Corporate witnesses in Grenfell Tower inquiry given immunity from prosecution

As with the Thomas Rawnsley Inquest in Sheffield this June, all is used by huge multibillion corporate lawyers to evade justice. Here on the spurious ground of self incrimination, corporate witnesses in Grenfell Tower inquiry, can effectively lie, and avoid criminal prosecution, and extends to on going investigation by police of their liability

Who else is afforded such protection in no rule of law UK ?

How is the nonsense of self incrimination allowed ?

As  its use, as here, would have stopped all witness evidence per se .

Making any witness defunct  and courts rights and justice a joke.

Issy safeguarding continued

I write this post in defiance of a government, that fuels a private profit industry, invested in globularly, as a safe bet for billions profit, from our children/relatives and their future care for life .

Child protection-care homes and fostering,the old and disabled industries, are seen as very lucrative investments.

Profit made from our relatives, and our guaranteed public money, paid by us.

My email below, was sent to the Clinical Lead Community,, learning disabled intensive support service NHS Sheffield Health and Social Care, a Clinical Practioner, on the 12/2

With such created titles, we are no better aware of the qualifications held by them, or any Clinical Lead, Practioner- training in autism, nursing ??

‘As per our agreement with Wendy Hedland,a copy sent to you on your request, but not acknowledged, the safeguarding issue as such ought to have been raised immediately in our home by Helen, it was not, the means and date it was referred to you, is therefore irrelevant under the agreement we had at the time with the NHS.

Further you do not explain, why Helen told us she did not raise a safeguarding issue with you, this is still unclear’

Your referral to the first contact team, and my conversation with its team manager, dawn frogett,, has still not clarified, the particular safeguarding issue, supposedly, raised by Helen, which is still outstanding,

and in fact now extended to as Dawn, who said in her phonecall to me, ‘ Isabel’s appearance’, rather than hygiene, although Dawn, admitted she knew nothing of Isabel’s case history, nor adult social services involvement for a year ie she is autistic, refusing to leave family home for 6 years due to state abuse, nor our lack of hot water due to boiler.

( Dawn, ss first contact team head, breathtakingly, did not know of any adult social service involvement, we had had for two years, nor any case history, yet felt able to judge and extend a ‘safeguarding issue’ raised with her from NHS)

So we are still very much in the dark as to weather an issue was raised by Helen, why, and why it was not notified to us, before referral to youself, and weather our lacking of central heating for 2 weeks was taken into consideration.

In short, my husbands email to Dr Newman has not been addressed on these issues which were also not addressed at the meeting with you and him

THIS is a continuing source of distress for us which needs clarification.

best wishes, Finola

Email resent sent again to this Clinical Lead on 17/2

A reply, below, eventually on 20/2, less than 24 hours of my blog post

I did receive your email below thank you for checking I received this.
I can’t unfortunately comment on why Helen did not raise this with you directly at the time of her concern other than she thought it was not a safeguarding matter at that time, but at a later date I did feel it was a safeguarding matter.
I also cannot explain why Helen has said she did not raise a safeguarding – as this does not match discussions I have had with her & without being physically there myself I have no way to prove or disprove this.

In relation to any safeguarding process matters or information relating to Dawn & the conversation you had with her I would re-direct you back to disucss this directly with her.

I wondered if you had yet had chance to consider the options regarding support whilst Helen is on sick leave.

I hope you are keeping safe & warm in this ever changing weather!

mY reply email below

you state;

Helen did not raise this with you directly at the time of her concern other than she thought it was not a safeguarding matter at that time, but at a later date I did feel it was a safeguarding matter.

If  via  carer observation , the only evidence of a safeguarding issue in the family home, is unaware of it until they are told by you, then how will we ever know what a safeguarding issue is in the future ?

This I’m afraid, appears unnecessarily  oppressive of our family, as we will then have to live day to day, with the knowledge you as manager could raise any issue as a safeguarding one.

It also makes our NHS agreement with you, that any such issue be raised by the carer in our home defunct.

We still have no answers to the email sent to Dr Newman , other than by implication and explicate communication from Helen, that she did not raise a safeguarding issue per se, until post factum you decided there was one.

