Topics

61

General Discussion / Dutch NGO calls for probe after KZN girls adopted without father’s consent

« on: April 14, 2021, 04:17:00 PM »

https://www.iol.co.za/sunday-tribune/news/dutch-ngo-calls-for-probe-after-kzn-girls-adopted-without-fathers-consent-8e555e4c-b6d5-4824-9c80-03d15ca5a552

Dutch NGO calls for probe after KZN girls adopted without father’s consent

By Siboniso Mngadi Time of article published Sep 27, 2020

Durban - A Netherlands based non-governmental organisation, Against Child Trafficking (ACT), has called for the Dutch government to do a comprehensive review of all adoptions from South Africa and open a criminal investigation.  The children’s right advocacy organisation which opposes inter-country adoption alleged that inter-country adoptions in the Netherlands have been “riddled with scandals”. The organisation was responding to the recent reports by Sunday Tribune where a father of two daughters from Kwangcolosi, near Hillcrest, complained about the adoption of his girls by a Netherlands couple in 2014.  The father believed there were discrepancies in the adoption process as he was not made aware, he now wants the process reviewed and his girls returned home.  The girls, aged six and eight at the time of adoption, lived in Ikhethelo Children’s Village in Kwanyuswa near Bothas Hill, after their mother died.  The Camperdown Children’s Court granted an order for the girls to be adopted by a foreign couple after an investigation by an adoption agency which facilitated the process.  Arun Dohle, director at ACT, said inter-country adoptions in the Netherlands were riddled with scandals, calling the Dutch government to take the case seriously. He said there were several adoption cases from South Africa that had to be reviewed, and others were still before the court.  According to the Netherlands government, there were 16 children adopted from South Africa last year.  Dohle said they had written several requests to Central Adoption Authority and Committee Investigating Inter-country Adoption in the past, in the Netherlands to review all South African cases.  “In 2008, it was already clear that adoptions from South Africa were a mess and there is corruption. Given the current case, we request that all the adoptions from South Africa will be investigated,” he said.

Dohle said although there has been a decline in adoptions over the years, it was sad to learn about parents or relatives complaining about their children being taken from their country.  He said the inter-country adoption had become a demand-driven market.  It is much better to help children and their families where they are.  “Inter-country adoption undermines the setting up of social support systems. Children are not commodities. There was a Parliament advisory committee that was established in 2016 which made a recommendation that inter-country adoption should stop, but it continues.  It has been legal trafficking since the 1970s, and it is really sad to read about it. Kids should be returned to their parents and they need to be compensated,” he said.

Dohle said he was still waiting for the response from the government on their request, which would inform their way forward.  Neither the Netherlands’s Central Adoption Authority nor the investigating committee has responded to the Sunday Tribune questions by the time of publishing.  The matter was also receiving attention from the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Social Development, which has instituted an investigation into the adoption of the two girls.

62

Articles / Jennifer Aniston 'drops baby bombshell news' on Friends reunion show

« on: April 14, 2021, 03:03:08 PM »

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/jennifer-aniston-drops-baby-bombshell-23902563?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_campaign=12at12_newsletter2&utm_medium=email&pure360.trackingid=dc332faa-28fb-48e4-8537-38b9191e9675

Jennifer Aniston 'drops baby bombshell news' on Friends reunion show

Jennifer Aniston who found fame playing Rachel Green in the hit US sitcom joined her five co-stars in Los Angeles to film the highly-anticipated reunion

By Nika Shakhnazarova Celebrity & Showbiz Reporter

07:46, 13 APR 2021 Updated14:29, 13 APR 2021

Jennifer Aniston has reportedly dropped some major baby news during the Friends reunion special that was filmed last week.  The actress who found fame playing Rachel Green in the hit US sitcom  joined her five co-stars in Los Angeles to film the highly anticipated reunion.  The special was completely canned in 2020 despite producers doing everything they can to make it work.  But die hard fans who watched the famous six blossom on screen breathed a collective sigh of relief as the stars last week met up to film the reunion.  And while the reunion itself is a major event that millions around the world simply can't wait for, there's reportedly another big reason to tune in.  Sources tell Closer that the emotional reunion prompted Jen to drop some bombshell news as she told her co-stars about her excitement over her new baby arrival.  It’s reported that the twice-divorced actress has decided to adopt a baby girl from Mexican orphanage, Casa Hogar Sion.  Jen has been a long-time supporter of helping out the orphanage, and her friends are now saying the adoption process is set to be finalised by June.  “Jen felt the reunion was the perfect time to make her baby announcement to the whole gang. While the girls already knew as they see each other regularly she thought it would be special to tell the boys when they were all together, as she rarely sees them these days due to their busy lives and work commitments," an insider told the publication.

“Spending almost every waking hour together for a decade, they lived through every detail of each other’s lives and supported each other through all their hard times including Courteney’s fertility struggles and Jen’s painful divorce from Brad Pitt.  Knowing how much they’ve always wanted this for Jen knowing her history, made it even more poignant for her to tell them her news so they could share and celebrate the milestone chapter in her life.  They were all overjoyed when she told them giving her parenting advice, which she said she’d happily take on once she was settled in," the source added.

Rumours of Jen adopting a child from Casa Hogar Sion swirled back in 2011 before she tied the knot with second husband Justin Theroux.  However Jen had always remained tight-lipped on her baby plans, and denied such reports in the past.  It's now reported that she will be a mum in June when she takes her baby girl home.  Since starting the adoption process last year, Jen's friends have told the publication that her best-friend and former Friends co-star Courteney Cox has been right by her side through it all.  Jen who is the Godmother to Courteney's 16-year-old daughter Coco fuelled baby rumours last year when she said: “I hear laughter, I see kids running” in her future, despite being single at the time.  It's reported that the baby news has got Courteney so excited that the actress who played Monica Geller in the sitcom has taken it upon herself to plan Jen's baby shower.  "Court knows Jen doesn’t want a big fuss made, but she wants to celebrate this huge milestone in her life so she’s planning an intimate dinner party for all her closest loved ones," the source adds.

The Mirror has contacted Jen's reps for comment.

63

General Discussion / Olympian Tessa Sanderson, 65, reveals she has talked to her eight-year-old.....

« on: April 04, 2021, 04:40:49 PM »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9434839/Olympian-Tessa-Sanderson-65-reveals-talked-eight-year-old-twins-racism.html

Olympian Tessa Sanderson, 65, reveals she has talked to her eight-year-old twins about racism and their adoption to prepare them for 'hurtful' comments in the future

    Tessa Sanderson has revealed she has explained racism to her twins, eight
    Olympic javelin star, 65, adopted Cassius and Ruby Mae seven years ago
    Explained their ethnicity because she was aware they may suffer cruel words
    Cassius and Ruby Mae are mixed race with Irish and Jamaican heritage 

By Georgia Simcox For Mailonline

Published: 14:05, 4 April 2021 | Updated: 14:06, 4 April 2021

British Olympian Tessa Sanderson has revealed she sat down her eight-year-old twins to explain the Black Lives Matter protests because she is aware they may suffer racist abuse in the future.  The sportswoman, 65, adopted brother and sister Cassius and Ruby Mae seven years ago when they were four months old and she was 58.  They are mixed race, with Irish and Jamaican heritage, and were severely ill initially because their parents were drug users.  Tessa said she made sure that she explained their ethnicity to them because she is aware people might make cruel comments related to their heritage in the future.  'We have talked to them about the colour of their skin. And I say, "You know what, if you do get called names and things like that, if it hurts you, come home and talk to Mummy or you talk to your teacher about it."

'I'd tell them, "Don't ever judge people by the colour of their skin" straight up, like that.'

She went on: 'When the Black Lives Matter marches were on and they asked, "Why's that happening Mummy?" and I would explain.  We talked about unfairness as well. All this different language is what me and my husband use to our kids to make them understand.  We have always taught them that you may get some name-calling, you may get people saying, even about adoption, "Oh they're not your real mummy and daddy", they understand all of that.'

Tessa underwent three rounds of failed IVF before the age of 50. She and her husband, judo Olympian Densign White, 59, decided to adopt because Tessa longed to be a mother.  Tessa arrived in Britain as a six-year-old child a year after her Windrush parents left Jamaica to look for work.  The family settled in Wednesfield, West Midlands, and Tessa went on to become the first black British woman to win an Olympic gold after her 69.56-metre javelin triumph at the 1984 games in Los Angeles, US.  She is also the first Briton to represent her country at six Olympic Games and is still the only person, man or woman, to win a throwing gold for GB.  She said adopting Cassius and Ruby Mae made her world complete, but the transition hasn't been without some stresses.  Tessa said someone had already told the twins that she and Densign 'weren't their real mum and dad', but the children were prepared as she had explained that they were adopted when they were four or five years old.  Tessa, who lives in London, said: 'Somebody said that in the playground, but they were fine because by then they knew about adoption and to them it didn't matter. Because as far as they're concerned we are their mummy and daddy.'

She said Cassius had begun reading texts by Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, adding: 'When I talk about racism to my kids it's not just about being black or white, I have even taken them back to Windrush Days and I said there were things written on the wall that black people were not allowed here and they'd ask, "Well why Mummy?" and I'd say "Well that's the way some people are, some people can be very hurtful".  I've said people should be treated equally, on a level. I've said to them that some people just don't like the colour of other people's skin and it shouldn't be like that.  I said be proud of your skin and be proud of what you do and it has driven home to them, it's given them the power to realise that they might be a little bit different colour from other people but inside they're OK.  I don't know in the future if they will have a problem, but what I'm fairly confident about is that they would address that problem in the right way and hopefully they will have the confidence to find the right things to do about it.  I tell them I'm proud of being me and you must be proud of being you whatever the consequences. We talk about the hard truth. I say to them that there are a lot of people that are jealous, unkind, don't want to treat you fairly and this is what happens, but as long as you take onboard your education and your confidence and respect other people's skin colour then life will be a little bit better.'

Tessa and Densign's adoption journey also wasn't easy, as they were turned down for a five-year-old girl before the twins. And when Cassius and Ruby Mae joined their family, they had to have HIV tests due to their parents' background.  But Tessa says being an older mother has helped her be a better one and she describes adoption as 'brilliant'.  She is now modelling into her 60s, enjoys motivational speaking and hopes to do more TV presenting in the future, especially with the Commonwealth Games coming to Birmingham in 2022.  She added: 'Bringing my children into my word has really made my life complete. I knew I couldn't have children, there were always children around in my family and I got downhearted.  I thought adoption is what I really want to do and it's brought a lot of happiness to me, even more confidence I've got back, it's made me feel younger. It's lovely to go forward and create your world.  My body's in good nick, I feel great, my husband is positive so I've got the support there, I am healthy enough. Age isn't a barrier. Do I feel different from 35? Yes of course I bloody do.  But I'm a lot more confident even in myself and over 50 started all of that. I jog three times a week, I exercise with my kids when I want to. I really keep myself healthy. I'm not 25 or 35 but I don't have to be.'

64

General Discussion / RTE Investigates: Dublin woman's battle to find birth mother after finding....

« on: March 05, 2021, 10:34:39 AM »

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/mother-baby-homes-rte-investigates-19952699

RTE Investigates: Dublin woman's battle to find birth mother after finding out she was illegally adopted

Some powerful people were involved in the cover-ups, including the son of a President of Ireland, Professor Eamon de Valera Jnr, who worked at Holles Street National Maternity Hospital

By Ailbhe Daly

07:00, 3 MAR 2021

Threatening letters, fake documents and insensitive meetings are just some of the shocking discoveries from a probe into
Ireland’s illegal adoptions.  In January, the Mother and Baby Homes report was finally published and detailed the harsh treatment of unmarried women and their children at 18 institutions across the country.  The 4,000-page document details the failings of the State in relation to the homes but does little to discuss the 126 illegally-adopted babies.  Dublin woman Susan Kiernan learned as a child she was adopted and, after spending years attempting to hunt down her birth mother, she received a letter from Tusla in 2018.  She was told she was one of the babies who were illegally adopted and, while she managed to sneak copies of some of her paperwork during the meeting, she was later provided with redacted records when she went through official channels. Among the documents seen in the RTE Investigates programme was a demand for £85, the fee St Patrick’s Guild charged pregnant women to care for their babies until adopted the equivalent of more than €3,200 in today’s money.  But when Susan’s birth mum didn’t pay her fee, the Sisters of Charity went in pursuit and, two months on, they threatened to send the child back to her.  The documents show that a year on Susan’s birth mother was still struggling to pay the nuns and they began phoning Arnotts, where she worked as a shop assistant.  They said: “If you do not send, my collector will call to see you. She would prefer not to have to do this as it might be embarrassing for you and we want to safeguard your reputation. We have not failed you; you have failed us”.

