To See The List On Site:http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/Supporters.htm
I Have Had To Make This Page Because The Number Of Supporters Is Growing By The Day!,
THANK YOU!
If You Would Like To Be Listed As A ‘Stop Injustice Now’ Supporter,Please Email Me At: mailto:support@stopinjusticenow.com
P.S. The Link Are Not In Any Sort Of Order…..
This Is The List So Far:
John Hemming MP (Blog): http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/
Fassit UK: http://www.fassit.co.uk/
Unity-Injustice: http://www.unity-injustice.co.uk/
Hope 4 Kids: http://www.hope4kidz.org/
Missing You (UK): http://www.missing-you.net/Adoptions.php
A. R. C. H. : http://www.arch-ed.org/
Fathers 4 Justice: http://fathers-4-justice.org/
R. F. F. J. : http://www.realfathersforjustice.org
Norman Lamb MP: http://www.normanlamb.org.uk/
Forced Adoption: http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduction.asp
Flint: http://www.familieslink.co.uk/
Law Reforms: http://www.forced-adoption.com/reforms.asp
Men’s Aid: http://www.mensaid.com/
M. A. M. A. : http://www.msbp.com/
I. M. O. : http://internationalmensorganisation.cjb.net/
Children In Care: http://www.childrenincare.com/
(PAIN): http://www.parentsagainstinjustice.org.uk/
Mothers For Justice: http://www.mothers-for-justice.net/
Eric Pickles MP: http://www.ericpickles.com/Jack Frost: http://www.gulagofthefamilycourts.com/
Amy Adoptee: http://amyadoptee.blogspot.com/
Fran Lyon: http://www.wardrobehudson.co.uk/askingforachance/Home.html
phpatm: http://www.phpatm.com/results?search_query=Baaf
bubatv: http://www.bubatv.com/tag/stop&Injustice&nowInternational
Adoption info: http://www.internationaladoption.info/
PAFA: http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Parentsagainstforcedadoption/
David Southall Exposed: http://davidsouthallexposed.blogspot.com/
No 2 Abuse:http://www.no2abuse.com/
Shock 17:http://shock17.com/watch-LwbgMzU9OCA.html
If You Would Like To Be Listed As A ‘Stop Injustice Now’ Supporter,Please Email Me At: mailto:support@stopinjusticenow.com
THANK YOU!
Archive for November 1st, 2007
Mother tried to kill her baby
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0517.htm
A DRUNKEN mother tried to kill her baby because she had not bonded with the infant, a court was told. Alcoholic Sharon Wiseman was found by paramedics smoking a cigarette outside her home while her baby lay injured upstairs, the court heard. She was said to have told the emergency workers: “He’s upstairs. He should be dead”. And Wiseman, of Waterfoot, said she “had not bonded” with the baby and thought it “would be a blessing if he died”, before telling them she just wanted another can of lager, the court was told. Earlier she had dialled 999 in a “rambling” call in which she said there “was blood everywhere” and that her baby was dead, Preston Crown Court heard. Paramedics discovered her four-week old baby under a cover in a bedroom. The court was told he was barely breathing, appeared to be quite still and cold to the touch. There was also blood around his mouth and nostrils and small bruises to his forehead. Medical experts believe that the baby’s injuries were consistent with smothering and the bruises were deemed non-accidental’ injuries, the court heard. Paramedics placed an oxygen mask on the baby’s face and he gasped for breath. He was taken to the accident and emergency department at Rochdale Infirmary then transferred to a specialist paediatric resuscitation unit. The baby is now in the care of social services and cannot be named for legal reasons. He is expected to make a full recovery following his ordeal, though there are concerns over his vision, which is to be assessed by an ophthalmic consultant. Interviewed by police, Wiseman could not recall making comments about the baby being dead, or that his death would be a blessing, but accepted she was very drunk at the time, the court heard. Wiseman, 39, had earlier admitted a charge of attempted infanticide. At court yesterday she was made subject to a three-year community order on Wiseman, including supervision by the Probation Service. She was also banned from working with children in future. The Infanticide Act 1938 provides that when a mother tries to kill her child, when the child is under 12 months old, and at the time the balance of the mother’s mind is disturbed as a result of her not having fully recovered from the effects of giving birth, then the mother will be guilty of infanticide rather than attempted murder.