So the family is left in the position that they do not know what in the future will be judged as a safeguarding issue, nor what the ‘managed safeguarding processess’ you refer to mean , and more importantly the affect on Issy and us as a family.

With all due respect, we feel this is a disproportionate interference into Issy’s family life as is her right under the Human Rights Act and ours as her parents, who have cared for her at home for 6 years without any safeguarding issues being raised.

It is Issy and her family life, that she has chosen, that are paramount, and must be supported.

Real communication with that family must be maintained and we hope it can be in the future

best wishes finola,

So to summarise,

private profit Sheffield Health and Social Care , a primary NHS Trust, privatised in 2015, responsible for all referrals, to private monopoly Cambian/Lifeways Community Living Providers, worth millions profit from NHS funds .

This is the only funded care, by local commissioning groups, as the only ‘qualified providers’ under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, allowing huge health and care budgets to be combined, to pay over £10,000 a week for Isabels and Thomas Rawnsleys, hidden from FOIA requests by commercial confidentiality.

Providers, protected from liability for that care under MCA as patients incapable.

care covered up,- see Thomas rawnsley, as commissioners of care would be liable.

3 unchoicen, unknown care workers, who survey 3 times a week in the family home, is intensive support, at their designed times and report back to managers, who then can decide ‘safeguarding issues’ undefined , undefended and unnotified, to remove to residential homes ,they profit from, homes without safeguarding issues, even when death results.

Thus a for profit NHS Trust needs ‘safeguarding issues’ to enable referrals and their profit from them.

I as the loving mother of an autistic daughter has to allow anyone into my home and NHS chosen times to see my daughter.

These care workers can then raise any issue in that home without mention to me, despite a written agreement with the NHS they would.

Any mention of a home issue by a worker, can be upgraded by their manager to a ‘safeguarding issue’

And then referred to Social Services ‘processes’ of which we have no information let alone the effect or consequence

This is intensive NHS support, funded by public NHS funds for an amount unknown and unascertainable. as placed beyond Freedom of Information Act Notices as the provider is private so can claim commercial confidentiality.

Such is the unfightable web, that I pay for and my child provides for.

This is from a mother abused for 18 years by a State who has been paid millions of her money from tax to support me and my daughter.

It appears from a local newspaper bullying of staff is also present in the for profit SHSC NHS Trust

Who already sell off its property, public owned for huge profit

helen nor anyone has been near Issy since December 2019

Issy safeguarding issue still unresolved.

If you care for an autistic/ld child, or indeed anyone, it is made impossible to avoid safeguarding issues, as they are used to remove your cherished loved one to for profit care, where, as Thomas Rawnsley has proved, such issues are deliberately not seen.

This is because 436 million funding is given to LAs under Care Act, to find such issues, but only in those living in a family home, not in for profit institutions, where Thomas died, they are exempt.

Who viewing the photos of Thomas Rawnsley, could not know there were huge sageguarding issues in Cambian/lifeways owned Kingdom house where he was forced by COP order to live ad die, not even investigated by his Inquest.

And my daughter would be removed to the very place and service where he died, because of safeguarding issues in her family home, her chosen place of refuge for 6 years.

Six years of her home residence, no incidents, no bruises, no injury, safeguarding issues,and no support, other than from those seeking safeguarding issues, unable in the COP to even attempt to evidence them( although allegations not put to proof by COP procedure )

As per Issy’s safeguardinng issues, raised on the 20 th December meeting with NHS, ensuring an angst ridden Christmas for her family, caring alone without support, or even emercency phone call except for removal.

Eventually by the 27/1, some 6 weeks after this meeting, after no communication,we were forced to write an email to the consultant psychologist director NHS, who attended the 20/12 meeting in our home.

‘A meeting was held with you and the Care Lead but we have received no feedback on your safe guard findings particularly on the fact that days after the meeting Helen, who raised them denied doing so to us without being asked.’

The Director,attendant at our home meeting, merely passed our email to the Clincial Lead, to whom I had been forced for communication purposes, to write my email out during our 20/12 meeting, despite it being used during NHS 3 year ‘support’ but she had never emailed me about the meeting or issues.

