MAAJID NAWAZ: Another Change Agent subverting Democracy by manufacturing & imposing a ”Consensus Reality”


For those who have come up ”close & personal” with this Change Agent Modis Operandi at Local Council level & elsewhere there is now help at hand.  First one must identify who the Change Agents are and then understand the tactics they use and finally realise that these operatives have been trained to do what they do by tptwtb.  They are tptwtb’s current ”gofers.”  Here’s one of ’em.

Anybody can make spurious links between diverse  outlandish positions in order to confuse & conflate an issue that might be troubling tptwtb.  For instance they are linking conservatism, xenophobia & climate change denial in Norway to try to pigeonhole persons & POVs which are not to the liking of ”the establishment”  there at the moment.  Bizarre – but this is what these characters are trained to do when they encounter someone who opposes them or who asks sensible questions and is able…

View original post 346 more words

4 Billion spent on private ‘care’ but no protection- Katie’s Story .


Even the head of the family courts admits over 72,500 in care is too many.

2019 AND all is worse see here

And many more are kidnapped, as my daughter was at 10 by s20 agreement forced by an LA threat of a care order.
Yet 10,000 a year go missing from ‘care’, managing themselves to escape.

LAs are made bankrupt paying for all this private ‘care’.

And there is no evidence it is protecting our children quite the reverse, many are groomed, never traced and so damaged are then fed into the billion pound private mental health industry.

Social workers are employed effectively by private companies and trained and paid to harvest for the care industry, and care courts rubber stamp, effectively kidnapping our children with our public money, spending billions on supposed child ‘protection’.

Judge here how permanent and successful a solution adoption is yet up to £54,000 of public money can be paid for a deemed ‘hard to adopt’ child.

Click to access Final_Report_-_3rd_April_2014v2.pdf

A residential school/ care home is paid up to 200,000 a year per pupil and US venture capital backed Acadia/Cambian are now the main providers.

Few Care Court judgements are published and even fewer on an adoption breakdown, here is an analysis of one that I found and wrote an article in the Solicitors Journal now no longer in existence despite being the main Solicitors periodical since 1823.

Unconditional Love

Grooming scandals, and the inept, process driven world of adoption exposed by Re K ( A Child: Post Adoption Placement Breakdown ) [2012] EWHC show child protection services remain systemically flawed, but still the government refuses to act, instead limiting judicial scrutiny of, and intervention into these services by a 26 week care proceedings limit.

The state promotes adoption, but has not yet monitored the number of adoption breakdowns, and encourages care orders, but cannot cope with, afford or even trace the over 67,000 orphans, it has now created and parents at a cost of £ 3 billon per annum.

75% of English residential homes are privately owned- 5 made £ 30million profit last year. Yet the £200,000 per annum, paid per child, does not even provide a proper 24 hour service, last year the police spent £ 40 million searching for 10,000 children who had absconded from care , the Department of Education’s published the figure at 930, with 80 still missing.

Re K, involved the removal of four year old ‘Katie’ from her poor parenting, fragile mentally mother and five siblings, to first over a year in foster care, and then to adoption by middle aged, middle class parents with their own two teenage girls, and finally to a residential placement/school, where Katie, at 14, suffered her most serious harm- rape by an acquaintance on one of her frequent absconsions.

The state promised Katie ‘a permanent family, who could offer her stability and unconditional love.

’To maximise her chances , the Coventry adoption social worker presented Katie in glowing terms, preferring her foster carers’ opinion, that she was ‘open and truthful’, to the Bradford guardian’s that she was’ sly and devious at times, and ‘has taken things that do not belong to her’.

The adoption panel were unaware that Katie had regularly witnessed her mother’s self – harm, and her older sister’s sexual abuse, and possibly her own, details only retrieved from her social work files four years later.

Her adoptive parents had stated in their application they ‘[did] not feel able to take a child who has been sexually abused’’, and admitted they would not have adopted Katie had they known of possible sexual abuse..