But these were nothing more than idle threats because Susan could not have been returned due to the fact she had been placed with her adoptive parents at just four days old.  And some powerful people were involved in the cover-ups, including the son of a President of Ireland, Professor Eamon de Valera Jnr, who worked at Holles Street National Maternity Hospital.  He arranged antenatal appointments for a woman who was not pregnant to facilitate an illegal adoption.  This was almost a decade after the Adoption Act 1952 came into force. Brenda and Brian Lynch were two of four children illegally adopted into the one house over five-and-a-half years  The adoptions were facilitated by Mr de Valera Jnr and they were concealed as fake pregnancies.  Brian’s mum went to St Brendan’s Nursing Home, Dublin, on her pretend due date but she emerged with him, the child of an unmarried mother.  Fearing her children would face the stigma of adoption, their adoptive mother never told them the truth.  Brenda said: “No one is above the law, who does this person think that he is? That he can just decide that, ‘Oh yeah here is a baby, we will take her from her and give her to a good family, middle class’. It is incredible.”

Tusla said it has “identified a small number of cases where meetings have taken place in venues that would fall outside our own guidance and best practice.” It intends to engage with these people again and “apologise directly to them”.

65

General Discussion / Adoption Moved to Facebook and a War Began

« on: March 05, 2021, 10:22:34 AM »

https://www.wired.com/story/adoption-moved-to-facebook-and-a-war-began/?utm_medium=social&utm_brand=wired&mbid=social_facebook&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=facebook

Samantha M. Shapiro
Backchannel
03.04.2021 07:00 AM

Adoption Moved to Facebook and a War Began

As the adoption industry migrates to social media, regretful adoptees and birth mothers are confronting prospective parents with their personal pain and anger.  When Erin and Justin decided to adopt a child at the beginning of 2016, they paid $25,000 to sign on with one of the largest, most reputable adoption agencies in the United States. They imagined an orderly process, facilitated by lawyers and social workers.  They didn’t foresee the internet trolls who would call them cunts and psychopaths. Nor did they imagine they’d be filing a police report, or pleading with Facebook to delete posts that called them human traffickers. They didn’t expect the internet to be involved in the process at all.  Erin and Justin (not their real names) met in Chicago in 2010 on a dating site. Erin was 37 with blond, beachy waves and a Michigan accent. She was divorced at the time and approached the dating market pragmatically, uninterested in wasting time with men who were not serious prospects. When she met Justin, she knew she’d found what she was looking for. “He was so kind, different from anyone I’d dated, and I knew he’d be a good dad,” she told me.

They married in 2011 and planned to have children, but when Erin got a job offer that took them to New York City, they decided to wait until they were settled. Then, when they were ready to start trying, Erin learned that she had gone into premature menopause. “I wasn’t devastated, because I knew I wanted to be a mom, and it didn’t matter to me how my child came to me,” she said.

They forged ahead, excited to adopt.  But several months after they signed with the adoption agency, it filed for bankruptcy. Erin and Justin contacted an attorney, who advised them to move their search online.

The adoption industry has never been very well regulated, and there is a history of certain firms engaging in unethical practices. But when agencies were the primary facilitators of adoption, they could at least perform basic vetting of birth mothers and adoptive parents and manage complex legal processes. The open marketplace of the web removed that layer of oversight. A 2012 report on adoption and the internet, by the now defunct Donaldson Adoption Institute, found, among other things, that online adoptions create opportunities for fraud and for financial incentives that might push expectant mothers to give up their children. Online, prospective adoptive parents negotiate with birth mothers directly via Craigslist ads. People who adopt children, often from overseas, and then change their minds find new homes for them in Facebook “adoption disruption” groups, without any supervision from child welfare agencies. “One thing that is true about adoption and the internet is that no one is paying attention,” says Adam Pertman, who was the executive director of the Donaldson Adoption Institute. “Whatever is happening is happening because it can, and it’s having enormous impact some good, some bad, and some unknowable without any repercussions.”

66

Articles / Did courtiers bury bullying claims to PROTECT Meghan? Duchess says she is ....

« on: March 05, 2021, 10:07:31 AM »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9327671/Meghan-claims-victim-Palace-conspiracy-RICHARD-KAY-reveals-truth-tantalising.html

Did courtiers bury bullying claims to PROTECT Meghan? Duchess says she is the victim of a cruel Palace conspiracy but, asks RICHARD KAY, could the truth be far more tantalising?

    Meghan Markle is the subject of bullying complaints from her former royal aides, in leaked email to the Times
    Jason Knauf alleges Duchess of Sussex forced two assistants out of jobs amid claims of 'emotional cruelty'
    Buckingham Palace is launching an unprecedented investigation into the allegations, deepening the crisis
    Last night, a new promotion video for Harry and Meghan's Oprah Winfrey talk was posted on social media
    In the video, Meghan alleges 'The Firm'  is playing 'active role in perpetuating falsehoods' about her and Harry

By Richard Kay for the Daily Mail

Published: 22:05, 4 March 2021 | Updated: 23:28, 4 March 2021

His grand oak-panelled office with its conference table and comfy sofas in the heart of Whitehall, four miles from Kensington Palace, is too far away for Simon Case to hear the cries of anguish emanating from the royal bunker where he used to work.  The irony that he left the back-stabbing, hot-tempered intrigue of palace politics for the comparative tranquillity of Downing Street when he took the job as Britain's top civil servant is not lost on the £200,000-a-year, risk-averse Cabinet Secretary.  But the chaos that has enveloped the royal world with incendiary claims that the Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry bullied staff and that he was privy to them as a senior courtier has plunged the mandarin into the deepest crisis to hit the monarchy for a generation.  At its heart the turmoil engulfing the royals has occurred not because of what the bespectacled Dr Case did but because of what, it is alleged, didn't happen after the bullying claims reached his desk.  On Wednesday it emerged he had been sent an email from Harry and Meghan's former communications secretary Jason Knauf that claimed the duchess bullied two assistants and shattered the confidence of a third member of staff, and 'drove them out' of Kensington Palace.  At the same time a former aide was quoted as telling The Times newspaper that both Harry and his wife were 'outrageous bullies'.  The complaint was passed to the palace's personnel department these days known as HR, or human resources and, once there, the suspicion is that it was buried.  Now the leaking of the email has forced Buckingham Palace into retrospective action with its unprecedented announcement of an inquiry into the bullying claims.  Past and present staff are to be invited to speak confidentially about their experience of working for Meghan.  The Queen's statement escalated the tit-for-tat war of words between Buckingham Palace and Los Angeles-based 'Team Sussex'.  A clip from Meghan's upcoming tell-all interview with broadcaster Oprah Winfrey included the extraordinary accusation from her that the palace had been 'perpetuating falsehoods' about her and Harry.  But beyond recriminations about the bullying claims, the focus is shifting to the role played in the whole sorry saga by palace servants and who knew what and when.  That has placed the smooth-as-silk Dr Case at the centre of the drama. But it also involves other figures, some of them American-born like the duchess.  The story begins in October 2018 when, behind palace doors, the glow of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's Windsor wedding just five months earlier had long passed.  Insiders were already describing Meghan as 'Duchess Difficult'.  Despite the positive headlines of their first major overseas tour to Australia there were claims that her demands had reduced at least one member of staff to tears.  As the man in charge of the couple's public image, Jason Knauf was so alarmed by what he had learned that he set it down in an email, writing: 'I am very concerned that the duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year. The treatment of (X) was totally unacceptable.  The duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights. She is bullying (Y) and seeking to undermine her confidence. We have had report after report from people who have witnessed unacceptable behaviour towards (Y).'

In the same message, Mr Knauf expressed concern about the stress experienced by Samantha Cohen, the couple's private secretary, a veteran of the Queen's office and a highly regarded palace operator.  Why Mr Knauf wrote to Dr Case when technically Miss Cohen was his line manager is unclear. But presumably it is explained by the fact that Australian-born Miss Cohen featured in the content.  Although Dr Case had no managerial responsibility for Harry's staff, he was said to take a close interest in what was happening at a time when the strains between Harry and William were beginning to cause real concern at the palace.  He and Mr Knauf had a close working relationship as he was also communications chief for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.  According to reports, Dr Case suggested the email should be passed to Samantha Carruthers, human resources director for the Prince of Wales at Clarence House.  As Charles's Duchy of Cornwall funds both Harry and William's staff, HR comes under his control.  Some believe that by passing the whole thing to human resources Dr Case was effectively washing his hands of the problem.  Meanwhile, Mr Knauf said he had already consulted Miss Carruthers who now works for media figure Elisabeth Murdoch and that she 'agreed with me on all counts that the situation was very serious'.

But he added pointedly: 'I remain concerned that nothing will be done.'

What seems beyond doubt is that the complaint about Meghan's behaviour reached HR but it is unclear why it went no further. Was it a deliberate cover-up or a concerted attempt to bend over backwards to accommodate the duchess? 

Figures close to the action at that time say that there was a view that the claims of bullying have long been a feature of royal life.  As a courtier observes: 'Working for the royals is a very strange job. It tends to attract social misfits and those from military backgrounds used to taking orders, but not everyone can handle it.  Very few cases are made public and victims are usually paid off and made to sign a non-disclosure agreement.'

The palace inquiry will try to get to the bottom of the Knauf complaint. The one question it will need to answer is whether it was taken to a higher level in the royal household or, as Mr Knauf clearly believed, was simply ignored.  How ironic if the latter is the case. This would suggest the very people whom Meghan has complained were out to destroy her, the 'men in grey suits' were actually the figures protecting her.  All the same, it is significant that the complaint should have been made by Jason Knauf.  American-born with a liberal outlook, he was educated at the London School of Economics and a university in New Zealand.  If anyone could understand how difficult it could be for a modern, opinionated and socially aware young woman like fellow American Meghan to adjust to royal life, it surely would be Mr Knauf.  The fact that she should end up antagonising him, an instinctive supporter, suggests the duchess's behaviour was worthy of censure.  Not long after he sent his email, a restructuring of Harry and Meghan's staff which seemed to happen regularly another American figure arrived to replace him.  This was Sara Latham, a former aide to Hillary Clinton who had worked at the highest level in the UK Government. With dual British and US citizenship, she seemed ideal not just to manage Meghan's PR, but as a sounding board as the duchess adjusted to life as a royal.  But it too proved not to be a successful relationship. For palace old hands, courtiers cannot be blamed.  'Meghan arrived having no idea of monarchy and how it rests on public approval and carefully calibrated deference,' says a figure close to Charles. 

'When she met Harry his popularity was soaring. She had no idea she would be playing second fiddle or even third fiddle after Charles and William and Kate.  She thought she was marrying the equivalent of Robbie Williams in his Glastonbury days after his split from Take That. But the royals aren't Hollywood and celebrity, respect has to be earned and she didn't like that.'

A spokesman for the Sussexes told The Times they were the victims of a 'calculated smear campaign based on misleading and harmful information' adding that the duchess was 'saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma'.

As for Simon Case, there must be the queasiest of feelings that those silky skills honed in the civil service could have been put to better use to prevent a petty royal drama turning into an existential crisis that today threatens the very fabric of the monarchy.

