If you look up Hansard, the parliamentary record, you can read the name of a man I wrote about three weeks ago. Prisoner X, whom I called Hugh, was jailed for helping his pregnant wife and her son to flee the country to escape from social workers. An MP has named him in the House of Commons, to express concern at his treatment. But The Times still cannot print his name.
It is a longstanding convention of British law that individuals who are incarcerated should be identified, and the charges against them made known. That is an age-old protection against tyranny. But today the “privacy of the child” trumps every other principle, whether or not the child in question wants his or her privacy protected. In this case it seems very unlikely indeed that the gag on everyone involved serves the interests of anyone except the authorities who put it there.
Prisoner X's mistake, in brief, was to fall in love with a woman who had been unfortunate enough to suffer a violent and volatile first marriage. As a result of the breakdown of that marriage, her young son had been taken into temporary foster care. A court stipulated that the boy should be returned to his mother once she had “sorted her life out” and found them a new home.
But even as she cleared every hurdle, social workers dreamt up new ones. The offers of her own mother and sister, both professionals with good incomes, to foster the boy, were apparently ignored. A psychologist cautioned that the boy was suffering dreadfully in care. One night in September, the boy let himself out of his foster home and ran back to his mother. Prisoner X, now her husband, drove them to Dover and on to Paris.
Many people would call this an act of love, a mercy mission. But this man is now serving 16 months in jail. Child abduction is undoubtedly a serious crime. But this was a strange kind of abduction. At the hearing it was made clear that the boy had packed his own suitcase, set his alarm clock for 4am and run away of his own accord to be reunited with his mother.
Nevertheless, Prisoner X is classified as a violent criminal. He is apparently unlikely to get early release, unlike the 1,730 robbers and 3,484 people convicted of violence against the person, who have been let out since June. Nor can he be put on a tag, because his classification is deemed to make him a risk to the public. But what risk? Surely not that posed by Joseph Booth, the convicted teenage mugger who, it was revealed yesterday, ripped off his electronic tag before murdering an innocent student. The attack was so savage that the victim's family could not recognise his body. Booth had previous convictions for threatening behaviour, assault, battery and robbery.
Prisoner X has never harmed anyone. He is 56 years old and has high blood pressure. Every day that goes by, he risks losing his business and letting down those he employs. Every day that goes by, his health is deteriorating. A friend says that he has aged ten years and gone grey with the worry.
The system is merciless to people who question the system. Charles Roy Taylor, whom I wrote about at Christmas, is in a similar situation. Mr Taylor is a 71-year-old with a heart condition. He was sent to prison for 20 months for being in contact with his stepgrandson, who has been in care since his mother died and who has repeatedly run away to see his grandparents. By breaching an agreement not to answer the door to him, Mr Taylor stands accused of “undermining the care plan”. But he and the boy's grandmother are the teenager's only living relatives. They will presumably be his first port of call when he comes of age and is thrown out of the care system. Mr Taylor may not survive that long: last week he suffered an angina attack that put him in hospital for four days. Is that in the interests of the boy?
Both of these men are under court orders not to talk about their cases. It is likely that these gagging orders will continue after they leave prison, even though they will have “done their time”. Yet they, at least, have had some control over their fates. They must have had some inkling of what they might be letting themselves in for. The boys they were trying to help have never asked to be let in for anything, except it seems for contact with their families.
Both these boys are gagged by the State. We are not entitled to know what they think, nor whether the boy who is now abroad with his mother is happy. We cannot hear from them why each wanted so badly to escape from care. Only social workers may translate their words and determine where their “interests” lie. Yet the two men who are now in jail did not risk going there for nothing. Each seems to have believed that they were saving a boy from something unpleasant. Why? Who are the real victims of this system of “child protection”? It is hard to see what the children gain from the incarceration of men who could be providing stability in their lives.
There are many good reasons why the law seeks to protect the identity of children. The problem comes when the rules are used to protect the identity of the professionals too. This prevents proper scrutiny of cases whose very complexity makes it almost inevitable that some will go wrong. The effect is to place social workers above the law, and innocent people under its thumb.
It is in no one's interests, least of all the children involved, to keep these two men behind bars. If only they could be released, if the system could show some mercy, perhaps we might be able to begin the long process of dismantling the bars that imprison the children too. Behind silence lurks injustice.
I was accused of 'psychological abuse of a child'. The social workers lacked any investigative skills and ignored evidence that did not support their theories. They totally ignored the opinion of a senior child psychologist. They claimed they were the professionals and knew better. Terrifying!