They were also only approved to adopt a child with’ no major emotional problems’ ,yet Katie, presented, ’as indiscriminate in her relations with adults’, ‘extremely needy’, and in need of ‘a good level of support following placement’.

Despite this Katie’s psychological assessment was glowing, stating she ‘could make secure attachments ’, but was written by the psychologist advising her foster parents, who had never met Katie.

A proper assessment was essential to ensure Katie was capable of forming the permanent attachments needed for a successful adoption.

Within three months of the final adoption order, following a glowing placement report, Katie now 7, was suspended from school for downloading pornography.

Three years later Katie was taking things, self- harming, absconding from home day and night, and blaming her mother for not being able to live with her birth family.

Only then, at age 11, did the post adoption support team arrange a consultation with CAMHS, access Katie’s social work files to begin her life story work and provided parenting strategies, which only served to decrease her parents’ warmth and empathy, so that they complained this was not what they ‘ signed up for’.

CAMHS’s diagnosis of a’ huge attachment disorder’ after an initial diagnosis of autism, ought to have been obvious to any informed observer, let alone an adoption support team.

CAMHS commenced Art Therapy, and advised Katie’s parents to change their parenting style.

A Family and Adolescent Support Services worker, initially ignorant of attachment disorders, worked with Katie and her ‘ support’ proved ineffective.

Later a court expert was to explain why.

Katie was ‘yearning to be accepted and nurtured for herself’. As her parents’ focus on high achievement… [did] not equip them easily to accept Katie unconditionally’. They trusted their own high achieving teenage daughters, which left Katie feeling a failure, and not part of the family.

The report of the Bradford Adoption Panel had already prophetically stated,
‘she would benefit from being in a home where she does not have to compete for attention’, but had not been ignored,

However with therapy, common sense and proper support, costing far less than Katie’s residential school, Katie could still have remained part of her new family and thrived.

But instead social services had held a professional meeting and noted, ‘professionals have offered as much as they can. Nothing else seems to have worked, only option is bring her into care’.

Declared the parents, ‘high risk abusive parents’, and commenced care proceedings arranging for Katie to be moved to a residential school over 100 miles away.

The parents knew nothing of these meetings or intentions, nor the effect of the subsequent care conference, despite working together to safeguard children guidance, and the accepted importance by Social Services of Katie maintaining her relationship with her parents.

Before Katie had been due to be driven by her parents to this ‘school’, she absconded and was found by the police, who in breach of their promise not to, drove Katie in the middle of the night to her residential school.

Katie complained her father had assaulted her, (- grabbed her in restraint for her own protection her, and to guide her to his car), both parents were arrested, but never charged.

Social services maintained a zero tolerance to restraint, advising her parents to let Katie abscond, wait 30 minutes, and ring the police. This, together with advice not to show anger, paradoxically resulted in Katie assuming her parents did not care, escalating her bad behaviour.

But by contrast restraint was allowed and used in her residential school by strangers.

Within a year of being in the childrens’ home Katie had absconded six times , been raped by an acquaintance, been physically restrained, spent a night in the police cells after an assault on a carer , and been fitted with a contraceptive implant, without her parents knowledge. Katie was not yet 15.

Although at the final hearing the parents conceded the care application, the judge insisted they fully contest.

And whilst he, and the expert agreed, that the threshold criteria was satisfied, Katie had suffered significant harm, and was beyond parental control, this was not due to her parents ‘punitive regime’. In any event they agreed with judicial guidelines, that apportioning blame is not generally in a child’s best interest.

As a care order could only worsen the parents’ relationship with the social services, and force them to say goodbye, and have ‘a very negative impact on Katie’, the judge preferred wardship, but felt restricted by 100 (2) (b) Childrens Act 1989, which appears to exclude such orders where a child is accommodated, or subject to a care order.

The Ministry of Justice’s Practice Direction 12 D, however, is far less restrictive, and states wardship should not be commenced unless it is clear that the issues concerning the child cannot be resolved under the Childrens Act 1989.

