There was an error in this gadget

Sunday, 28 August 2011

" Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Dr Dewi Evans exposed as liar, perjurer,falsifier of evidence and instigator in the kidnapping of an innocent child.



Below is a letter dated the 27th of March 1998 from Dr Dewi Evans a former paediatrician in Singleton Hospital Swansea that was sent to Ms Lyn Berlyn of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Social Services.


It is well known and has been proven that the " Illegal Kidnapping " of Linda's daughter from her hospital bed in America at gunpoint was instigated on false and fraudulent grounds using false and fraudulent information deliberately manufactured  by Doctors , Social Workers , The Police and the local newspaper The South Wales Evening Post.


Dr Dewi Evans played a major part in the continual misdiagnosis and mistreatment of Linda's daughter and is a prominent conspirator in this miscarriage of justice and medical cover up.


It is also worth noting that at the time of the "illegal kidnapping" in 1998 by agents of Neath Port Talbot Social Services. Dr Dewi Evans was himself an elected Councillor of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and in 1992 stood in the General Election for the constituency of Neath for Plaid Cymru.


This raises several professional " conflicts of interests " that both Dr Dewi Evans and others have deliberately ignored and  broken the law.


Such was the desperation of the guilty to cover up for their errors by fabricating and falsifying statements and evidence to protect themselves.


The letter from Dr Dewi Evans to his OWN Councils Social Services is made up of three pages.


In page one below below  ( Pages 2 and 3 are just as damning and will be dealt with at a later date. ) 






Dr Dewi Evans in his own words states,


" It is pleasing to read the opinion of the doctors in Florida. They were quite categorical in establishing a diagnosis of Munchausen syndrome by Proxy without receiving any information from any centre in the UK."


Well Dr Evans if what you state in the above is true then please can you explain the following sworn affidavit ( below ) from Miss Lori Fiorino of the Department of Children and Families in Florida.








Some questions then for Dr Dewi Evans.


In your letter of 27th of March 1998 you have stated that


" It is pleasing to read the opinion of the doctors in Florida. They were quite categorical in establishing a diagnosis of Munchausen syndrome by Proxy without receiving any information from any centre in the UK."


then please explain why the sworn affidavit from Lori Fiorino on the 16th of February 1998 above which starts off


"On the 12th of February 1998 the Department of Children and Families received and "abuse report " alleging that N ****** had been diagnosed with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy in her native country of Wales.


So how did they get this report Dr Evans ? Who sent this false and fraudulent information to the American Authorities ?


As you know Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy was never an issue as far as Linda's daughter was concerned. If it was why did you prescribe such vast quantities of drugs to her daughter if she was feigning illness ? Some of them are pictured below




and why did you prescribe 80mgs of Oral Morphine to N******  supposedly for her pain ?


You also issued a Discharge Letter on 30/3/97 without stating any diagnosis.You knew that there WAS something seriously wrong with N******.


http://cllrkevinedwards.blogspot.com/2011/07/medical-negligence-1-x-60mg-super.html

This all proves that you and other have lied, perjured yourselves and fabricated evidence to set up a time scale and a false cover story so that on the 18th of February 1998 Social Workers from Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council where you were a Councillor could illegally remove Linda's very sick daughter from her hospital bed in America to cover up for yours and others  medical negligence in the UK.


One day you will have to answer to God for what you have done. He may forgive you.


Many of us never will. 


Kevin


The above evidence is released under Public Interest Law" and the fact that " NO INJUNCTION CAN EVER BE TAKEN OUT TO COVER UP FOR CRIMINAL ACTS."

Friday, 19 August 2011

State child snatchers: As social workers hand back a child they falsely claim was abused, an investigation exposes one of the great scandals of our age.



Daily Mail readers will have been horrified yesterday to read the story of the South Gloucestershire couple whose two young children were removed from them because social workers thought their son’s bone fractures must have been caused by physical abuse.
.
Only after a nightmarish 18-month ordeal, which drove the couple apart, were they finally able to produce medical evidence to indicate that the boy’s injuries were caused naturally, by brittle bone disease.
.
The council dropped the case, and Amy Garland and her children are now happily reunited.
.

