NSPCC- Child abuse, Politics and Power?


Mental health Charities and NAS, created an epidemic of ‘autism’, and ‘mental illness’ by ever more extensive definitions of ‘autism’ and ‘mental disorders’ now 372.

The NSPCC created an epidemic of child ‘abuse’, by researching, and campaigning for ever more extensive definitions of ‘abuse’.

And by doing so, built a multimillion pound, tax free business empire,

its ‘charitable’ objectives drawn as widely as possible

‘preventing the public and private wrongs of children and the corruption of their morals’

NSPCC as an old trusted brand, with an advertising, sought by media income of 90 million in 2003 , must be trusted and supported.

Therefore, the perfect tool for governments’ ever more invasive child ‘protection’ feeding a multibillion pound fostering and adoption industry , now ‘protecting’ and ‘parenting’ 1% of UK children.

Allegations of ‘abuse’ are also the perfect tools to control every aspect of education, family life and social behaviour.

In 2008 a Labour Advisory Group on Campaigning and the Voluntary Sector, considered charities’ political influence

as a way of addressing the ‘democratic deficit’ in the country”, as people trusted them [charities] more than politicians”.

NSPCC has capitalised on its political, unelected power, extending ‘abuse’ to neglect, an even more subjective, expansive concept that satisfies the threshold criteria for State intervention into a family, with 80% of successful care orders based on ‘neglect’.

NSPCC’s multimillion pound, tax free empire is very lucrative, raising millions from campaigns alone, its CO and managers paid over £120,000 over 10 years ago.


But, the crucial question to achieve their charitable purpose is,

has the NSPCC reduced abuse ?

Apparently not, by their own advertising and record numbers in care.

So, no outcomes for billions, just increased ‘abuse’.

NSPCC does no research or exposure of abuse and neglect in State care .

No research into adoption breakdowns and effects of adoption.

Or in State fostering, where there is an average of 20 + different placements with strangers and deracination from family, locality and friends for ever.

Nor were they involved in the fifteen years of rapes of 14,000+ children in Rotherham alone, the number nationally, unknown.

Nor do they support the 10,000 children annually missing from care( many never found) groomed, abused and raped and now used as drug mules….

deaths from restraint and over medication and suicide in State detention, hospitals, schools and community living

Victoria Climbe tortured and killed by approved foster parent, was referred to an NSPCC centre. seven months before her death, but this referral was not dealt with for months, and then marked with ‘no further action’.

Facts it appears the charity tried via an 80,000 barrister , to justify to the Laming Enquiry.


At the time it raised 250 million from its ‘Full Stop’ campaign which did not prevent Baby’s Peter’s horrific torture and death and the many, many unknown in State care like Thomas Rawnsley and George Werb.


The NSPCC has been a campaigning organisation since 1884, over half it’s 148.64 million spend is on non direct child services.

It’s ‘Full Stop’ campaign raised over £250 million, but there is little evidence as to how this money helped to stop child abuse, as nothing new has been added to NSPCC services, which still consist of family referral centres, 16 of which were closed down after this appeal, and phone help lines, which refer people to overstretched social services departments.

It did not reinstate the NSPCC home inspectors, abandoned in the 1970’s, who might have been an independent voice for Baby Peter, or Victoria Climbe.

Might not the use of such vast amounts of money, with it’s consequential unfettered, unaccountable power to change public perceptions of abuse and it’s role in society, be actually contributing to society’s problems?


The NSPCC documented allegations of Satanic ritual abuse in 1990, with the publication of a survey of 66 child protection teams , 14 teams had received reports of ritual abuse

An investigation into SRA allegations by the British government produced over two hundred reports, of which only three were substantiated and proved to be examples of pseudosatanic abuse, in which sexual abuse was the actual motivation and the rituals were incidental.[10][11]

The NSPCC then published Satanic Indicators to social services , which were blamed for social workers panicking and making false accusations of sexually abusing children.[12], in Rochdale twenty children were taken from their homes.
The allegations were later found to be false.

The case was the subject of a BBC documentary which featured recordings of the interviews made by NSPCC social workers, revealing that flawed techniques and leading questions were used to gain evidence of abuse from the children.

The documentary claimed that the social services were wrongly convinced, by organisations such as the NSPCC, that abuse was occurring .and so rife, that they made allegations before any evidence was considered.

NSPCC’s high profile, expensive Saatchi and Saatchi campaign, ‘Stranger Danger’, resulted in 78% of parents reporting that fear of strangers stopped their children playing outside, and it supported the Authority’s creat11 million adults, who have regular contact with children, being forced to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

After NSPCC campaigns in schools and clubs, it led to 11 million adults, who have regular contact with children, being forced to register with the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Despite public furore.