Mike, Esher,
I have two adopted children. They were severely neglected by their birth parents and removed forcibly by Social Services. Their birth mother was responsible for more of the neglect than the birth father (there is hard evidence for this) but following the children's removal, she spread a load of lies in the community to the effect that it was all the birth father's fault and not hers. And I thought of this when I read Camilla's article. How does she know that what the birth mother is telling her is true? I accept that she is questionning secrecy of the courts which, if lifted would tell us if the woman is being truthful or not, but in the absence of this it is not possible for any of us to take what the birth mother tells Camilla at face value. The family courts are not above the law, despite what people seem to think, and they can't just 'take children away' without evidence. The court must have been convinced that the birth mother was a risk to her children - no question.
Jackie, Kingston, England
The horrors described in this article are a commonplace to many who have been there; done that and worn the T-shirt.
This is plainly and clearly State perpetrated child-abuse. I have repeatedly complained to the police about state perpetrated child-abuse but the cops do nothing about criminals.
Instead. those of us who have had our lives ruined by the sickness of State in this country find that the cops are very quick to come after us for the least little thing they can find.
Let us see if the cops get off their fat over-paid asses and do something about putting these particular psychopaths of State behind bars.
Bert.
Bert, B'Ham, England
Something needs to be done about these family courts and fast, how many children have been abused by this evil system which only serves to protect scial workers who are on a power trip?
Anne, Liverpool, UK
One-sided this article may be but in the absence of any other side - should we simply not address the issue at all? It is a good idea to remember that in all totalitarian states there is only one side. We still have a duty to question - some have the courage to question at the expense of their very lives. Scepticism regarding the official line keeps us free.
Angela, Cheltenham, NSW
This story is a good example is why I hold the British "justice" system in such utter contempt. We Britons must be the world's biggest hypocrites, always telling other nations how to behave, always holding ourselves up as paragons of virtue, and then one hears about this case, plus the very many other miscarriages of justice that have been revealed over the years. It is shocking that we are not brought to account for ourselves internationally.
Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England
I come here from reading about the 8 year sentence given to Mr Clark for stabbing a woman 8 times in her home and then slashing the face of her 9 year old son. Out in 4 potentially?
Mount J, dorset, gb
Now we are clear about the actions that the British state can take where the law is broken, maybe Ms Cavendish will be brave enough to write about the thresholds of risk that prompts a court to act and the appeal processes.
The people in the article should supply the details of their cases, if necessary through parliamentary privilege. We can then have a sensible examination of whether English law is just and whether the appeal processes are properly accessible right up to the Court of Human Rights.
chris, London, UK
You may recall the case of Nottingham Social Workers who illegally removed a new-born baby from its mother. Essentially the attitude was "well its illegal, but we don't prosecute Social Workers"
I therefore formally laid information with the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police that I believed a crime had been comitted and requesting that he investigated the actions of these Social Workers with a view to prosecution for kidnapping.
In return I received a phone call telling me that as I was not a "relative of the child" I had no legal standing, and my request would be ignored.
This novel interpretation of the law differs significantly from that which I was taught many years ago, and I would be grateful to hear the views of anyone in current practice!
Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU
Something happened to me about 4 years ago......I became afraid of the authorities! Is this the country that Bliar strived for? Is this the state that now dictates how, where and when we should see our own children/families? Far from feeling safe from criminals and the like, i feel wary of the very people that apparently are here to protect and serve us. Quite simply i no longer feel safe in my own country, and no amount of spin from our alleged elite is going to change that until i see real physical change.
John, Ivybridge, Devon
Any organisation when it works in secret without any public and/or independent accountablity will breed contempt for those outside of its walls.
Many times this hidden institutional contempt for the people it is meant to help is not recognised by those who work within. They just cannot recognise how inadequate and destructive their secret practices are.
Social Services and Family Law Judges work together in secret feeding off of each others unchallenged prejudices, backing each other up as after all they have to work together.
Poor practice, discrimination and procedures rarely adhered to ensure that those that come into contact with Social Services are rarely impressed, especially natural fathers.
Until this wholly destructive system is opened up to the cold light of independent and public scrutiny, we will continue to have the system fail so many children and their families.
Jeff, Surrey,
The only interests social workers serve is their own. The world would be a much better place without them and their fascist instincts.
Chris, London,
I think the problem is that the courts are private (or secret, if you must), so ultimately no one knows. We either have to take the Court on face value or the individual, and of course both have a vested interest in confirming that their side of the story is the accurate one.
What is missing from your article is the role of the Court in this. Presumably the matter had to be referred to the Court in order to get a gagging order, so why is the focus on the social workers? And there are avenues within the legal system that can challenge the decisions of local authorities, including various appeal processes, so why no reference to these? Have the men in question attempted to appeal? And if so, how is that consistent with your claim social workers are above the law?
