Wednesday, 18 March 2015


“I do not wish to see anyone prosecuted for revealing information in this way” 

David Cameron, Prime Minister's Questions Wednesday 18th March, 2015 in answer to a question from Tom Watson, seeking a reassurance that “whistle blowers” would be protected from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act or other measures.

Guardian 18.3.2015 @

The following was removed with this comment: 
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

However the acid test is not what happened in the past, we all know that was saturated with vice and cover-up at the highest levels, aided and abetted it has to be said by docile compliant press, but what is still happening NOW! The case of abuse involving alleged child rape and murder, centred on a North London school, is a case in point. Although widely disseminated on the web and in alternative news channels, it has been determinedly been ignored by the main stream media to date, although the issues could not be more important or extreme. Despite compelling child witness statements that refer to identifiable personal characteristics and details, the police after a most superficial investigation, closed the case as "not proved"; removed the children from the mother against whom there were no allegations, since when they have remained in care with the accused father given greater access; and have subsequently refused to reopen the case! An application for Judicial Review lodged on the 22 Jan 2015, the purpose of which is to require them to reopen it, is being strenuously defended by the Metropolitan Police on the grounds that, "No purpose would be served by any other investigative steps." This is as inexplicable as it is profoundly worrying. Meanwhile the evidence, consistent and corroborative up to that point, was "retracted" six days after the children were taken into protective custody on the 11th September, 2014, from which they still have not been returned to competent mother or grandparents. And of course all those named individuals and organisations have, if they were responsible as described, been able to cover their tracts making any subsequent investigation even harder. Given the multiplicity now nationally, of cases of police inaction, or worse complicity, in organised sexual abuse of children, how is it possible that a current case could be treated so cavalierly by the forces of law and justice? This assessment is supported by the Met's own court document on public record here: for it states that the allegations were dismissed by a named Police Inspector only ONE DAY after they were initially made (6.9.2014) with the words "that there was no evidence to support such a high number of people going missing" the naivety of which from a senior policeman need not be dwelt on. Even if specific details of the case were to be proscribed by court procedures, is it in the public interest (not to mention the many children that may still be at risk) to blanket it in secrecy? Not until mainstream news outlets cover the story, will government agencies with the necessary powers be forced to give these very serious allegations proper consideration. That they have failed to do so up to this point, suggests official cover-up is as potent a force as it ever was, and that even a plethora of investigations into "historic abuse" might even be used to distract attention away from current ones. If we have learned nothing else, we have surely learned this, that secrecy in the past assisted the abusers and did nothing to help the abused, in who's interests the principle is said to exist.

VERBATIM EXTRACTS from Application for Judicial Review in the High Court of Justice Administrative Court Claim Number CO/5998/2014 between the natural mother (Ella draper) and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner (Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, QPM) seeking they be ordered to reopen the case.

After summarising some of the more extreme allegations centering on the ritual sacrifice of babies (strangely very little attention is afforded to the specific detailed allegations of sexual and other abuse suffered directly by the children by named identified individuals) they are dismissed with the following sentence. “Detective Inspector Cannon noted on the 6th September, 2014 that there was no evidence to support such a high number of people going missing.”

“The children were interviewed on three different occasions. A medical examination was carried out upon the children. Site visits took place to test the veracity of the allegations. The children's father was interviewed under caution. Upon the third interview the children withdrew the allegations and stated they had made the allegations up, inspired by the film 'The Mask of Zorro'.”

“On the 20th September, 2014 it was decided by the defendant that the allegations would be treated as a non-crime. This was because:

the children gave different accounts as to where the purported satanic abuse took place;

the description which the children gave of where the abuse took place could not be reconciled with the actual layout of the building. For example no secret room existed, and drawers which were said to store babies' skulls were too small for this purpose;

aspects of the purported abuse were not possible. For example fifty people could not have fit (sic) into a toilet cubicle at a swimming pool to commit abuse whilst the pool was open to members of the public;

the boy claimed to have ejaculated when he was four, at roughly a litre of semen at a time, despite four year old children not being capable of ejaculating;

the girl was unable to identify the address which she had been supposedly at numerous times in respect of the allegations;

the children withdrew their allegations in the third interview with the police and stated they had felt forced to provide the accounts due to the style of questioning and barraging by the claimant's partner.”