Thus it allows wardship, whenever there is no other means of satisfactorily resolving a care dispute, regardless of the current status of the child. Wardhip therefore, could and should allow ‘a legal framework which kept all parties on equal terms’, as it did in K Children 2012 EWHC, where it achieved the best outcomes for a family with four severely disabled children.

Had Katie’s parents applied for a wardship order, they would not need leave, and Katie might still be part of her family, instead, her parents were replaced by an independent reviewing officer, an executive of the social services, whose only check on their employers’ care of Katie is to refer them to CAFCASS for breach of Katie’s human rights. And to date no action has been taken against any authority for such breach.

A&S v Lancashire County Council [2012] EWHC saw a local authority sued for breach of two boys’ Articles 3, 6 and 8 rights, in forcing them to endure 77 and 96 different placements and abuse. Their IRO blamed a tick-box culture, non-existent supervision, inadequate training and a 200 caseload.

Such freestanding human rights actions are often overlooked by parents and children, because of a belief that there is a high threshold for engagement. But whilst the ECHR appears subsumed by the need to act in a child’s best interest, this interest is often best served by the maintenance of the family unit, and on such analysis, most interference by the state may be deemed substantial.

Katie’s parents could have sought a remedy for breaches of their, and Katie’s Article 8 rights, due to the social services procedural unfairness, and the removal of Katie into care. And clever injunctive use of Art 8 might ensure Katie’s future care was fit for purpose.

But they would have borne all the legal costs of the other side had they lost – an insurmountable hurdle to justice.

We will never know what happened to Katie, nor of the thousands in similar positions, who due to their attachment disorders ‘use a compulsively promiscuous strategy to avoid genuine intimacy’. Hale LJ has stated that ‘If the state is to interfere in the child’s right to respect for his family life, it has a duty to use its best endeavours to make good what it has taken away’. It certainly did neither for Katie, nor for many missing or abused in care.

Here is the profit already made from fostering from Corporate watch- most start off small as individual often social workers and then get taken over by the big boys there is scant accountability for services or oversight as this is by the LA who pay for and commission the services and would therefore be liable if they proved inadequate.
Foster Care Associates
Owned by: Jim Cockburn and Janet Rees through Ideapark Ltd
Income from foster care in 2014**: £127.2m
Payouts to owner in 2014: £7m
Highest paid director salary and other benefits: £406,000

National Fostering Agency (includes the Foster Care Agency)
Owned by: Stirling Square Capital Partners (previously Graphite Capital until April 2015)
Income from foster care in 2014*: £94.5m
Payouts to owners in 2014: £14.4m to Graphite Capital
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £318,112.
Acorn Care and Education (includes Fostering Solutions, Pathway Care Fostering and Heath Farm Fostering)
Owned by: Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan
Income from foster care in 2014*: £73.1m
Payouts to owners: £13m accrued in 2014
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £266,420
Partnerships in Children’s Services (includes Orange Grove, ISP, Fosterplus and Clifford House)
Owned by: Sovereign Capital
Income from foster care in 2014*: £29.8m
Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.9m
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: not shown in accounts
we have not heard back.
Swiis Foster Care
Owned by: Dev Dadral and family
Income from foster care in 2014: £29.4m
Payouts to owners in 2014: £1.5m (from the wider Swiis group, see below)
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £169,000
Capstone Foster Care
Owned by: Different individuals and companies (see below)
Income from foster care in 2015: £21.1m
Payouts to owners in 2015: £406,000
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £185,000

Compass Fostering (includes The Fostering Partnership, Eden Foster Care and Seafields Fostering)
Owned by: August Equity
Income from foster care in 2015: £25.9m
Payouts to owners in 2015: £3.1m accrued
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £131,000
Owners: shares are publicly-listed – Farouq and Haroon Sheikh biggest shareholders with 20%
Income from foster care in 2014: £12m
Payouts to owners in 2014: £240,000 in 2014
Highest paid director’s salary and other benefits: £324,000

Oliver Mc Gowan’s horrific death yet no NHS accountability

Thomas-Oliver-McGowanOliver was an athletic, handsome, mild mannered 18 year old, who had never been involved in any altercations, living happily with his family and was about to start a BTEC at a National Star college.