NSPCC’s campaign, ‘Someone to Turn To’, encouraged children to talk to people outside their family about their anxieties, undermining family relationships, and appear to have contributed to the 25% increase in care orders based ’emotional abuse’ in 2008 making a 50% over the previous ten years, distracting time and resources from actual physical, sexual harm and death.

In 2009 the NSPCC helped set up Local Children’s Trusts, but an Audit Commission reported the alack of clarity as to their role, unaccountability, and the time wasted on setting up their structures and procedures hampered delivery of children services.

The NSPCC believe hitting a child is wrong, whatever the circumstances, and are determined that even a smack, which does not produce a mark is criminalised.
Despite the lack of hard evidence to show a link between smacking and serious physical abuse.

This dogmatic and absolutist approach was supported by the labour government think tank, The Institute for Public Policy Research.

Research supporting the danger of the activity to be outlawed appears in the media, ‘Smacking can turn Children into Criminals’,’ ‘Smacking produces low Intelligence’. Even the language used is perniciously diluted, the definition of corporal punishment (beatings and hitting with an object), now includes any form of physical tap, if corrective.

However, research, based not on restricted numbers, but the population of Sweden, who introduced a smacking ban in 1979, showing a 489% increase in criminal physical child abuse prosecutions from 1981-1994, increasing more rapidly amongst those, who were brought up after the law against smacking was introduced, is ignored.

Would such a ban benefit a child, whose parents would be criminalised, and who then might be processed by an overworked, under resourced care system?

The NSPCC opposed the placing of a statutory presumption of contact with a non resident parent, in the Adoption and Children Act 2004, as detrimental to a child’s welfare, on the basis that it could ultimately threaten the safety of the child, in support, it cited evidence that 29 children over the past 10 years had been killed on contact visits, but chose to ignore its’ own research showing 800 children, during the same period had actually been killed by resident parents, and children were more likely to suffer violence from female carers.

The lack of a presumption of contact may have contributed to the 289 applications by non resident parents, forced to fight through the courts to merely have contact with their own children, and the consequential emotional abuse of children, deprived of any contact with a parent and their inevitable feelings of abandonment.

Women’s Aid in2009 increased their campaigning and educating activities in support of the government’s initiative to end domestic violence.

They joined forces with the NSPCC, to produce an almost unstoppable political force to lobby government to extend the definition of ‘harm’ in the Children’s Act 1989, to include ‘impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another’.

As a consequence ‘Harm’, for the purposes of satisfying the threshold criteria in care proceedings, is statutorily diluted, under the vague definition of ‘ill –treatment’, which Women’s Aid literature states can include such nebulous concepts, as the ‘emotional or financial abuse of another’.

In June the NSPCC handed a petition to the Children’s Minster to protect children, who live with domestic violence, supported by media headlines, ’Children kept awake by the sounds of domestic violence’, and supporting research that this affects one in twelve children.

Already nearly a third of all care applications were then made on the grounds of emotional abuse, due to domestic violence, which Women’s Aid maintains has a more devastating effect than a physical assault.

NSPCC want to be the definitive voice, leaders on abuse, despite no public debate or vote and so in 2016, they launched a web based ‘Impact and Evidence’ Hub designed to promote and make accessible its research evidence. The hub contained sections on:

Research and evaluation reports.[35]
Information about how evaluations were carried out by the NSPCC,[36] including information about the outcome measures used.[37]

A series of blog articles recounting the experiences of professionals in running research articles and producing evidence.[34]
Information about the organisation’s Research Ethics Committee and the process of ethical review to which research projects needed to be subject.[38]
An internal validation execise-

Research and evidence reports produced by the NSPCC include evaluations of:

A video interaction guidance intervention with families where initial concerns about neglect have been noted.[39]
To justify ITS stance on neglect

A therapeutic intervention for children affected by sexual abuse and their carers.[40]
(Capitalising on the Rotherham’Rochdale abuse, scandals it did nothing to avoid.)

a therapeutic intervention for children affected by sexual abuse and their carers.[40]
(Capitalising on the Rotherham’Rochdale abuse scandals it did nothing to avoid).

An intervention designed to support infant mental health.[41]

(Allowing babies and infaats to be medicated on antidepressants etc and removed to State care.)

An early intervention programme designed to enhance a mother’s relationship with her baby.[4(2]

(To define what that relationship is and class as abuse mother’s who do not meet its criteria to promote even more baby removal)

A parenting programme helping fathers change their behaviour after domestic abuse.[43]

An intervention helping mothers rebuild relationships with their children after domestic abuse.[44]

(Survellience of parents after child removal from abuse likely to never be allowed to parent.)

