Here is my daughter’s new blog on her life as an artist and musician. She goes through a lot/hell with her sister and the dreadful situation at home and will be writing about her experiences and how she has survived through her Art and Music.
After turning 20 last month,and still feeling lost, Artwise and lifewise, I’ve thought to create an Art blog for self-motivation, publication and a means to vent. Perhaps with this method, I could help other young Artists also finding their feet in what they love by sharing my experiences.
A spiky profile scholastically, an introverted personality and a different attitude socially, propelled a need in me to find and express myself through Art. At the age of 5, I could barely count to 20. Nor, could I confidently recite half the alphabet! Yet, a single pencil and paper were all I needed to submerge myself in what I wanted to do, prompting praise and an acceptance of admission from the head of my private primary school. My simplistic landscape drawing compensated for the major deficiencies in my spelling and reading abilities she tested me on prior.
On 20th may 2019 Paula Thomas mother posted in Facebook;
‘So angry and frustrated today. There was supposed to be another pre inquest review in Sheffield tomorrow but its been adjourned. The reason its been adjourned is because nobody is interested in getting to the truth.
I remember the coroner telling me to be patient 4 years ago because the inquest would be thorough.
Thats complete rubbish, because the longer it goes on the less thorough it gets. 4 years of fighting before Thomas died and over 4 years since.
Nobodys doing anything, not even the few i had a little hope in are interested!!
Thomas’ voice needs to be heard!!
He shouldn’t have been dismissed when he was alive and he shouldn’t be dismissed now!!
Its very fucking cruel!!’
This is what Thomas went through in his few years on this earth. Why ?
Because he was born Downs and autistic. See Thomas blog posts.
We have now over a million Thomases with no voice, who as shown, will never have one.
As they are unaccountable, unseen Cashcows to venture capital.
Thomas’s residential placement at Kingdom House, Sheffield owned by the Campian Group, owned by UHS, who own Cygnet, is the only funded support for 16 + autistic and learning disabled through CCGs and the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
These are the monopoly providers of ‘care’ for life, enforced by court of protection, soon the executive under Liberty Safeguards
This is the future for all those labelled ‘autistic or learning disabled’ .
That is why harvesting is the media objective.
ATU patients are only released to chosen community living placements often owned by same company
My own daughter, was to be taken to Campian’s Kingdom House, the very day Thomas died there, and we could do nothing.
Campaigners do nothing, except manipulate by false hope and suppress the truth.
All is one unstoppable cabal, yet so many laws-MHA, MCA, HRA are being broken.
And this is an illustration of leading ‘outside authority’ on a local level, orchestrated and allowed by government policy and laws.
The campaign to remove from ATUs, will merely place all ASD/LD at the mercy of those at this level, increase the abuse Thomas suffered- Increase Whorlton Hall.
But with the horror of that abuse, not aired on media.
No campaigns/exposure for those in ‘community living’ like Thomas, even when death results.
Care Tec has already made a bid for the Campian Group extended to August.
It will float for millions, and millions will be paid to the Campian Directors, who put in place and presided over Thomas’ abuse.
Thomas, and the other nameless million, including my daughter, has made millions for directors, lawyers, auditors, expert witnesses, care agencies, pharma, charities, courts not to help them but to make them commodities for millions.
Out of what ?
The abuse and suffering of our most vulnerable and their parents, our court systems and humanity.
As a child, when my grandmother would say, ‘They’d skin a flea for its hide and fat’, I didn’t know how right she was.
on the coronavirus, at 5/6, we are told to volunteer our blood plasma
With an ever increasing free supply, in 2011 of 2 million units of blood red cells ( £125 a Unit),3,500 organs,4,000 tissue donors and 2,200 banked cord blood units, successive governments realised our ‘blood and guts’ could be worth a fortune on the global venture capital market .
So in 2008, a three year Strategic Plan created an Organ Donation Taskforce and a National Blood Service Strategy Review.
Then came Andrew Lanley’s NHS Blood and Transplant Commercial Review in 2011
NHS Blood and Transplant is a joint England and Wales Special Health Authority responsible for securing the safe supply of blood to the NHS in England and North Wales providing solid organs, tissues and haematopoietic stem cells to the NHS,and UK-wide responsibility for provision of organs from deceased donors for transplantation.
It also manages the NHS Organ Donor Register, the British Bone Marrow Registry and the NHS Cord Blood Bank
The Review concluded, ‘It is important that NHSBT operates as cost-effectively as possible, as this demonstrates good stewardship of public money and also, by reducing its costs, releases more money to be invested in patient care’.
Not surprisingly, it found,
‘Contracting out certain functions was the only one way of achieving greater cost-effectiveness’;
ie selling them off for profit, to allow any undisclosed buyer, forever control and profit from our freely given ‘blood and guts’ And the NHS has expense of buying the products back.
