Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Revealed: How British council tried to keep baby's death a secret to protect its bungling social workers

Facts about the death of a 13-month-old girl should be kept a secret because of the risk of embarrassment to social workers or police officers, a council demanded in court.

Lawyers for Cumbria County Council tried to suppress all information about the death of Poppi Worthington on the grounds it would be unfair to reveal shortcomings of public agencies, it was revealed yesterday.

Details of how the local authority pressed for the death to be hushed up to protect its own staff were made public as High Court judge Mr Justice Peter Jackson ruled that the facts must still remain secret, nearly two years after Poppi died.

The judge said this was to prevent interference with any future criminal trial and to avoid identification of Poppi’s five siblings. However, the information blackout demanded by lawyers for Cumbria went much further and was aimed at protecting its own staff from criticism, according to the papers highlighted by the judge yesterday.

In its call for secrecy in July, the council wanted to keep all facts about the death and the name of the child from public knowledge for 15 years.

The council’s demands at a family court fact-finding hearing ‘would have had the effect of concealing for the next 15 years the names of any of the family members, including the child that died and any of the agencies concerned and the geographical area in which the events occurred’. The council’s legal submissions aimed at restricting access to any information warned that ‘disclosure of alleged shortcomings by agencies might be unfair to the agencies’.

The continued secrecy over Poppi’s death in December 2012 comes against a background of a troubled police investigation.

Police inquiries into the circumstances of the death are still ongoing. A man and a woman have been arrested, but the police inquiry itself is now under investigation and an officer has been suspended.

The official reticence surrounding the case has attracted growing criticism in recent days. Poppi’s name was unknown until last week, when an inquest recorded an open verdict and a coroner described her death as ‘unusual and strange’.

Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who campaigns against secrecy practised by social workers and the courts, said: ‘It is reasonable to hold back publication of information until a criminal trial is over.

‘However in the case of the death of Peter Connelly, Baby P, it took little more than a year for the people responsible to be prosecuted and convicted. In this case nothing appears to have happened after nearly two years.’

Mr Hemming added: ‘It is very clear in the case of Poppi Worthington that the authorities are putting all the effort they can into ensuring that none of their failings become public. As usual, they justify this by saying it is in the interest of children, when really it is in the interest of paid employees of the state.

‘The real interest of children is in seeing those employees held properly to account.’ Mr Justice Jackson said in the High Court yesterday that he would make a ‘limited’ order banning publication of information about the death.

He said this was ‘essential’ to allow any criminal prosecution to take place without interference and without prejudice to the trial.

The second reason was that if Poppi’s siblings were identified publicly it would harm them. The judge said: ‘I will consider whether the fact-finding judgement can be published as soon as it is possible to do so.’

Cumbria County Council said it was ‘unable to comment at this time’.


Obama Says The Execution of a Black Man Who Shot and Buried White Teenage Girl Alive is Racist and “Deeply Troubling”?

A foreign reporter asked Obama about the execution of Clayton Lockett who shot a teenage girl, laughed about it and buried her alive.

While questioning him, the reporter compared America to Iran, Saudi Arabia and China. Instead of disagreeing with him, or at least taking issue with such a description, Obama agreed with him.

After conceding that the death penalty might be appropriate in a very “terrible” crime such as “mass killing” or “the killings of children”, Obama went on a rant about the death penalty.

“The application of the death penalty in this country, we have seen significant problems — racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, you know, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to have been innocent because of exculpatory evidence. And all these, I think, do raise significant questions about how the death penalty is being applied. And this situation in Oklahoma I think just highlights some of the significant problems there.” Obama said.

Obama doesn’t directly state that Oklahoma’s execution of Clayton Lockett was racist, but he implies it by saying that it highlights these problems.

He continued, “So I’ll be discussing with Eric Holder and others, you know — you know, to get me an analysis of what steps have been taken, not just in this particular instance, but more broadly in this area. I think we do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions around these issues.”

That last part is ObamaSpeak for “I’m going to unilaterally enforce my way of doing things without regard to the law and you should think deeply about why I’m right.”

Remember that is the monster that Barack Hussein Obama is empathizing with.

The men beat her and used duct tape to bind her hands and cover her mouth. The men had also beaten and kidnapped Neiman’s friend along with Bobby Bornt, who lived in the residence, and Bornt’s 9-month-old baby.

Lockett later told police “he decided to kill Stephanie because she would not agree to keep quiet,” court records state.

Neiman was forced to watch as Lockett’s accomplice, Shawn Mathis, spent 20 minutes digging a shallow grave in a ditch beside the road. Her friends saw Neiman standing in the ditch and heard a single shot.

