Default removal of children when abuse suspected.

Currently the 1989 Children Act presents a legal impasse between the need to discourage false allegations and to the need to encourage disclosure of genuine abuse. 

On first principal it as a clear case of choosing the lesser of two evils. 

However, if our society is to be guided by pragmatism, rather than idealism or, worse, paranoia, some new ideas are overdue. We also need to raise our ambitions beyond accepting "the lesser of two evils" for our children. 

I propose that if EITHER of a child's biological or legal parents feels it necessary to report abuse to the police then, BY DEFAULT, the children concerned should be taken into care while a maximum 28 day investigation takes place.

This investigation must prove False Suspicion, False Allegation or Charge. In the event of False Allegation or False Allegation the children should remain in care until a schedule of contact is agreed between mediators and all legal parents. In the case of Charge, the child is returned to a 'safe' parent.

I accept there are considerable short term negative impacts to this idea.

However, the current status quo is defined by huge long term negatives, not least if which is delays in investigation of abuse, an overcrowded Family Court system, children being unjustly barred from contact with their family for years and widespread perjury and malicious allegation being made with impunity.

Why is this idea important?

Currently the 1989 Children Act presents a legal impasse between the need to discourage false allegations and to the need to encourage disclosure of genuine abuse. 

On first principal it as a clear case of choosing the lesser of two evils. 

However, if our society is to be guided by pragmatism, rather than idealism or, worse, paranoia, some new ideas are overdue. We also need to raise our ambitions beyond accepting "the lesser of two evils" for our children. 

I propose that if EITHER of a child's biological or legal parents feels it necessary to report abuse to the police then, BY DEFAULT, the children concerned should be taken into care while a maximum 28 day investigation takes place.

This investigation must prove False Suspicion, False Allegation or Charge. In the event of False Allegation or False Allegation the children should remain in care until a schedule of contact is agreed between mediators and all legal parents. In the case of Charge, the child is returned to a 'safe' parent.

I accept there are considerable short term negative impacts to this idea.

However, the current status quo is defined by huge long term negatives, not least if which is delays in investigation of abuse, an overcrowded Family Court system, children being unjustly barred from contact with their family for years and widespread perjury and malicious allegation being made with impunity.

Abolish laws which prevent the disabled from parenting

The disabled can parent with support. Currently the mentally disabled parent is not allowed to live with their child nor to see there child regularly. This causes emotional and mental harm to children and there parents.. This defeats the objective of the the law in itself of preventing harm to children. So it should be abolished

Why is this idea important?

The disabled can parent with support. Currently the mentally disabled parent is not allowed to live with their child nor to see there child regularly. This causes emotional and mental harm to children and there parents.. This defeats the objective of the the law in itself of preventing harm to children. So it should be abolished

Revoke Sarah’s Law, The Children’s Act (2004) et al

Much of the rhetoric governing all things child abuse evolves from roots borne out of the Feminist movement of the 1960's.  As a result, it is almost impossible to effectively challenge any degree of thinking that contradicts or conflicts with what is stated as a given today.  For example, in the climate of fear which now exists if a child is murdered, the instant national hysteria that erupts is fuelled not by a media clamouring for something newsworthy but largely by those who claim to be 'campaigners' for children's rights/issues.

The list includes the NSPCC, Barnado's, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (most notably Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall), and the children's charity set up by Michele Elliott, Kidscape, as well as several other individuals – including Esther Rantzen and Sara Payne.  Together, we are informed by them that child abuse or child death is akin to a nightmare being visited upon us all and one from which there is no escape.  Collectively, we shirk back in fear, because the words come from credible sources.  So we dare not challenge them.

Over the past 20-30 years, these once respected organisations, along with some of the newer ones, have been in receipt of ever-growing state funding, (actual amounts to be found  in accounts submitted to the Charities Commission on an annual basis) and this is overlooked on the basis that children are being protected.  But what are children being protected from?  And why are they being protected?  What is this danger that now exists?  What happened a generation ago that seemingly eradicated common-sense and replaced it with a mindset that now wishes to submit Society to evermore stringent requirements, so much so that no-one can be seen to be innocent, without first be able to prove it?  Of equal importance, is that as state funding increases, these organisations and individuals have become evermore duplicitious given that any independence they once enjoyed has been so compromised.

