Archive for May, 2008


May 29, 2008

I found this quote on the  Fassit  website today. It may sound like strong stuff. A little exaggerated, you might think. But I can tell you it is true because I have seen it all in action and experienced it directly myself.


Social, Services and Family Law in Britain today is evil and destructive. The system is populated by perverts and wierdos as well as just plain incompetent fools – particularly within the Social Services. No wonder the youth of the country are becoming more dysfuntional on a daily basis.


Britain has become a rotten society, as the Bishop said to the press today. He is on the front pages of at least some of the newspapers.


Here is the quote.


‘We live in a country where at present a minority of gutless, ignorant and cruel individuals stand more unaccountable than ministers in our own government. An unaccountable minority making lives hell for thousands of families and their precious children each year.

An unaccountable minority who escape prosecution for their perjurous crimes committed against innocent families in unaccountable family courts wrapped in secrecy.  Unaccountable legal representatives who pretend to care right at the start only to deceive and ignore nearing the end.

These are draconian laws, but made worse when twisted by local authority officials using a safety net of unaccountability. Abolish all secrecy in the Family Courts and let the daylight of open inquiry illuminate their work.” Fassit


Social Workers Removing Children from Innocent Parents

May 28, 2008

This is a little gem of information I just found.

Social Services do seem to be a bit of a problem up and down the country. 

Fassit ( Families and Social Services Information Team) are finding that social workers are removing hundreds of children from innocent parents each year through sheer incompetence and organisational failure.


What could best be described as blatant discrepancies occur between the evidence presented at Court by expert witnesses (social services; health; education etc) and the actual events or material facts of the case.

We do not condone any action by any individual that threatens the safety, wellbeing or emotional development of a child, this includes actions taken by Social Services Departments, Local Education Authorities, Child and Adolescent Health Services and Local Authorities.


Fassit was founded in 2005. A non-governmental voluntary organisation independent of Local Authority Social Services Departments. Fassit provides a website containing information and advice for families with children experiencing frustration in working with Social Services in Child protection Proceedings.


Initially a organisation looking to change views over the legitimacy and ethics of ‘forced adoption’ the organisation has grown to encompass support for individuals at any point in the investigative processes operated by Childrens Social Services.


Fassit are trying to protect all children where massive legal resources and support can be better used on keeping children at home with their families and not completely wasted on unnecessary court proceedings. [Children in care cost the taxpayer an average of £2,500 per child, per week-more than four times what it would cost to send a child to Eton.]  


Where our views diverge from the prevailing political and statutory services view is in the belief that many of the problems we, as a society, face today are avoidable if social care agencies were given proper funding and were scrutinised more and held accountable for their methods and actions.


The health and welfare of families, children and young people is not something that can be made ‘cost effective’ – the benefits of intervention are most often long term and the savings, in the long run, are less crime and more productive individuals with health pro-social skills.


Fassit’s belief is that the role of Social Services as providers of social care is incompatible with the duties they discharge as investigators of alleged or likely abuse. There is no separation of powers, indeed many social services departments have dispensed with specialist child protection teams in favour of multi-tasking roles for individual social workers. Families are increasingly being faced not with allegations of abuse but of the potential to abuse, how such potential is quantified remains a complete mystery.


From its early days Fassit has campaigned against ‘forced adoption’ where there is no recourse, in law, to return children home after an adoption order is granted if the grounds for the adoption are found not to have existed. Such situations do occur and on a more regular basis than social services would want the general public to know.


If social care agencies continue along the road of being seen as indifferent, unapproachable and ‘out of control’ then you can be assured that families will withdraw form any attempt to seek help with their problems.



Daily Mail – 23 February 2008

My baby had cancer but social workers falsely accused me of child abuse and took all three of my children
Read Article…


Daily Mail – 31 January 2008
The baby snatchers: Judge orders social workers to hand back newborn child taken from hospital

Read Article…


Western Mail – January 17 2008

Vulnerable children cry for help

Read Article…

Supermarkets – The Modern Robber Barons

May 28, 2008

I was standing at the cashier in Sainsburys the other day trying to persuade the cashier to swipe my Sainsburys car park card so I could leave with my shopping.


She was refusing to do it because you have to spend a minimum of ten pounds on your shopping, otherwise Sainsburys charge you ten pounds for their car park instead. I had only spent about five pounds. Not enough for the greedy Sainsburys robber barons.


Actually, I hadn’t even wanted to spend even five pounds really as I had only been forced to return to the supermarket to exchange shorts I had bought for my nine year old son that had been incorrectly labelled by Sainsburys. They were the wrong size for him; therefore, utterly useless unless I went back and swopped them for the right size. That was the only reason I had had to go to Sainsburys in the first place.