Clinical Lead, replied 6 weeks after our meeting in response to her bosses email from us, saying;.

‘As I explained during our meeting, it
it was in supervision at a later date with Helen that I identified this
as a safeguarding concern.

I then subsequently contacted you to arrange a visit to discuss this with you at the earliest opportunity. 27/1′

So if a safeguarding issue is raised/ created by management, not carer, it need not be raised by that carer, to satisfy a prior agreement that it would be as existed between the NHS and us.

She said ‘it was not going to be managed through safeguarding processes’ without explanation why, or what these were.

Meanwhile last week, I received an unexpected phone call from a Dawn Frogett, Social Services, First Contact Team Leader, who spent the first half of our conversation asking if she had permission to speak to me- about what, is never clarified- except she appears to want assessments of Issy and our family and extended the safeguarding issue of hygene, to Issy’s appearance, which she said ominously could indicate more, premuably further concerns.

But she did not know we had already had 2 years adult social care involvement,nor indeed anything of Issy, as she has not looked into her case history, as has not had our permission to do so. I offer her oral permission and written, if necessary, but have not heard back.

On the 12/2, nearly 2 months after our meeting I was forced to send out the following email to NHS intensive support clinical lead;

As per our agreement with Wendy Hedland ( head of SHSC Corporate Services)
,a copy sent to you on your request, but not acknowledged, the safeguarding issue as such ought to have been raised immediately in our home by Helen, it was not, the means and date it was referred to you, is therefore irrelevant under the agreement we had at the time with the NHS.
Further you do not explain why Helen told us she did not raise a safeguarding issue in the first place, this is still unclear

Your referral to the first contact team and my conversation with its team manager dawn frogett has still not clarified this particular safeguarding issue raised by Helen, which is still outstanding and in fact now extended to as Dawn said ‘ Isabel’s appearance’, rather than hygiene, although Dawn admitted she knew nothing of Isabel’s case history

So we are still very much in the dark as to weather an issue was raised by Helen, why, and why it was not notified to us, before referral to youself, and weather our lacking of central heating for 2 weeks was taken into consideration.

In short, my husbands email to Dr Newman has not been addressed on these issues which were also not addressed at the meeting with you and him

THIS is a continueing source of distress for us which needs clarafication’.

As yet no acknowledgement from anyone.

In 2012 Omers an investment company for Onterio’s municipal pensions bought Lifeways community care for 207 million

UHS USA bought cygnet hospitals and cambian/lifeways in 2016 for 379 million

below are the photos taken of Thomas Rawnsley taken in their lifeways/cambian community living in kingdom house Sheffield, where he died.

No safeguarding issues had been raised about his appearance, as those the social services, who commissioned his care would be liable,Thomas82 and a local court of protection had ordered this was the only care he could receive in his MCA best interests. despite a later independent social sevice report it was not appropriate.


Lost in the Woods

A story written by my daughter as part of her degree.

Living The Art Life

The air was still, despite the breeze, paralysed, by the thick oppressive autumn atmosphere that seeped through the forest, on a more than usually dark night. Intermittent whispers and whistles, between the rustling leaves and the wind, as though they shared a secret, mingled with the distant yearns of forgotten creatures or beasts, hidden in the depths of the shadows. The skeletons of trees freshly dead, luminated in the moonlight, reach out to clasp each other’s bony claw and intwine in a looming oppression. There are no discernible pathways in this wood, no discernible way out.

A girl runs.

On the cusp of womanhood and sanity. Pant, pant, pant. Crunch, crunch, crunch. She wheezes like a pig escaping from slaughter, trudging through a sea of dead leaves. Her fair matted plait hammers against her back to the pace of her exhausted steps and determined young heart. Her usually florid complexion…

View original post 754 more words

Does Common Purpose UK Control Sheffield ?

cp secet

Common Purpose UK is a not-for-profit organization that develops leaders who can cross boundaries to lead ‘outside authority’.

Shortly after a Blair election, the embryo of Common Purpose UK emerged, unseen via David Blunket, then leader of Sheffield City Council, from a Social Services Office.

As a lecturer, I had read his proposals for the Charity Bill, little knowing the reasons, nor impact of charitable partnerships on the City, nor the Common Purpose role, a phenomenon still hidden today .

Charities are a useful, worth billions tool.

Our nation trusts them, as thought independent, not for profit, and support human misery, an ever increasing need.

And unregulated, worth over 180 billion, intrinsic part of Society,- gold dust to an exploiter of public funds, the then Labour government.

As Charity has a huge potential for profit and Social control

As Cameron knew, from his ‘Big Society’ agenda.

Better still imagine a local cabal connected by website that is in all aspects of community- GPs, nurses, care workers, teachers, directors of charities- including University /schools,lawyers and courts.

All exchanging information in secret.- this is Common Purpose – its power and web.  

Here is what I wrote about Charity in 2009.

I was reminded of all this, at a Medico Legal Dinner only last year, as an ex LA employee, who had, as he boasted worked with Rotherham abuse victims, in his after Dinner Speech , as the new Director of St Wilfred’s Centre, a charity for the homeless, replacing decades of catholic priests.

Adept and articulate, his father a miner.

As volunteers officiated and ingratiated themselves everywhere with raffle tickets, desperate for a job.

St Wilfrids had such an army of free labour, paid no tax, and was a goldmine of alcoholics and the mental disordered that homelesssness breeds, together with the donations their plight attracts.

With the added potential harvesting of  these seen as ‘commodities’, into Sheffield Health and Social Care, a private NHS Trust, no doubt awarding more funding, but made secret from FOIA notices by ‘commercial awareness’

when homelessness is at an all time high.

A comment on fb AMHP shows mental disorder LABEL, removal of  autonomy  PROMOTION.

Do people find it difficult to get MH services (mainly point of access) for people with dual diagnosis(substance misuse). I am sick of being told ‘we are not commissioned to work with such people, or that we can’t help them at this stage, they are self medicating’. I understand it’s complex, but I feel like I’m just letting people down.
Where do we stand with this, the person rights and the Trusts responsibility?,
Society’s abandoned and self medicating on alcohol are ST WILFRIDS gold mine to feed into Sheffield Health and Social Care – without their consent or awareness of what is happening to them on accepting a bed and charity.

We can only guess, ( who cold or dare expose ?), at the Common Purpose UK control, that allowed 15,000 children to be raped over 15 years in Rotherham alone, we have no figures for Sheffield or elsewhere in the UK.

The destruction of Sheffield City can be viewed on visiting,

It is now a bonanza for student, or any exploitation by builders, landlord, and entertainment greed.

Most historical buildings have been demolished, or converted to rental lets, for commercial greed.

Even its trees have been removed .

‘Community’- controlled by Common Purpose groups with street parties everywhere.

Recycling a religion, earning 700 million annually. The waste dumped on China.

Parking makes millions, as paradise is paved and turned into a parking lot, and inhabitants, their cars and livelihood are thrown out of the city centre.

Its profit potential now eyed up by China.

This is modern Socialism- globerlisation , Sheffield, a labour controlled City for decades.

A Scavenged city, scavenging paid for by its inhabitants – the ultimate exploitation.

In 2019 in Sheffield, after 900 trees and more were felled by Amey Ltd, who had LA 15 year contracts for maintenance of its permanent potholed roads.

Residents set up a campaign group ‘Its our City’

They signed a petition with 26,419 names, using the 2011 Localism Act, to force a referendum to change the committee style of local government, which did not represent the electorate.

Elsewhere in UK this change has, as far as we are informed, been made by ‘agreement’ but again dependent on threat, information and prior exploitation.

LAs do not appear to represent their public funders, and are controlled for profit, not service to the community that funds them.

We, in Sheffield are not allowed to even know how our money is spent, let alone control it.

Nor, how we are plundered for profit.

I have spent the last ten years at various Sheffield Social City functions of the ‘elite’, daring to mention Common Purpose UK, but to no avail, such is its power, even its existence, dare not be acknowledged..

Some shrieked, ‘How can I join It ?’ evidencing the centralist mentality that has reeked our downfall.

Yet, Common Purpose UK is in plain sight , Sheffield Hallam University recruits for members, with 2 CP graduate directors.

We need to know who controls our cities, and how our money is spent.