Lockett returned to the truck because the gun had jammed. He later said he could hear Neiman pleading, “Oh God, please, please” as he fixed the shotgun.

The men could be heard “laughing about how tough Stephanie was” before Lockett shot Neiman a second time.

“He ordered Mathis to bury her, despite the fact that Mathis informed him Stephanie was still alive.”

Stephanie was guilty of not only being murdered, but of being the wrong race to be worthy of Obama’s empathy.  Unlike Clayton Lockett. Another one of Obama’s many hypothetical sons.


Nigel Farage: White people blacking up 'not offensive'

White people should be allowed to “black up” their faces without causing offence, the Ukip leader Nigel Farage has said.

Speaking on the ITV show The Agenda, the Ukip leader claimed political correctness on race issues had “gone too far”.

The former Radio One DJ Mike Read recently pulled a song dedicated to Mr Farage - which was sung in a faux-Jamaican accent and made reference to immigration - after it triggered a backlash.

Discussing what makes something offensive, host Tom Bradby asked Mr Farage: "Is any white man blacking up his face and pretending to be a black man of its nature offensive?"

The Ukip leader answered: "I don't think it is, no. We have really gone too far with all of this. There's a huge difference between people causing offence and people doing what Mike Read did and having a bit of fun.

“Or the other day when David Cameron was photographed with some people who were blacked up."

Earlier this month, David Cameron posed with a group of blacked-up Morris dancers at a folk festival in Banbury. The Prime Minister was on a day out with his family when the dancers asked him to pose for a picture with them.

The image was immediately shared on Twitter, with Mr Cameron drawing widespread criticism.

In April, Mr Farage took out a newspaper advert insisting his stance against Romanians was not racist, adding that he planned to lead a “carnival” for black and ethnic minority voters.

During the ITV show broadcast on Monday evening, Mr Farage was also asked by host Tom Bradby if he preyed on fear of immigration. He answered: "If you go to Lincolnshire or parts of the Fens where UKIP is strongest you will see migration into those towns and cities on a scale that people simply can't believe.

He added: "It's all well and good for people in central London who earn lots of money and live in expensive houses and have a very nice life, for them immigration has been brilliant because it means cheaper nannies, cheaper chauffeurs and cheaper gardeners."


The Oncoming Human Rights Crisis...Caused by the LGBT Movement

It started, as so many human rights disasters do, in the name of love.  It was commonplace in the antebellum Americas to hear of plantation owners expressing love for their slaves.  Even Frederick Douglass admits that many times slaves, while alone, vied to see who could praise his master the highest.  Did not Robespierre begin with love for his countrymen?  For that matter, didn't Castro?

History repeats. The movement to liberate same-sex love began because people loved each other.  Somehow, through convoluted digressions, it has become a tyrannical octopus seeking to control life and death itself.

The Rubicon was crossed when the gay movement sided with human trafficking; graft-ridden dirty deals with warlords for orphanages; bio-engineering, baby-farming, and emotional deprivation of innocent children by forcing them to replace a biological parent with a fictional same-sex partner.  Naturally, any child forced into such a psychically traumatic origin fantasy who feels resentful about it will be cursed by its caretakers as not only ungrateful, but also a homophobe.

A year ago, I was afraid to fight what is happening in the LGBT community.  Unaware of  what the response would be, I published some articles about being the product of gay parenting and received hundreds of e-mails from around the world pleading with me to fight against a growing human-rights crisis caused by the LGBT movement. 

They wrote from so many places, so many countries; they had such eloquence and force; they were children of sperm donors, troubled adoptees, people agonized by the baby-farming in India and elsewhere, gays horrified at what is being done in the name of "gay families," religious people, atheists, people who know for whatever reason that buying babies and erasing fatherhood or motherhood is not the fruit of love.

I cannot stay silent anymore.  My race forbids it; perhaps, being the descendant of Puerto Rican slaves and knowing that the LGBT movement is reducing people -- children, sperm donors, surrogate mothers -- to chattel.  I have assembled a document listing the main points of urgency.  I fear that the only movement that can take action would have to be global; in the United States, as I explain, the academy, the fourth estate, the democratic process, and the judiciary are all ill-equipped to stop what the LGBT movement is doing.

It didn't have to happen this way.  As a child, I lived in a gay community that was still struggling and embattled.  My mother, a lesbian, was a survivor of tremendous repression and taught me to be a survivor, too.  It ended up that we were a gay household when nobody had a name for that.  If Wordsworth is right and the child is the father of the man, then I was molded as a sexual outsider looking in, gazing from a jealous fringe upon a world full of people who had the luxury to take their mannerisms and interactions for granted.