So they were going to charge me ten pounds for the privilege of correcting their error of sloppily labelling their clothes, forcing me to return.


Anyway, I  was politely insistent about refusing to pay a ten pound car parking charge for less than a hour in the Sainsburys car park just in order to visit their supermarket. So the cashier gave my parking card to a passing supervisor and asked her to go to customer services, where they could swipe it as they had ‘the authority’ to do it and the cashier didn’t have ‘the authority’.


Isn’t bureaucracy a wonderful thing ?


As I heaved a sigh of relief at managing to  have the problem sorted out, there was a sudden shriek from a harridan dressing in the Sainsburys’ uniform. “You’re banned from the supermarket”, she shrieked at the top of her voice.


A hundred people around me at the busy tills froze as she slammed her hand on the panic button and shouted for security men to throw me out of the supermarket.


Can you believe it ?


I can’t !

The Nasty Incompetence of Social Services

May 28, 2008


Hearing the dreadful news yesterday of two children murdered by their schizophrenic mother because of the nasty incompetence of Social Services reminds me that I too have been the victim of social services. 

My nine year old son’s Mother became mentally ill and was treated abominably by social services, as was our son.  

Mum is now too ill to be with my son and I ( almost certainly because of what social services did to her), so that is why I am a single father.

Social services did everything possible to wreck our family – and they succeeded too. They were also dishonest and utterly incompetent. They blatantly lied and made every effort to prevent me from having my son.


They told me they were considering having my son adopted rather than let me have him and openly used this as a threat to me, using the words ‘if I didn’t co-operate with them’.

 At no stage was I ever accused of being a ‘bad’ or incompetent parent. In fact the Family Court specifically praised me, and even social services from time to time gracelessly said I was a ‘good’ father because they were forced to.  

It is a an extraordinary tale. I am prevented from writing about it because of the law relating to Family Courts.


This  has made me even more determined to write about what I legally can in relation to Social Services.


Watch this space.


Meanwhile, have a read of this Daily Mail article about how awful social services are.

Social Services Abusing Children


May 27, 2008


Talking about bailiffs, I have just had a visit from one of these idiots trying to recover a parking fine.


This is the first time he has called about this parking fine, originally for the standard £40. The note he left says his fee for calling just this once is £595.34p.


I happen to know the fee is a complete fiction and a blatant attempt at fraudulently extorting money from me, and entirely illegal. 


The last time I actually saw a bailiff I told him to p**s  off because I wasn’t going to tell him who I was – whether I was actually his intended target or not. 


I snarled at him he was a parasite. He seemed to come over all hurt and aggrieved, almost tearful, and said ‘You don’t have to get personal. I’m only doing my job.’ 

I replied no decent human being would doing that job; ie going around extorting money from perfectly ordinary law abiding people this  authoritarian Labour  Government brands as criminals for simply using their cars.


Then reason I know the fee is illegal is because I  have learnt about it at the CONSUMER ACTION GROUP forums – very useful. Do have a look. There is bound to be something it can help everyone with.



As a currently unemployed full time single parent my only income is about £100 per week of state benefits. Parking fines of £40 for completely ludicrous circumstances, rapidly escalating by hundreds of pounds is a monstrous act of extortion by the government. It is time we all did something about it.


What about everyone simply refusing to pay any parking fines at all. That would sort the thieves out because there would just be absolutely nothing they could do about it except change the law.


This government is rapidly making Britain into a totalitarian state – just like those wacky dictatorships like Burma etc.


Supermarkets Rip Us off

May 23, 2008




I noticed in the supermarket today that the only loose new potatoes were Jersey Royals at £1.99p a kilogram. There were no other loose new potatoes at all.


When I asked an employee at Sainsburys why they  were not still selling the Cyprus new potatoes they had been selling for weeks at less than one pound per kilo – that’s half the price of the Jersey Royals – he said that Sainsburys always stop selling the cheaper Mediterranean new potatoes in order to force customers to pay twice the amount of money for the much more expensive Jersey Royals when they come onto the market.


Is that a rip off or what ?


If you want to buy loose new potatoes at the price of less than one pound a kilo that you have been already paying for weeks, Sainsburys deliberately make sure you have to pay twice as much for the Jersey Royals, which are exactly the same type of potato. It is just that one lot is grown in the Mediterranean and are cheaper, and the other lot are grown in Jersey and are more than twice the price.


Paying two pounds in money for one kilo of potatoes is ridiculous. Many types of meat can cost only about two pounds per kilo weight. Ordinary chicken, for one.


We must be really stupid to let supermarkets get away with this kind of rip off manipulation. They are just plain nasty.