Martin Kinnear’s Norfolk Painting School: Simply Oils

My daughter’s account of her 3 day , Simply Oils course at Norfolk Painting School in August

Living The Art Life

Martin Kinnear, an accomplished Oil Painter and Writer, who’s written articles that imagesTQWPT8JIfeature in The Art Magazine, is the founder and director of this school in Norfolk to teach willing students how to master the traditional principles of oil paint and apply the knowledge to their own style.

I was recommended to study the short course Simply Oils, by a friend who himself is a great oil painter.


Although, Sparsely populated, with more cows and dilapidated buildings than people, Tattersett in East Rudham proved to offer a unique experience. The Crown Inn, a quintessentially English pub hotel was where I stayed for a few days while attending the course.

Day 1:

buttermere-and-crummock-water-oil-30x4022-205-by-martin-kinnearOn Entry into the School, my attention was immediately focused to the wall behind the receptionist’s desk. The white plastering superimposed by a beautiful image of a winding stream running away through undulating hills, their summits reaching into what looked to be the opening to Heaven, where rays of ethereal light…

View original post 1,340 more words

Stitched Up Care Courts?

untitled sheild of law

The care courts policy of permanent, enforced removal of our children from loving parents, to feed a multibillion pound private care industry, is in breach of EU and international law, and s3, s6 and s8 HRA .


Coronavirus has resulted in emergency legislation to make fostering and adoption easier.

And appears ripe for the executive, LA’s usurpation of the Care court function, as Liberty Safeguards have usurped the Court of Protection’s function.

Might be real reason for latest push for a public enquiry of the family courts.

Care courts have already become largely superfluous, as apparently, 96% of all LA Care applications are now successful.

And, these local care courts are easily controlled by secret networks like Common Purpose UK.

And answerable to no one, as appeals are effectively impossible on cost and law, judgements generally not published, and proceedings in secret.

A secrecy so great, hundreds of parents each year are jailed for contempt.

One mother, for revealing welfare professionals mishandling on social media.

Mother Jailed For Posting About Her Children on Facebook

In view of the draconian powers of Care Courts to destroy families for ever, the most, not the least transparency should be required.

It is a shocking indictment on the UK, that other than in the rest of the world, a parent has no legal right to their own child.

And other than PORTUGAL there are no forced adoptions

Parents only have ‘parental responsibility’ , all Statutes having failed to legislate common law parental rights, and are not interpreted in compliance with the HRA, as required by s3, so our and our childrens basic rights to their own family are ignored by both Parliament and courts.

And EU and UN declarations on them are similarly ignored.

I, myself, was summoned to the Sheffield Care courts in 2007, at less than 24 hours notice, and risked the removal of both my daughters, for no reason, other than one was autistic, and had been abused in her inappropriate school placement, and had a facial impaction .

And I had dared to complain about the horrific effects of her CAMHS treatment of Risperidone.


As for my own seeming ‘advantage’ of legal advice and representation, now only funded for those on basic benefits, my experience speaks for itself on my lawyer’s function and effectiveness, evidenced by a parents lawyers’ 96% failure rate.

Apparently, parents’ lawyers are known as ‘paid losers’ by their own fraternity.

Our representation consisted of explaining LA, court letters/applications/orders, and allowing LA secret hearings (without us present ) with the Judge and persistent ,including a drafted GP instruction to the effect that my other daughter’s eczema was caused by stress ( presumably of her autistic sister), with a threat of a care order in respect to her, which would have doubled our solicitors legal aid certificate limit to 10,000.

But the big flaw in the Care Court process, is that the CAFCASS guardian and LA instruct and remit all expert witnesses,

meaning, as the Websters/Clarke/Canning found, a parent is forced to rely on expert evidence pointing to parental abuse.


The Children Act 1989 promoted collaboration between parents and social services, furthering an inquisitorial approach to care proceedings, trusting social services to respect parents and only intervene in a family’s life when absolutely necessary to protect a child.

Parents were allowed to instruct their own independent, state-funded expert evidence to defend themselves in the purported adversarial arena of a care hearing.

But initiatives to avoid cost and delay have resulted in rules (rule 25.7 FPR 2010) which force parents to jointly instruct and rely on experts chosen and remitted by social services, and now judicially managed and timetabled under the public law outline.

Despite a threat by our own solicitor, that the court would ‘have nothing to go on and assume the worst’, we refused unnecessary LA psychological or any assessments of us, other than by CAFCASS, whose guardian had many hours meetings with us at our home , and at my daughter’s school, where embarrassingly, her teachers were also interviewed, although, despite lawyers’ efforts my daughter was not subject to the proceedings .

Parents historically, were allowed an additional expert with the court’s permission, if thought ‘reasonable’, but this was changed by Statute to, ‘ if necessary’, which together with no public funding for an expert, makes it impossible to gain any independent evidence in favour of a parents non abuse.