Other UK blood transfusion services were not included in the Review, but it was noted that there were opportunities for all the UK blood services to achieve efficiency savings through closer collaboration ( presumably with their for profit partners).
The Department of Health was recommended to lead on future work but the decision was left until after the Health and Social Care Bill 2010-11.
Which, largely gave away DOH powers, by placing all funds with NHS England through its local CCGs allowing them to sell off at will
NHSBT already outsourcers most of its support systems
In May 2011 when the NHSBT signed a contract for £150,000 per year to supply a company with 500 litres of surplus plasma, the Bureau of invetigative journalism were unable to obtain the name of the buyer, as NHSBT press officer was unable under their contract‘ but said the purchaser was based in the EU.
A Freedom of Information request was similarly dismissed on commercial confidentiality.
In July 2013 the government sold its 80% share in blood products company, Plasma Resources UK, which supplies the NHS with treatments for haemophilia and immune deficiencies to a US private equity firm Bain Capital for £230m
Former Health Minister Lord Owen said sensitive health assets should not be owned by a firm without shareholders and “answerability”
And Lord Owen, who sought to make the UK self-sufficient in blood supplies as Labour health minister in the 1970s, told BBC the sale was “extraordinary”.
“Remember this was bought by the Labour government in 2002, because of the danger to contamination of blood supplies by CJD – which most people think of as mad cow disease – and it was bought for the NHS and owned by the NHS.
“This is being sold to a private equity capital – this is not a public company with shareholders and public responsibilities and answerability.
Lord Owen, himself, an advisor to private equity firm – Terra Firma – said private,
equity had its uses but added: “What they basically do is fatten it up over a few years, invest in order to sell at very high substantial prices.”
He said that, while the government might make a profit, there were concerns about the level of corporate governance of a sensitive health asset. adding
“Is there no limit to how this government will privatise assets?”
Bain said it intended to change the firm into “a UK-based life sciences champion”.
So 3 years later, Bain sold its share- bought for 230 million, to Chinese company Creat, for £820m.
A lot of profit from our ‘blood and guts’
China’s plasma product supply companies are highly profitable businesses, as China is suffering a shortage of these products.
Creat’s press release said ‘Creat, a leading Chinese investment group, will invest £100 million in BPL to expand production capacity of lifesaving therapies, develop new products and access new markets.
Creat will support management’s ambition to transform BPL into ‘a global life-sciences champion’, serving more customers and patients in a greater number of markets around the world.
Creat being a long-term strategic investor with a track record of growing businesses
Dr Clive Peedell said ” Every sale of this kind increases the dangers the public are exposed to by privatisation. Health care is very big business globally.
But the NHS should not simply be a market competitor, looking for ways to maximise profit. It should be first and foremost a system which ensures that we all look after each other at our time of greatest need.
It is extremely worrying to see the NHS’ blood plasma supplies being written about only in the context of accessing more markets around the world, with no mention of the NHS, only to the Department of Health being a 20% shareholder.
The loss of blood plasma supplies will have dreadful consequences for patients, as will the potential increased risk of contamination. And I am warning that these are the real risks when lucrative global markets are the prime objective, not our own patient care in the NHS.”
By Dr Minh Alexander NHS whistleblower and former consultant psychiatrist 14 June 2019
Summary A dismal spectacle of self-preservation, sly deflection and scapegoating of subordinates unfolded when CQC directors, Paul Lelliott Deputy Chief Inspector and Ian Trenholm Chief Executive appeared in front of the Joint Human Rights Committee on 12 June 2019.
It is astonishing how often one still hears well-informed, otherwise reasonable people say about Julian Assange: “But he ran away from Swedish rape charges by hiding in Ecuador’s embassy in London.”
That short sentence includes at least three factual errors. In fact, to repeat it, as so many people do, you would need to have been hiding under a rock for the past decade – or, amounting to much the same thing, been relying on the corporate media for your information about Assange, including from supposedly liberal outlets such as the Guardian and the BBC.
At the weekend, aGuardian editorial– the paper’s official voice and probably the segment most scrutinised by senior staff – made just such a false claim:
Regarding the non-consensual adoptions, Sir James Munby, Head of UK family division, in response to 20 EU petitions , said:
“Whatever the legal arrangements, the fact is that we actually make more of these [adoption] orders than probably anywhere else in Europe, and that’s a fact. […] the concern of the other Member States in Europe is that we’re adopting too many children too quickly; the stance of the government in terms of domestic adoption law is we’re not adopting enough children andwe’re taking too long about it1 , so that there’s a complete collision on a very fundamental level between the European perspective on this and what appears to be, on one reading, the
Here is an article I wrote, published in the Solicitors Journal in February 2011 now hidden behind same title on an innocuous subject
Children in the care of a local authority are now largely, the only children available for adoption since the advent of single parenthood and abortion.