Meghan takes side swipe at 'The Firm' as she accuses Royal Family of 'perpetuating falsehoods' in her TV onslaught

By Rebecca English, Royal Editor for the Daily Mail

Palace aides were braced for an explosive fallout from the Duchess of Sussex's 'tell-all' Oprah interview last night after the first full clip showed her accusing the Royal Family of 'perpetuating falsehoods' about her and Harry.  In the clip released by CBS, the US broadcaster that will air her two-hour bombshell talk with chat show host Oprah Winfrey, Meghan makes it clear she will not be 'silenced by The Firm', a catch-all term for the Royal Family.  To a background of dramatic music, Miss Winfrey asks her: 'How do you feel about the Palace hearing you speak your truth today?'

Stony faced, Meghan replies: 'I don't know how they could expect that after all of this time we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us.'

All the same, it is significant that the complaint should have been made by Jason Knauf.  American-born with a liberal outlook, he was educated at the London School of Economics and a university in New Zealand.  If anyone could understand how difficult it could be for a modern, opinionated and socially aware young woman like fellow American Meghan to adjust to royal life, it surely would be Mr Knauf.   The fact that she should end up antagonising him, an instinctive supporter, suggests the duchess's behaviour was worthy of censure.  Not long after he sent his email, a restructuring of Harry and Meghan's staff which seemed to happen regularly another American figure arrived to replace him.  This was Sara Latham, a former aide to Hillary Clinton who had worked at the highest level in the UK Government. With dual British and US citizenship, she seemed ideal not just to manage Meghan's PR, but as a sounding board as the duchess adjusted to life as a royal.  But it too proved not to be a successful relationship. For palace old hands, courtiers cannot be blamed.  'Meghan arrived having no idea of monarchy and how it rests on public approval and carefully calibrated deference,' says a figure close to Charles.

'When she met Harry his popularity was soaring. She had no idea she would be playing second fiddle or even third fiddle after Charles and William and Kate.   She thought she was marrying the equivalent of Robbie Williams in his Glastonbury days after his split from Take That. But the royals aren't Hollywood and celebrity, respect has to be earned and she didn't like that.'

A spokesman for the Sussexes told The Times they were the victims of a 'calculated smear campaign based on misleading and harmful information' adding that the duchess was 'saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma'.

As for Simon Case, there must be the queasiest of feelings that those silky skills honed in the civil service could have been put to better use to prevent a petty royal drama turning into an existential crisis that today threatens the very fabric of the monarchy.
 
Meghan takes side swipe at 'The Firm' as she accuses Royal Family of 'perpetuating falsehoods' in her TV onslaught

By Rebecca English, Royal Editor for the Daily Mail

Palace aides were braced for an explosive fallout from the Duchess of Sussex's 'tell-all' Oprah interview last night after the first full clip showed her accusing the Royal Family of 'perpetuating falsehoods' about her and Harry.  In the clip released by CBS, the US broadcaster that will air her two-hour bombshell talk with chat show host Oprah Winfrey, Meghan makes it clear she will not be 'silenced by The Firm', a catch-all term for the Royal Family.  To a background of dramatic music, Miss Winfrey asks her: 'How do you feel about the Palace hearing you speak your truth today?'

Stony faced, Meghan replies: 'I don't know how they could expect that after all of this time we would still just be silent if there is an active role that The Firm is playing in perpetuating falsehoods about us.'

One insider said: 'It is all a bit unedifying and ridiculous. If anyone in the Palace was orchestrating or peddling a campaign of misinformation to smear them they would think of something better than accusations of bullying that the institution itself doesn't come out well from. Buckingham Palace are determined to try to maintain a dignified silence on the interview and the furore around it.'

But writing for Harper's Bazaar, a US magazine that prides itself on publishing positive coverage of Meghan, Omid Scobie, the author of the Sussexes' controversial biography Finding Freedom, this week accused Palace staff of a 'takedown' of Meghan's character.  He quoted a friend as saying: 'Harry and Meghan knew that it would get ugly in the run-up [to the Oprah special], but seeing such an obvious attempt at destroying her character was distressing and upsetting.'
 
Charity boss who worked closely with Duchess is besieged for saying 'hurting the Queen in public is really low'

By Rebecca English, Royal Editor for the Daily Mail

A charity executive who has worked closely with the Duchess of Sussex was hounded on Twitter yesterday after posting: 'Hurting the Queen in public is really low.'

Kate Robertson, who founded One Young World, said the duchess should sort out her grievances 'in person privately' and praised the monarch for being the 'world's most stunning example of public service'.  But Mrs Robertson deleted her tweet three hours later after she was trolled by 'fans' of the Sussexes and said she had been 'unduly critical of people I admire, care about and have worked with for a long time'.

Her first message after the Sussexes took a swipe at Buckingham Palace – was posted at 8.18am and read: 'Not having any of it. The Queen is the world's most stunning example of duty and service.  The Sussexes have grievances but should sort out in person privately. Hurting the Queen in public is really low.'

Meghan's biographer, Omid Scobie, who wrote last summer's controversial Finding Freedom, then highlighted the message, saying: 'It seems like that not everybody will be watching [Oprah] on Sunday, including the founder of One Young World, a youth-focused global forum that the Duchess of Sussex has been involved with for years.'

His message sparked a social media 'pile-on' with Mrs Robertson being bombarded with angry messages from fanatical admirers of the duchess.  She subsequently deleted the Tweet and posted: 'I am so sorry. I sent a tweet this morning that was unduly critical of people I admire, care about and have worked with for a long time.  People have called me out on it and they were right to do so we should all choose to contribute to a culture of kindness. Everyone has the right to tell their story that's what our work is about. This was a good lesson: commenting on people's personal lives is wrong. I'm truly sorry.'

Worryingly, even her apology was subject to hundreds of messages of abuse from social media users bizarrely calling themselves 'the Sussex Squad', including several demanding her resignation.  Mr Scobie's tweet that quoted her message was later removed. The duchess has supported One Young World for a number of years, both before and after her marriage to Harry, and appeared with Mrs Robertson at several events.  They made headlines in 2019 when Mrs Robertson greeted the duchess on stage with a curtsy, while Meghan went in for a warm hug, resulting in an awkward clash.

Duke of Edinburgh recovering in hospital following successful surgery for pre-existing heart condition

By Kate Pickles, Health Correspondent for the Daily Mail

The Duke of Edinburgh is recovering in hospital following successful surgery for a pre-existing heart condition just three months short of his 100th birthday.  Prince Philip, the nation's longest serving consort, underwent the procedure at St Bartholomew's Hospital in London on Wednesday.  Buckingham Palace said in a statement yesterday: 'His Royal Highness will remain in hospital for treatment, rest and recuperation for a number of days.'

The announcement sparked renewed concern due to the duke's advanced age.  He has already spent 17 nights in hospital after being admitted to the King Edward VII's Hospital in Marylebone, central London, on February 16, on his doctor's advice.  He has never before spent as long in hospital. The duke whose 100th birthday will be on June 10 walked into King Edward VII's unaided after travelling there from Windsor Castle, where he has spent most of lockdown with the Queen.  A royal source had previously said that it had not been an emergency admission and was down to 'an abundance of caution'. Philip was admitted after feeling unwell and was treated for an infection.  But on Monday, he was transferred to Bart's the country's leading heart hospital for tests and observation on 'an existing heart condition'. Treatment for the infection was also to continue.  In 2011, Philip was rushed to hospital by helicopter from Sandringham after suffering chest pains as the royal family prepared for Christmas. In the serious health scare, he was treated for a blocked coronary artery at Papworth Hospital in Cambridgeshire and had a stent fitted a minimally invasive procedure.  The Palace declined to give details of the latest exact surgery. But experts have suggested that a decade on, the stent may have needed replacing, requiring a further procedure.  It is also possible that the duke had aortic stenosis, a common condition in old age where the main valve in the heart becomes stiff or narrowed, reducing blood flow to the main artery.  Once requiring open heart surgery, the valve now tends to be replaced using another minimally-invasive procedure which patients can recover from 'in days'.  Dr Derek Connolly, a consultant interventional cardiologist at Birmingham City Hospital, said Philip is in 'the best possible hands'. He explained: 'We obviously don't know the procedure he's undergone but we do know he's got coronary disease from when he had the stent fitted ten years ago.  Older patients often get stenosis of the aortic valve but they will be checking for other conditions, such as rhythm disturbances and the heart failing.  Charles Knight, the chief executive at Bart's, is one of the most eminent cardiologists in Europe so he's in exactly the right place, whichever of these it is. The team at Bart's really are world-leaders when it comes to cardiology.'

The Duchess of Cornwall revealed the Duke of Edinburgh was 'slightly improving' but 'hurts at moments' as she carried out a visit to a community vaccination centre on Wednesday.  On a visit to South London, Camilla was heard telling staff that morning: 'We'll keep our fingers crossed.'

It is not known whether the duke had undergone the procedure at this point.  Philip is patron of the British Heart Foundation, which sent its best wishes, saying the royal had been a 'long-term advocate for heart research'.  Philip was visited in King Edward VII's Hospital last month by the Prince of Wales, who made a 200-mile round trip from Highgrove and stayed for around half an hour.  Along with the Queen, Philip received his Covid-19 jab in January.  After announcing the surgery, the Palace shared an image on social media to mark World Book Day of the Queen and Philip together in 1976 in the library at Balmoral Castle.  The Queen has been carrying on with her official duties, holding her weekly audience with the Prime Minister by telephone from Windsor on Wednesday.  Yesterday, she had a telephone audience with the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Wigston.  Meanwhile, ITV vowed to go ahead with broadcasting the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's interview with Oprah Winfrey, despite criticism in light of Philip's ongoing health problems. The broadcaster released a trailer yesterday, ahead of the two-hour show next Monday, featuring the same footage put out by CBS.

Palace 'won't rush' inquiry into Meghan Markle bullying allegations

By Rebecca English, Royal Editor for the Daily Mail

The Buckingham Palace inquiry into claims that Harry and Meghan bullied their staff may not release its findings until next year.  The Queen launched the probe into the behaviour of her grandson and his wife following allegations they inflicted 'emotional cruelty' on aides and 'drove them out'.  Royal sources said they have set 'no timeframe' for the investigation, which could see as many as 12 people give evidence.  While they stressed that any resulting changes to workplace practices will be made public in the annual Sovereign Grant report, they could not say whether it would be in this year's review or the next.  A source said: 'There will be no push to rush through this. It is a very sensitive issue. The fact we are doing this and have made clear we are very concerned about the allegations shows how seriously this is being taken.'

They added: 'This is a 'lessons learned' exercise, to educate us about what happened. But policies will clearly change should it be found that they need to.' Harry and Meghan, who deny the accusations, will not be asked to contribute at this stage.

Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview to be broadcast in 70 countries in deals experts say are worth 'a king's ransom'

By Daniel Bates in New York for the Daily Mail

Harry and Meghan's interview with Oprah Winfrey will be broadcast in more than 70 countries in deals experts say will be worth 'a king's ransom'.

Sources close to the couple yesterday said the interview will go out in America on Sunday night as planned, despite calls for it to be postponed while the Duke of Edinburgh is seriously ill in hospital.

US television network CBS announced that it is syndicating the two-hour special to dozens of countries.

Countries that will screen the show include Britain, Australia, Canada, about 40 nations in sub-Saharan Africa and even Iceland.

More countries will be announced in the coming days under arrangements that experts say could earn tens of millions of pounds for CBS. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are not being paid for the interview and will not receive a slice of the syndication profits, the production company, owned by Miss Winfrey, said.

CBS is said to be charging advertisers £150,000 for a 30-second slot – meaning they could rake in millions over the course of the broadcast alone.

PR insider Mark Borkowski said: 'With 70 countries, a conservative estimate is that this is going to make tens of millions. I can't see anything less than that.