“At present, whilst the investigation into the children's allegations of satanic abuse and murder has ended, an investigation is ongoing into possible sexual abuse against the children. The available medical evidence has revealed anal scarring on the children but it is not clear at this stage that (sic) caused the injury.”

“The Investigation.

It is not clear at this stage the precise basis of the challenge to the investigation is due to the poor particularisation of the claim. However no purpose would be served by any of the further investigative steps which the claimant has demanded in the judicial review application. It is clear the investigation considered the relevant evidence and reached a reasonable conclusion. The allegation of satanic sexual abuse, murder and the cooking of children were by their nature extremely improbable. The children have withdrawn the allegations. The physical evidence clearly did not support such claims. The investigation into such allegations has not cease due to bias (which is particularised) but due to proper consideration of the evidence. This decision was clearly lawful.”

An application for costs in the sum of £2,420.00 is being made.

Directorate of Legal Services

Metropolitan Police

22nd January, 2015.

Signed on behalf of: Daniel Futter.

Tuesday, 17 March 2015


"Meeting this Sunday at 10.30am outside the Christ Church in Hampstead London – a call from ardent supporters, investigators and activists:Christ Church, Hampstead Square, London NW3 1AB – Phone:020 7435 0054"

Dear Sabine,

Re. The Above.

Good luck with the public gathering, which I hope will be peaceful and reasonable, though large enough so that it and the serious issues it raises cannot be ignored any longer.

The issues are clearly ONE, discovering the facts of the allegations which will have to involve, despite the delay, reopening the the police investigation, if necessary with experts from another force, and TWO another separate internal inquiry as to why the initial investigation failed to follow the Met's own guidelines or call on its own expert paedophile unit or other psychological support. Also why it failed to obtain from the children, signed statements as to their detailed allegations of named persons, or why no subsequent interviews under caution were carried out. In short why STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES were not followed in this case?

Presumably, in the light of the very serious allegations of child rape and murder, far more senior police officers were involved in deciding how to proceed, or not as the case may be, including the decision to coax an alleged "retraction" by the children on the 17th September, 2014 after they had been in protective custody for six days and the very premature and irrational decision on the 22nd inst. to state "Case not proven" and no further action to be taken.

It is not irrelevant that it appears the police have provided no evidence to counter the belief that no effective investigation had in fact been carried out on which these pronouncements were made. Indeed it would appear that the whole approach was designed to 'bury' the story, to negate the allegations, to pursue and persecute the adult accusers in order to shut them up and to warn and give time to the accused to take whatever steps they could to remove evidence and cover their tracks. No evidence has emerged to support the view that the accused have ever been interviewed to enable them the opportunity to present their side of the story or if necessary, defence. Could there be more telling condemnations of Police and Social Services (insofar as they were involved in the decision making) in this case? These general observations are wholly supported by the content and tenour of the police interviews that have found their way, by what ever means, on to the web for all to see.

This case has implications far beyond the individuals involved - although of course these should be the most important. It is a current case study into how the family courts and the police actually perform in instances of alleged child abuse. Legally obliged to do everything in the best interests of the children and to follow the evidence wherever it leads, they have clearly failed. It would be hard not to conclude that this case proves the very opposite is the reality in Britain today, and in circumstances that could hardly be more disturbing. The implications for the reputation of both institutions - the Courts and Police, not to mention child protection agencies themselves - could hardly be more important if the already badly shaken confidence of the public is to be retained.

