The Learning Summary from the Significant Case Review of murdered toddler Liam Fee, uses the word “mother” twenty times. It does not even use the word “father” once. I couldn’t bear to read it, once I realised that. I really don’t think that any of them wanted to learn anything.
Category Archives: Feminism
I spent an hour or so yesterday, reading Thursday’s judgment in the High Court hearing that is most aptly described as the Hampstead Witch Hunt. I had decided to blog about the case myself, when Karen Woodall beat me to it, clicking on “publish” during the past hour or so. So I’m reblogging Karen’s excellent post, after this short introduction.
The child abuser in this case (the alienating mother, helped by her newest boyfriend) was extremely imaginative, in her crafting of the false accusations against dad, which she “tortured” her eight and nine year-old son and daughter children into making (as Mrs Justice Pauffley put it.) The abusers immediate motive would have been the same as every other alienator: manufacturing an excuse for disrupting the children’s relationship with the other parent, so that the alienator could have the children all to himself or herself. But, oh boy, this alienator really went to town on the task! And the false accusations have gone absolutely viral.
It is quite fascinating to observe how supportive of the perpetrator, Ella Draper, was Dr Hodes, the first of the expert witnesses to see the child victims. She could have been Marietta Higgs using a new name to escape her past, judging by the bespoke medical evidence she prepared, which could hardly have been better tailored to lend a temporary credibility to the false accusations the children were tortured into making.
It is sobering to realise that these children were at risk of never being allowed to see their innocent father again, even though they quickly admitted that their accusations had been lies, once they had been reassured that they weren’t going to be sent home to mum in the immediate future. The only thing that saved them from this fate, unlike a million and more other children who do not have such lucky escapes, was the sheer incredibility of the simply massive criminal witchcraft industry that that the children were tortured into alleging that their father led, in Hampstead.
Even after this judgment of Mrs Justice Pauffley, there is still a sizeable community on the internet who are dissatisfied with the findings of the official witch hunt (that there had been neither witches nor witchcraft, in the children’s lives). They are continuing to conduct their own unofficial witch hunt, whilst demanding a reconvening of the official witch hunt over which judge Pauffley had presided, this time minded to try harder to catch the witches.
Not only are P and Q now seeing their father again, twice a week I last heard, and Skyping him daily from temporary foster care, they will be seeing rather less of their mother, for a while. Until the Interpol arrest warrant out on Ms Ella Draper, alienatrice extraordinaire, is executed, and she is extradited from wherever she is hiding back to the UK, they won’t be seeing mum at all. I hope they do eventually get to see her again, though. Let every child have both parents, wherever possible, even when their parents are rascals like this.
If the coached false accusations against dad had been less far-fetched, the children would have lost their dad, like Gagged Dad‘s son has lost his, to all practical intents and purposes. Just like almost every child with an alienating dad loses his mum, or vice versa.
I have decided to stand for Parliament in May, over this one issue – the right of every child, where possible, to both parents. The professionals backed Ella, at first. Professionals alas often back the alienating parent, when there is parental alienation afoot. If Ella had not over-egged the pudding, and thus sabotaged her own plot, the professionals would likely have ousted dad Ricky from his children’s lives completely and permanently, without a second thought.
I cannot be the only one to feel immense relief on watching the news of Mrs Justice Pauffley’s judgement in the High Court this week, on the father who was supposedly a cult leader involved in importing babies to the UK in order to kill and eat them and dance around their skulls. At least someone in the legal system is able to give a clear and unequivocal message, not only about the existence of satanic cults in Hampstead but on the way in which coaching a child to make false allegations of this nature is ‘torturing them.’ These children are now safe from the abuse that their mother and step father inflicted upon them, I cannot help but wonder about the mental and emotional health of their father who was at the centre of these allegations.
