Subject: Re: Contacts witheld.
I NEVER give to any of the big charities any more. When I applied for help (I have been raped and made pregnant as a result, I am a child abuse victim) I was snubbed by the NSPCC, Rape Crisis, Shelter and many more.
What's even worse, I have found out that the NSPCC has links with the forced adoption industry!
I would not give any of them a single penny. In this way, I am helping save children from abuse! If you give to "charities" who are involved in the forced adoption industry, you are actually helping child abusers. That's the way I see it. I am a Christian and strongly believe in giving, but these are wicked times and there are some very bad people who are pretending to do good, but they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Better to help people at grass roots level.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Cambridge News > Mum who branded child is jailed
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn%5Fnews%5Fhome/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=46968
Mum who branded child is jailed
A brutal mother who subjected six of her own children to an horrific
campaign of abuse has today been jailed for six years.
The 37-year-old woman beat the children, aged between four and 16, with
weapons including a belt, a broken coat hanger, and a meat tenderising
mallet.
She deliberately branded her 11-year-old daughter with a hot screwdriver
And scratched another with a knife and also left the two girls out on the
streets for three days.
The mother-of-eight's squalid home in Cambridge was never cleaned, the
children went unfed and the youngsters were exposed to harm from each
other.
She was found guilty of 15 counts of cruelty to a person under 16 and two
counts of witness intimidation on following a five week trial in November
at Cambridge Crown Court.
All the children have now been taken into care and during the trial it
emerged that social services had been aware of the family since 1999.
Mum who branded child is jailed
A brutal mother who subjected six of her own children to an horrific
campaign of abuse has today been jailed for six years.
The 37-year-old woman beat the children, aged between four and 16, with
weapons including a belt, a broken coat hanger, and a meat tenderising
mallet.
She deliberately branded her 11-year-old daughter with a hot screwdriver
And scratched another with a knife and also left the two girls out on the
streets for three days.
The mother-of-eight's squalid home in Cambridge was never cleaned, the
children went unfed and the youngsters were exposed to harm from each
other.
She was found guilty of 15 counts of cruelty to a person under 16 and two
counts of witness intimidation on following a five week trial in November
at Cambridge Crown Court.
All the children have now been taken into care and during the trial it
emerged that social services had been aware of the family since 1999.
Monday, December 7, 2009
First Presbyterian Church honors grandparents
http://www.timesleader.com/community/First_Presbyterian_Church_honors_grandparents_12-05-2009.html
December 5
A Grandparents Celebration was recently sponsored by the Deacons of First Presbyterian Church, Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre. Members of the congregation and their families and guests were treated to a buffet lunch, a special musical program by John Vaida, music director at the church, and a sharing of photographs of grandparents dating to the 1800s. Some of the participants, first row, are: Donna Sowcik and Trudy Olszewski. Second row: David Smith Jr., Jeanne Kravitz and Brianna Schraeder.
December 5
A Grandparents Celebration was recently sponsored by the Deacons of First Presbyterian Church, Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre. Members of the congregation and their families and guests were treated to a buffet lunch, a special musical program by John Vaida, music director at the church, and a sharing of photographs of grandparents dating to the 1800s. Some of the participants, first row, are: Donna Sowcik and Trudy Olszewski. Second row: David Smith Jr., Jeanne Kravitz and Brianna Schraeder.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Another family solution?
Contact anon.
Firstly; when a couple separates instead of making for the family lawyer, they should in fact sit in front of a mediator who will assess the situation and generally offer 'both' parties £500 legal aid and a single court appearance, putting the onus on a couple to find a resolution to their difficulty and to agree to a contact and financial contract which is binding in law until the youngest child leaves full time education. This should then make 'both' parents equally responsible for child welfare and maintenance! Should either parent wish to take the matter back to court beyond this, they have to fund this themselves and this should focus their minds on getting it right first time and stop 'fee earning' solicitors exacerbating matter so they can bankrupt Dad, whilst plundering the legal aid purse indefinitely for Mum!
Secondly; No intervention by CAFCASS or other social services at this stage and once a timetable (that may be allowed to vary as the child grows) and finances have been agreed with a judge (not a court reporter) if he still has a concern then the judge should be empowered to contact the family GP and schools for a report on the health and well being of a child who would have a better understanding then a 'snap shot' taken by a social worker. This will then release the social service from a duty they are ill informed to pursue and normally results in them generating future work for themselves, when they should be reformed and working harder to prevent cases such as Baby'P', Victoria Climbe and Khyra Ishaq!