That this catastrophic failure of both child protection and criminal investigation should take place now, at the very heart of the Capital and Country, at a time when the Met Police stands accused (yesterday's BBC 1 o'clock news) of perverting the course of justice in earlier allegations relating to Cyril Smith and others ( and now the unprecedented sacking of three Judges for accessing pornography on work computers (

Further the Home Secretary herself has recently stated that 'people across Britain do not yet “appreciate the true scale” of the abuse and that once the inquiry is done “we will never look at society in the same way again”'. She adds: '“I hope and believe it will give all victims and survivors a voice,” Mrs May says. “For too long nobody listened, nobody wanted to admit the darkness in our midst.” She warns that “the trail” will lead into schools, hospitals, churches and youth clubs as well as “and many other institutions that should have been places of safety but instead became the setting for the most appalling abuse”. What we have seen so far is “only the tip of the iceberg.”' (

Mrs May has been appraised of this Hampstead case and so we wait to see with baited breath whether in fact anything has been learned and if her heartfelt assurances have practical results, for only this will prove whether they are genuine. Will the Hampstead children be returned to their loving mother and grand-parents at the earliest opportunity? Will their accounts be listened to and recorded in a proper empathetic objective manner? Will a well resourced police enquiry that retains public trust be re-instated and pursued wherever it leads? Will an inquiry be instituted to reveal what individuals were behind the specific inexplicable decisions in this case? And will the facts of this disreputable case have application throughout the whole childcare system?

On the answer to these questions rests far more than even the reputation of Mrs May. 

Regards, Tim.END.

Saturday, 7 March 2015

Hampstead Alleged Abuse. Open Letter to High Court.

Dear Mr Clark,

I feel obliged to write to you regarding the above, in a case that is currently pending before Her Hon Judge Dame Pauffley. The case has attracted international attention, so I am sure I am not the only one to express concern regarding it. The eyes of the world are upon what has happened to date and the need for a speedy and just resolution in the best interests of the children involved. The process and outcome will be viewed as an acid test, in the context of numerous recent high profile cases, most recently in Oxford, of both Judge Pauffley's public pronouncements and the whole British justice system.

We are not in a position to know whether the well publicised claims of the children, are true in fact or not. We are however able to conclude that they have been remarkably consistent and detailed, displaying anatomical, physiological, geographical and procedural information, that in children of that age is highly unlikely to have been gained from imagination or coaching alone, even were that to be the case. Perhaps more importantly the information has been corroborated (incredibly ignored by police) by medical, behavioural and third party evidence. In short their statements have been credible and compelling and must not be dismissed out of hand, as appears to have been done so far.

Secondly, were we to accept that the children's testimony was embroidered, exaggerated or even inaccurate, in part at least, it is thoroughly consistent in this regard at least, that the natural father is the subject and focus of the specific claims of abuse. This is corroborated by other evidence of related violence, in which the police were involved, that led to the mother being given full custody and limitations placed on his access, which it is alleged he flouted, seeing the children, it is claimed by them, daily. They also claim they were under threat of death by him were they to reveal what he had done. Yet despite this, quite incredibly, he has apparently been afforded access to the children by the Family Court, whilst the mother, against whom no suggestion of abuse has been levelled, indeed both children in police interviews repeatedly restated her love and care, has been forced to flee the country, on threat of arrest!

Thirdly, in view of the nature of the allegation by two young children, of both rape and murder, the police approach has been as inexplicable as it has been incompetent. As far as it appears, no concrete steps were taken to properly inquire into the specific allegations, either to substantiate or disprove them. This repeats what has been revealed most recently in the Oxford and Rotherham cases - i.e. a refusal to believe or to act on information received.