I'm not doubting what you say, but there are discrepancies, and unfortunately the nature of the system means these can never be resolved satisfactorily in public.
Adam Tomlin, London,
This was a most distressing and frightening story of the secret state and the official indifference to the suffering of children. The 'care' system (a misnomer if ever there was one) is not so removed from the Victorian orphanage. It is beyond belief that this is the best way we have of looking after troubled and lost children.
What is really horrific is that no matter how tragic, nothing will be done to help these victimised families and that it will all be ignored till concerned people forget. There is nothing more loathesome than powerful people who have anbsolutely no regard or respect for individuals.
In this same edition was the story of a young boy, injured while fighting to save his mother from an armed intruder who was sentenced to all of eight and a half years' imprisonment, and the horrific attack on two young goths by a feral gang.
In answer to Sandra Parsons' question"What's wrong with a love of being British?" Plenty.
V Moores, York, North Yorkshire
Paul again, to Jackie from Kingston.
I just read the Guardian article you refer to ( March 2nd?)
To me the two relevant quotes from the minister are 'things are much better now' - in other words there was something wrong previously, and 'there is more communication and trust between the social workers and the officers carrying out the independent review' - trust should have no place in an independent review, this quote increases my suspicion of regulatory capture.
Paul Samson, ST GENIS-POUILLY, france
You could try the Hansard Homepage, and in the advanced search at the top of the page, look for EDM 1114. and see if your MP has signed.
or
You could do nothing, believe that the child protection system is perfect and believe that all social workers are caring honest people.
The choice is yours.
helisa, Southport, Merseyside
I am afraid this poor man's treatment by the state is the norm nowadays. He is being punished not for assisting a child to live with his mother but for having the audacity to defy the state. The state has replaced religion in the west as an entity that you must not critisize or you will face draconion retribution from the state's priests (employees).
Keith, Welshpool, UK
Camilla Cavendish gives us a one-sided story - that of the individuals on the wrong side of Social Services and the courts. Presumably she has been given this information by these individuals, but we (and I suspect she) have no way of confirming this. The local authority is not allowed to engage in a media battle. I accept that her point is about the bigger issue of secrecy; however, by introducing specific cases and making claims about them, based on information supplied by people who have been convicted in a court of law, I feel that she is straying into dangerous territory. There are many, many procedures in place to ensure that due process is followed in child protection issues. Perhaps there are issues surrounding these families of which Ms Cavendish is unaware. I would also draw her attention to a recent report which was featured in The Guardian at the weekend which refuted the claims that children are routinely being taken into care unfairly - The Times has not run thist.
Jackie, Kingston, England
My congratulations, as others have said, to Camilla for not letting this drop.
From a degree of googling, there appears to be more to the Charles Taylor story than meets the eye, however the offence for which he was imprisoned and the manner in which it was done are an offence to the way in which our legal system operates and the way human rights are supposed to operate.
Talking of which, European Court of Human Rights any use in this matter? I would hope that even the referral to them would result in a government keen to avoid bad publicity and an early/immediate release.
John, Birmingham, UK
Not suprisingly only about 3 people have spotted that this article is one-sided. Most comments are by typically selfish and blinkered bigots like Michael Park: "We'll never get anywhere until the nation at large considers it as a disgrace for anyone to be a social worker." How stupid and offensive.
Can anyone imagine what it must like to work in the social services, dealing with some of the most difficult individuals and families in society. And what do you think the motivations are behind those that work in the socail services? Money? Status? Power? Er, I don't think so.
Most people who go into this line of work do so because they want to help those less fortunate than themselves, a desire transpanrently missing from most commentators on this article.
Of course there will be mistakes and bad apples, but that doesnt mean the whole system is flawed. Show some intelligence and try to imagine what it must be like to be a care worker. Think you could do it? Didn't think so.
malcolm weir, london, uk
even the politicians operate in secret - see petition 079 on the welsh assembly website/petitions committee, cannot be heard in public as it names local authorities and social workers!!!
Dai pug, M4, wales
You can go to the 10 Downing St website and search the 'e-petitions' section for 'family courts'. There are a few different ones regarding this issue but none have many signatures.
We really need to do something to stand up for common sense in this country! This sort of injustice cannot continue. I don't know anyone who works in such an unaccountable environment as this. These things need to be brought into the open and then these decisions can be judged fairly by people who are qualified to do so.
Elizabeth , London,
This is Paul again, who said
'I can only think of four reasons for anyone to become a social worker
1 They really are selfless saints.
2 they are sad losers who can't get a better job
3 they are control freaks who enjoy exercising power
4 they have a 'special empathy' with children '
Sorry about the misspellings, greengrocer's apostrophes and doubtful grammar in my previous post, but may I say to those defending social workers that everyone has some characteristics which fall into each of the above categories, and that people change, young idealists can become cynical professionals.