As a teenager, I remember when AIDs came.  To see people you love wither alone, forgotten, staving off death while also still crippled by stigmas -- such moments teach you the importance of love in social change.

But then a funny thing happened to the gay world.  Love started to give way to hate.  There was a poignancy and grace about surviving in the earlier days of gay history.  By the late 1990s, an overfunded and politically connected elite had taken over gay rhetoric, claiming to speak in the name of everyone who had ever felt a forbidden love.  The elite stentorian agitators didn't have elegance.  They hit people over the head.  They rounded up heaps of money, hobnobbed with celebrities and well-heeled politicians, and started spending too much time at galas to have any sense that they were becoming, to put it bluntly, disgusting.

Suicides committed by teenage boys they'd never otherwise deign to speak to, let alone think of, became martyrdoms to be brandished like sacrificial goats.  Then there was a reign of terror about sexual categories, which still persists: people who leave the gay lifestyle, people who had homosexual pasts but don't wear them on their sleeve, people who want to have a choice about how to identify or at least allow choices to others, were all suddenly the enemy.

I saw the loving part drift off, the anima of a living soul being gently carried away like a cloud of mist, leaving only the animus behind.  I'd have to blink and remind myself I was simply looking at Hillary Rosen or Rachel Maddow.

What is the slogan that I speak of with greatest horror?  "I deserve the same rights as anyone else."  That might be a harmless slogan, except not when the "right" you are referring to is the right to "build a family" to show that "you are capable of love."

"I deserve the same rights" eventually means that a same-sex couple deserves to have a child provided to them, even though they can't conceive it themselves.

If straight couples get to have undiluted custody of such a child, so should gay couples.  So they must have the "right" to enforce contracts preventing surrogate mothers from wanting their babies back, the "right" to have sperm banks operate and sell them sperm, the "right" to jump the queue in line for Catholic Charities, the "right" to farm babies in the third world, the "right" to extort gratitude from the children they've placed in these situations, and the "right" to blind a child to at least one of his or her biological parents.  If any of these "rights" is not held up with the full force of a state apparatus, then the slogan fails.  Hence, we see the case of Dred Scott revived.  To be treated as first-class citizens, gays need the government to cow their chattel into submission.

Underneath the appeals to "love" lies a morass of brutally gory market mechanisms, approaching science fiction.  The changes in gay culture have created a large pool of same-sex couples who not only want children without involving themselves with the opposite sex, but also feel that any qualms are banned forms of hate speech.  Meanwhile, a recent Gallup poll found that each generation of Americans is becoming gayer: now, over 6% of citizens under the age of 29 identify as LGBT.  As recently as three years ago, polling consistently found LGBTs to make up less than 2% of the population.

The fight for marriage has never been about marriage.  Marriage is the only way to have legal cover and shield themselves from criticism for their bioethical stunts.

Market demand is a powerful thing, and it is growing because of the increase in LGBT couples as well as the cultural messages convincing young gays that they will be given children or else society is oppressing them.  Here in Los Angeles, I've seen the eerie proliferation of designer babies in gayborhoods, and the increasingly anesthetized reaction of gay couples' friends.  People go to third-world getaways to pick out babies, place ads for surrogates who can give them a certain eye color, and even collaborate with human trafficking.  Never forgetful of my own pains as a lesbian's son in the 1970s, I see the faces of these gay couple's children, and sometimes, I have to run away and cry.  I know the dazed glare, the powerlessness of these children, their helpless desire to please their parents, their fear of showing their parents any sign that the arrangement has been hurtful.

And yet, I can scarcely forget, this is only the beginning.  While some say "it gets better," all signs show that it will grow far worse.  LGBT activists have been frustrated so far by the largest Western nations' resistance to legalizing gay marriage.  In this table, a Francophone researcher discusses the gay-marriage statistics from Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Quebec.  Remember that France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy, the more populous nations of Europe, have still resisted full marriage equality.  Already in tiny Belgium, 5% of marriages are same-sex.  What will happen with the combined populations of Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, and the United States -- 570 million people in all -- legalize gay marriage, with 5% of that mass being same-sex couples looking to buy babies?

We are staring into the dawn of a new slave trade.  Rather than let the Middle Passage happen and then spend centuries trying to exonerate our nation, we must be "on the right side of history."  Stop gay marriage -- not because of hate for gay people, but because the machine that is turning people into chattel must be stopped.  The only way to break the cycle and wake everyone up is stop gay marriage.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: