Andrew Selous MP spoke in the debate on the Queen’s speech on Wednesday 3rd December 2008:

“Earlier this year, Mr. Justice Coleridge, a man with 37 years’ experience of the family courts in this country, told the national conference of Resolution, the family lawyers’ association, that he believed that restoring family stability and doing something about family breakdown needed to be at the top of the Government’s agenda. His remarks were prescient, and Members of this House should listen to a man who has 37 years’ experience of this country’s family law system. The events involving baby P, which shocked all in this House, are a tragic reminder of what can go wrong when families break down in a truly shocking way.

We learned today from a report in The Lancet that 10 per cent. of children suffer some form of ill treatment every year in our society. That figure is far too high, and I want us to spend more time focusing on prevention, rather than on cure. There have rightly been cries for more inspections of social services and so on, but where is the focus, the vision and the determination from those on the Government Benches to give our constituents the skills and support to make a success of this area of their lives in the first place? Right relationships, responsible fatherhood and motherhood, healthy marriages and positive parenting are some of the most important things in people’s lives, and we all pick up the pieces and pay for the consequences when those areas go wrong.

I wish to pay tribute to Cambridgeshire county council—the neighbouring authority to the county of Bedfordshire, which I represent. Its “Vision For Cambridgeshire” has committed to reducing the amount of family breakdown in Cambridgeshire—that is doing something positive. I am in discussions with the new shadow Central Bedfordshire authority to see whether my local authority can commit to doing something similar.”

As Andrew Selous says, Cambridgeshire’s latest version of its ‘vision’ includes a reference to reducing family breakdown:

“5.2.5 Reducing the incidence of family breakdown by supporting families through the provision of appropriate services
5.3.1 Promoting community cohesion”

There are not many lawyers or politicians talking about ‘prevention’. It is good to see that some are doing so, and that some local authorities are starting to address the issue of family breakdown from a different angle than just picking up the pieces.

In truth, once the child is in corporate care, the chances of getting it back are slim, due to the psychopathic nature of most care workers.

The law states, the child must remain in its natural family, if at all possible, but the opposite is true, due to the teachings of Kinsey and co, who by the way, see no harm in abusing children.

I had to do a lot of research to find the origin of that thinking.

That coupled together with the eugenics movement in USA , we have the present situation.

I know 3 lawyers who were threatened that their children would also be removed, if they did not play ball.

Could his-story be repeating itself?

A down to Earth barrister.

Thank You.

I was glad to speak to a barrister recently, who was shocked that the judge had already rubberstamped the care order, before she even got into the court room.

I explained to her, oh this is quite common, where the Judge is the LA rubberstamp, and the social workers are followers of Kinsey’s thinking, and in which case, it is stated that only so called experts are in a position to rule, thus literally eliminating the learned judge.

Interesting read Charles Pragnell- Trial by expert witness, which is similar to the old witch trials of the middle ages.

But the church has been replaced by the psychos– psychiatrists, psychplogists,etc, and the interesting thing is, the social workers almost always know the so called expert witness.

I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…

Your blog looks interesting to so I’ve added you to my blog roll.