Because social workers are human but can do such terrible damage when they fail the present system must change.
It is human to deny mistakes when possible. Secrecy makes it very easy.
Paul Samson, ST GENIS-POUILLY, france
Hi everyone,
unfortunately, this sad story is ABSOLUTELY no news to us. We've been through (roughly) the same script in German. This 'Zeitgeist' is advancing everywhere in Europe, it goes with a certain 'unifying' vision of what a state should be, and will be, if we don't stand up massively against this world order.
Why can't the workers and the judges be named ? (Answer expected!)
Robert Chimelli, Fürth, Germany
Someone should set up a website about this. Some UK bloggers have their websites hosted in overseas countries to make it much more difficult to remove/sue them. If one of the involved parents in a case where social services had falsely taken a child would set up such a foreign-hosted site, there'd be nothing that the UK state could do about it.
Other parents who'd been wronged by social services could then post their accounts on this site without revealing their identities. If they couldn't be identified (proxy servers, TOR etc), they couldn't therefore be held in contempt of court. Before long you'd have a site with lots of accounts from wronged parents, which would attract huge media interest and then hopefully bring some accountability back into the process. No one should be unaccountable, even when the goal is child welfare.
John Smith, Bristol, UK
Many social workers, especially at the sharp end, do sterling work. Too many, however, especially the higher ups, think they are God and therefore infallible. THEY ARE NOT!
Surely the true interests of the child should come before those of the social workers?
Clive, London,
Please please please. Will the editor of the The Times speak to the editors of The Telegraph, The Daily Express, The Sun and Daily Mail, and agree jointy to publish the names. Forget The Guardian, The Independent and The Observer - they are supporters of the Secret Courts and couldn't bring themselves to oppose them. The BBC won't report the story of Prisoner X, though GMTV and Sky will (well done Rupert Murdoch!)
Just once The Times and the British media as (almost) one have the chance to take on a repressive government and judicial system that is almost daily embarrassing our nations traditions or justice and fairness.
Richard England, Manchester, GB
Camilla, that you cannot name the prisoners in iniquitous. But could you not name and shame the social workers? The people who actually signed the complaints?
Alternatively, if a caring and useful MP (are there any?) were to put a question in the House, the names could go into Hansard as well. Come on - who's man or woman enough?
Rosemary Roberts, Germany,
This is horrifying - what can we do? Please let us know.
Caroline , Windsor,
Social workers working within Child Protection today face a difficult job under difficult circumstances with high case loads and a lack of resources. Anyone choosing a career in this demanding field should be commended. The investigations are required to centre around the principle that the 'welfare of the child is paramount' and it is easy to criticise actions without having the full picture. The removal of children from their parents is a decision not taken lightly and only when it is considered to be in the child's best interests. I have worked with many social workers who are in no way 'lefty losers' or a 'disgrace'.
Rebecca , Horsham, UK
Well done Camilla. Thank you for keeping the focus on this tragic story and increasing the pressure by exposing the blatant injustice of this case.
As I asked last time, what exactly, is the point of social workers?
There seems to be something about the profession or the people who practice it that means that they’re either conspicuously absent when they are needed as in the Victoria Climbie case or completely obsessed with taking the children of families who have never ever abused them.
The secrecy of family courts needs to end and we should all be writing to our MPs about that. We also need to abolish the rotten and discredited profession of social work and find new ways of protecting children. Perhaps is time to form a lobby to pressure the major political parties to do the right thing and put an immediate stop to these grotesque abuses of the legal system.
Who is going to protect us from the child-protectors?
Jason Mead, Bristol, England
PLease don't name the social workers, they will be so offended they will go on fully paid stress leave for a couple of years followed by a million pound pay-off with pension rights.
Kev Somers, Hertford, Herts
we now have our own guantanomo bay! shame on social services, courts and government. do something now
David Burke, Glossop, UK
Once law is pursued in secrecy, abuse of that law is almost inevitable. Are the social workers just protecting themselves? Are these men actually a danger to the children involved? We will probably never know. And we should - because if the facts are as given in this article, this will just keep on happening. Prisoner X languishing in secret purgatory now - is the bell tollling for you, or me?
Angela, Cambridge, UK
Whilst I have every sympathy with these families I am horrified by the comments which have been made about social workers. My daughter has recently qualified in the UK after 5 years study and is totally committed to helping children who are disadvantaged in any way. Currently working with children in a refuge who have experienced incredible trauma in their lives she is disturbed by the amount of money given to 'designer brand' children's charities who are not dealing with front line problems when refuge workers are having cuts in funding and therefore salaries. What everyone should realise is that we do need caring responsible social workers and that it is the structure and mindset of government social workers at a senior level which must change. Perhaps they should get out and deal with the issues out there!