This is then compounded by the way the children were treated in three interview situations that are now widely available on the internet. Can it be right that these highly vulnerable children were questioned by a male officer, alone and unsupported? Has the Metropolitan Police learned nothing in such cases? Further that the evidence is there to see that the officer in question appears unable or unwilling to seek detailed information about the alleged abuse or to follow natural lines of enquiry provided by the children's statements. Rather quite the opposite, on the third occasion, seeks to prompt confusion and retraction, upon which flimsy basis the police decide no further action is necessary. In contrast to this inactivity, "ten burly officers", could be provided, to arrest, without warrant, the mother at her home?

What sort of 'topsy turvy' - even corrupt - country are we living in, when officers sworn to protect life and property and uphold the law, operate in such a perverse fashion?

In the light of all this, I sincerely hope that justice will at last prevail, and the High Court at least can be trusted to secure it, by returning the children without further delay to their mother or at least the maternal grand parents, who appear more than competent to provide them with a safe and caring home, that all the grandeur of the British State has so far, conspicuously failed to do.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Veater.

Tuesday, 3 March 2015

Hampstead Horrors? Claims of ritualistic sexual abuse in a North London Primary School.

“Where is Esther Rantzen and her organisation? Where is the NSPCC? Where is the local MP, Glenda Jackson? Where is the national press? Nowhere to be seen (or heard) apparently.”

Whether vindicated or disproved, the children's allegations in the absence of a proper police enquiry, must be treated with the seriousness, rigour, dissemination and transparency that they warrant. If basically accurate, they mean that the children have been subjected to the most extreme violence and that other children may still be at serious risk of harm. In the light of other recent national scandals, this is a test case as to whether lessons have been learned. So far it appears they have not.

1. The history of education in Britain is impossible to disentangle from religious belief and practice. Until the late nineteenth century virtually all education was either sponsored by religious institutions or closely aligned to them. From the late 19th Century Education Acts that introduced universal state education, private education was retained for predominantly the wealthy and the involvement of religious sects (Anglican, Non-conformist, Quaker and Catholic) was retained. Even in the state system, a degree of religious and moral input was maintained. In recent years the role of “faith schools” has even been encouraged embracing in addition the Muslim faith. The advantages and disadvantages of this has been subject to much debate and a certain degree of controversy that has centred around indoctrination, encouraging extremism and the thorny topic of abuse. The well entrenched practice of predominantly wealthy families sending their children to boarding schools from eight years on, and the consequential emotional damage, has received recent attention, as has at the other extreme, the institutional abuse in the care system, currently subject to numerous national inquiries.

2. It is an understatement to say that the Catholic Church has not come out well in the abuse stakes. I have always thought it rather odd and a tad sinister, that children in Catholic schools were subject to such heavy emphasis on a transubstantiation theology. This includes the belief in human sacrifice and the literal ingestion of the blood and body of Christ. But in my wildest dreams I never imagined that in a Local Authority maintained CofE school, in an affluent area of London, a group of adults might engage in the murder of babies, consuming their flesh and blood, plus other violent sexual acts and forcing young children to do likewise, as has been alleged by two male and female siblings that attended it!

3. It is almost impossible to reconcile the completely convincing verbal reports by the two children and the official 2009 report by government inspectors attached below. (Reference 1.) They are clearly quite different worlds. The claims would be incredible were it not for the consistent, detailed and shocking testimony of the children. It is incumbent on us to listen to them objectively and even more important that the authorities do so. The approach must always to take such allegations seriously and act on them if, as in this case, they are credible and supported by independent evidence - until definitively proved otherwise. The failure to do so in this case, is as worrying and inexplicable as the alleged events themselves.

4. The world is full of misery and violence and tragically untold millions of innocent children are subject to its horrors but as Tony Blair was wont to say (or if not him another politician - it doesn't really matter) "Just because we can't do something about everything, doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't do something about something." Often the singular case in history has led to the general social advance, and so I hope it is in this case.

5. Such is the entrenched power of the amorphous 'State', that if its actions are negligent or perverse, the individual has little hope of success or protection. In innumerable cases this has been the sad story. In 'democracies', the law is intended to be the bulwark against this but we know from experience it may not work that way. There may be disbelief, disinterest, reticence to act, collusion, false evidence, even a biased Judge and while prosecutors have if necessary, unlimited financial resources, the defendant may have little or none, and consequently inadequate representation.

