have the right to demand hearing by a jury.Juries already act in the civil courts in libel cases and would be more than capable of deciding if children should or should not remain in the care of their parents.