Susan, Shatin, Hong Kong
At the time of the previous column I posted a comment urging every reader to Email their MP with pertinent questions about the behaviour of social services. Anyone else actually do that?
My one email can be ignored. An overload in the House of Commons mail server won't be ignored. The web can break this, and without being underhand :-
Go to the House of Commons web site
Find your MP
Write an Email
Click send
Do this every time something like this happens. Get into the habit of doing this for every question you would like to ask the government. Monitor the replies and pass them to a responsible news agency.
Better still, get the email address and send it from your own email page and cc someone like the Times or others.
You no longer need a bus to London and a day off work to hold a protest march.
Email, email, email
KR, Stockport,
Camilla, I am pleased to see that you have not let this matter drop. It is clearly an unjust situation which should be remedied. Justice can only be truly named as such when it is transparent. The 'justice' we presently put up with in relation to family matters is an Orwellian version in which social workers know best. I have written to my MP, Julie Morgan, but have yet to receive even an acknowledgment. I hope your columns will prove to be more fruitful.
Nick H, Cardiff,
There was a horrifying complacent letter from two Government ministers in response to Cavendish's first article, claiming all was for the best and openness was not neccessary, assuming that social workers were selfless saints, the children's courts were private, not secret ( what is the practical difference to someone who want's to contest their decisions?) and that children's courts would never suffer from 'regulatory capture', and completely ignoring the long series of cover up scandals in care services.
I can only think of four reasons for anyone to become a social worker
1 They really are selfless saints.
2 they are sad losers who can't get a better job
3 they are control freaks who enjoy exercising power
4 they have a 'special empathy' with children
In all these cases, even the first, they need very careful truely independent supervision. Supervision by the boss who has an interest in the department's success is not independent.
Paul Samson, ST GENIS-POUILLY, france
The State cannot bear the fact that it is mistaken, and will perpetrate any moral injustice to protect its delusion that it is infallible.
This is an outrage and the nameless public workers perpetrating this perversion of our hard-won system of justice and freedom should be jailed themselves for treason - betraying the trust that the citizen places in the state.
Of course, this will never happen, because as the State knows, it is infallible, and anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong or deluded.
How long before they knock on my door and try and send me to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation for failing to believe they know best. We are not very far behind the Soviet Union under Stalin...
Peter, London,
Thank you for continuing to bring these cases to public attention. Until the Family Courts and child protection services are more open and accountable, some children and their families will be damaged by the institutions entrusted by the rest of us to protect vulnerable children. When individuals are unjustly, but legally hurt, the whole of civil society is hurt. Even if the theory behind gagging orders is to protect the child, anytime behavior can be hidden, you are creating opportunities for complacency, incompetence, and abuse. It happens in families, it happens in official bodies.
I suspect that the few cases we read about are the tip of the iceberg. Think back to the Meadows cases; we only heard about a few of the many where he testified as an 'expert' witness. He is not the only professional to have come under fire. Our taxes pay for this work. We delegate the responsibility. Reform is necessary. What can we do as individuals to speed it up?
Catherine Casale, London, England
There are far too many social workers and far too many of them are the twisted apparatchiks of the counter-culture that 60s liberalism and this awful government have made the dominant force in our country.
Punish the innocent, laud the guilty, destroy traditional families, hate "normality", love "alternative" lifestyles.
Sick, sick, sick.
Pete, Newbury,
I was a manager for childrens social services (as was then) for over 10 years. This story chills me to the bone. I left the job because of the level of resistance amoung social workers to modernisation and quality assurance and transparancy of practice. I can honestly say that after 26 years working within the care field I have never met a workforce who inspired less confidence in me. I do not have any failth in the system nor it's front line staff to operate with fairness, transparency, and equity. I experienced petty mindedness, vindictiveness and poor practice as being the norm. The worst offenders were those social workers involved in implementing and delivering multi agency child protection training; which was frankly a joke and a danger to those it sought to protect. This was seen by those who operated it as nothing more than a skive and an oportunity to accrue time off in lieu. Protection of children was the last thing on the agenda , being used merely as a cloak.
angus, bath, uk
This is shocking. If the story is indeed accurate, and the facts are as represented, then surely there should be a public campaign. Why on earth are either of these men in prison? If anything ever smacked of "travesty of justice" then this is surely it. Go Times......................do some further background checking of the facts and if it does indeed check out make it front page. This is madness.