'You're looking at a king's ransom and it's going to be a massive payday for CBS. The last event on a scale like this was probably Meghan's own wedding.

'If it had been outside of Covid and the ravages of that on the ad industry it might have been a bigger deal, but it's still going to be a huge piece of content to have.'

The scale of the sale means that hundreds of millions of people around the world could see the interview, the kind of audience associated with events such as the Olympics. It will first be seen on CBS on Sunday night. In Britain, ITV is said to have paid £1million to show the interview here on Monday night.

A source close to the couple said the timing of the broadcast was now out of their hands. The source said: 'There are a lot of people who are going to talk about this until the programme airs, but the programming and all the rest of it is ultimately up to CBS. We're not involved in that side of things.

'As it stands, I don't think there is any intention from the programme maker to change its air date.'

Tory MP Bob Blackman said the interview was simply 'inappropriate'.

He added: 'To be doing a tell-all interview screened in the UK when Philip is in hospital…they are badly advised, to put it mildly.

'None of these royal interviews have gone well…and I can't see this going any better.'

Duke of Edinburgh recovering in hospital following successful surgery for pre-existing heart condition

By Kate Pickles, Health Correspondent for the Daily Mail

The Duke of Edinburgh is recovering in hospital following successful surgery for a pre-existing heart condition just three months short of his 100th birthday.  Prince Philip, the nation's longest serving consort, underwent the procedure at St Bartholomew's Hospital in London on Wednesday.  Buckingham Palace said in a statement yesterday: 'His Royal Highness will remain in hospital for treatment, rest and recuperation for a number of days.'

The announcement sparked renewed concern due to the duke's advanced age.  He has already spent 17 nights in hospital after being admitted to the King Edward VII's Hospital in Marylebone, central London, on February 16, on his doctor's advice.  He has never before spent as long in hospital. The duke – whose 100th birthday will be on June 10 walked into King Edward VII's unaided after travelling there from Windsor Castle, where he has spent most of lockdown with the Queen.  A royal source had previously said that it had not been an emergency admission and was down to 'an abundance of caution'. Philip was admitted after feeling unwell and was treated for an infection.  But on Monday, he was transferred to Bart's the country's leading heart hospital for tests and observation on 'an existing heart condition'. Treatment for the infection was also to continue.  In 2011, Philip was rushed to hospital by helicopter from Sandringham after suffering chest pains as the royal family prepared for Christmas. In the serious health scare, he was treated for a blocked coronary artery at Papworth Hospital in Cambridgeshire and had a stent fitted a minimally invasive procedure.  The Palace declined to give details of the latest exact surgery. But experts have suggested that a decade on, the stent may have needed replacing, requiring a further procedure.  It is also possible that the duke had aortic stenosis, a common condition in old age where the main valve in the heart becomes stiff or narrowed, reducing blood flow to the main artery.  Dr Derek Connolly, a consultant interventional cardiologist at Birmingham City Hospital, said Philip is in 'the best possible hands'. He explained: 'We obviously don't know the procedure he's undergone but we do know he's got coronary disease from when he had the stent fitted ten years ago.

'Older patients often get stenosis of the aortic valve but they will be checking for other conditions, such as rhythm disturbances and the heart failing.  'Charles Knight, the chief executive at Bart's, is one of the most eminent cardiologists in Europe so he's in exactly the right place, whichever of these it is. The team at Bart's really are world-leaders when it comes to cardiology.'

The Duchess of Cornwall revealed the Duke of Edinburgh was 'slightly improving' but 'hurts at moments' as she carried out a visit to a community vaccination centre on Wednesday.  On a visit to South London, Camilla was heard telling staff that morning: 'We'll keep our fingers crossed.'

It is not known whether the duke had undergone the procedure at this point.  Philip is patron of the British Heart Foundation, which sent its best wishes, saying the royal had been a 'long-term advocate for heart research'.

Philip was visited in King Edward VII's Hospital last month by the Prince of Wales, who made a 200-mile round trip from Highgrove and stayed for around half an hour.  Along with the Queen, Philip received his Covid-19 jab in January.  After announcing the surgery, the Palace shared an image on social media to mark World Book Day of the Queen and Philip together in 1976 in the library at Balmoral Castle.ueen has been carrying on with her official duties, holding her weekly audience with the Prime Minister by telephone from Windsor on Wednesday.  Yesterday, she had a telephone audience with the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Wigston.  Meanwhile, ITV vowed to go ahead with broadcasting the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's interview with Oprah Winfrey, despite criticism in light of Philip's ongoing health problems. The broadcaster released a trailer yesterday, ahead of the two-hour show next Monday, featuring the same footage put out by CBS.

Palace 'won't rush' inquiry into Meghan Markle bullying allegations

By Rebecca English, Royal Editor for the Daily Mail

The Buckingham Palace inquiry into claims that Harry and Meghan bullied their staff may not release its findings until next year.  The Queen launched the probe into the behaviour of her grandson and his wife following allegations they inflicted 'emotional cruelty' on aides and 'drove them out'.  Royal sources said they have set 'no timeframe' for the investigation, which could see as many as 12 people give evidence.  While they stressed that any resulting changes to workplace practices will be made public in the annual Sovereign Grant report, they could not say whether it would be in this year's review or the next. 

A source said: 'There will be no push to rush through this. It is a very sensitive issue. The fact we are doing this and have made clear we are vHarry and Meghan's Oprah interview to be broadcast in 70 countries in deals experts say are worth 'a king's ransom'

By Daniel Bates in New York for the Daily Mail

Harry and Meghan's interview with Oprah Winfrey will be broadcast in more than 70 countries in deals experts say will be worth 'a king's ransom'.  Sources close to the couple yesterday said the interview will go out in America on Sunday night as planned, despite calls for it to be postponed while the Duke of Edinburgh is seriously ill in hospital.  US television network CBS announced that it is syndicating the two-hour special to dozens of countries.  Countries that will screen the show include Britain, Australia, Canada, about 40 nations in sub-Saharan Africa and even Iceland.  More countries will be announced in the coming days under arrangements that experts say could earn tens of millions of pounds for CBS. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are not being paid for the interview and will not receive a slice of the syndication profits, the production company, owned by Miss Winfrey, said.

CBS is said to be charging advertisers £150,000 for a 30-second slot – meaning they could rake in millions over the course of the broadcast alone.  PR insider Mark Borkowski said: 'With 70 countries, a conservative estimate is that this is going to make tens of millions. I can't see anything less than that.  You're looking at a king's ransom and it's going to be a massive payday for CBS. The last event on a scale like this was probably Meghan's own wedding.  If it had been outside of Covid and the ravages of that on the ad industry it might have been a bigger deal, but it's still going to be a huge piece of content to have.'

The scale of the sale means that hundreds of millions of people around the world could see the interview, the kind of audience associated with events such as the Olympics. It will first be seen on CBS on Sunday night. In Britain, ITV is said to have paid £1million to show the interview here on Monday night.  A source close to the couple said the timing of the broadcast was now out of their hands. The source said: 'There are a lot of people who are going to talk about this until the programme airs, but the programming and all the rest of it is ultimately up to CBS. We're not involved in that side of things.  As it stands, I don't think there is any intention from the programme maker to change its air date.'

Tory MP Bob Blackman said the interview was simply 'inappropriate'.  He added: 'To be doing a tell-all interview screened in the UK when Philip is in hospital…they are badly advised, to put it mildly.  None of these royal interviews have gone well…and I can't see this going any better.'ery concerned about the allegations shows how seriously this is being taken.'

They added: 'This is a 'lessons learned' exercise, to educate us about what happened. But policies will clearly change should it be found that they need to.' Harry and Meghan, who deny the accusations, will not be asked to contribute at this stage.

67

Articles / Unlocking secrets of Ian Brady’s briefcases may finally lead to Keith ....

« on: February 22, 2021, 12:13:08 PM »

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/unlocking-secrets-ian-bradys-briefcases-23532885?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_campaign=daily_evening_newsletter2&utm_medium=email

Unlocking secrets of Ian Brady’s briefcases may finally lead to Keith Bennett's body

Evil Ian Brady closely guarded the briefcases in his room at a high-security psychiatric hospital police have been unable to gain access to their contents

By Paul Byrne

18:55, 19 FEB 2021Updated20:45, 19 FEB 2021

The secrets of Ian Brady’s locked briefcases could finally be revealed due to a proposed law change.  The family of murdered 12-year-old Keith Bennett hope it will lead to the schoolboy’s body finally being found so they can get “some closure”.  Brady had closely guarded the Samsonite briefcases in his room at the high-security psychiatric hospital where he was held for decades.  But hours before his death aged 79 in 2017, he gave instructions for them to be handed to his solicitor.  Police have since been unable to gain access to their contents.  Keith was one of five children, aged 10 to 17, killed by the Moors Murderers Brady and Myra Hindley between 1963 and 1965 in and around Manchester.  It is thought Keith was buried on nearby Saddleworth Moor along with other victims. His are the only remains never to have been found.  His mum Winnie Johnson died aged 78 in 2012 after a long campaign to try to force Brady to reveal where Keith was buried.  Keith’s brother Alan spoke with Home Secretary Priti Patel this week.  She revealed plans for a new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts bill, which would introduce measures allowing detectives to obtain a warrant for material that could disclose the location of a murder victim’s remains.  It would mean Brady’s solicitor would have to hand over the briefcases and their contents.  Alan, 64, said: “Fingers crossed the bill will be passed as soon as possible and we may get some more answers.”

His solicitor John Ainley said: “These papers [in the briefcases] may not mean anything to anybody else but because Alan and the police have a lot of background information there may be something which is meaningful to them and would help to identify the area.  It would hopefully result in a further search and give some closure to the family.  Hopefully Keith can be found and given a proper family burial.”

Brady, who was held at Ashworth Hospital in Maghull, Merseyside, suggested that clues about where Keith is buried may be in his will, which has never been published.  Hindley died aged 60 in 2002.

68

Articles / 'Are we so heartless we look the other way as a child takes his final breaths?'

« on: February 22, 2021, 11:49:47 AM »

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/are-heartless-look-way-child-23504814?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_campaign=politics_review_newsletter2&utm_medium=email

'Are we so heartless we look the other way as a child takes his final breaths?'

A GoFundMe page has raised £52,000 at the time of writing, but that barely scratches the surface of what's needed

By Darren Lewis

17:18, 15 FEB 2021Updated09:38, 16 FEB 2021

In the heartbreaking movie John Q, Denzel Washington plays a dad whose nine-year-old son desperately needs a life-saving transplant.  When the hospital tells him and his wife it will effectively let the boy die unless he can meet a third of the costs of the operation, the couple sell most of their possessions to raise the cash.   But even that isn’t enough. Nowhere near. So John Q a previously gentle, hard-working, blue collar everyman snaps and takes patients and hospital staff hostage in the American equivalent of our A&E.  The police and media talk to his neighbours and friends in a bid to establish murderous intent, only to be told by all of them that John Q is actually a good-hearted, honest guy, driven to the brink by the despair of trying to save his son.  It was this movie that came to mind when I read the story of nine-year-old Nathaniel Nabena.  Diagnosed with leukaemia on a medical trip to the UK from his home in Nigeria, Nathaniel is being denied life-saving care unless his mum and dad can somehow stump up £825,000.  His family say he could die “within days” without treatment.  By law, emergency care here is free but non-Brits have to pay up.  A GoFundMe page has raised £52,000 at the time of writing, but that barely scratches the surface of what dad Ebisidor and mum Modupe need to save their son.  Nathaniel had his left eye removed in his home country Nigeria because of cancer.  He came here to have a £5,000 prosthetic replacement fitted privately in November.  But before starting treatment he was diagnosed with rare acute myeloid leukaemia at South London’s Croydon University Hospital.  He now needs a stem cell transplant at Great Ormond Street Hospital but his family must find that £825,000 from somewhere first.  Dad Ebisidor, 45, said: “I am devastated. I can maybe pull together £30,000, a tiny fraction of what they are asking.  “If we cannot raise the funds, hospice care is the next step. We understand rules are rules.  But for every rule there is an exception and surely this is it when it comes to a child.”