However, this, together with the government’s continuing zeal for such adoptions, should not prejudice child protection, parental rights, or indeed the hard-to-adopt children lingering within the care system.
Such adoptions are already highly incentivised, used as they are as a local authority performance indicator and coming with a standard £25,000 bonus irrespective of how difficult it is to place a child.
In addition, the local authority’s preference to use other councils, or chosen ‘charitable partners’, such as Coram, to find families willing to adopt has resulted in the death of most private adoption agencies.
The chairman of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), the adoption industry’s promoter, is also the chief executive of CAFCASS, a connection which is possibly illegal and definitely a potential source of conflict between CAFASS’ remit to act in a child’s best interests and BAAF’s to promote adoption.
This conflict is accentuated by CAFCASS’ partnership with Coram, the third largest adopter of children, and the practice of subcontracting Coram to perform all the local authority’s child protection and assessment duties.
Coram promotes concurrent planning, a process which expedites adoption by placing children immediately with their prospective adopters.
The process allows ‘charitable partners’ like Coram to provide the family support for local authorities, despite the conflict of interests between this provision and their adoption role per se, and the payment of a £35,000 fee upon an adoption – which by necessity is resultant upon the failure of their support package and their assessment of the parents. In addition, as charitable bodies, they are largely unaccountable for the quality of their services.
In order to form a bond with adopters, parents are only allowed an average of three contact visits per week, at the charity’s offices, sometimes supervised. But after such a bond has formed, parents will find it almost impossible to convince a judge that adoption will not be in the child’s welfare.
Of the 147 babies and infants involved in pilot concurrent planning projects, eight were returned to their parents. In the Manchester/Goodman projects, only one child out of 11 returned home, and, of the 37 actions supported by Coram in the Family Drug and Alcohol Court, only two families succeeded in keeping their children.
Without a parent’s express consent, or satisfaction of the care threshold criteria, a child’s removal and/or adoption will be unlawful and in breach of a parents’ human rights, actionable by section 7 of the Human Rights Act, in conjunction with article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights (right to a family) and article 6 (right to a fair trial), either on a freestanding basis or as part of any on-going care, or judicial review proceedings.
In Re M (Care Challenging Directions by Local Authority)  2FLR 1300, for instance, it was held that a local authority’s decision to adopt, made without parental involvement, was unlawful.
Vulnerable, unrepresented parents may find that the only ‘support’ available results in the unlawful removal of their children, as “probably many mothers who believe, quite erroneously, that a local authority has power, without any court order, to do what the local authority did”, in the words of Mr Justice Munby in R(G) v Nottingham City Council  EWHC 400.
The case involved the removal of a baby at birth from her 17-year-old ‘eligible child’ mother, in pursuance of an ‘agreed’ care pathway plan, solely on the illegal basis that the mother had not objected.
The council in the case still managed to obtain an interim care order, even though the only protection issues were the mother’s vulnerability, lack of support and suitable residence. This was also despite the legal requirement that there should be “an imminent risk of really serious harm” (Mr Justice Ryder in Re L-A  EWCA Civ 822) in addition to the consideration of “whether the continued removal of (a child) from the care of her parents is proportionate to the risk of harm to which she will be exposed if she is allowed to return to her parents’ care”.
Social workers are generally instructed to concentrate child protection on the under fives, and less than 20 per cent of all child protection plans in England in 2010 were due to physical or sexual abuse.
With care applications at an all-time high, averaging over 800 per month, and a senior family court judge describing social workers’ actions as “like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China”, we must question why child protection is now so adversarial and predetermined, and ensure that the right children are taken into care for the right reasons.
Vol 155 no 4 01-02-2011
all is much worse now with up to £54,000 paid by the gov per adoption and a 26 week care proceedings limit and the privatisation outsourcing oF LA protection duties facilitated by scandals like Doncaster.
Summary: In recent correspondence the Department of Health and Social Care official responsible for whistleblowing policy seemed to believe that CQC should ‘urgently’ investigate whistleblowers’ patient safety concerns. He agreed to take the issue up with his Department but then stopped responding to enquiries. In the aftermath of yet more grave abuse revelations at Whorlton Hall, where CQC only conducted a superficial thematic review in response to whistleblower concerns, the question about specific investigation has now been redirected to the Minister for Care and Gosport MP, Caroline Dinenage. Relevant correspondence is provided below.
Minister for Care
Department of Health and Social Care
25 May 2019
Dear Ms Dinenage,
Gosport, Whorlton Hall and CQC’s remit for investigating Individual Whistleblowers’ Concerns
I write regarding this simple and core issue of whistleblowing governance which remains unresolved, despite it being repeatedly raised with the government on repeated occasions…