6. Sadly, as Rotherham and Oxford (to name but two) have proved, this is the situation in too many cases and why in this particularly 'iconic' one (I think the term is justified) these factors are so important, and why without the internet it might have gone the way of all the others. Where is Esther Rantzen and her organisation? Where is the NSPCC? Where is the local MP, Glenda Jackson? Where is the national press? Where are all the government departments and institutions repeatedly stating their commitment to preventing the abuse of children? Nowhere to be seen (or heard) apparently.

7. The State has a great advantage in such matters, namely 'organisation' and resources not available to the individual citizen. Public opinion can be powerful, outrage can be extreme but unless it is channelled, organised and competently represented, it can remain just that and the object of the outrage un-addressed and un-helped. This is where petition initiated by the child activist Sabine McNeill is so important and every effort should be corralled to swell it, hopefully to her target of one hundred thousand, that would require a Parliamentary debate. If the children's report is reliable, nothing short of a public outcry will do.

8. To date we have witnessed how the courts and police have outrageously frustrated both publicity and natural justice. The only hope, is that the High Court Judge in charge of the case, the Hon. Mrs Justice Pauffley, will be consistent with her public statements, and stand up for the best interests of the children in this case. (Reference 2.) This must be to return the children to their mother, or at least the loving grand parents, at the earliest opportunity. Longer term, if this case does not demand a swift and probing investigation of the police, social services and education department handling of it, nothing does or ever will.

9. So what were the specific but unproven allegations, powerfully made by the two children, before they were apparently “retracted” on the 17th September, 2014? They were as follows - and be warned, it does not make easy reading.

  • That the natural father was the local leader of a (satanic) cult in that area of North London
  • That this was based on and located in the premises of a Local Authority primary school and Anglican Church but not excluding other locations and times

  • That the Vicar and school staff were aware of, or actively participated in, “parties” during school hours or after them, and predominantly on a Wednesday, devoted to “sex, sex, sex” involving the participants, which beside those referred to above, included a select number of parents and children.

  • That there were twenty specially selected children of complicit parents all distinctively marked with some form of emblem

  • That at these parties that could last “for hours” the children were given both sweets and money as reward and warned not to say anything at the threat of serious harm

  • That at the “parties” the children were forced to subject themselves to specific acts of sexual abuse, including plastic dildos and other objects being forced into their anuses and vaginas, being forced to carry out oral sex on male and female participants and with one another, and to otherwise being masturbated and penetrated.
  • Specifically in a harrowing statement, the claim is made that after these attacks, the victim bled from the anus and in another that if he cried his father would hit him on the head with a metal spoon, If he cried more he would be hit again and harder. If this also failed a participant that he names, would inject him in the back of the hand, convincingly demonstrating how it was done, before sending him off to sleep!

  • Perhaps most disturbing of all, both children make specific reference to “killing babies”, “eating their meat”, “drinking their blood”, “using their skin to make shoes”, boiling or otherwise cooking their bodies to eat, “dancing over their skulls” and hanging the babies inverted to drain and catch their blood in a bowl. Although these claims may appear to some to be fantastical, the fact that small children might even be able to imagine them, describe them in such graphic and accurate physiological detail and that they do in fact replicate known satanic procedures, behoves us to take them very, very seriously and not dismiss them out of hand. Perhaps it should be added that these children are objectively very eloquent and level-headed children that have demonstrated that they know the difference between telling the truth and a lie. No evidence has ever, as far as I am aware, has been produced to suggest they have been coached to say things they have, apart from the permission to do so in response to questions posed. Furthermore there is independent verifiable evidence to support their stories that will be enumerated below that convinces their accounts are substantially accurate.