Is this really what we have become?

Are we really that heartless as a society that we are willing to look the other way while a child takes his final breaths?

Yes, there are a number of things on which people want the public purse to be used.  But the NHS spends around £1.8billion a year on treating visitors from overseas according to 2017 estimates.  Are you telling me we can’t find the cash to save this boy’s life?

Wouldn’t you want a similar kind of sympathy shown to you if you were in Australia or America?

Nobody is suggesting Ebisidor should become a John Q obviously not. But would you find it as easy to be as dignified in your devastation as Nathaniel’s father?

We are becoming more selfish as a society with every passing day.  But the overwhelming response to this story since it was broken on the Mirror website on Sunday suggests there are still exceptions.  Surely we can make an exception for this boy.

69

General Discussion / Forced Adoption and The Mums on the Run

« on: February 19, 2021, 12:32:52 PM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03pjf3z

TRANSCRIPT

THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT.  BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF MISHEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS COMPLETE ACCURACY
 
FACE THE FACTS

Forced Adoption and The Mums on the Run
 
Presenter: John Waite

Producer:  Joe Kent

TRANSMISSION: Wednesday 15th January 2014  1230-1300 BBC RADIO 4

Rothery:  This used to be the safe house but unfortunately it’s become a little well known to the local social services.

Waite:  It’s very roomy.

Rothery:  [Indistinct words] that it used to be an old cow shed and you can see it’s got oil fired heating.

Waite:  And a big kitchen.

Rothery:  Well reasonable sized kitchen, bathroom, pretty rustic.

Waite:  In rural Wexford in the South of Ireland, Brian Rothery shows me the building that’s provided a secret refuge for families on the run from British social services.

Rothery:  So we’re going up the stairs now to the loft.  Two beds for parents.  Mattresses have been brought up here for children.

Waite:  So how many families would this have been a safe house for?

Rothery:  Well over the summer four were here.

Waite:  The 79 year old journalist turned human rights activist offers a safe haven for parents who are victims of what he believes is an increasingly draconian British child protection system. Parents who fear losing their children forever, sometimes at birth. Parents considered to be so unsuitable that their children can be taken for adoption against their wishes.

Clip – Montage

The most daunting thing was thinking that the baby could be removed from me.  I could not live with that.  We were coming with no job, no money.  It’s very hard for us at the moment.  It would be nice to go back to England but that’s just not possible.

Waite:  Today on Face the Facts we hear from parents on the run from social services and what’s known as “forced adoption”.  How a series of underground networks is helping these fugitive parents. And we reveal for the first time the extent of forced adoption and the mounting international concern about it and the way these cases are being dealt with in the UK.  First though Andrew Webb, President of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, has been telling me how the system should work when social services are so concerned that they move to take a child away from its parents. They will have done everything possible, he told me, to work with the family but if those efforts are deemed to have failed, then they will apply to the court for a care order.

Webb:  To get a care order the local authority has to demonstrate that the child has suffered significant harm or is likely to suffer significant harm.  What that means is emotional abuse or physical or sexual abuse or neglect and a care order essentially gives the local authority the rights of parents.  So the council can decide what sort of placement the child will live in whether it’s a foster placement or perhaps a specialist residential placement for an older child.

Waite:  And what happens then?

Webb:  If a child cannot return home and many children do return home then the local authority has to look at the child’s best interests and find a permanent solution.  Now permanence can take many forms, one of them being adoption.

Waite:  Last year nearly 1900 children were formally adopted without the consent of their parents, an increase of around 20% on the year before. The equivalent of five children forcibly adopted every day.  And that’s beside the thousands of others placed with prospective adopters, but not yet formally adopted. So, although 330 children were placed for adoption with the consent of their biological parents, in almost 10 times that number of cases local authorities obtained a court order instead.  Social workers like Andrew Webb however stand by those rises.

Webb:  Following a series of high profile cases, the most high profile of them being the death of Peter Connolly, the child protection system started intervening earlier in the lives of children who’d been abused and neglected and we saw a rise in the number of children coming into care and then the number of those going for adoption rose.  So yes more referrals were made and social workers were more likely to intervene.

Waite:  And it’s because of that increased willingness to intervene, even before a baby is born, but based on an assessment that it might be at risk when it is, that’s leading some parents taking drastic action.   I have travelled hundreds of miles to the outskirts of a European city.  The people I’m going to meet don’t want me to reveal where because they are in hiding.  The 19 year old couple, recently married, let’s call them Sarah and James, are expecting their first child but they know that social services would take that child into care if it were born in England.  So they’re setting up a whole new life here, paid for and helped by James’ mother.

James’ Mother:  I will have to sell my house to support them.  The future’s not rosy but I wouldn’t have it any other way.  They need time to prove that they can be good parents, that they are loving to each other and they will be loving to a baby.

Waite:  That “young loving couple” first met four years ago.

Sarah:  We got placed together in a religious class to start with and I think I secretly fancied him really but just never really let you know did I?

James:  No.

Sarah:  No.  But we started hanging around in the same group didn’t we?  And then slowly our relationship progressed.  We thought we were best friends but we were a lot more.

Waite:  And a lot more was to follow. Pregnancy, marriage and an argument that they say was to change everything. The police were called and because Sarah was already known to social services, having spent much of her life in care, they were informed. And it's because of that argument, the couple told me, that social services would eventually conclude that their unborn child was at risk of harm.

Sarah:  We know we were wrong and if we could turn back time we would but we can’t.

Waite:  And this argument what was violent, was alcohol fuelled?

Sarah:  No just a heated argument over baby names.  No charges were pressed, nobody was hurt nothing.

James:  We tried so many times to try to get them to see it from our point of view but everything we ever said to them was twisted and turned into a way which suited their argument.

Waite:  Well I’ve seen just some of the documents from social services and it’s clear they do have serious concerns beyond merely a single argument. The child is at “imminent risk of harm” they believe and if necessary the police will be used to stop the couple removing the baby from hospital after it’s been born. But that won’t happen as they’ve skipped the country adamant that social services have got it wrong. So now, at just 19, the couple have started a new life a daunting prospect for anyone in a new country but a country in which, unlike the UK, their baby wouldn’t be adopted without their consent.  Well of course you were married just a few days ago, for most people that would mean they’re on their honeymoon, you’re in effect on the run.

Sarah:  Well this is my honeymoon because this has actually turned my life around and I feel like I can happily give birth to the baby without her being taken off the birthing table.

Waite:  Aren’t you a bit frightened?

Sarah:  Yes but not so much now I’ve moved.

Waite:  What James and Sarah and many others like them have done is not illegal. As they left the UK before the baby was born it cannot be the subject of a court order. If it were then they and anyone who helped them could be guilty of child abduction. The family knows this because they are being advised by a group James' mother found online, a network of people willing to aid those mums on the run from social services.

James’ Mum:  You think you’re the only person this can possibly have happened to.  When you start doing research you start looking into forced adoptions, you start to see that there’s a mass of fear and very few answers.  This network was invaluable.  We’ve got such good advice and it made up feel like we weren’t criminals, that we were just trying to defend our human rights.

Rothery:  You see the right turn coming up and then you’re really back of beyond.

Waite:  In making this programme we’ve discovered that there are at least four different groups willing to help those on the run. Scattered around Europe, they say they’ve helped hundreds of fugitives.  It was to 79 year old Brian Rothery that Sarah and James turned. He says they were among the 50 or so people to contact him last year. Most he advised to stay and fight 10 went on, though, to flee the UK.

Rothery:  Within my network in the UK we have three volunteers who operate virtually full time and three here including myself.  Now in addition to that we have friends, whom we call good Samaritans.  There’s a lady in France, there’s an English lady living in a mountain village in Spain and we did have a lady in Northern Cyprus.

Waite:  And do you break the law, would you break the law?

Rothery:  I think that if I was asked to choose between the law and helping a family to justly hang on to their children I think I would break the law.

Waite:  If you work say with a child that already has a child protection order on it you’ve broken the law have you done that?

Rothery:  If in the eyes of the law I’ve done it yes I have.  But if in the eyes of the law I’ve helped a parent in trouble that’s what I’ve done as well it depends on one’s interpretation.

Waite:  The growing numbers of British mothers seeking to give birth in Ireland has not gone unnoticed. Last year a High Court judge warned parents that Ireland was not a ’sanctuary’ from either Britain’s social services or its legal system. Fleeing he said was “futile” - despite what he called “campaigning groups” like Brian’s.  Have you ever to your knowledge got it wrong helped a woman and they turned out to be an unfit mother?

Rothery:  Well time will tell.  That fear is there of course but not yet.  If protecting one child means damaging innocent parents I will take my chance living in a world full of risk rather than do that because that’s a world of injustice.  I do not accept that the government knows best.  If I thought the state was using draconian methods to take the child I would resist that with my life.

Waite:  What makes you think that you know better than social services they’re the experts on this but somehow you and your organisation know better do you?

Rothery:  Well I’m very sceptical about the expertise of social services and I use my judgement and I use my experience and my age and I make what best decisions I can I use my conscience.

Clip – YouTube video

Waite:  This video posted on YouTube promotes another of the networks we’ve made contact with. If you’re pregnant and social services proposes to take away your child because of a possible threat of harm in the future a caption says simply “you have friends who can help”. Friends like 81 year old Ian Josephs.

Josephs:  There should not be punishment without crime.  I mean it sounds obvious but most of these parents they’re being punished by their children taken when they have not committed a crime.

Waite:  Ian Josephs has had concerns about the UK’s child protection system since he saw it at first hand as a county councillor in Kent in the ‘70s. From his home today in Monaco he now acts as a middle man putting worried parents in touch with those who might help them to flee, providing advice about where to go, how to get there and how to deal with foreign authorities and on occasion he even provides money.

Josephs:  I say well I will refund the travel costs on condition that you ring me up to show me you’ve gone there and you send me a letter from the social services showing they’re on your case and a letter showing that you’re pregnant.

Waite:  And how do you check to ensure the people that you give help to deserve that help?

Josephs:  I can’t promise that they all do deserve it, it’s the same thing no lawyer can guarantee the innocence of their client but what I do do is ask to see, when I can, the court papers.

Waite:  Millionaire Ian Josephs reckons that he’s personally advised or helped more than a hundred people to flee and spent over £30,000 of his own money in the process. The trouble with social services, he believes, is that they act all too often on supposition when there is little or no evidence of real risk.

Josephs: Anything is better for these people, anything at all, than losing their baby to adoption and losing their baby for life.

Waite:  But surely if there’s the slightest doubt that there’s a baby yet to be born maybe may be in danger when they are born well they have to be protected, we can’t protect them too much?

Josephs: Oh you can because there’s the slightest doubt that you or I could be, if we go into a car, could be killed tomorrow.  It’s too easy to talk vaguely of if you have the slightest doubt.

Clip – Italian News clip

Waite:  Last month Britain’s social services and that policy of acting on future risk became the focus of the world’s media. An Italian woman, Alessandra Pacheiri, who’d planned to spend just a few weeks in England, had suffered a  breakdown and been “sectioned” under the Mental Health Act. Heavily pregnant a court-ordered caesarean took place and her baby was taken into care and then put up for adoption.

Clip – Italian News clip

From Rome Mrs Pachieri’s lawyer told us that she will challenge the adoption ruling in court. Michelle Freedman will be watching the result with interest.  She’s a barrister based in London and has first-hand experience of forced adoption cases, representing parents desperately fighting the system.

Freedman:  As a family law barrister I know what goes on.  There’s been so many situations where I have sat with clients and we have gone through the local authority evidence with a fine toothcomb and each and every time the clients would look at me and say well that did happen, it just didn’t happen like that, these are the facts but they’ve twisted it.