When I spoke to her last night she told me how lucky she’d been to be put in touch with a medical expert who established the truth.
.
I listened to her story with particular interest because it is only one more example in a very dark area of our national life I have long been investigating, and which I have come to see as one of the greatest scandals unfolding in Britain today — as shocking as anything I have come across in all my five decades as a journalist.
.
In the past two years, since the furore over Baby P, the number of children being taken away from their parents by social workers has soared by almost 50 per cent to an all-time record level of nearly 10,000 a year.
.
And having followed scores of such cases in detail, it is abundantly clear to me that in far too many of them there is absolutely no reason why the families should be torn apart in this way.
.
Forcibly separating happy, well-cared for children from loving, responsible parents creates a tragedy which will last for the rest of the lives of all those involved — even if they are eventually reunited. The emotional agony if the children are permanently removed hardly bears thinking about.
.
Of course there is no objection to social workers removing children from parents who have genuinely abused them. As we know from many notorious examples, social workers have failed to take into care children who died as a result.
.
But a key reason for the rise in the number of children now being seized from their parents is that, precisely to avoid such scandals in the wake of the Baby P case, social workers have gone to the opposite extreme, becoming trigger-happy, snatching children for no good reason.
.
What is most shocking about this is that the families then find themselves in the grip of a system which seems horribly rigged against them. Too often these cases will begin on the flimsiest of grounds, as when the social workers are tipped off by a malicious neighbour or an over-zealous teacher.
.
One mother I know, who holds down a responsible job, lost her two children when her only mistake was to tap her daughter’s arm with a roll of clingfilm.
.
The next day this was twisted by a foolish teacher into a charge that the girl had been ‘hit with an implement’, and the council paid a psychiatrist £14,000 for a 235-page report arguing that the mother suffered from ‘a borderline personality disorder’, one of the vague, unprovable claims they love to use.
.
Another lost her three children after she had tripped up on a charity walk, pulling the daughter holding her hand to the ground. When a health visitor reported the bruises the child suffered as a result to social workers, without asking how these had arisen, they sent the mother to one psychiatrist after another until they also found one prepared to say she had a ‘borderline personality disorder’.
.
One of the sanest and brightest mothers I have come across had her baby removed after the woman had accidentally fallen from a window, because the social workers alleged that she had tried to commit suicide.
.
They rang to tell her they were taking her baby while she lay temporarily paralysed in hospital.
.
On such dubious grounds, the social workers may arrive to snatch children from their beds, all too often accompanied by a gang of four or more policemen, who seem only too willing to comply with any demands the social workers make.
.
One mother was breastfeeding her three-hour-old baby on a hospital bed when two social workers and four policemen burst into the room to take the child forcibly from her arms, after a series of false allegations were made against her.
.
The parents in such cases often find themselves treated like criminals, held for hours in police cells before being released without charge. But worse is to come when they arrive in a family court, where all the normal rules of British justice seem to have been reversed.
.
The social workers can produce hearsay evidence which may be a tissue of lies, but which the parents are not allowed to question, or submit damning documents to the judge which the parents are not even allowed to read.
.
If they are represented by solicitors, in most cases forced on them by the council, they often find that their lawyers refuse to oppose the council’s application for a care order — which allows the children to be removed for a longer period — and accept every allegation the council makes.
.
The system hides itself away behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy

.
Most family judges are as much part of this broken system as the social workers themselves — one rare exception being the senior family judge who last year castigated the behaviour of Devon social workers as ‘more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West of England’.
.
Meanwhile the children, generally bemused and distraught at what is happening to them, are placed with foster carers, who receive on average £400 a week or £20,000 a year for each child from the state.
.
The biological parents and children may be allowed to meet for only a few hours a week of rigorously ‘supervised contact’, in a grim council ‘contact centre’.Any expression of affection or mention of the court case is strictly forbidden and can be punished by suspension of the contact, possibly permanently.
.
It may sound hard to believe, but I know of cases where children have been groomed by the social workers and their foster carers to believe that their parents no longer love or want them.
.
In several cases I have followed, it is clear that children in foster care are being maltreated or even sexually abused.
.