  • Supporting their allegations are spontaneous physical action and throw away lines that can only indicate truth and would be comparatively easy to substantiate or otherwise. They include, but not exclusively, a demonstration of how they allege they were forced to literally “saw” into a baby's neck by their father placing his hand over theirs to provide the sufficient force necessary; very specific detailed descriptions of otherwise hidden birth marks and skin conditions of adult private parts and locations; drawings of these with named persons attached; detailed drawings of bodies hanging; detailed descriptions such as the heads not being completely severed that no fabricated story could be expected to include; reference to “feeling strong” after eating the flesh – a well known satanic belief – that only an initiated child could be expected to know; the mechanics and detailed descriptions of plastic or rubber dildos; the procedure and location of injecting the back of the hand as earlier described.

  • Claims that named individuals supplied the babies for sacrifice. Despite statements that the babies were already dead, this is contradicted by their claims that they “killed babies” and perhaps even more importantly, from the description of draining and drinking the blood, which of course could only happen in a recently terminated life. This may require some explanation but of course if the children are to be believed, and I see no reason unless proved otherwise, they should not be, we are talking about young children before the age of moral awareness, witnessing what appear to us to be extreme and perverted acts as if they were the norm, and compounded by multiple events over time. It is therefore possible theirs are compound descriptors containing aspects of multiple events on different occasions.

  • Descriptions of further sexual activity in the local public baths and other premises carried out by the father and others

  • Aggression between the siblings that they put down to their mistreatment by their father and others and from the tension and physical violence between the parents. This is corroborated by the attendance of police at the time and subsequent separation of the parents after they had effectively been 'arrested' by the Metropolitan Police and Social Services Department.

  • At no time do the children allege any mistreatment by the mother or latterly the grandparents. Indeed the very opposite is the case. They strenuously protest their mother's non-involvement in the described scenarios and her beliefs and actions, though by some might be regarded as verging on the obsessive and bizarre, support the view that she has been at all times a caring and protective mother, who upon realising the proclivities of her husband, sought to prevent his access and any further alleged abuse. The violence he has shown to his wife and children, leaving aside the further specific allegation of satanic abuse, would lead any sensible person to conclude he is not to be trusted to be alone with children including his own. It is this that makes the Social Services and Family Court decisions to afford him twice the access of the mother so incredible. The role of the new partner appears to be a more nuanced one with some suggestion of minor physicality that rather strangely appears to being blown out of all proportion by the departments of state since the allegations came to the surface. The role of the partner in the initial videos is clear and although appearing somewhat aggressive in his questioning technique, his motivation cannot be questioned.

10. The allegations relate to activities at the school and other premises for a period of at least four years, namely 2010 to 2014, when the children first started retelling their accounts at the behest of a mother concerned about her children's aberrant aggressive and overtly sexual behaviour. In September 2014 it was referred to the Police when interviews were held at Barnett police station by a Policeman called “Steve”. Although following national guidelines and undertaken in what appears to be a very considerate and caring way, I find it quite incredible that this was left to a police constable with no assistance from anyone specifically trained in child psychology or indeed with any adult in attendance to provide moral support and guidance for the child being questioned.  We are not in a position to know what prior, or in-house, experience or qualification the policeman has received, but it cannot be right to subject an eight year old, alleging sexual abuse from an adult male, to be in a room with another who he does not know, and be subjected to gentle but persistent questioning on highly emotive and potentially terrifying personal experiences can it? This linked to the absence of any effective investigation into the allegation poses a huge question of competency over their approach and raises a much wider issue of public policy over cases of alleged child abuse, subsequently reinforced by the forced and unjustified removal for more than four months (and continuing) from the natural and caring mother.