Caroline, London, UK
You could name the MP and the debate where he named the unfortunate fellow. Then we can all cross-post links to the relevant section of Hansard, or publish on organs in overseas jurisdictions and link from here.
The net can destroy this web of secrecy.
Stu, London,
An apologist for this unspeakable child abusing social worker scum asks what would have happened if this case had been left to police and healthcare workers. The answer may have changed in recent years due to PC infestation, but at heart the police and the health workers still do have the welfare of the child uppermost. Social workers have only self interest and the protection of their organisation uppermost. I have no connection with police, healthcare or social workers. This is just what it repeatedly looks like from the outside.
Well done Ms Cavendish. There are alas plenty more out there. The Times, Name and shame them all.
D.L. Stephens, York, England
I am deeply ashamed to live in a country where this gross injustice is perpetrated. Secrecy is always and everywhere in no ones, except those who wish to hide their actions, interests.
Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK
Peter from 'l' (an unfortunate letter!) if you have a good story to tell then tell it. You obviously seek to defend this state of affairs by the technique usualy employed by agents of the state - trust us we act in the best interests of everyone because we say so.
You judge a state, like an individual, not on what is their best behaviou but what is their worst. How can anyone trust a state and its agents that is unprepared to explain or throw light on its actions. If ever there was a case for not randomly collecting DNA and for not having ID cards it is this. Both assets (DNA databases and ID cards) WILL be abused by agents of the state.
Eddie Reader, birmingham, england
Isn't there a separate children's lawyer who can bring applications for access to relatives? Doesn't the constitution or some other legal right prevent silencing victims of the state?
Emma H., Ottawa,
It seems that the Government is continually accruing more power to itself and inbetween elections it is quite unclear how to voice concern that is heard or recognized let alone bring about any meaningful change. While it is hard to judge the merits of a given system on one or two cases - as appalling as they are - the question remains, that as a citizen, if I want to affect change I feel powerless. It is no wonder that many people seem to have lost respect of Government and its MP's.
I would like to see an article on how to affect change, a process that has worked for some - a case study, no matter the subject. Perhaps this will start to restore confidence in our system and demonstrate that we have something more than a democratically elected dictatorship
Angus L, Reading, Berks
Children are not named in any court cases, be they civil or criminal, but who does this protect? In both of the cases stated there would appear to be no valid reason for not being able to identify the people concerned, especially if other details of location etc are not included. There have been recent cases of children admitting to murder. They are not named to protect the child. Who is protecting the community whom they prey on, as when they are released, we will still not know who they are?
David Leslie, Perth, Scotland
Why on both occasions was the man jailed? Seems to me that both adults in each case were culpable of this "crime". Why is it the male who ends up behind bars? Is it because he is a man? Maybe you could focus on that in your next article.
David, dublin,
Please, please print their names, and the names of every damned judge, social worker and "care" worker involved with this whole sorry, Orwellian mess. Get the full weight of the media doorstepping the lot of them; if no other form of accountability works, then use the media. And don't worry about the court cases....CHALLENGING A BAD LAW IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CHALLENGING THE RULE OF LAW.
michael, London,
Everyday I read depressing stories like this regarding faceless governmental departments dictating their views on some hapless soul. It is no wonder that Britain is fast becoming a country full of lifeless depressed drones. I blame Blair and curse his red felt jackboots.
People should start to fight back a little as indeed these two men have done, much good though it has done them. Hopefully people will rally around and give support that will avert a bigger crisis. Sadly all we can offer them is good luck rather than a proper soloution.
MK, Ostuni, UK
Print the name of this person... stand up to this!
Too long have our children suffered and decent people been punished unjustly. Which organisation will be brave enough to defend these people.
This country is being systematically taken apart by it's interferring government and a useless judicial sysytem.
If this happen in Russia there would be worldwide outrage..
Where has the spirit of this country gone?
Name them!!!
Kelly, london, uk
When the State and its agents lose all understanding and respect for the individual and his family there is only one course of action left to the individual and his family - ignore their laws and act according to your own conscience. If enough of us do it then the law and its courts could not cope - they would sink under the weight of their own rules and lack of court time.
The lesson then is mass disobedience to unacceptable intrusion into family life and personal freedom.
We live in a democracy - it is therefore our inalienable right to judge those who would judge us.
Dont complain -react and disobey!!
Chris, London, England
I second Steve Anderson's comments. Name the people responsible. If they have good reasons to do what they have done then they should have no problems explaining this to their friends and family. If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.