False allegations are a feature of family separation, especially when that separation is…
View original post 1,801 more words
Questions to ask (of both Belgium and the UK), are:
1. How many refuge places are there that are allocated on a first-come-first-served basis, or a priority-of-need basis, without discrimination against either sex? If we can have unisex toilets in this day and age, why on earth do we need ladies and gents shelters for refugees from domestic violence?
2. In the light of the Public Sector Equality Duty, how can it possibly be lawful (in the UK, or Belgium), for a public authority to direct public funding towards organisations that openly practise sex discrimination (by earmarking refuge places as being for one sex only)?
Trigger warning: This post is about a piece of British legislation called The Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is absolutely not the rant of a “rape apologist”. If you might find this post triggering, please read it only on understanding that you read it at your own risk.
This blog post
about this judgment of the Court of Protection
has set me thinking.
. . .
A tense, life-or-death, courtroom drama
Pitched against her own legal team, the mental patient, Mrs SB, had two psychiatrists, her mother, her father, her husband (presumably the baby’s father) and the NHS hospital in which she was sectioned, along with their various solicitors and barristers, all agreeing that she was “not thinking straight”.
Present (though hardly as a disinterested, mere spectator), was the enterprising would-be sub-contractor who had put in a last-minute bid to do the job, less than a week before the mother reached 24 weeks pregnant, and the baby’s life would have become untouchable. “A doctor employed by a well known body”, is how the judge described this potential beneficiary of the judge’s own hard day’s work, when the abortionist put in his own “hard day at the orifice”. Continue reading
If you don’t know who Catherine Schaible is, then please click on her picture below, and take your pick of the various news stories and blog posts in the search results.
The executive summary is that Ms Schaible’s son died aged two, and she was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. (Allegedly, her son died because Ms Schaible hadn’t called a doctor when her son fell ill.) She was sentenced to ten years probation. Recently, another of her five children, who was only eight months old, hardly what you’d call a “person” yet, also fell ill and died. Again, she hadn’t called the doctor. Again, she found herself in trouble with the law, in the fascist, theocratic state Pennsylvania.
A lot of bigoted fanatics have been saying unkind things about Ms Schaible online and in the media. I have been posting comments like the following on some of the websites that contain such criticism of her, criticism that is often very strongly worded, for example even calling this innocent woman a “murderer”, would you believe?
If you don’t want to kill YOUR baby by neglect, then don’t kill your baby by neglect. Simple.
It is nobody’s business but Catherine Schaible’s what she did with her OWN BABY. It is was her RIGHT, as a woman with inalienable reproductive rights, to CHOOSE whether or not to call the doctor when her baby was taken ill. All you fanatical zealots who want to force your beliefs in medical science down the throats of non-believers like Ms Schaible, need to learn to keep your noses out of other people’s bedrooms and family business.
Giving evolution a helping hand, when evolution isn’t working fast enough, is called “eugenics”.
This blog post presents evidence that eugenics is being practised, here in the United Kingdom.
The eugenics movement, is no unproven conspiracy theory. It is proven conspiracy fact. For example, compulsory sterilisation in the USA is documented in this learned paper (in PDF format, so some readers might have to download it), published in 1991 in the American Journal of Human Genetics. The compulsory sterilisation was at first of “criminals, the insane, feeble-minded persons”, but later of “alcoholics, paupers, orphans, derelicts, delinquents, prostitutes and those unable to support themselves”.
Who could deny that many people believe that hereditary factors play a part in the aetiology of mental illnesses? There is certainly ample academic research exploring this very possibility.
Let me therefore formulate a hypothesis, and then make a prediction of empirical measurements that will be made if an appropriate experiment is conducted. Then conduct (or cite) an appropriate experiment. We can then find out whether the results that the hypothesis predicts, are yielded by the experiment. (That’s the proper “scientific method” for testing a hypothesis, isn’t it?)
A contemporary eugenics programme is being practised in the UK today, the effect of which will be to reduce the prevalence in future generations of mental illness, to whatever extent mental illness is hereditary.