11. This 'retraction' and 'case closed' response by the police, is itself deeply worrying after such serious and credible allegations. The watchword in child abuse cases, painfully learned from so much past experience, is now supposed to be to listen to them with an open unbiased mind, to believe them unless and until they are proved to be either exaggerating or lying. I am in no position to know precisely what steps were taken by the police, other than what has been made public, but the speed with which they dismissed them, it certainly appears that the children's words were NOT taken seriously, and even more ominous that appropriate steps were not taken to investigate the very specific allegations before steps could be taken by the alleged perpetrators to potentially destroy incriminating evidence. If correct, this is so damning as to require instant, high level investigation. Needless to say the allegations require the reopening of a criminal investigating utilising, even at this late stage all the legal and technological powers available to them. 

12. If this case does not require it, none will.

Reference 1.  


The inspection was carried out by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors and one Additional Inspector. Inspectors evaluated the overall effectiveness of the school and investigated achievement and standards, the personal development and well-being of pupils, the quality of provision, and leadership and management. Inspectors met with staff, governors and pupils. Parts of some lessons were observed; parents' questionnaires were examined; and school information, including self-evaluation, was scrutinised. Other aspects of the school's work were not investigated in detail, but the inspectors found no evidence to suggest that the school's own assessments, as given in its self-evaluation, were not justified, and these have been included in the report where appropriate.

"Text from letter to pupils explaining the findings of the inspection 14 May 2009 Dear Pupils Inspection of Christ Church Primary School, Hampstead,London,NW3 1JH Thank you for the very warm welcome you gave us when we visited your school. As you know, we talked to many of you throughout the day in order to help us decide how good Christ Church School is. I told some of you that I would write to you all to tell you what we found out. We think you have a fantastic school. Most of you and your parents think the same! Here are just a few of the things we really liked about it. ■ It is a very happy place, where you enjoy your lessons and get on well with each other. Your behaviour is excellent and you work and play together happily. ■ You are rightly very proud of your school and enjoy coming to school each day. ■ Your teachers and teaching assistants really care about how well you do. They do their jobs extremely well, work very hard and make you all feel included. ■ You also work very hard and make very good progress. ■ The school is very well led by your headteacher and her team. They want the very best for you and are determined that you should make as much progress as you can in lessons. As well as identifying what is good about the school we are also making one suggestion to help it become even better. ■ Continue to improve the outdoor area for the Reception class. We wish you every success in the future. Keep up the very good work! Yours faithfully Kekshan Salaria Her Majesty's Inspector."

Reference 2.


"With more than just a little courage, Mrs Justice Pauffley has condemned the overt practice of social workers being too hasty in taking children from parents without proper evidence.
The High Court judge even goes so far as to say that judges and social workers have been conspiring to remove children unjustly from parents and goes on to condemn family court judges for taking part in what she is calling ‘clandestine arrangements’. Mrs Pauffley found that rulings by family judges were simply  ‘cut and pasted’ from recommendations emailed to the court by social workers."
"Clandestine Arrangements
Mrs Justice Pauffley has noticed the practice of judges rubber stamping the wishes of social workers without even so much as checking the information they provide or examining it through a fair hearing. And whilst some may argue that judges rely on ‘experts’ to provide information and guide them on outcomes, the reports provided were never meant to be taken ‘as read’. That has become common practice in our courts and factors such as time pressures and resources are irrelevant here. Breaking procedure is simply not an option."
"Quotes from Mrs Justice Pauffley
What this judge is saying about the family courts and its current murky practices:
  • “The practices I have described are not confined to this area but are widespread across the country”. (Yes, we know, we see it every day in our pro bono work)
  • “It is difficult to view the justices as having been independent and impartial if, as happened here, they simply adopted the local authority’s analysis of what their findings and reasons might comprise.”
  • Just because there may be tacit acceptance on the part of many professionals within the family justice system that the practice which operated here exists, that does not mean it is right. It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again.”
Sir James Munby has backed the Order, which calls for the end of collusion between judges and social workers.
For her bravery and for reminding the system what law is really meant to be about, we make Mrs Justice Pauffley our judge of the week. Hats off to you, madam." END.