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0516.htm
UK authorities involved in the fight against child abuse are increasingly concerned about the depictions of child abuse in Second Life, the online virtual world.A spokeswoman for Ceop (the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre) told El Reg that part of its concerns stem from the possibility that someone with access to children would arrange to meet them offline and then expose them to the sexual content in Second Life as part of an attempt to “groom” them for subsequent abuse. “This is an area of increasing interest to us,”she said, adding that Ceop is considering helping to set up a walk-in police station in Second Life where people might be able to report incidents of abuse. As previously reported, a virtual abuser area where child computer characters or avatars sell a range of sexual services has been created in the virtual world. The environment allows the depiction of sick fantasies including the rape and degradation of child characters.
In theory anyone accessing the area (including the child characters) needs to be over 18 and have use of a credit card. Nonetheless police are concerned that sick fantasies acted out in a virtual environment could be acted out in real life.
A recent investigation by UK Channel Five crime correspondent Jason Farrell discovered an area of Second Life called Wonderland where child-like characters sold sex for “Linden dollars”, the currency used by the game. The name of the environment is a sick reference to the Wonderland gang, a notorious group of child abusers.
“There were virtual children of all ages, even toddlers. After talking to one child I was offered a range of sordid and sick sexual acts,” Farrell said, the Daily Mirror reports.
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0515.htm
The SNP has been accused of making a u-turn on the issue of child protection. The Liberal Democrats claimed that while in opposition Nicola Sturgeon – now the Deputy First Minister in the Scottish Government – had called for all those on the sex offenders register to also be put on another list, which bars them from working with children. But children’s minister Adam Ingram said he did not think the government would be introducing any such legislation. He was pressed on the issue after he made a statement on child protection to MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. Lib Dem education spokesman Jeremy Purvis raised the issue with Mr Ingram, pointing out that there were currently some 226 people on the Disqualified from Working with Children list in Scotland. And he said: “Last year Nicola Sturgeon had called for anyone on the sex offenders register to be placed on this list, making it an offence for them to apply for a job working with children.” But he said there was no mention of this in a consultation on secondary legislation to establish a new vetting and barring system to protect children and vulnerable groups that was announced today by Mr Ingram. Mr Purvis asked the children’s minister: “Is it still the intention of the government to bring forward legislation?” Mr Ingram told him: “No, I don’t believe so. I think we have all the legislation in place in terms of the primary legislation and the secondary legislation is out to consultation at the moment.” Afterwards Mr Purvis said: “The SNP have performed a major u- turn on their position on the barring list of people forbidden, by law, to work with children. In opposition the now Deputy First Minister attacked the Executive for not extending the barring list to include everyone on the sex offenders register.”
£3.5m shot in the arm for city
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0514.htm
A MULTI-MILLION-POUND health and social care centre is set to be built in south-west Edinburgh following a major funding boost from the Scottish Government. Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement means NHS Lothian and the city council can now draw up detailed plans for the site in Firrhill, near Colinton. The new three-storey centre will move two GP practices to one location, alongside district nurses and health visitors, and will also bring together other community services, such as the local social work office and an older people’s day facility. The Minority Ethnic Health Inclusion Project, which provides free support and advice to the black, ethnic minority and refugee communities, will also be based in the new building. In addition, the new 27,000sq ft centre will include physiotherapy and podiatry services. The new building will be connected to the existing Firrhill Medical Centre on Colinton Mains Drive, and initial estimates suggest work could be completed by 2010. Ms Sturgeon today announced an extra Pfund23 million to improve and modernise primary care premises across Scotland, including Pfund3.491m for the Firrhill project. The cash allows NHS Lothian and the city council to produce a business case for the development. Health board chairman Dr Charles Winstanley said: “We are delighted that this new development can now get off the ground. This is another good example of working in partnership with the City of Edinburgh Council to deliver a joined-up service for the benefit of local residents.” Jackie Sansbury, NHS Lothian’s director of strategic planning and modernisation, added: “The new Firrhill Health and Social Care Centre will bring quicker access to even more essential services to people in the local community.” Councillor Paul Edie, the city’s health and social care leader, said the new centre will be a “fantastic addition” to the area.
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0513.htm
In mid-2005 the Home Office acknowledged that up to 570,000 illegal immigrants were living in the UK. A significant number of these illegal immigrants have been living in this country for many years and have children. This article is aimed at assisting those practitioners who are instructed by an illegal immigrant to secure a contact order in respect of his/her child who is resident in the UK. To explore the issues that arise when advising an illegal immigrant about contact proceedings I will look at the facts of one fairly typical case in depth. The Facts H was a citizen of Bangladesh. In June 2004 he married a British citizen, W. Following the marriage he applied for and was granted a visa to enter the UK as the spouse of a British citizen. On arrival in the UK in October 2004 H was granted 2 years ‘Discretionary Leave’ (DL), often referred to as the probationary period. All individuals who are granted leave to enter the UK as a spouse are granted 2 years DL. In November 2005 W gave birth to a baby daughter. In January 2006 H left the matrimonial home. Finally in March 2006 H and W agreed to divorce. H and W agreed that their daughter should continue to live with W in the UK. H wished to continue to have regular and meaningful contact with his daughter and consequently to remain in the UK. W opposed contact. What was H’s immigration status in the UK? H was convinced that he had been granted the right to reside in the UK permanently, Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). However, a quick look at his passport revealed that in fact he had only been granted 2 years DL. H’s leave to remain had expired in October 2006. H’s failure to appreciate the limited rights that he had to remain in the UK is something that is relatively common. Immigration is an area of law that is subject to rapid change and the quality of legal advice extremely variable. If it is not possible to determine a client’s immigration status from endorsements in his passport then an application should be made to the Home Office for disclosure of his whole file under the Data Protection Act. H initially assumed that having completed 2 years DL he could simply apply for ILR. Unfortunately this course was not open to him as his marriage was no longer subsisting. H had no extant leave to remain in the UK and consequently he was an illegal immigrant. How did H’s immigration status impact on his ability to secure a contact order? H commenced contact proceedings in the County Court. W opposed contact on the basis that H was simply using the proceedings in order to remain in the UK. This allegation was denied by H. A District Judge requested information from the Home Office in respect of H’s immigration status and directed CAFCASS to prepare a report. The District Judge followed the December 2002 protocol for, ‘Communicating with the Home Office regarding Immigration Matters in Family Proceedings’. The Home Office provided a short letter setting out H’s immigration history. The letter concluded by stating that H’s DL had now expired and consequently he had no right to remain in the UK and was an illegal immigrant. The Home Office did not seek to explore any of the possible avenues open to H to seek to regularise his immigration status and secure a grant of leave to remain. The CAFCASS report was of very little assistance as it focused almost exclusively on H’s uncertain immigration status. CAFCASS concluded that no recommendation as to contact with H could be made as it was not clear whether H would continue to reside in the UK. CAFCASS suggested that the issue of contact be revisited once H had been granted ILR.
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0512.htm
For most children, the biggest influences in their lives are their parents and their extended family, writes Cathy Ashley. A child’s family is an important part of their identity, their genetics and often their emotional wellbeing and stability. Most children, including those subject to child protection plans, live within their family. So families are key to the successful implementation of any such plans. Even when children enter the care system, 40% stay less than six months and then return home. Partnership working between local authorities and families is therefore critical to the successful protection of children at risk of harm. Despite this, in many parts of the country, the child protection system ignores the risks and the strengths of the child’s wider family, including non-resident fathers, and instead focuses exclusively on the mother’s home. In West Berkshire, the children’s services department has tried to turn this around. They have developed a framework for use in child protection conferences to engage practitioners and the child’s family members in considering all safety and protective factors as well as strengths for the child, while also fully exploring the dangers, harms and risks. Many parents whose children are subject to child protection inquiries feel frightened, isolated, angry and bewildered about the process and the options open to them. Family Rights Group is pioneering professional family advocacy, and there is mounting evidence that such advocacy in the child protection process can strengthen parental participation and partnership working. The result is that parents are better able to address and, where possible, overcome child protection concerns. We welcome the recognition by government in the white paper Care Matters: Time for Change that family group conferences (FGCs) are “particularly effective” in drawing upon a family’s resources and preventing children going into care. Yet many places in Britain don’t have an FGC service and it is still individual social workers who judge if a family is right for an FGC, rather than it being a child’s right that their family should be entitled to one before care proceedings. In a survey for the children’s rights director, children in care voted the most important promise that a council could make to a child would be to explore whether there were relatives who could look after them to prevent them going into care – six out of 10 children described this idea as “brilliant”. Children who can’t live with their parents and live with relatives appear to do as well if not better than children in unrelated foster or adoptive care and appear to be happier and feel well loved despite less state support. A Bristol University report on placement patterns from 2005 found that 75% of family and friend carers suffered financial hardship compared to 13% of unrelated foster carers, and 35% were in overcrowded accommodation compared to 4% of unrelated foster carers. Yet only 4% of family and friend placements were initiated by a social worker. Following concerted lobbying, the white paper proposes a new framework for family and friends care. Now it’s time for the government to go a step further and introduce a national financial allowance as part of that framework. Even when children are in the care system, their families often remain of critical importance to them. Children who can’t live with their parents regard links with their family as important. But more than a third of children in care feel they don’t see enough of their siblings, and nearly half feel they don’t see enough of other significant relatives. That’s why we are pushing the government to amend legislation so children in care have the right to contact with their siblings