Roger, London, UK
This is the second article in a week that I have found quite offensive on the subject of social workers and from the same author. There are often good reasons that these controls are put in place to prevent children in social care from returning to previously unhealthy situations. Even if the grandparents are responsible, often the children involved will end up mixing with 'old friends' who were one of the root causes if thre first place. You are generalising the social care of children into a collection of stories cherry picked by yourself. I wonder how many cases you have come across in which social workers behave perfectly but it does not translate into an article. Social workers are most definitiely NOT above the law and routinely have to deal with people who most would consider dangerous. I would also ask, if social workers are so bad what do you think would happen if it was left up to police and health care individuals to deal with these situations. An even worse situation.
peter, l,
'The Law' and 'the right thing' are not always the same. When the law becomes distorted by self-interest it resorts to secrecy. We rely on the press in this country to moderate the excesses of authority. The law should not be an exception. If it exceeds common-sense and decency then it must be publicly scrutinised. The Times should name everyone involved - victims, social workers,prosecutors, judges. No one should have anonymity.
eric campbell, harrogate, uk
Let's hope the two boys in question have the courage to go to a local newspaper and, indeed, have their say. I suppose the social workers in question mean well, but is there no one with 'uncommon' sense who monitors what they do? British Justice?
dunlochan, france,
I find it depressing how little those who are supposed to be representing the interests of a child seem to even ask the child. I was involved with a case a few years back where a child who was clear that she wished to live with her caring parent, not in care (which was the wish of the vengeful other parent, who didn't want the child herself, just didn't want her ex-partner to have her either) was being ignored by "her" representative the Official Solicitor, who she had never met. She was trying to get her own solicitor who would do as she asked and there seemed to be no mechanism for her to be heard or for her to get rid of the representative who failed at every turn to represent her wishes and interests.
JP, Manchester, UK
As with previous forays into this area by Camilla Cavendish, this article confuses a number of different issues. One is the Child Protection system, and the reason that decisions are taken to remove children into care. Contrary to popular belief and prejudice against social workers, this is not something that happens easily, and with a new judicial protocol which comes in next month, is about to get a whole lot harder. There are always good reasons to protect such children, but much of this information is not in the public domain, and I suspect in these two cases the author has only one side of the story - that of the parents, because professional agencies are bound by confidentiality. Thirdly, if anybody is wilfully in breach of a court order, commits perjury or is otherwise in contempt of court be it in a childcare case or any other, the penalties are severe; arguably more dangerous criminals escape with lesser sentences but this is a criminal justice issue not a childcare one
Richard, Bexhill, UK
kyriacos vasiliou: "what if as result of the actions of these two men the children in question were harmed in any way. Then we have put all blame on social services "
The issue we are discussing is secrecy in Justice, and that it causes injustice.
Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
The State's prime interest is in what is good for the State. The reason for its obsession with secrecy lies in escaping the legal consequences of its appauling management of children in care.
John, LONDON,
The ones who did social studies at university with the aim of going into social care as a profession were always the hard core lefty losers who could do nothing else. It was the equivalent of media studies of that time.
I'm not at all surprised at what has become of the social services since this bag of intolerant left wingers have had their way with the service. Secrecy, power and abuse of power have all been brought to new heights since then. USSR anyone?
Sarah, Montpellier, France
We'll never get anywhere until the nation at large considers it as a disgrace for anyone to be a social worker.
Michael Petek, Brighton, UK
The whole story makes one very, very scared.
Eddy Verhaeghe, Oostende, Belgium
Several months ago participated in a large demonstration in Des Moines, Iowa demanding the impeachment of a judge who routinely favored foster care over maintainng the family. Our demonstration which garnered very supportive mainstream television and newspaper coverage referred to a specific case.
Immediately thereafter the judge issued a gag order forbidding any further discussion of the case in public! Of course, he still has his job.
MARK KLEIN, M.D., OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
Who polices these social workers, who seem so determined to separate children from their families? Never forget that the Islington scandals in the 90s, where young boys were deliberated targeted to be 'fostered' out to paedophiles, have disturbing links to the terrible story unfolding in Jersey. It's time to call for a Royal Commission into forcible child removal by social workers. And it is long overdue to remove these draconian 'privacy' provisions that merely serve to allow Star Chambers to flourish and preside over tyrannical miscarriages of justice.
And the entire profession of social work needs to take a hard look at itself and clean house. Is it becoming a magnet for bullies and paedophiles?
Here in Australia, the new Rudd government has at last apologised to 'The Stolen Generation': Aboriginal people who were forcibly removed from their families 'in their own best interests'. The result was catastrophic. Britain's social workers are determinedly creating a stolen generation.
Mary Morton, Sydney, Melbourne
If you vote for the left you give up your rights to life, liberty and property. This is an historical truth. Britain voted for labour, so learn to live with it. You will never regain what you have lost nor even know what it is or where it might be.
Nicky white, rancho mirage, ca. u.s.a.