Finally, this travesty of justice may wind to its conclusion when, after anything up to two years, a judge agrees that a child can be sent for adoption — although in recent years our adoption rate has markedly fallen, leaving ever more thousands of these children as fodder for a ‘fostering industry’ which is now costing taxpayers more than £3 billion a year.
.
Obviously there are happier exceptions to this dreadful picture. Some children are rightly saved by social workers from genuine abuse, and there are many good and caring foster homes. But in far too many cases, the other, more tragic scenario has become the norm.
.
So, if things have gone so terribly wrong with our child protection system, why has this happened — and why have we not heard more about it?
.
It is difficult for outsiders to realise just how corrupted it has become until they experience it at first hand — because the entire system has managed to hide itself away behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy.
.
It is time this astonishing national scandal was recognised for what it is

.
Supposedly designed to ‘protect the interests of the children’ by ensuring that they cannot be identified, this secrecy had been used by the system to conceal its workings from public view, by threatening parents with prison for talking about their case to outsiders, and even journalists like me for trying to report what goes on.
.
It is this cloak of secrecy which more than anything has allowed the system to go so far off the rails. Too many social workers are in the grip of a self-righteous, politically correct ideology which drives them to abuse the power the Government has given them over other people’s lives, in the conviction that they are doing good in the world.
.
The secrecy which surrounds the way they wield that power means they are hardly ever called to account.
.
Nothing did more to distort the system in this way than Tony Blair’s personal crusade a few years back to drive up the number of adoptions by setting councils targets for the number of children they place with new families.
.
They were given huge cash incentives to fulfil their quotas thanks to a policy which, though now technically abandoned, has left a terrible legacy in convincing both social workers and the courts that one of their prime duties is to seize children from their parents, even when there is no good reason for it.
.
It is time this astonishing national scandal was recognised for what it is, and for the trail of horrors it is perpetrating to be dragged into the light.
.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2027272/South-Gloucestershire-social-workers-hand-child-falsely-claim-abused.html#ixzz1VSVpFwVN
.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2027272/South-Gloucestershire-social-workers-hand-child-falsely-claim-abused.html#ixzz1VSVACKEr
.
Also see seperate story

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8713007/A-1000-taxi-ride-to-deny-a-teenager-her-right-to-speak.html

Kevin.

Saturday, 13 August 2011

Let's hope the South Wales Evening Post is next. Useless, biased journalists who feel entitled to abuse power in order to appease their political masters are paying the price of their wickedness and arrogance.



More vile journalists, complicit in the destruction of Britain have lost their jobs.

Source http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=47659&c=1

Seven senior reporters at Trinity Mirror’s Celtic newspaper series have been issued with compulsory redundancy notices.
.
When they leave the company next month six senior reporters and five trainees will be left to cover the seven weekly titles.
.
The cuts are part of plans unveiled last month to axe 22 editorial jobs, including eight from production and four from sport, as Media Wales moves to a single production team for news and features across the Western Mail, South Wales Echo, Wales on Sunday, and the Celtic series.
.
Media Wales’ most recent financial figures, for the 2009 financial year, show a 24 per cent drop in turnover to £36.4m and an 84 per cent fall in profit from £12.9m to £2.1m.
.
The local NUJ branch ruled out taking industrial action after it was given more up-to-date financial information on a confidential basis, but it is now pressuring management to produce a rescue strategy for the group’s newspapers.
.
“We want to see a strategy for the future of the company to make sure this place keeps going,” said father of chapel Martin Shipton. “The level of cuts are such that members are speculating about the future of the company.”
.
Last year Trinity made four editors redundant on the Celtic newspapers, replacing them with a single editor-in-chief.
.
In 2009 Trinity closed district offices in Aberdare, Ebbw Vale and Neath and split production of the papers between the remaining offices in Merthyr, Bridgend and Pontypridd. This was followed by the closure of the the Neath and Port Talbot Guardian titles.
.
In September the National Assembly for Wales will launch an investigation into the state of the Welsh media in response to widespread job cuts in both the press and broadcasting.
.
Earlier this week it was reported that Trinity is set to increase its cost savings target from £15m to around £25m this year, with fears that more job could cuts would be likely.
.
To make things worse the number of people prepared to pay good money for old rags is falling fast. They are sick of paying to read rubbish and leftist propaganda, so cutting jobs is the only option left.
.
If you think of all the damage those useless rags have caused to this country, a steep downsizing of the media sector is not just good, but very desirable.
.
Let's hope that the South Wales Evening Post and it's useless, biased journalists who feel entitled to abuse power, remain silent and cover up for criminal acts in order to appease their political masters will soon start paying the price of their own wickedness and arrogance.
.
They won't be missed.
.
Kevin

Friday, 12 August 2011

The Lewis families Member of Parliament. Dr Hywel Francis a "Hypocrite."