Child abuse is real.  For those of us who know what it feels like, there is no doubt that it influences our lives.  But so what?  There are many, many people, children included, who have experienced far worse, such as the death of a parent, or no parents, yet scant if any attention is afforded them.  Instead, we substitute reason with an alarmist modus operandi bordering on vigilantiism at times – for the sake of 50 – 200 children a year who die at the hands of adults, depending on the accuracy of figures used.

It is this lack of perspective that gives rise to laws that never should have come into being; such as the Children's Act of 1989, given Royal Assent in 2004, and later, Sarah's Law, indirectly as a result of the death of Sarah Payne.  What is not acknowledged is that there is no law which ever could prevent all child deaths, any more than murder can be prevented, or rape can be, or that drug addiction can be fully eradicated.  Yet we allow ourselves to be collectively misled by those who suggest that 'if only' we adopted 'this law' or 'that criminal check', then such pain could be avoided.  It cannot – and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.  The best any of us can hope to achieve is to perhaps ameliorate the level of child abuse but we cannot and never will eradicate it, and nor should we seek to do so as it is this wrongful degree of emphasis that gives rise to the fear of paedophilia that we see today.  There should be a level of acceptance that at some point that acknowledges our limits and abilities, and it is because we do not have such limits that we then have expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

What if many of the laws and checks now in place actually contribute to a rise in children being harmed?  What if, in their constant competition to win public support, bodies such as the NSPCC and Barnado's have gone too far with 'raising people's awareness'?  That instead of gently letting the population know they are there should people require their support, they realised that they were being left behind when a more aggressive stance was adopted by some, such as Esther Rantzen and Michele Elliott?  Who, between them have succeeded in raising people's awareness so acutely that most adults are terrified, lest they step out of line by doing something as innocuous as taking a photograph of their children in a park for example.  This is not raising awareness, it may have been once, twenty-five years ago but it has morphed into a zealousness bordering on obsession. 

We are encouraged to teach our children that we – that they must not discriminate.  We do this in part, because of the growing numbers of immigrants within our population and we do not want to be seen to be intolerant of them.  Yet those who teach such rhetoric fail on two counts.  They first do not understand what the original problem is, if any and secondly, make pronouncements based upon biased thinking.  Long before it became 'illegal' to discriminate, we all got along pretty nicely.  The English hated the Irish and the Scots and the Welsh for one reason or another and the Irish, Scots and Welsh all hated the English.  It worked quite well for hundreds of years, until we are told, that it is a criminal offence to say that we hated one or the other.

The result is that children are now not taught how to discriminate because it is seen as a 'dirty' word.  One consequence is that children are now collectively so immature that their age of maturity has been reduced by two years in the past 20 years.  This does little to prepare them for the world.  It may also give some insight as to why so many children seem to lose sight of all reason when on the internet – that because they do not discriminate, they no longer know how to in order to retain a basic level of safety.

Yet human survival is based upon an ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

To all the child abuse agencies and 'do-gooders' who want to 'help' – if the intent is genuine, it can best be achieved by leaving 'us' alone and instead focussing on that which hurts children most, for it is not child abuse, it is children's parents marriages breaking up or not having parents (i.e. mother and father) at all – this is far more devastating than any abuse and has far greater repercussions in later life.  Although it is widely known, this cultural shift over the last 30 years is rarely focussed on, for there are many more people who would then be 'guilty' of harming their children in this way than abuse by a paedophile ever could be.

An abuser may sometimes victimise children but it is the agencies and charities who ensure that children remain as victims.  Nasty things sometimes happen to some people, but victims do have a choice.  We can acknowledge (if not fully accept) what happens or we can fight it.  If we accept it, this leads to understanding and insight, sometimes forgiveness – but what is not forgiveable is those who tell us that it is acceptable to remain as victims. 

Even a paedophile does not leave this kind of stigma on those who have been abused.

Why is this idea important?

Much of the rhetoric governing all things child abuse evolves from roots borne out of the Feminist movement of the 1960's.  As a result, it is almost impossible to effectively challenge any degree of thinking that contradicts or conflicts with what is stated as a given today.  For example, in the climate of fear which now exists if a child is murdered, the instant national hysteria that erupts is fuelled not by a media clamouring for something newsworthy but largely by those who claim to be 'campaigners' for children's rights/issues.

