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?

 

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.

Jails are for punishment, not a holiday camp

I think the old TV series Porridge best sets out the way prisons used to be.

If you did a crime you was sent to jail as a punishment, the punishement was a removal of your luxuries, removal of your freedom, you was kept locked up to think about what you had done and hopefully deter you from doing them again.

However, todays jails are nothing more than holiday camps, people are not afarid to go to jail anymore, why not?  you get a roof over your head, you are fed very well everyday, you have a TV and playstaton in your cell, you go to the gym and work out and  get fit so you dont get outrun by the police next time.

Seriously am I the only person who is appauled by this??

Being sent to jail is punishment for a crime you commited against society and the convicted should be made to feel that they are being punnished, today they feel they are being rewarded.

Why is this idea important?

I think the old TV series Porridge best sets out the way prisons used to be.

If you did a crime you was sent to jail as a punishment, the punishement was a removal of your luxuries, removal of your freedom, you was kept locked up to think about what you had done and hopefully deter you from doing them again.

However, todays jails are nothing more than holiday camps, people are not afarid to go to jail anymore, why not?  you get a roof over your head, you are fed very well everyday, you have a TV and playstaton in your cell, you go to the gym and work out and  get fit so you dont get outrun by the police next time.

Seriously am I the only person who is appauled by this??

Being sent to jail is punishment for a crime you commited against society and the convicted should be made to feel that they are being punnished, today they feel they are being rewarded.

The sentence needs to fit the crime

 

 

When did you last hear that someone convicted of a crime and given a life sentence is told that means something like seven years? And that is when the sentence is handed down, not later!

When did you hear of a murderer getting a lesser sentence because… well because of anything? Does it really matter unless it was accidental? Life should mean life (if not capital punishment) and the prisoner having to earn his keep and not live in luxury. He should only have a piss pot and a toothbrush in a small space except when he is at work earning his rent, the cost of heating in the winter, a bit of Dickensian nosh and a basic bed to sleep on.

Of course, this is very draconian and you do not need to be that cruel, but why are sentences so short and soft? Why do we pay for them when prisoners should pay for themselves in prison and be made to dread so much a second term that being more law abiding is likely merely out of self-interest if not remorse?

Can we also please get rid of Brussels on human rights. What human right do they have over the Brits in the name of European trade?

Can we also put people before property and private property before business. Have a look and you will find it is anything but the case.

And last but most, when a person commits a crime he forsakes his human rights. If I attack him directly because of it he has no comeback on me unless my response is wildly disproportionate.

Why is this idea important?

 

 

When did you last hear that someone convicted of a crime and given a life sentence is told that means something like seven years? And that is when the sentence is handed down, not later!

When did you hear of a murderer getting a lesser sentence because… well because of anything? Does it really matter unless it was accidental? Life should mean life (if not capital punishment) and the prisoner having to earn his keep and not live in luxury. He should only have a piss pot and a toothbrush in a small space except when he is at work earning his rent, the cost of heating in the winter, a bit of Dickensian nosh and a basic bed to sleep on.

Of course, this is very draconian and you do not need to be that cruel, but why are sentences so short and soft? Why do we pay for them when prisoners should pay for themselves in prison and be made to dread so much a second term that being more law abiding is likely merely out of self-interest if not remorse?

Can we also please get rid of Brussels on human rights. What human right do they have over the Brits in the name of European trade?

Can we also put people before property and private property before business. Have a look and you will find it is anything but the case.

And last but most, when a person commits a crime he forsakes his human rights. If I attack him directly because of it he has no comeback on me unless my response is wildly disproportionate.