He was much loved by his family and friends and had travelled the world.

His only crime was to catch meningitis as a baby and develop mild autism and epilepsy.

But unnecessary, enforced antipsychotic medication caused his horrific death at just 18.

The result of an appalling catalogue of NHS arrogance, illegality, incompetence and their staggering inability to see their own medications were causing his problems and could kill him.

Yet there has been no enquiry, Coroner’s condemnation, nor anyone blamed.

The coroner concluded the antipsychotic drug that killed Oliver had been properly prescribed, regardless of lack of consent.

Here are the details of Oliver’s treatment by the NHS.
In October last year, Oliver was admitted to a general hospital because of his seizures

After several weeks of tests Oliver was discharged on antidepressant medication although Oliver was not depressed in any way.

This unnecessary antidepressant medication was increased and caused a change to Olivers mood and greatly increased his seizures

So despite not being depressed and this medication being shown to increase his seizures he remained on it Why ?

He was admitted back to the same hospital in December. And additionally given antipsychotic medications. The effect Of which were catastrophic.


as a result of his antisychotic and antidepressant- although Oliver was neither depressed or psychotic,his seizures and agitation increased .

Allowing him to be detained in hospital under Mental health Act section.

His parents unsuccessfully challenged the section on numerous occasions stating the obvious, that his medication was in fact causing his problems.

Doctors eventually decided to stop the antipsychotic medications and immediately Olivers mood improved and within days he was allowed home..

In April , Oliver was readmitted back to the same hospital again because of his seizures and agitation.

Oliver was again given antipsychotic medications one or more of which may have caused a serious side effect that affected his eyes, with them rolling up inside his skull and he was left like this for several hours but doctors dismissed it as behavioural.
Again Olivers mood changed significantly. He was hallucinating, having up to 30 seizures a day which we had never seen happen, problems urinating, extreme high blood pressure readings, sweating which may well have been linked to his medication.

Doctors interpreted Olivers autistic and learning difficulties as psychotic, despite these being ritualistic behaviours that were normal to him.

At his mother’s request Oliver was transferred to a specialist hospital who understood Oliver’s needs.

But the use of physical restraint was increased with up to eight staff being involved.

Oliver was not allowed any privacy with his personal care. He had three staff sat around his bed and he was kept in a darkened room.

Oliver was very frightened and told me how scared the staff were making him feel.

Oliver was again given different antipsychotic medications and detained against his will and transferred to a specialist mental health ward for people with a need for intensive support.

The different approach from staff allowed Oliver to improve within days.

The Unit staff were of the opinion that Oliver was not psychotic nor mentally ill and that his placement there was a total misuse of the Mental health act. Oliver was discharged after a few days into the care of a specialist learning disability team.

They were very supportive and letters from a consultant psychiatrist in learning disability saying he did not believe Oliver was psychotic or mentally ill. He believed Olivers behaviours were a result of autism and learning difficulties and an environment that was not adapted to meet his needs.
In October Oliver had a serious episode of epilepsy and was admitted to a different general hospital.

His parents gave the hospital doctors letters showing Olivers adverse reaction to antipsychotic medications and this was then written inThomas-Oliver-McGowan bold red ink on Olivers medical care sheets stating he was allergic to antipsychotics.

Oliver was intubated and later he developed severe pneumonia.

The safe guarding Officer were advised to use soft handcuffs to manage Olivers anxiety when his sedation was reduced and his parents were told to be present.

But when his sedation was reduced neither his parents nor handcuffs were presence and Oliver was reported to have become agitated and aggressive.

It is difficult to believe that somebody with severe double pneumonia, intubated and sedated would have the ability to become dangerously aggressive .

A consultant had met Oliver on 2 x 10 minute appointments as part of his community team.

She asked us about giving Oliver an antipsychotic but we made it very clear about Olivers previous reactions to this type of medication and she did NOT have our permission to administer any antipsychotic medications.

Oliver had also stated in the ambulance and also to doctors in A&E he did not want to be given antipychotic medications.
Despite this, Oliver was given an antipsychotic medication that evening whilst intubated.

Again after it was made clear to all doctors and nurses that they did not have permission to administer this.
After being given the antipsycholtic, Oliver developed a temprature of 41°. But treatment with antipsychotics continued.
As doctors thought his liver function was elevated he was not given any medication to control the temperature other than a blow up matress filled with cold air.
This was not effective at all and on several occasions the nurse forgot to turn it on leaving Oliver sweating underneath a plastic sheet.
Doctors could not understand the decline in Olivers condition as his pneumonia was improving, and sent him for a scan of his liver and lungs.

It was several more days before they scanned his brain.

It was so badly swollen it was bulging out the base of his scull.

The neurosurgeons and emergency doctors suspected NEUROLEPTIC MALIGNANT SYNDROME a side effect of antipsychotic medications.

And this was certified cause of death.

A week later the decision was made to turn Olivers life support machines off.

Oliver had died to protect staff ( and NHS from insurance issues ) from his presumed autistic aggression on waking yet he was intubulated and weak with pneumonia.

As no consent to drug had been given and Oliver had capacity so consent was needed this was a tortious battery to Oliver that directly resulted in his death.

Parents found his inquest frustrating and disheartening, they had no funded legal representation and the NHS trust adopted a defensive approach and the coroner was ferociously protective of the doctors who treated Oliver.

“We remain adamant that Oliver would not have died if he had not been administered the olanzapine, which we expressly forbade.
She said she was horrified that the consultant neuropsychiatrist who prescribed the olanzapine, Dr Monica Mohan, said she would do the same thing again.

about treatment

NHS Foundation Trusts – Monopoly Unaccountable For Private Profit NHS Services that control their private NHS CCG commissioners ?

Sheffield Primary Care LTD are a corporate body of GP share holders, effectively owned by SHSC, a private company from whom they are supposed to be commissioned by ie CCG.

So it would appear those who commission a service are owned by those they commission from.

So no choice of service and a massive conflict of interests and who is the service provider now accountable to ?

So services commissions are guaranteed regardless of service, CCGs have been subsumed into private corporate foundation trusts.

All can hide behind commercial confidentiality and effectively spend public money on their own private profit services.

via NHS Foundation Trusts – Monopoly Unaccountable Services ?

2011-2012 Issy in her National Autistic School 48 bruises, impaction.

The 18 month investigation by NHS England via a bespoke supposedly ‘independent’ paid by NHS England Company produced a report saying noone was to blame for Thomas Rawnsley’s horrific abuse and death, proving there is no accountability for the millions spent on the corporate residential ‘care’ of the learning disabled and autistic. Also proving that they will continue to die and suffer .

My own daughter as shown below suffered horrendous abuse from which she will never recover.
Physical with two untreated impaction one used as an excuse for £177,000 a year NAS residential school placement. Bites from other residence , 48 bruises, emotional abuse from a care worker still repeated today.
Meanwhile we her loving parents trying to cure all this abuse were cast as abusers and at 18 after several attempts with spying support workers including a fabricated assault, we were hauled to court and gagged. Issy to be removed to the very place in Sheffield, Kingdom House, Cambian UHS owned, where Thomas Rawnsley died on the very day he died
But as with Thomas all her suffering and abuse was hidden by all agencies self-harm, repeating strangers, autism.
So as all are still removed at 18 and the only support is hidden life , with all gagged.

How many more deaths ? How much more suffering and hell to make millions profit from our most vulnerable, voiceless.
What vicious cowards are those who perpetrate this evil in the name of ‘care merely for huge profit’.

via 2011-2012 Issy in her National Autistic School 48 bruises, impaction.