That reminds me. I was in Waitrose supermarket the other day and I saw their ‘Select Farm’ chickens at £1.93 per kilo. The size was described as 4-5 servings and the weight was 1.792 kilos. Then I saw a row of identical chickens at £2.90 odd per kilo. Except they weren’t exactly the same size; they were all one serving size smaller and described as 3-4 servings each.


When I asked a member of Waitrose staff why identical chickens (excepting one type being one serving larger) were two entirely different prices, one type being more than fifty per cent more expensive, they said they larger size chickens were ‘on offer’ and the smaller and more expensive chickens were not.


What do you make of that, then ?


Could it be even more manipulation. It’s a really good way of completely confusing customers and detaching any concept of prices for anything from reality.


Do you think this is why supermarket do it ?


May 23, 2008


This complaint was made to Middlesborough County Court in February 2008 by a disabled lady, who is confined to a wheelchair.

The bailiff’s certificate was revoked and compensation awarded to the lady.

A parking ticket had been incurred and a bailiff from Drakes Group ( now Marston Group) had visited her home early in the morning and clamped her car BEFORE knocking at the door. The car was clearly displaying a disabled blue badge and the warrant in the possession of the bailiff was in the name of Motability Finance. It was therefore clear to the bailiff that the vehicle in question was a disabled vehicle. The bailiff charged £553.36.

The bailiff also maintained that he had visited the house the previous afternoon which was denied by this lady as the family run a business from their premises with staff. Drakes Group, in attempting to prove that a previous visit had taken place provided satellite navigation print outs which the court dismissed as they only proved the bailiff had been in the vicinity….not at the house.
At the hearing, the Judge was critical of the bailiff, but in particular was most critical of the company; Drakes Group Ltd for the following:


“There appears to have been absolutely no reason to do that except to bump up Drakes’ fees…..which had already been bumped up, it seemed to me, by a heavily unjustified charge the day before”.


“I regard it as significant that there is no copy of the letter left (the previous day). I am told that this is a system of Drakes, but Mr X is the only person who can carry the can for an unsatisfactory system.”


“Looking at that document ( breakdown of fees) which contains five figures, there is a maximum of one which is accurate , all the others are excessive”. He also said that “it seems to me that Mr X is trained to seek excessive amounts by is employers”. The Judge confirmed that the “correct figure would probably have been something under £200 made up of the original £95 (PCN), letter and two visits if one took a favourable view about the first visit, certainly NOT £553.36″


“All in all, this is a disgraceful performance, which I find particularly disturbing since it seems to be in accordance with the policy of the employers Drakes Group Ltd. I find it a matter of considerable regret that there is no body which governs the company rather that the individual bailiff. If there had been, it seems to me that Drakes Group ought to be taken before it and deprived of any licence it had”.

“It seems to me that it is perfectly clear that firms of this sort ought to be licenced and ought to operate under a statutory code of conduct rather than regarding themselves as……having a licence to rip off debtors”.

Posted by Bailiffadviceonline

Perhaps I’d Better Start At The Beginning

May 16, 2008

The beginning isn’t so easy to find, though. Where is it ? Is the beginning where my wife suddenly, out of the blue, announced she was leaving me to run off with another man ? Or is the beginning of this story when I met my second partner and Mother of my  Son. Or does it really begin when my second partner started going mad. 

Yes, that’s mad. Stark staring bonkers. It was schizophrenia. It trashed my life and left me a single parent, which is where we come to now.


This blog is about this story. And boy, oh boy are there some gruesome details.


May 14, 2008

My nine year old son and I are currently going through the repossession process yet again. We will shortly be homeless this time.


My son’s Mother became ill when he was a baby and was unable to look after him or even be with us. The building society were about as obstructively unhelpful as you could imagine and insisted on re-possession even though I had another mortgage already arranged to repay them with. Their legal executive was actually abusive just prior to the court hearing, spitting venomously ‘ We will get you thrown out of your house at this hearing regardless of what you say’.


In fact the court stayed repossession as the new mortgage was going to be in place within a day or two. But nothwithstanding that, the building society had completely ignored that and were obviously expecting the court to do so as well. They were simply intent on maximising aggression. It was appalling !


That was my first repossession experience in about 1999.


The second was last year. It is a long story, but the essence of it was I was completely misled by the building society when I had told them I was trying to struggle back into work as a single parent and somehow manage to look after my son as well.


The building society told me not to worry about paying the mortgage for the time being (half was being paid by the state anyway as I was an unemployed single parent) and then they immediately sent penalty charge notices and began the re-possession process, ignoring the fact they had said I did not have to worry about the mortgage for the time being.