The list includes the NSPCC, Barnado's, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (most notably Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall), and the children's charity set up by Michele Elliott, Kidscape, as well as several other individuals – including Esther Rantzen and Sara Payne.  Together, we are informed by them that child abuse or child death is akin to a nightmare being visited upon us all and one from which there is no escape.  Collectively, we shirk back in fear, because the words come from credible sources.  So we dare not challenge them.

Over the past 20-30 years, these once respected organisations, along with some of the newer ones, have been in receipt of ever-growing state funding, (actual amounts to be found  in accounts submitted to the Charities Commission on an annual basis) and this is overlooked on the basis that children are being protected.  But what are children being protected from?  And why are they being protected?  What is this danger that now exists?  What happened a generation ago that seemingly eradicated common-sense and replaced it with a mindset that now wishes to submit Society to evermore stringent requirements, so much so that no-one can be seen to be innocent, without first be able to prove it?  Of equal importance, is that as state funding increases, these organisations and individuals have become evermore duplicitious given that any independence they once enjoyed has been so compromised.

Child abuse is real.  For those of us who know what it feels like, there is no doubt that it influences our lives.  But so what?  There are many, many people, children included, who have experienced far worse, such as the death of a parent, or no parents, yet scant if any attention is afforded them.  Instead, we substitute reason with an alarmist modus operandi bordering on vigilantiism at times – for the sake of 50 – 200 children a year who die at the hands of adults, depending on the accuracy of figures used.

It is this lack of perspective that gives rise to laws that never should have come into being; such as the Children's Act of 1989, given Royal Assent in 2004, and later, Sarah's Law, indirectly as a result of the death of Sarah Payne.  What is not acknowledged is that there is no law which ever could prevent all child deaths, any more than murder can be prevented, or rape can be, or that drug addiction can be fully eradicated.  Yet we allow ourselves to be collectively misled by those who suggest that 'if only' we adopted 'this law' or 'that criminal check', then such pain could be avoided.  It cannot – and it is dangerous to suggest otherwise.  The best any of us can hope to achieve is to perhaps ameliorate the level of child abuse but we cannot and never will eradicate it, and nor should we seek to do so as it is this wrongful degree of emphasis that gives rise to the fear of paedophilia that we see today.  There should be a level of acceptance that at some point that acknowledges our limits and abilities, and it is because we do not have such limits that we then have expectations that cannot be fulfilled.

What if many of the laws and checks now in place actually contribute to a rise in children being harmed?  What if, in their constant competition to win public support, bodies such as the NSPCC and Barnado's have gone too far with 'raising people's awareness'?  That instead of gently letting the population know they are there should people require their support, they realised that they were being left behind when a more aggressive stance was adopted by some, such as Esther Rantzen and Michele Elliott?  Who, between them have succeeded in raising people's awareness so acutely that most adults are terrified, lest they step out of line by doing something as innocuous as taking a photograph of their children in a park for example.  This is not raising awareness, it may have been once, twenty-five years ago but it has morphed into a zealousness bordering on obsession. 

We are encouraged to teach our children that we – that they must not discriminate.  We do this in part, because of the growing numbers of immigrants within our population and we do not want to be seen to be intolerant of them.  Yet those who teach such rhetoric fail on two counts.  They first do not understand what the original problem is, if any and secondly, make pronouncements based upon biased thinking.  Long before it became 'illegal' to discriminate, we all got along pretty nicely.  The English hated the Irish and the Scots and the Welsh for one reason or another and the Irish, Scots and Welsh all hated the English.  It worked quite well for hundreds of years, until we are told, that it is a criminal offence to say that we hated one or the other.

The result is that children are now not taught how to discriminate because it is seen as a 'dirty' word.  One consequence is that children are now collectively so immature that their age of maturity has been reduced by two years in the past 20 years.  This does little to prepare them for the world.  It may also give some insight as to why so many children seem to lose sight of all reason when on the internet – that because they do not discriminate, they no longer know how to in order to retain a basic level of safety.

Yet human survival is based upon an ability to distinguish between friend and foe.

To all the child abuse agencies and 'do-gooders' who want to 'help' – if the intent is genuine, it can best be achieved by leaving 'us' alone and instead focussing on that which hurts children most, for it is not child abuse, it is children's parents marriages breaking up or not having parents (i.e. mother and father) at all – this is far more devastating than any abuse and has far greater repercussions in later life.  Although it is widely known, this cultural shift over the last 30 years is rarely focussed on, for there are many more people who would then be 'guilty' of harming their children in this way than abuse by a paedophile ever could be.