This despite all exposed miscarriages of justice being caused by this flaw in care proceedings.


So this flaw has been made worse, and the recent need for the accreditation of Care experts will not help as all these Professor Meadows etc would have been accredited.

Rarely, if ever is a CAFCASS guardian cross- examined on their report and complaints about it cannot be made within the CAFCASS system.

So care proceedings, are very much a rubber stamping inquisitorial by State process,with no actual examination of any witnesses, nor consultation with the children, it is charged to protect and who are so draconically affected for life.

Clearly, care courts do not appear to afford anyone other than the State a ‘fair hearing’.

Here is the letter I wrote to the Times in 2008 of my experience, now buried deep and behind a pay wall on its website;

Conflicts of interest in childcare
The provision of legal representation needs to be independent and accountable.

Sir, The provision of legal representation per se due to lack of adequate funding ( letters, July 19) is irrelevant if that representation is not truly independent and accountable and provided within fair and transparent court procedures.

Parents are provided with a list of solicitors specialising in defending care actions. These solicitors also represent the children’s guardians in other cases, an obvious potential conflict of interest, particularly given that government remuneration is more likely to be dependent upon outcome, unlike legal aid. The role of the parents lawyer also has to be clarified , as at present, because of the quasi-inquisitorial nature of care proceedings, it generally consists of court housekeeping and advising parents to co-operate by agreeing social services interim applications.

The law itself is vague and expansive. The threat of obtaining an interim care order is used to ensure compliance with interim orders, even where the main order is merely supervisory. Parents are excluded from all interim hearing and thus unaware of the arguments made and more importantly, the Judge’s response to them, making the system ripe for manipulation and inaccuracy.

Invariably, the court’s judgment concurs with the recommendations in the childrens guardian report, which is filed before the court hearing to test the creditability and admissibility of the evidence upon which it is based. Despite conflicting interests to reduce costs, only one expert is generally instructed to act for three separate and opposing parities ie child guardian, the social services and the parents.

Until these serious flaws are addressed, remuneration will only remain of paramount importance to the lawyers.

Eleven years later and billions of public money spent, the system appears worse.

A Scream [einer Schrei ]’und Mann is abserviert’- Brecht


So where do you scream, when screaming serves no purpose other than removal by MHA section or MCA best interests ; drugs and prison for life, making it impossible to scream .

Why we are screaming is not relevant, and not asked

As it allows 13,000 a week to an NHS hospital, 8,000 after that in community ‘care’ for life.

A scream, with indifference to our despair, or its cause.

A nation left with dehumanising despair by constant Kafkaesque nonsense and persecution,

Where totalitarianism UK rules from every side

All prescribed by insurance based inhumanity, with perfunctory rules and arguments

All are forms and roles, created by those who wish to judge and profit.
Itinerant executive AMHPs detain to a place of safety from anywhere without warrant under s136 MHA, soon under MCA via MCAPs.

MCA allows anyone to assess our capacity on a test impossible to pass


And remove all our decisions for life- sell our assets, medicate
Without court order under new Liberty Safeguards


Without even engagement with a person, let alone compliance with MCA- to maximise capacity, adhere to a person’s wishes, use least restrictive practice.

We have lost our freedom and autonomy. We have no rights.

Through Community Big Brother is all seeing and all powerful.

What of the loved one, years of selfless care, Sunday roasts, birthdays and history?

All processed impersonally, prescribed for purposes of institutionalisation .

Death is the permanent cessation of all biological functions that sustain a living organism.

Phenomena which commonly bring about death include aging, predation, malnutrition, disease, suicide, homicide, starvation, dehydration, and accidents or major trauma resulting in terminal injury
. .
Death, emotionally, is a scream and removal by police under MHA , MCA, effectively for life

Life of disconnection, no control, hence no emotion, hence no healing.
Emotional death, caused for profit

Much easier to kill emotionally
from any word, environment, economical predicament

Any inhumanity

And then physical death from enforced pharma’s effects
unseen, uninvest gated.

We, as a nation are killing for ego and profit.

A nation that has replaced selfless love, humanity and care with judgment and process.

We are captives in Hell .

Who hears the scream, when the voice is silenced
Who sees the pain, when the scars are hidden
Who heals the cry, when pity is gone
Who hears the knock, when noone is home.

Where is kindness in a world of hate
Who touches, when no one feels

Where is a friend, when darkness surrounds
Where is the peace, when hatred abounds
Who is the saviour from the abyss
Who is the shepherd, to lead the way
When all are led astray

Seek and you will not find
Seek and your brother will bind

For those who have not read Das GuteS Mensch VON SETchAn I suggest you do I studied it at A level, now no literature studied FOR A LEVEL Wonder WHY