I am sorry that many people are expressing strong views without knowing the facts of both cases. Just because a reporter has writen a story without telling us why these court orders were imposed at first. The purpose of this report is one sided. One should ask , what if as result of the actions of these two men the children in question were harmed in any way. Then we have put all blame on social services and demand panishment for failing their duties. And most important of all. What legal initiatives these two men have taken before they decided to take the law in to their own hands.
16 years ago a court has order me not to contact my children again or face prison. I was not a criminal nor I have used violence against my ex wife, drugs and so on. And I have never broken the court order since 1992. Based on this story I should have broken the law and pretend that I am a hero.
The law says court actions must serve the childs interest and nobody else. I think they deserve to be in prison
kyriacos vasiliou, London, uk
What is happening to these two men yet further exemplifies the institutionalised sex hatred towrads men, which is the heart of political correctnees fascism that has now infused all parts of the establishment. (See the book, Institutional Injustice by ex-president of the Law Society, Martin Mears.)
Nobody cares for reasons of the natural prejudice against males that resides in our shared social psychology. And it is this that has allowed PC fascism to be so successful.
How long tough before everyone wakes up. Then there will be hell to pay.
(Steve Moxon is the author of the brand new book, The Woman Racket.)
Steve Moxon, Sheffield,
"But The Times still cannot print his name."
Yes, you can. I greatly appreciate your efforts in these horrifying cases, I urge The Times to take this further by ignoring the nonsensical bans on publicity, naming the victims and campaigning for their release; and then for the reform of this mad system.
Faustino, Brisbane, Australia
Back in the 1980's I marched the streets of London protesting the Police Bill as the thin end of the wedge. Looks like we were right.
Over the years since, the UK has slowly but surely slipped into the kind of state my father and his father fought against in two world wars. And all in the name of 'the greater good'.
There are no 'rights' any more. People are treated as fodder... but of course because it's all for their own good, even complaining about your lack of freedom is a crime!!
These people may be wrong... they may be right... but until this wall of secrecy is breached the only ones being 'protected' are the bureaucrats and legal eagles who made the decisions.
Some protection of privacy is essential I agree, but sometimes it can be carried to far, especially when applied in blanket fashion to any and every case regardless of common sense.
When I look at the UK now from the outside I despair of what's happened to it. Lord help you all.
Chris Lewis, Sydney, Australia
The child's identity can still be kept secret but the details of the case published. There should be no reason why The Times cannot interview all parties concerned to find out where the real problem lies.
Some children do need protecting and it is a difficult job for the social workers to decide the correct method but without adequate public accountability there will be many mistakes.
In the past the social workers have been vilified for not taking children into care and as a result once they do they are very reluctant to return them.
The media should be more sensible about reporting.
Remember it is the child that will suffer most either way.
joe, Edinburgh, Scotland
Extraordinary story. Well done to Ms Cavendish. I don't put much hope though in this government doing anything about it -- they seem very much to believe that the social services know better than we do.
Mark, London,
I used to be a teacher and we had children in care in the two schools I taught in - God help them is all I can say. They were abandoned souls with no real support. One girl, whose mother was convicted of drug dealing and this lead to her going into care for a couple of months, was bit of a handful in school and always thought she was 'hard' but after a couple of days in care she lived her life in real fear. The other children were setting fires, they were leaving at all hours and no one seemed to care - and we now know from how many are missing that few do care. I had another child whose parents had been violent towards her and as she was 14 she just point blank refused to go into 'care' and elected to stay at home (with 'strong supervision' by Social Services) as she already knew that 'Care' was worse than being at home. I pity any child in Care. As for the child who runs away to see his grandfather - his social worker should remember the right to family life is now enshrined in law
Mark, Cardiff,
We have to wrest control back from this increasingly unaccountable, Orwellian state and its organs and officers.
Billy Barnett, HK,
Prisoner X's second mistake was to make an admission to the state, thereby incriminating himself.
We Americans have the 5th amendment protection, which allows us the right not to self incriminate. We also have the first amendment which allows us free speech and a free press, both of which are compromised in this man's case.
He and his family are paying a high price for refusing to capitulate to state tyranny.
But his incarceration and gag order alone illustrate that he was right to work around the system. He and his 71 year old counterpart have paid a heavy price for invoking their basic rights. Now one faces ruination and the other failing health.
It's appalling and I thank Ms. Cavendish for writing about their plight.
Carolyn Bongiorno, Glenham, NY U.S.A.
This is shocking. I think anyone who has the capability to publish should argue that it is in the child`s best interests to give this case maximum publicity.
Let me be blunt. Name the names and name the stupid judge and social workers. Justice requires nothing else.
Steve Andreson, London, UK