Full Story:
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/News_0511.htm
THE RESEARCH Title: Selective Review of Interventions for Children at Risk of Antisocial Personality Disorder. This international study was commissioned by the Department of Health and the prime minister’s strategy unit in 2006. Study authors: David Utting, Helen Monteiro and Deborah Ghate. Publisher: The Policy Research Bureau, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-9555313-0-9). OBJECTIVES The work focuses on interventions where there is robust evidence from published reviews including evidence from randomised controlled trials. It aims to establish: What is known about effectiveness. The strength of the evidence. The characteristics of the children and families for whom the interventions have demonstrated their effectiveness. The settings – health, social care, geography, social and cultural factors – where these interventions have been used. The interventions chosen were: Two parenting programmes, The Incredible Years and Triple P. A home-visiting programme called Nurse-Family Partnership. Three further interventions designed for the families of particularly challenging children and young people: multi-systemic therapy, multi-dimensional foster care, and functional family therapy. In addition to assessing effectiveness, the review also included some cost-benefit analysis as a guide to potential purchasers and providers of these programmes. The authors begin with a survey of the risk and protective factors that lead children and young people either down the pathways that lead to persistent and intractable problems in adulthood or, alternatively, have the potential to steer them away from such a costly future – for them and for us. The risk factors are organised under the headings of individual, family, school and community, in what might be called an ecological approach. Protective factors identified are: being female, resilience, self-efficacy and outgoing temperament, social bonding, adults setting standards of behaviour, opportunities for involvement, social and reasoning skills, and recognition and due praise. Clearly some of these factors are less amenable to change than others – gender being the one that stands out, but this introduction sets the core questions: how can we intervene effectively to help young people move away from the “slippery slopes” on which some of them seem set at such an early age? and what are the positive features in their lives that we need to reinforce in order to strengthen their resistance? FINDINGS Some of the programmes reviewed here are familiar from previous reviews. The most obvious is The Incredible Years, a well-established parenting programme developed in the US by Webster-Stratton, but used and evaluated in other countries too. But the Triple P – the Positive Parenting Programme – is one that I did not know. This was developed in Australia and has yet to be properly evaluated in the UK – though there is work in England and Scotland reported here. The core finding is: the six programmes are supported by considerable evidence of their effectiveness in achieving better outcomes for children and young people – especially those whose early-onset behavioural problems place them at risk for life-course persistent criminal involvement, antisocial behaviour and social exclusion. Some of the evaluations are able to demonstrate the savings made when comparing the investment in these programmes with the cost of poor outcomes averted or reduced or with the costs of less effective interventions. And all show evidence of effectiveness across different cultural and ethnic groups. There are key features required for effective interventions: A coherent and clearly articulated theoretical base. Professional, qualified/trained staff. High programme consistency – staff carry out the programmes as prescribed and do not allow them to become diluted. The capacity to be delivered in the natural environments of families and young people – they are not merely an impressive clinical showcase. The ability to be tailored to the needs of their core group. An approach that is based on partnership with families. A multi-dimensional model – they recognise the multi-factorial reality of people’s lives and try to respond accordingly. A tiered approach that is able to differentiate between different levels of difficulty. A commitment to go beyond the quick fix – the programmes and their evaluations are long enough to provide genuine impact. Beside this good news there are various caveats. Not all the programmes have been rigorously evaluated in UK settings so there is a clear message about the need to test their effectiveness here. However successful a programme is, it will not work equally well with all young people and with all their families. A percentage will drop out of the programme and others will fail to respond. So we need to retain some common-sense caution. The authors also stress the need to target interventions appropriately. This is where the tiered approach is particularly valuable. It makes no sense to provide the most sophisticated and costly programmes for those least at risk. The level of intervention needs to be geared to the level of risk. There has been a lively debate for some years about the early identification of those at most risk of persistent behaviour problems and the danger of false positives – that is, some of the children predicted to present life-course, persistent problems will turn out to do nothing of the sort. Equally there are others – the false negatives – who do not appear on the local radar as children but who come to notice in later years. CONCLUSIONS Preoccupation with the bad behaviour of young people can be traced back over thousands of years so the issue is scarcely novel. Some of our media continue to present young people in alarmist terms with yet more pleas for symbolic gestures that may please the public gallery but offer little prospect of changing young people’s behaviour.