The erosion of democracy, by the secret destruction of our separation of powers, must, at least be seen

Already too many have been allowed to control, for their own vested interests.

Ignorance, and ‘Abeit macht Frei’ propaganda has allowed this to happen.

Below is a post of a person who tried with FOI notices to gain information on CP in Sheffield.

It is for information only, I as mere poster to accept no responsibility for its content


“It is necessary here to describe some aspects of the practices of Common Purpose, and how association with Common Purpose is integral to this council.

Common Purpose is a networking organisation.

There is no networking carried out by council officers, or council associated organisations, that could not be carried out without Common Purpose.,

the Audit Commission were told that Common Purpose was good for promoting the city, yet there is no promotion that could not be done without Common Purpose.

The question must therefore be, why have Common Purpose at all?

Common Purpose’s own literature boasts that ”Common Purpose can control a major city if it has the right people in place.”

Common Purpose graduates are chosen among leaders and potential leaders for their benefit to Common Purpose, and trained at ratepayers’ expense, for which the council has conceded is of no demonstrable financial benefit to the ratepayer.

According to this council’s protocols, Common Purpose is a secret society, and all those associated with Common Purpose have a statutory duty to declare.

This council unlawfully refuses point blank to release a list of Common Purpose graduates, officers, members, or associates. Those in receipt of training, according to Common Purpose, agree that their names, company position and employer details may be published.

Yet this council still refuses to comply with the law.

Common Purpose holds it meetings, in ratepayer time, in ratepayer funded premises such as the Town Hall, under ‘Chatham House’ rules,

i.e. secrecy. These meetings include; but are not limited; to including Common Purpose graduates from Yorkshire Forward, Voluntary Action Sheffield, OFFER, Primary Care Trusts, Police, Government Office of Yorkshire and the Humber, etc.
There is no meeting that could not be held by these people and organisations that could not be held in an open and transparent manner.

To rub salt in this festering wound, Common Purpose, having trained its graduates at ratepayers’ expense, Common Purpose then enjoys the unwitting ratepayers’ hospitality at its meetings.

So we are back to the question, why Common Purpose?

The answer is mind-numbingly simple – power!

Common Purpose graduates are taught to lead beyond their authority.

Common Purpose meetings facilitate exercising influence, interest and control upon the graduates’ employers, whilst unlawfully bypassing statutory democratic processes, avoiding transparency and accountability, and imposing the pre-set agenda of top-down controlled social engineering.

To add insult to ratepayers’ injury, these meetings coach on how to avoid compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, promote their own ‘services’, and unlawfully elicit financially binding arrangements upon the host authority whilst avoiding scrutiny.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of elected members are kept blissfully unaware
To quite a large extent, Common Purpose is running this council as a government agent.
I will now turn to your letter of 17 March. This is what you wrote:

“C: Senior Council Officers Lying to me to Avoid FOIA Compliance
No recorded information exists that you made a previous request in respect of Common Purpose; the misunderstanding for which I apologise, arose because of confusion with the numerous other requests that you have made for information featured in the Annual Accounts.

The Council annually funds one corporate place on a Common Purpose training scheme, and the cost of the most recent course for the most recent complete financial year was £3,084, including VAT.”

There was no confusion.

A legitimate request for information was unlawfully refused on the false grounds that the same requests had been made to other council officers.

This type of behaviour has become Common.

My letters, as is so often the case were simply ignored.

As for the FoIA request for the names and details, this was also ignored, thus again showing that this council has nothing but contempt for the law. The audit commission has criticised for refusing to respond.

Now let us look at what you, as signatory, wrote about Common Purpose Training for last full accounting year: Cost: £3084 Number: ONE

After the intervention of the Audit Commission, I was given the following figures for council expenditure on Common Purpose training, in a letter dated 16 September 2008:
2007 / 08 £8250 Officers attending: 3
2008 / 09 £3125 Officers attending: 3

Note also that the council has refused to identify who receives Common Purpose training at ratepayers’ expense. What is there to be so ashamed of?
Why the secrecy?”

There are no lists of Common Purpose Graduates, as their members are called.

Nor information on the personal websites they share, nor influence they yield.