This should be regarded as law and the law is Parental Responsibility which should be enforceable with the prospect of a 6 month jail term minimal for 'either' parent if they break the terms of this contract for life! (Childhood is such a short span of time)
It would also be useful to inform a child at the age of 11 that both parents on the birth certificate are responsible for their children till the age of 18, it may then focus their mind as they entre the peer and social pressures of secondary education that under age sex could have a lasting effect on their lives, not only from a personal health stand point, but also the prospect of 16 to18 years of child care when they are at an age when they probably want to do something else.This should help them wait to become mature enough to take on such an undertaking. Also if a child was to commit a crime between the age of 10 and 16 with the current perceived immunity, their parents would face the court and be prosecuted for dereliction of duty under the care of their children with a fine or if serious enough prison.
The Tory party have also announced that they wish to make Grandparents and extended family the first port of call for child care rather then social services, who should be a last resort after the possibilities have been explored for a grandparents to take charge whilst a parent resolves their difficulties offering continuity and and stability at a fraught stage in a child's life something once again social services will never do so it is better they concentrate on more extreme cases as described recently by the director of Barnardos.
I really hope Gloria Hunniford, in her capacity as patron of the parents organisation, can encourage these bastions of commonsense and stability to consider the welfare of a grandchild , niece or nephew and in turn put right this God awful law that has blighted people for so long and in my view poses a greater risk to normal society then the threat of terrorism!
Firstly; when a couple separates instead of making for the family lawyer, they should in fact sit in front of a mediator who will assess the situation and generally offer 'both' parties £500 legal aid and a single court appearance, putting the onus on a couple to find a resolution to their difficulty and to agree to a contact and financial contract which is binding in law until the youngest child leaves full time education. This should then make 'both' parents equally responsible for child welfare and maintenance! Should either parent wish to take the matter back to court beyond this, they have to fund this themselves and this should focus their minds on getting it right first time and stop 'fee earning' solicitors exacerbating matter so they can bankrupt Dad, whilst plundering the legal aid purse indefinitely for Mum!
Secondly; No intervention by CAFCASS or other social services at this stage and once a timetable (that may be allowed to vary as the child grows) and finances have been agreed with a judge (not a court reporter) if he still has a concern then the judge should be empowered to contact the family GP and schools for a report on the health and well being of a child who would have a better understanding then a 'snap shot' taken by a social worker. This will then release the social service from a duty they are ill informed to pursue and normally results in them generating future work for themselves, when they should be reformed and working harder to prevent cases such as Baby'P', Victoria Climbe and Khyra Ishaq!
This should be regarded as law and the law is Parental Responsibility which should be enforceable with the prospect of a 6 month jail term minimal for 'either' parent if they break the terms of this contract for life! (Childhood is such a short span of time)
It would also be useful to inform a child at the age of 11 that both parents on the birth certificate are responsible for their children till the age of 18, it may then focus their mind as they entre the peer and social pressures of secondary education that under age sex could have a lasting effect on their lives, not only from a personal health stand point, but also the prospect of 16 to18 years of child care when they are at an age when they probably want to do something else.This should help them wait to become mature enough to take on such an undertaking. Also if a child was to commit a crime between the age of 10 and 16 with the current perceived immunity, their parents would face the court and be prosecuted for dereliction of duty under the care of their children with a fine or if serious enough prison.
The Tory party have also announced that they wish to make Grandparents and extended family the first port of call for child care rather then social services, who should be a last resort after the possibilities have been explored for a grandparents to take charge whilst a parent resolves their difficulties offering continuity and and stability at a fraught stage in a child's life something once again social services will never do so it is better they concentrate on more extreme cases as described recently by the director of Barnardos.
I really hope Gloria Hunniford, in her capacity as patron of the parents organisation, can encourage these bastions of commonsense and stability to consider the welfare of a grandchild , niece or nephew and in turn put right this God awful law that has blighted people for so long and in my view poses a greater risk to normal society then the threat of terrorism!
£3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs,
We are all joining. the best thing is we won't get swine flu
Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
16 July 2009
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business.
In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.
I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?
My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear?
I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?
In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill
Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
16 July 2009
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business.
In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.
I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?
My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department. Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear?
I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?
In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)