Waite:  As we’ve heard some parents, including Sarah and James, feel so strongly that their words and actions have been twisted in their case the noisy argument they had that their only option is to start new lives in other countries. However, they and parents like them are simply wrong according to Andrew Webb President of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services.

Webb:  It’s not possible to either get a care order or an adoption order without proving to a court of law that the child has suffered significant harm or is likely to suffer significant harm.  I can’t accept the view that simply on a social worker’s twisting of words that these orders will be made and there are rights of appeal.

Waite:  It isn’t just parents and those who help them that are critical though when it comes to legal matters pertaining to children, as president of the Family Division, Sir James Mumby is Britain’s most senior judge. So how does Andrew Webb respond to what just four months ago Sir James had to say?

Sir James Mumby - Read

We have real concerns, shared by other judges, about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption.

Webb:  This is an area where very finely balanced judgements have to be taken and we need to make sure we put a much more robust analysis into every case than we do in some cases but I stand by the quality of social work in the vast majority of cases.

Freedman:  I was counsel is a care case in Cambridge.

Waite:For Barrister Michelle Freedman there will always be one case in particular that represents what’s wrong with the system. Her own. Michelle was literally in the middle of a court hearing, representing a parent fighting to keep their children, when she learned that one of her own children was facing a similar fate. Knowing well, she told me, the way the system operates, she had no hesitation in deciding what to do next.

Freedman:  When the judge adjourns for judgements I think we had a two hour adjournment I went to buy suitcases.  We needed big suitcases we were basically running for our lives, we’re packing our lives into three suitcases and off we’re going.

Waite:  Forty eight hours later Michelle and her two daughters were starting a new life in Israel helped, incidentally, by advice from Monaco based Ian Josephs. A care order was granted in their absence and an Interpol alert issued. But after some months, when Michelle was able to show her daughters were doing well in Israel, the local authority agreed to withdraw the order. Michelle is now back working weekdays as a barrister in London, returning at weekends to her children in Israel. But would she ever bring them back into the country?

Freedman:  They’re obviously British citizens but I can’t no no I might just be being over-cautious here but they’re my children, they’re my children.

Waite:  As we've heard, the underground railroads, as one described itself to us, that help fugitive parents are made up primarily of English and Irish expats. But that's starting to change. I boarded the Eurostar to meet a couple who’ve been helped by a Belgian social worker. Again we’ve agreed not to reveal exactly where or who they are.

So this is a scrapbook of Jane.

Marie:  Yes.

Waite:  A pretty child isn’t she.

Marie:  Yes.  This one here is where we had her first birthday.

Waite:  How old was she when she went for adoption?
 
Marie:  About one and a half.

Waite:  Jane is the reason Craig and Marie are now in Belgium. She was first taken into care and then despite their opposition eventually adopted. There was no suggestion that they would physically harm the child but the local authority believed they wouldn’t be able to support Jane emotionally as she grew up or put her needs before their own.

Marie:  Just can’t believe it but we’ve got to accept that she’s no longer part of our lives.  You know and you think there’s got to be something else I can do but there isn’t.  There’s a hope that she might find us but sometimes they didn’t try and find you.

Waite:  But it was losing her little Jane there that determined you two were not going to lose anymore?

Craig:  I’ve got tears in my eyes it’s hard to explain.

Waite:  Dad Craig told us that he’d never had any problems with social services before and has a daughter and granddaughter from a previous relationship.  Marie though as she openly admits has had a more complicated past. She says she’s repeatedly been involved with the wrong men and as a result has had seven children most of whom have at some time been in care.  But since she met Craig, she says, her life has changed.  Though it’s far from easy. Now they have a newborn baby, and are living in a country they’ve never visited, where neither of them speaks the language though they are learning and despite Craig’s efforts he hasn’t found a job.  You see there’ll be some listeners, I’m sure, who will be thinking to themselves well actually you’re putting the baby at a disadvantage living in this hand to mouth way.

Craig:  We put him first and he’s getting everything we’ll go without to see him through.  The family we live with are very good as well they won’t let anything happen.

Thomas:  I take contact with people in England to say my home is open.  I have no money but I have place.

Waite:  For the past five months “home” for Marie, Craig and their baby has been with that Belgian social worker we’ll call Thomas.  He decided to offer shelter to fleeing parents after reports of forced adoption cases appeared in the Belgian media. Because of his job, Thomas knows only too well that sometimes children have to be taken into care but forced adoption he strongly opposes. It’s too final a solution, he says.

Thomas:  What I see, what I read, what I hear there is a problem in England.  When you are a social worker you must take difficult decisions always but when you take a decision and you can’t go back, it’s not a good decision, perhaps it’s legal in your country, it’s not moral, it’s not human.

Waite:  And high-level concerns over the UK’s child protection practices also appear to be growing. Next month a “fact finding mission” will inquire into British social services for a Council of Europe report. Then in March the European Commission Petitions Committee will debate the wider issue of forced adoption. Doubtless, too, the issue will come up again in Westminster.

Actuality – Westminster

Hemming:  As the minister is aware I’m ...

Waite:  Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming chairs the Justice for Families campaign and has been collating the growing international concern.

Actuality – Westminster

Hemming:  On page seven of the document I have a letter from the Czech Republic saying there’s a problem.  On page eight of the document I have a letter from the Spanish government saying there’s a problem.  On page nine of the ...

Waite:  Countries like Spain are concerned at the way that nationals of their country are having their children taken into care or even, as with the recent Italian case, put up for adoption whilst they’re in the UK. And we’ve established that at least six countries have raised concerns directly to the government or government bodies over the way the policy is implemented.   One ambassador told us that while forced adoptions should be the exception not the rule, they fear that the reverse could become the case in the UK.  When we contacted the Department for Education, which is responsible for adoption policy, they told us:

Department for Education - Read

We are working with the Foreign Office and Ministry of Justice to consider how other countries can best be engaged when their nationals, resident in the UK, are involved in child protection issues.  And in cases of ‘forced adoption’ a court would only dispense with the need for parental consent because:

Department of Education - Read

... the parents cannot be found; because they are incapable of giving their consent or because it has reason to believe the welfare of the child requires their consent to be dispensed with.   As for that 20% rise in the number of ‘forced adoptions’ the Department pointed out that there has been a similar rise in uncontested ones.  As a result last year 7% of children in care in England ended up being adopted - more than in any year since comparable records began more than 20 years ago. A trend that will continue as the department is committed, it says, to finding stable homes for more children in care. And so a trend that will likely see more parents go on the run.  Some of those may well approach MP John Hemming as they have in the past. His advice may be simple but some will find it surprising.

Hemming:  In certain circumstances it’s the sensible thing to do because you face a system which is so biased against the parents, procedurally biased.  The question is what happens to the child?  The answer is adoption.

Waite:  Do you support parents who flee?

Hemming:  I do assist them with advice.

Waite:  But some people would find that quite extraordinary Liberal Democrat MP, your party’s in government.

Hemming:  Yeah and advice on how to do it entirely lawfully.  I advice people, actually, to deal with the authorities in the countries they go to.

Waite:  But is it right that you in your position?

Hemming:  It’s my job to tell people the truth, so I do.

Waite:  But that’s not the truth, in fact such comments are “reckless” according to Andrew Webb of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. In his view, the British approach to child protection is one of the most child centric in Europe and is steeped in checks and balances. So how does he explain then the fact that hundreds of parents have already fled the country in fear, if there isn’t something fundamentally wrong with the system?

Webb:  Not necessarily, it may be that they’re putting their interests above the interests of their children.  I don’t accept the term “forced adoptions”.  The child is the centre of the focus for the local authority and there is nothing about the journey of the child into adoption that’s forced.  What we’re talking about here is having to make a decision that takes more notice of the interest of the child for the rest of their life than the needs of the parent in the shorter term.  Now we do have disputes with families about whether harm is real, other disputes about whether the harm is going to be long lasting but all these concerns get tested very rigorously in our legal system.

Waite:  And how concerned are you with the action that increasing numbers of parents seem to be taking?

Webb:  Any network that’s set up to work in the interests of parents I would have grave concerns about.  Every child who’s uprooted and moved, as a consequence of someone expressing concern, in my mind becomes a child at risk.  So I am concerned if they’re doing it.  But in about 90% of the cases that come to a final care hearing the parent doesn’t contest whether the harm is real or the risk is real enough.  So these are rare cases we’re talking about here.

Waite:  Do you ever get it wrong?

Webb:  It is possible to get it wrong but often you’ll only know whether you’ve got it wrong with the benefit of hindsight.

Waite:  Obviously each case would be a tragedy for a parent who wasn’t to see a child again in the end through no fault of their own.

Webb:  Every case has to be looked at as absolutely unique.  It’s not a tick box exercise where you can say easily this was right and that was wrong.

Waite:  But of course if social services do get it wrong then a perfectly good parent will perhaps never see their child again after the baby is forcibly taken for adoption. That’s what worries the judges, the lawyers, the MPs and the other countries all of whom we’ve heard from on the programme. But most of all it worries the parents, like Craig, currently on the run with his partner and new baby in Belgium. They’ve already had one child taken away from them, they told me, and simply couldn’t face the trauma of seeing another removed from their lives.

Craig:  If somebody dies you can grieve and get over, if a child is taken from you you’re wondering what she’s doing, how she is, where she is, who she’s with, is she safe every day, it’s worse than death and that’s why we’ve done it.  We said the only way out is to run.

70

Articles / Adoption: 'We seem to have to fight for everything'

« on: February 19, 2021, 11:14:34 AM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48826910

Adoption: 'We seem to have to fight for everything'

By Katherine Sellgren
BBC News family and education reporter

2 July 2019

"Last night he was kicking us, hitting us, thumping, spitting," says Diane, mother of nine-year-old Ryan. "Every swear word in the book came out."

Ryan was adopted at age three after two years in foster care after he was removed from his abusive family home.  Diane says his behaviour is him "trying to cope with what's been done to him".  But their experience is not uncommon, with 65% of parents surveyed by Adoption UK saying their child had been aggressive or violent towards them.  Diane is one of 3,500 families interviewed by the charity for its first comprehensive "stock-take" of the experiences of adoptive families and their children across the UK in a single year (2018).  The charity's Adoption Barometer finds that 56% of established adoptive families are facing significant or extreme challenges and 70% feel it is a continual struggle to get the help and support their child needs.  Furthermore, 80% of respondents felt their child needed more support in school than their peers.  Diane says she has not felt properly supported in helping Ryan with his post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and attachment issues and even lodged a complaint against her local authority.  "We seem to have to fight for everything," she told BBC News.

"Nobody really cares, it's like, 'You adopted these kids, you knew it wouldn't be straightforward,' but I don't think we were warned enough about the issues.  We're just left to deal with it, because no-one's got the answer.  These kids have been through hell and we need to help them come to terms with what's happened.  These children have done nothing wrong it's other people's fault, it's them who have caused their issues and yet they're the ones left to cope with it all."

There are about 55,000 adoptive families in the UK. More than 4,500 children were adopted in the UK during the year ending March 2018.  Adoption UK says most adopted children will have experienced abuse or neglect.  The charity's report suggests 39% of adopted 16 to 25-year-olds were involved with mental health services during 2018.  And nearly three-quarters of parents of adopted 16 to 25 year olds surveyed by Adoption UK said they would need "significant ongoing support" to live independently.  Report author Becky Brooks said: "These are strong and optimistic families, improving the life chances of some of the UK's most complex and vulnerable children.  But for too many families, getting support to help their children overcome their tough start in life is like fighting a losing battle."

Minister for Children and Families Nadhim Zahawi said adopted children were given top priority in school admissions and benefited from the support of designated teachers and pupil premium funding.  "We also invested £120m in the Adoption Support Fund which provides therapeutic support to adoptive families from the point at which the child is placed with them," he said.