This is a man who has consistently covered up for the illegal actions of the Doctors, Police and Social Services in his area.
.
This is a man who took copies of evidence from Linda Lewis during a meeting and buried it in his safe. It has never been returned.
.
This is a man who has a duty of care to all of his constituents but will not speak out on the Lewis families behalf.
.
This is a man who runs away when confronted over the "Justice 4 Linda Lewis Campaign."
.
This is a man who's letters to the Lewis family will be printed at a later date.
.
But most importantly this is a man who on the 8th of September 2010 was appointed as Chairman of the "Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights."
.
Remember Dr Francis. Linda Lewis, her daughter and her family have Human Rights as well. Will you now act on their behalf ? 
.
I have just taken relevant sections of Dr Francis pompous and self important statement to emphasise his hypocrisy.
.
To read his full statement click on http://www.hywelfrancis.co.uk/outsideparliament/outsideparliament_290311.php  
.
The Westminster Foundation Event - 29 March 2011- Human Rights and Parliamentarians
.
  • The international community is increasingly focusing on the role which we can play as Parliamentarians in securing the protection of human rights. As representatives, legislators and scrutineers of Government, we are ideally placed to make sure that the international human rights standards globally agreed by our nation States are given teeth and made real for everyone.
  • This renewed focus on democratically elected institutions in the implementation of international and constitutional standards for the protection of fundamental rights creates a timely opportunity for us to come together and share each of our experiences of human rights advocacy in our work as politicians.
  • to guard against the worst excesses of State power and ensure that the atrocities of that era are never repeated.
  • Much of the work we do might qualify us to call ourselves human rights champions.
  •  reviewing our criminal law to ensure that victims are protected and due process rights respected.
  • The constitutional framework in the United Kingdom creates a significantly stronger argument for the essential involvement of MPs and Peers in the protection of individual rights. The cornerstone of the UK constitution is the sovereignty of Parliament. In the UK the Parliament can legislate as it sees fit and the domestic Courts have no authority to strike down primary legislation for any reason.
  • The Human Rights Act 1998 - which incorporates the rights guaranteed by the ECHR - into our domestic law was closely designed to preserve this principle. The Executive must certify that every draft law produced in Parliament is considered compatible with Convention rights. The Courts are obliged to interpret legislation in so far as possible in a way which respects Convention rights. When such an interpretation is not possible, the Courts cannot strike down the relevant law, but can only declare that the measure is incompatible with the ECHR. It remains for Parliament to act to remove the violation. Thus, the Act creates a sophisticated democratic dialogue on rights, realising roles for all three branches of Government in rights protection.
  • In light of this careful settlement, the then Labour Government accepted that Parliament must have a particular focus for the consideration and scrutiny of human rights matters in the UK.
  • We can consider any matter relating to human rights in the UK but cannot intervene on individual cases or comment on human rights issues overseas. We have the power to take evidence in public, to conduct visits for the purpose of our work and the Government must respond to each and all of our recommendations within 2 months. 
  •  (a) legislative scrutiny (we report on every Government Bill which raises significant human rights issues); (b) human rights judgments (we monitor every adverse judgment finding a violation of Convention rights in UK law, policy and practice); and (c) thematic inquiries, like our extradition inquiry.
  • we consider the human rights obligations of the UK, in both our statutory and common law, and in our regional and international human rights obligations. (for example, in the ECHR and the UN human rights treaties).
  • We work to reinforce the belief that human rights are not the sole preserve of lawyers and judges, but that minimum standards in law, policy and practice can avoid violations of individual rights happening and can remove the need for lengthy and costly litigation by victims to secure redress. 
  • This brief example of our work illustrates how we can use our powers to highlight an issue, to inform public debate and the activities of public authorities on matters which engage our individual rights. It shows that Parliamentarians can use their unique position to gather evidence and evaluate the balance struck between competing rights in practice and to encourage Government to plan to incorporate rights protecting measures in their work from the outset.
  • human rights has a much wider role to play in our work as Parliamentarians. In our daily work, in questions and in debates we have tools which equip us to make a difference in the approach of Government and to improve the standards of protection enjoyed by individuals in practice. For example, before taking up my current post as Chair of the JCHR I introduced a private member’s bill designed to provide greater protection for the rights of people who care for disabled and elderly relatives. I also chaired the House of Commons Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, where we focused on the implications of law and policy for Wales, including in respect of the rights of Welsh people as a national minority in the UK.
  • There are many opportunities in our work to integrate the human rights standards encapsulated in our national constitutions and in our international obligations. These standards provide us with a useful tool against which to measure our Governments’ performance through their commitment to these rights.
  • Kevin 

Friday, 5 August 2011

How many of it's own NUJ Guidelines has The South Wales Evening Post and it's Editor Spencer Feeney broken by remaining silent ?