An abuser may sometimes victimise children but it is the agencies and charities who ensure that children remain as victims.  Nasty things sometimes happen to some people, but victims do have a choice.  We can acknowledge (if not fully accept) what happens or we can fight it.  If we accept it, this leads to understanding and insight, sometimes forgiveness – but what is not forgiveable is those who tell us that it is acceptable to remain as victims. 

Even a paedophile does not leave this kind of stigma on those who have been abused.

The Family Rights Act – 2010

Mr Cameron you are right..our  society is 'broken' and wee have a problem.

Current family law is a mess and fails children and fathers alike.

It is all to easy for a woman at the moment to get a divorse, + a hansome financial settlement even in 'short' marriage and get primary care of the children. The vast majority of men did not long to have children, respecting the union of marriage, only to have the horror not only of divorse but to then find children taken away and contact denied so easily by abusive mothers.

All this is possible currently under the shocking legislation known as the Children Act. We have the most regressive family law in the World it needs to change. It is time to  respect and enshrine the rights of each parent and give children fundamental human rights.

This country urgently needs to readdress the unfair avdantage that some abusive women can exercise over loving, responsible fathers over child access and contact.

Solution:  Abolish the Children Act.  Natural law and rights of father and children to be enshrined in legislation which will recognise fundamental Human Rights of the child to have equal access to a father unless it can be proved that it would not be in the best interests of the child. Women/ mothers to no longer have an assumed right to be primary carer of child. Each parent should apply on equal ground if they want of need more of less that 50% access caring responsibilities for child care. So what if the mother was child caring and the man working. If a partner wants to break up marriage each need to re apply on equal grounds of entitlement to contact.

Partntal responsibility. Abolish the current system whereby it is far too easy for a step parent (father)to aquire parental responsability by virtue of perhaps committing adultery with a married woman. Then adding his name to the childens name then aquiring parental responsibility. Under the current law,  not only is all of this possible it can be done with considerable ease..This has to be made much harder. 

 

I urge the repeal of the Childrens Act to be replaced with a new Bill of Family Rights. Let's give our children the rights they are entitled to and respect the value of marrige and the rights of fathers. I urge your support for change.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Mr Cameron you are right..our  society is 'broken' and wee have a problem.

Current family law is a mess and fails children and fathers alike.

It is all to easy for a woman at the moment to get a divorse, + a hansome financial settlement even in 'short' marriage and get primary care of the children. The vast majority of men did not long to have children, respecting the union of marriage, only to have the horror not only of divorse but to then find children taken away and contact denied so easily by abusive mothers.

All this is possible currently under the shocking legislation known as the Children Act. We have the most regressive family law in the World it needs to change. It is time to  respect and enshrine the rights of each parent and give children fundamental human rights.

This country urgently needs to readdress the unfair avdantage that some abusive women can exercise over loving, responsible fathers over child access and contact.

Solution:  Abolish the Children Act.  Natural law and rights of father and children to be enshrined in legislation which will recognise fundamental Human Rights of the child to have equal access to a father unless it can be proved that it would not be in the best interests of the child. Women/ mothers to no longer have an assumed right to be primary carer of child. Each parent should apply on equal ground if they want of need more of less that 50% access caring responsibilities for child care. So what if the mother was child caring and the man working. If a partner wants to break up marriage each need to re apply on equal grounds of entitlement to contact.

Partntal responsibility. Abolish the current system whereby it is far too easy for a step parent (father)to aquire parental responsability by virtue of perhaps committing adultery with a married woman. Then adding his name to the childens name then aquiring parental responsibility. Under the current law,  not only is all of this possible it can be done with considerable ease..This has to be made much harder. 

 

I urge the repeal of the Childrens Act to be replaced with a new Bill of Family Rights. Let's give our children the rights they are entitled to and respect the value of marrige and the rights of fathers. I urge your support for change.

 

 

The Childrens Act

The Children's Act was introduced to protect children from all forms of abuse but it has failed to protect many and led to a Country where the discipline of children is frowned upon.

Why is this idea important?

The Children's Act was introduced to protect children from all forms of abuse but it has failed to protect many and led to a Country where the discipline of children is frowned upon.