Most of the adoptive parents surveyed remained optimistic about their family's future, however, and 79% said they would encourage others to consider adoption.  Despite all the difficulties, Diane says, she and her husband have no regrets about adopting Ryan.  "In the bleakest times you wonder, 'Did we get this right?' Yes, totally. He's got us to fight for him now.  He's my cub and I'm his lioness and I will fight for him, because he deserves it.  It's not his fault he was just born to the wrong family."

Names have been changed by Adoption UK to protect Diane and her family.

71

General Discussion / Kate Middleton 'saved' Prince William and 'spends whole life making him happy'

« on: February 15, 2021, 05:33:33 PM »

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-middleton-saved-prince-william-23488108?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_campaign=royal_family_newsletter2&utm_medium=email

Kate Middleton 'saved' Prince William and 'spends whole life making him happy'

Prince William married Kate Middleton in April 2011 and became a key part of the royal family, but she's also been a huge support to her husband in terms of family life

By Zoe Forsey Lifestyle Editor

13:07, 12 FEB 2021Updated13:50, 12 FEB 2021

The Duchess of Cambridge "saved" Prince William after his "dysfunctional" upbringing and has now dedicated her life to making him happy, a royal expert has claimed.  Kate met her future husband at university and they were good friends before romance blossomed, and she is said to have been a huge support when he stepped into royal life.  Speaking on True Royalty TV 's Royal Beat, Angela Levin, author of Harry: Biography of a Prince, explains that William was going through a difficult time when he met Kate.  She explains: "I think that Kate has helped save William. I think it was very difficult for him coming out of a dysfunctional family, losing his mum so young and I think he was in a very difficult place."

The pair met for the first time in 2001 at St Andrew's University, where they enrolled on the same course and lived in the same halls.  And it wasn't long before the attractive and bubbly brunette beauty caught Wills' eye.  Royal author Tom Quinn has previously recalled: "One of the funny stories is he was so desperate to meet her that as he walked towards her, he apparently tripped and said, 'Oh that's a terrible start, you're going to think I'm a complete clot."

Luckily, Kate laughed off his clumsiness and the pair quickly became firm friends, walking to and from classes together and forming a strong bond that would soon turn to romance.  However it was Kate's now legendary appearance in a charity fashion show in March 2002 that kicked off their romance.  William reportedly paid £220 for a front row ticket for the catwalk event - and just as well, because 19-year-old Kate came sashaying down the runway wearing nothing but a sheer stocking dress over black underwear.  As she strutted her way past the prince, William is said to have turned to his friend Fergus Boyd and whispered: "Wow, Fergus, Kate's hot!"

But Kate's cool head prevailed - and she let her prince do all the chasing.  Royal reporter Simon Vigar said: "When they were at university at St Andrews, I have it on good authority that one of the few girls not chasing William or trying to catch his eye was Catherine.  If that's true, she played an absolute blinder. He was definitely the target of lots of Sloaney girls there at university, but it wasn't until the infamous fashion show that William noticed Catherine."

72

Articles / How an Irish boy born in a home for unwed mothers became an international ....

« on: February 13, 2021, 11:46:15 AM »

https://www.irishpost.com/life-style/how-an-irish-boy-born-in-a-home-for-unwed-mothers-became-an-international-success-story-200106?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=trending

How an Irish boy born in a home for unwed mothers became an international success story

BY: Michael J McDonagh
December 24, 2020

OVER previous years Irish people have been appalled and shamed when countless stories emerged relating to the way unmarried mothers were treated by a cruel Catholic Church.  Each time we watched films like The Magdalene Sisters or the more recent Philomena, we would reel in disbelief at this horror in Ireland’s history.  Most of these poor women had their newborn babies snatched from them for adoption and many of the children and mothers have spent lifetimes since seeking out their identities from the secrecy of the state and its religious institutions.  So, it is uplifting and cheering when out of this period, a remarkably positive story of success emerges.  Mercifully at the height of these tragedies, there was one enlightened compassionate man who worked hard to create a safe place for unwed mothers.  In 1930s Dublin Frank Duff established Regina Coeli - a hostel where pregnant girls could seek sanctuary and keep their babies with them.  Gordon Lewis, born in 1953, was brought up there in secret by his mother.  “My mother never wanted to talk about the past and it was shut down,” he told The Irish Post.

“I realised just how much your parents do for you and how many sacrifices they make and I wanted to write down my mum’s story,” he added.

“Regina Coeli was very basic but my view is very simple, it is what you get used to, but we had the love of a mother and a community of about 100 women around you so it was very safe. It was my home, and I was happy.”

When Gordon was nine years old his mother contacted ex-boyfriend Bill Walsh not his father and went over to London and married him.  This older Irish bachelor, a filmset carpenter, was set in his ways, but he generously embraced the boy, who he brought up as if he was his own son.  That boy went on to overcome the adversity and secrecy of his early life.  This remarkable, positive and heartfelt story was told by Lewis in his first, best-selling book Secret Child, which relates to his mother’s experience as an unwed mother in Ireland.  Now, he is back with a second volume, Secret To Sultan, in which the author tells his own amazing story.  He recounts how, having left school at 15, dyslexic with no qualifications, and after a stint on tough Irish building sites, he started as a messenger at London Weekend Television (LWT).  “At school in Ireland I was basically bored, and my mind would constantly drift off,” he explains.

“It was all about religion. We did not really learn anything except for the Church and the only history we learned was the Black and Tans, as the building we were in was an abandoned British Military barracks.”

He adds: “In England the school was completely different, and you actually started to learn something.  Then I realised quite soon how vulnerable I was in not being able to spell - I was so embarrassed.  I am very lucky, as I am now very comfortable, so I got in touch with the British Dyslexia Association as I wanted to do something more creative and positive than giving them cash.  I wanted to draw attention to the problem as many schools don’t even have a specialist teacher who can help a dyslexic child.  My solution then was to make a simple film about a boy who is dyslexic. it is called MICAL.”

From the age of about 14 Lewis was determined to work in TV and by virtue of his ambition and his cheeky chappie charm he later got a break at LWT, where he got to meet the top pop music director Mike Mansfield.

When he was 20 years old, he was able to join his team and under Mansfield’s wing Lewis learned all about television production at a very exciting time.  “First I got a job as a post boy at London Weekend TV and it was like a holiday camp after the building sites,” he says.

“I was doing exactly what I wanted and before I knew it I had met everybody and knew the system.  Mike Mansfield was already making Supersonic and was ahead of the game, so it was great to join him.”

Picking his moment around the time MTV was starting and the pop video was changing the face of the music business, Lewis, aged 23, courageously set up his own successful production company on a shoestring.  Soon this Irish boy living in London owned one of the most successful pop production companies in the world.  “After two years with Mike I wanted to prove something to myself and set up a whole new approach, but there was a huge recession and the record companies were making people redundant,” Lewis explained.

“Out of that came a new generation of directors and bands and so I got with them and it took off for me.”

Always restless and ambitious, Lewis spotted another lucrative opportunity and after selling out his film business he went on to a new challenge by opening and owning a number of stylish, well run gay bars around London’s Compton Street.  “In the earlier days I was driven by two things. I wanted to be a producer, but I also wanted something else, I wanted my cake and I wanted to eat it,” he admits.

“I wanted to make serious bucks and I did.

“But there was another side to me which I did not understand until I got older that once I did what I wanted to do, something else happened.  I actually got bored, I wanted to move on, so that’s what I did.”

He explained: “I got rid of everything and was wondering what I might do next when I was asked to give some advice to a friend who had a bar he was having problems with.  At first I did it as a favour then said come on if we are really going to make this work lets go 50/50 and that’s what we did.  To this day that place on the corner of Brewer Street is one of the biggest sites in Soho and that was Village Soho, which is still there.”

A touching section in Lewis’ latest book is when he talks of his relationship with his mother and her death and how he then took time out with her husband Bill on luxury cruises as he was so grateful to him for caring for him as his own.  “I knew my mother had cancer and I knew she was only going to live about two years,” Lewis admits.

“I had already got them out of the council flat in Bridgwater Farm, Tottenham, which I hated, and I bought them a new flat.  When she died, I took time out so I could spend time with Bill, who missed mum so much.”

Lewis was never deterred by adversity, as he had come from a poor background amongst the Irish community in London, and he had started his own business during a devastating recession.  And he has always remained proud of his roots.  “I never deliberately concealed my Irish accent or background.  Growing up in North London and then living in Los Angles maybe toned it down, but I suppose with what was going on in Ireland and bombs going off you would not want an Irish accent to be too obvious back then,” he explained.

“I see myself as Irish first off,” he adds, “but I don’t dwell on nostalgia and if you are Irish there is a great tendency to be very nostalgic.  But I don’t just live in London, I live in Asia and I live in Brazil, so I am an international person.  I am proud of being Irish but I’m not somebody who would dwell on it.  I see it from a different point of view.”

Gordon now splits his time between homes in London’s St John’s Wood and South America.  His involved in many projects including making award-wining films with his partner Yeweng and trying to get a commemorative blue plaque put up on the Regina Coeli building.  “I was swimming and I was thinking it would be nice to do something for the memory of Regina Coeli so I have offered to pay to have a blue plaque put up on the wall there,” Lewis explains.

“Now I’m starting to sound nostalgic but it gave me a home, my mum was able to look after me and I am one of the many thousands of women and children who went through that place thanks to the vision of Frank Duff.  It would be nice to do something special,” he adds,

“You would not believe it, but people go to this place and just stand outside and look full of emotion and gratitude after all these years.”

First his mother’s story Secret Child and now the follow up book Secret to Sultan are important testaments in the history of the Irish diaspora.  The life of the irrepressible Gordon Lewis is a beacon of encouragement showing us all that such a great success story can come out of underprivileged Irish roots if you have ambition, determination and a great sense of humour.

73

Articles / Couple are convicted of neglect after boy, four, who fled house of horrors....

« on: February 12, 2021, 06:38:00 PM »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9253273/Boy-four-bruised-medics-thought-LEUKEMIA-police-two-year-old-CAGE.html

Couple are convicted of neglect after boy, four, who fled house of horrors was so bruised medics thought he had LEUKAEMIA leading to police find boy, two, in CAGE as court hears woman tried to sell child for £1million on street

    Claire Boyle, 34, kept two-year-old boy in wooden cot with fixture across the top
    Another child, aged four, broke free from the flat through a crack in the window
    He was found on a street in Ayrshire with numerous bruises and taken to hospital
    Boyle and partner, Timothy Johnstone, found guilty of neglect on Wednesday

By Katie Weston For Mailonline

Published: 11:37, 12 February 2021 | Updated: 15:38, 12 February 2021

Police launched an investigation following a report from the member of the public who found the four-year-old boy in the street.  The two-year-old was discovered in the adjusted cot by police who then attended the property, reports the Daily Record.  Dr Christine Findlay, an NHS consultant paediatrician, told the court there were 'fingertip bruises' on the older child and dried blood around his ears.  She added that the boy had many bruises, leading doctors to question whether he had a blood disorder such as hemophilia or leukaemia.  It was also heard that the four-year-old seemed very hungry when he was found, eating two sandwiches alongside minced beef and potato, three more sandwiches and an apple during his time at the hospital.  Referring to the two-year-old, police constable Adam Peppard told the court that he was found 'upset' with his 'nappy full and hanging low'.  He said: '[The toddler] was within the makeshift cot  the bottom of the cot had been removed and strapped to the top to stop the child getting out.' 

Dr Findlay also said the older boy had 'crusted' blood around his ears, which suggested 'a blow to the ear', adding: 'This is a child who has lots of signs of injuries.' 

An officer described how Boyle claimed that the cage was for the younger boy's own safety.  She said it was his fault because he could open the window and go outside, leading her to place objects in front of the window and put the frame over the top of the cot.  A court heard in 2015 that Boyle tried to sell a child for £1million, starting bidding at £2000, outside a bank on Ayr High Street.  It was mentioned that she shouted at the child and shook him before leaving him unattended in a pram.  Both Boyle and Johnstone were convicted by Sheriff Higgins of neglecting the older boy, and Boyle was also found guilty of neglecting the two-year-old.  Ed Sheeran, prosecuting, earlier withdrew a charge that the pair assaulted the four-year-old.  When asked about her previous convictions by journalists outside court, she said: 'Shut your mouth. Get tae f***.'