With the South Wales Evening Post and it's editor Spencer Feeney seemingly admitting his/their part by their silence in aiding Neath Port Talbot Social Services to "illegally remove" or "kidnap" Linda's 12 year old daughter at gunpoint from her hospital bed in America to cover up for medical negligence in the UK.
.

http://cllrkevinedwards.blogspot.com/2011/06/did-south-wales-evening-post.html
.
and
.
http://cllrkevinedwards.blogspot.com/2011/07/south-wales-evening-post-knowingly.html

I though it might be worth checking out the National Union of Journalist Website www.nuj.org.uk to see exactly what codes of conduct and guidelines our so called journalists are required to work to.

The result of the search was quite astounding.

By printing on the 12th and 13th of February 1998 the " concern for a missing child " article and their refusal to acknowledge that this article was indeed a fake and false attempt by Neath Port Talbot Social Services to erect a "smokescreen" for them to carry out their illegal deeds. It would seem that The South Wales Evening Post and it's editor Spencer Feeney have thrown away their own guidelines and moral obligations in order to accommodate the Police,Doctors and Social Services to carry out this crime and to allow this "miscarriage of justice and cover up" to continue. Shame on them.

Below is the NUJ's Code of Conduct.
.
 The NUJ's Code of Conduct has set out the main principles of British and Irish journalism since 1936. The code is part of the rules and all journalists joining the union must sign that they will strive to adhere to the it.
.
Members of the National Union of Journalists are expected to abide by the following professional principles.
.
A journalist.
.
1 - At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
.
2 - Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
.
3 - Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
.
4 - Differentiates between fact and opinion.
.
5 - Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.
.
6 - Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
.
7 - Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.
.
8 - Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information.
.
9 - Takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge.
.
10 - Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
.
11 - Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed.
.
12 - Avoids plagiarism.
.
13 - The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code. The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/his right to act according to the code.
.
Having read the above I can easily pinpoint several points where the " Code of Conduct " has not applied to the actions of the South Wales Evening Post or it's Editor over what has happened to Linda, her family and her daughter.
.
But for the South Wales Evening Post and it's Editor there is more bad news.
.
Below is the NUJ Public interest clause.
.
Problems over media coverage often hinge on the "public interest". The Code of conduct uses the concept as a yardstick to justify publication of sensitive material.This is the NUJ's definition,drawn up by the Ethics council.
.
The public interest includes.


  • Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour.



  • Protecting public health and safety.



  • Preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation.



  • Exposing misuse of public funds or other forms of corruption by public bodies.



  • Revealing potential conflicts of interest by those in positions of power and influence.



  • Exposing corporate greed.



  • Exposing hypocritical behaviour by those holding high office.


  • There is a public interest in the freedom of expression itself.


  • In cases involving children, journalists must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interests of the child.
    .
    Overall it is abundantly clear the the South Wales Evening Post and it's Editor have clearly ignored the guidelines laid down by the NUJ in the interest of fair and unbiased reporting.

    .
    The evidence that I have released is in the public interest and has been released under "Public Interest Law."
    .
    Out of courtesy I have once again emailed this article to Mr Feeney.
    .
    Please leave a polite comment below and let us know what your thoughts are on how the South Wales Evening Post and it's Editor have conducted themselves so far.
    .
    Kevin

    Wednesday, 3 August 2011

    Neath Port Talbot Social Services Beware. You are accountable.



    Victims of abuse are taking legal action against local authorities in England and Wales who they say should have given them better protection.

    But successful claims against alleged social worker negligence are only producing awards of around £5000, lawyers have said, while they tend to be lengthy and expensive. However, in one recent case a woman was given £35,000 after settling a case against her local authority for failing to protect her from abuse.

    Hilton Dawson, chief executive of BASW, the professional body for social workers, told the BBC that moves towards taking legal action against councils for what social workers did or didn't do at the time would not help the profession.

    "Resources are getting tighter, it's more difficult to do effective social work," she said. "It's probably a contributory factor to social workers leaving the profession."

    But one solicitor was quoted as saying that such cases laid social services open to the glare of the court, adding: "Sometimes social workers and those who employ them don't quite get it. They don't quite get that they are accountable."


    Source http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=15808