Again, their behaviour was outstandingly aggressive and obstructive and there was absolutely no consideration of my  (extreme) circumstances whatsoever. They forced me to cancel vital, life saving surgery I was scheduled for and then, later, when recovering from surgery, they forced me to physically appear in court in a state of virtual collapse from what had been very recent (still in recovery period ) major surgery.


I was precisely seven minutes late for the hearing (the recent major abdominal surgery had made it almost impossible to walk)  and it (along with several other cases) had already been dealt with, repossession being granted by the court for several other people’s properties in separate cases, all within that seven minutes.


I managed to reverse that weeks later and was subsequently given a six month stay by the court, provided I cashed in a pension to extract cash to pay off the arrears  of only about £3000 to date.


When the pension company took  a long time to process their documentation, I asked the court for an extension of the 28 days they had given me to come up with the money. The court said, not to worry, no need to make that application as we will be seeing you at the end of the first three months anyway for a ‘review’.


At this three month review the judge said I had broken the court order giving me 28 days to pay the arrears and although he acknowledged that  it had not been my fault, it being entirely the fault of the slow processing by the pension company, he was ordering repossession then and there and not giving the remaining three months of the six month period granted me. I had, in fact already paid off the arrears by this point. This was an abuse of process by the court, and quite wrong.


So there was a repossession order granted when the arrears had been completely paid off and no arrears were actually outstanding at that point. That judge also sanctimoniously told me that he was of the opinion it was not possible to earn a living as a freelance public relations consultant or journalist (both of which I have spent my entire life doing) and he would therefore be obliged to order repossession as he could see no prospect of the mortgage being paid by virtue of me earning a living. This despite me showing a document offering me work.


How wacky is that. The judge had every legal excuse he might need to be lenient and helpful towards me, but instead he acted out the unbelievable aggression of the lender. 


I was finally sent an eviction notice giving me two weeks to vacate the property or the bailiffs would attend and throw me out at the end of that two week period.


I still had about £100 000 thousand equity in the house and the annual arrears would only be £6000. So the building society could have waited almost indefinitely for me to sort myself out without any risk to them getting all their mortgage repaid.


Meanwhile I had found another mortgage. I was a ‘sub-prime’ customer, which means that regular building societies can pretend they cannot lend to you as you are deemed ‘high risk’. 


But, lo and behold, a lender which just happens to be a subsidiary owned by the same ordinary high street lender is willing to lend you a mortgage  incurring vast expense in the manner of ‘financial churning’ and terms on the new mortgage which almost guarantee you will be repossessed again and lose tens of thousand of pounds in penalty fees and possibly all the remaining equity in the house as it is like to be auctioned off for less than market value.


In the process of obtaining these mortgages I have experienced blatant deviousness from brokers. The most obvious being they knew perfectly well I was on state benefits and without a proper income and yet they advised which figure to pretend was my income etc and they knew the contents of the mortgage application were a fiction as I had no choice but to follow their blatantly dishonest instruction in order to obtain a mortgage. 


They had frequently made it plain that they arranged many falsified applications from desperate people like myself. They also always made false representation to me  that I was eligible for  a particular mortgage they would ‘definitely’ be able to get me at what was quoted as a reasonable rate of interest and then the interest always, without fail in every case, mysterious went up as they changed all the goal posts once I was completely ensnared in their clutches.


Of course, I would not have been desperate if the original mortgage company had been reasonable, and they could easily be so as I had  a couple of hundred thousand pounds in equity at the beginning of this process. 


The bottom line is that all this is a process which magicks all that equity away from me and into the hands of the mortgage lenders.


They are entirely dishonest.


If the original lender in 1999 had shown leniency owing to the extreme circumstances of my being a left a single parent after my partner became massively ill, I might now have increased that original mortgage by about £36 000 up to £136 000 from £100 000. But that house is currently worth about £900 000, which would leave me equity of over three quarters of a million pounds.


However, my current equity is actually about £60 000, making my total loss of nearly seven hundred thousand pounds, all of which has passed into the hands of various lenders by means of this process they have all connived at agreeing to organise between themselves.


My nine year old son and I now face eviction and homelessness. I will lose all that remaining £60 000 of equity, leaving me penniless after being effectively conned out out of my £900 000 house over a period of time.


After thirty five  years of owning my own house I am now unlikely to be able to ever buy another house because of the various strictures lenders impose.


I have twice recently seen the Council of Mortgage Lenders tell the media their members bend over backwards to help people in difficulties pay their mortgage and it is rare for people to be evicted if they contact their lender early and enter into negotiations.


This is a complete fiction (or more properly a lie), verified by my experience. All the lenders have a standard procedural framework for repossessing after just a few months of arrears and it can only be avoided if you come up with the money within that time frame and no longer.


Struggling Single Dad