74

General Discussion / Pregnant coronavirus denier, 28, admits 'Covid is real' after she contracts ....

« on: February 06, 2021, 12:08:07 PM »

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pregnant-coronavirus-denier-28-admits-23448538?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_campaign=coronvirus_briefing_newsletter2&utm_medium=email

Pregnant coronavirus denier, 28, admits 'Covid is real' after she contracts virus

Asthmatic Tori Howell, 28, who is 22 weeks pregnant, admits she was a firm believer that the pandemic was a hoax because she didn't know anyone who had contracted Covid

By Kim Horton & Lorraine King

14:35, 5 FEB 2021

A mum-to-be who believed coronavirus conspiracy theories says she takes back everything she said after testing positive for the virus.  Tori Howell, 28, from Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, admits she was a firm believer that the pandemic was a hoax until she started to develop symptoms of the virus on Sunday.  Three days later Tori, who is 22 weeks pregnant, tested positive for the virus and is now under the care of a 'virtual ward' so must monitor her lung output and send the results on to a doctor, reports Gloucester Live.  Tori, who is asthmatic, says she "would not wish" the illness on anyone and she takes back everything she said about Covid as she fights her own battle with the virus.  She said she believed Covid was a hoax because she didn't know anyone who had contracted it, but she is now calling for people to stay at home to tackle the virus.  She said: “I used to listen to every conspiracy theory and believed everything against the reality of what I know now.  I had been poorly since Sunday and lost my sense of taste and smell.  It started with a cold and headache and then sickness.  Now I am really breathless. I am on steroids and antibiotics as I am asthmatic anyway.  I got to say yesterday was my worst day.”

Despite being breathless and unwell, Tori said her unborn son seems to be doing well.  “There are no concerns about the baby at the moment. In fact he has never moved so much which is good," she said.

Describing being on a virtual ward, she said: “I have to take my observations and send them through online and a doctor will give me a call to check that I am okay. They have been really good.  I read so many things online about the virus and I honestly thought it was a load of rubbish as for months I did not know anyone with it.  On Monday I thought to myself that this cold was not normal. Sounds crazy but it tastes different.  I took a test to be on the safe side and I was not expecting it to come back positive.  This virus is real.  I take back all I ever said before.  My message to people is to please stay home. The NHS has been brilliant but I would not wish this on anyone.”

75

Articles / Laois daughter of Mother and Baby Home survivor pens open letter to ....

« on: February 06, 2021, 11:24:39 AM »

https://www.laoistoday.ie/2021/02/02/laois-daughter-of-mother-and-baby-home-survivor-pens-open-letter-to-taoiseach-micheal-martin/

Laois daughter of Mother and Baby Home survivor pens open letter to Taoiseach Micheal Martin

By LaoisToday Reporter -
2nd February 2021

The daughter of a Mother and Baby Home survivor has penned an open letter to Taoiseach Micheal Martin calling on him to retract the part of the state’s apology where he said that what happened was a result of how “society” had acted at the time.  Laura Murphy, a marketing executive, is the daughter of Mary and they are both from Portlaoise.  Mary, who is now 63, fell pregnant at 17 and her family were told by the parish priest that she had to leave home before she “contaminates the morals of other girls”.  Laura says that the family’s GP also told Rose’s parents that the teenager would ‘bring shame on her entire family if anybody was to find out she was going to give birth outside marriage’
and so she was sent to St Patrick’s on Navan Rd, Dublin.  In his apology after the publication of the Mother and Baby Homes Commission Report in early January, Taoiseach Martin said the appalling treatment of women and children was the direct result of how society had acted.  He said: “We, both State and society, had embraced a perverse religious morality and control, judgmentalism and moral certainty, but shunned our daughters.  We honoured piety, but failed to show even basic kindness to those who needed it most.  We had a completely warped attitude to sexuality and intimacy, and young mothers and their sons and daughters were forced to pay a terrible price for that dysfunction.”  But Ms Murphy says this is wrong and is calling for the Taoiseach to retract this element of the apology and to fully commit to a future of transparency, healing and justice.  She said: “The parish priest forced my mother from her home townland upon hearing she was pregnant. He instructed my grandparents to ‘get her out of the parish before she contaminates other girls’.  Within 24 hours she was gone. It broke my grandparents’ hearts and so began a long journey of pain and trauma for the entire family. This is the story of so many others. A story that is not being properly heard or honoured.  The impulse behind my letter is that like the majority of Irish people, I do not agree with the part of the State apology that lays the blame of this regime on ‘society’.  It was not society’s fault, it was a cruel religious regime that the state enabled and supported. A regime that enforced power and compliance affecting the entire nation, including my mother. This led to pain, suffering, trauma and devastation, still felt today.  This truth needs to be understood, acknowledged and acted upon. Survivors need real respect, redress and support, not just lip service.  As part of this I am calling for a new national holiday to mark Brigid’s Day. It is time to honour Ireland’s women, past, present. and future.”

You can read Laura’s letter in full below:

Dear Taoiseach,

I am the daughter of a Mother and Baby home survivor and I wish to share this open letter on behalf of Mná na hÉireann concerning the recent State apology, and in particular the following alarming element:  “This treatment of women and children is something which was the direct result of how the State, and how we as a society acted. We embraced a perverse religious morality and control, judgementalism and moral certainty, but shunned our daughters.  We honoured piety, but failed to show even basic kindness to those who needed it most.  We had a completely warped attitude to sexuality and intimacy, and young mothers and their sons and daughters were forced to pay a terrible price for that dysfunction.”

These are the words that turned what should have been a watershed moment of healing into a whitewashing of trauma. An expounding of truth became a distortion of history. An unequivocal assumption of responsibility descended into a dispersal of blame.  The society you speak of was the remnants of one invasion after another from the beginning of our history, the vestiges of a perpetual battle for the reclamation of sovereignty and the preservation of the spirit of our people and land. It was a miracle that we a small, pillaged, broken nation had any remaining energy or means to fight for and win our freedom. But we did.  The key word here is ‘we’. There was no need for gender quotas in the fight for Irish freedom. Mná na hÉireann showed up in their droves. They were outstanding. Constance Markievicz, Maud Gonne, Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington, Grace Gifford, Ella Young to name but a few. Women’s organisations such as Inghinidhe na hÉireann and Cumann na mBan played a pivotal part in the military, political, cultural and humanitarian aspects of our fight for independence and the subsequent birth of the state.  When Pádraic Pearse declared Irish independence, he addressed ‘Irishmen and Irishwomen’. The promise of our proclamation was ‘equality, happiness and prosperity for all men, women and children’.  Yet, when we emerged from the ashes of the Civil War, the collective trauma had hit new lows. We were a war-weary, exhausted, divided and vulnerable society. Ripe for the deception and manipulation that was about to transpire. Despite resistance from the few who were in a position to see what was going on, Church and State were merged.

‘A terrible beauty was born’.

When it came to drawing up the constitution, it was authored in no small part by Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, a close ally of Taoiseach Éamon de Valera. Article 41.2 made sure that the place for women in society was in the home and nowhere else.

Women and children were written out and the Roman Catholic Church was written in.

Under the constitution, women had little access to the sovereignty they fought for, no autonomy over their own bodies. Marital rape was not a crime, contraception was. Women were prevented from working after marriage, banned from divorce, access to information was censored and there was little support from the State.

De Valera and his contemporaries rode on the coat-tails of women to win Irish independence and when he assumed power, women were largely excluded from political, economic and societal life.

Mná na hÉireann fought for democracy, they got a theocracy. They fought for equality and got oppression. Religion replaced empire. One form of control, replaced by another.

Our ‘representative’ government was not organised to be malleable to the general will of society because it was dominated by the holders of unaccountable religious and moral power in the form of the male-led Catholic Church.

Safe Ireland defines coercive control as “persistent and deliberate pattern of behaviour by an abuser over a prolonged period of time designed to achieve obedience and create fear.

It may include coercion… isolation, degradation and control. It is all about making a woman’s world smaller – trapping her, restricting her independence and freedom.”

The State sanctioned a regime of coercive control in which it and the men of Ireland were given unchecked authority and dominion over women and children, the devastating inter-generational effects of which are still being felt today across both genders.

This was not the society that Mná na hÉireann fought for. They were not privy to the finer details of what Church and State collusion meant. They were not present at the clandestine meetings, the corrupt conclaves or the dens of inequality that shaped our society.

Mná na hÉireann did not give informed consent.

The likes of W.B. Yeats and George William Russell gave warnings but with limited access to education, censorship, state-controlled media and Church-State propaganda, the Irish people were easily manipulated, deceived and controlled.

Muintir na hÉireann did not give informed consent.

Church and State colluded to write the constitution, the contract by which every citizen in society is bound. Therefore responsibility for the ‘perversion of society’ lies with the Church and State regime, and not the Irish people.

The Church held the power. Society suffered the consequences.

We, as a society, were coercively controlled by Church and State to behave in ways that were contrary to our nature.

Muintir na hÉireann, the people of Ireland, did not give informed consent.

Since then, many have tried to fight against what was the Church’s all too unchristian grip on society. Noel Browne, former Minister for Health, fought to bring in the Mother and Child Scheme in 1950, which proposed free healthcare to all women and children. It was opposed by the Church because it could have paved the way for birth control and abortion. It was then dutifully opposed by the Government.

Muintir na hÉireann did not give informed consent.

When Taoiseach John A. Costello sent a telegram to the Pope expressing his wish to ‘repose at the feet of your Holiness’, affirming his commitment to ‘social order in Ireland based on Christian principles’, cabinet secretary Maurice Moynihan responded by asserting ‘No civil power should declare that it reposed at the feet of the Pope’. The response was to exclude him from further cabinet meetings.  This ‘perverse religious morality’ of the Church meant that the men who impregnated women out of wedlock got off scot free, escaping all religious and social censure whilst the women were isolated, shunned and shamed – all in the name of Christ. It meant that even the women who were married were deemed unclean and unholy after giving birth because it resulted from sexual activity.  Mná na hÉireann did not give informed consent.  So, it falls upon us, Mná na hÉireann and citizens of Ireland in the 21st century to refute and reject claims that we, as a ‘society’ were responsible for the ‘perversion, religious morality, warped attitudes and dysfunction’ that caused this ‘dark period’ in our history.  We call upon you, as a representative of the State who colluded with the Church to perpetrate coercive control (now a crime) on the women and children of Ireland to wholly and unequivocally assume responsibility for the ‘perversion’ in ‘society’ that emerged as a result.  We call on you, as Taoiseach, as a human, father, husband, son and an upholder of equality to retract these sentences from the State apology and see to it that the Government addresses the glaring discrepancies and inadequacies of the report in a way that respects truth, brings justice and fully honours the survivors and their stories.  We call on the Government of Ireland to recognise Brigid, our matron saint, in the same way that St. Patrick is honoured. Originally an indigenous Goddess of Ireland, she was appropriated by the Catholic Church who made her a Saint.  In the spirit of unity, let Brigid’s Day, February 1st 2022 and all other years thereafter, be a national holiday where we honour Brigid as Goddess, Saint and symbol of feminine power and strength.  Let this gesture symbolise how our society values women and men equally. Ireland, Éire, a wounded land named after the Goddess Ériu. In our healing, we can rediscover our true selves and find that real sovereignty is possible when men and women can truly empower each other through shared strength and unity.  Let this be our commitment to shaping Ireland’s future, a new era guided by Brigid’s principles of light, inspiration, imagination, healing, truth, justice and love.  It is not too late to turn the whitewashing of trauma that the State apology amounted to into the watershed of healing that it was intended to be.

Is mise le meas,

Laura Murphy