Saturday 10 August 2013

The story I'm not allowed to tell you. By Bob Woofinden

Bob Woffinden tiptoes around the law to report the extraordinary case of a broken family.

I'd like to tell you a horrendous story. It's about a mother and her child, who live somewhere in Britain . . . sorry, this is going to get me into trouble. I've already given too much away.

Let me try again. I'm investigating this story . . . no, that won't do. I'm not supposed to be investigating it.

The problem is that what I may or may not be looking into is covered by an injunction. This is what the injunction prevents me, or anyone else, from doing:

Soliciting any information relating to the minor or her parents from the parents of the minor, members of the minor's family, any staff at any medical establishment where the minor has been or is [now] . . . or any educational establishment at which she has been or is being educated or any person who may have care of the minor.

Publishing any information relating to the minor or her parents or members of the minor's family obtained directly or indirectly from any other person.

That's what you could describe as a blanket ban. Nor is anyone talking "D" notices or invoking national security. This is just a family affair.

It is along roughly similar lines to what is known as a Mary Bell order, so called because an injunction was originally taken out to protect a child who had been convicted of murdering two other children. The idea was that, if the child's treatment and whereabouts became the subject of press debate, the chances of her successful rehabilitation would be greatly reduced.

The logic is the same as that which normally prevents minors being named in court cases. Another injunction prevents publication of certain details about Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, who were convicted of James Bulger's murder.

However, yet another child famously protected by a Mary Bell order was Sara Keays's daughter, Flora. But in that case no criminal activity of any kind was involved. And the consensus of opinion was that the order was brought in not to safeguard the interests of the child, but to safeguard the interests of her father, Lord Parkinson, who found the continuing press interest in his daughter politically and personally embarrassing.Certainly, that was how Keays herself saw it.

In this present case - which, you understand, I don't really know about - the claims of the family are remarkably similar.

According to them, this injunction also has nothing to do with the well-being of the child and everything to do with the fears of powerful people for their professional reputations and financial well-being.

The case involves a child separated from her family apparently against her and her mother's will.

The child has written heart breaking letters, pleading to be reunited with her mother.

If the public knew what was going on there would be an outcry, but the injunction, brought in under the Children Act 1989, prevents any publicity at all.

One journalist who has specialised in similar cases, usually involving children, families and social workers, told me he could wallpaper his room with injunctions.

Whenever the authorities get to hear of press interest in a case (as they inevitably will, if the case is being conscientiously researched), then they quickly apply for an injunction. Judges always grant them; they never rescind them. No doubt they genuinely believe they are acting in the interests of the child.

Had the mother in this instance ever been charged with a criminal offence (which she never has been), she would have received legal representation, access to evidence and a public hearing.

In her situation, she has been denied all of those basic rights.

She has also been deprived of her freedom of speech, since, as the House of Lords has ruled, freedom of speech is a meaningful right only if it incorporates the right of access to the media.

Yet the injunction in effect stifles journalistic inquiry, never mind publication (see text above).

Nor can the mother get appropriate legal representation. Every time the solicitor who has tried to act for her has applied for essential material, he has been fobbed off with a copy of the injunction.

In theory, the injunction should not apply to legal representation; in practice, it does.

So the imposition of the injunction means that the authorities are not accountable for their actions. In fact, even the injunction itself illustrates their absolute arrogance.

It is littered with mistakes.

Whoever drew it up can't use apostrophes or even spell "solicitors" correctly.

One court order binds the family to hand over material coming into their possession "after 25 November 1998".

Freed from the possibility of public scrutiny of their actions, the authorities can behave with impunity.

Hardly surprisingly, with the injunction in place, the case history becomes increasingly distorted.

A mistake or misapprehension is transferred from one document to the next, on the Chinese whispers principle, becoming both embellished and more established "fact" in the process.

This case is about - I can resist the temptation no longer - allegations of serious medical negligence and an ensuing cover-up, during which the child has been taken into care.

Such matters are currently of particular general interest, the public mood having been perfectly caught by a cartoon in Private Eye: "You can trust me - I'm not a doctor."

In this case, the family claim that, the diagnosis of an illness having eluded a succession of doctors, they simply diagnosed it themselves via the Internet. A tall story? Hardly. A few weeks ago, the press reported a case in which just that had happened.

Nevertheless, I can't tell you about any of this. I've already said far too much. After all, this is 21st-century Britain with a government committed to freedom of information.

Mum's the word.

Original article can be read here


I am sure that you are all aware that the above article that was written by the well respected journalist Bob Woofingden in January 2010 is all about the treatment of Linda Lewis, her daughter and her family by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council.

Why publish it now ?

Several reasons but the main one being that it has now been proven to both the Chief Executive of Neath Port Talbot Council Steve Phillips and Aberavon Welsh Assembly Member David Rees ( all evidence was sent to them ) that the application filed to the courts by David Michael in an attempt to obtain a lifelong injunction to help cover up their crimes committed perjury in the documentation submitted.

This is an extremely serious offence.

In a previous article Here I called for David Michael to be removed from his position within the council.

Sadly many people who have contacted the council this week have confirmed that David Michael is still employed by the local authority.

No action has been taken by the Chief Executive and no reply has been received from David Rees AM.

Obviously having a criminal in charge of the Legal Department of a criminal local authority suits their agenda. 

With regards to the press and I take no credit for this.

Many journalists have been contacted by supporters of Linda and evidence has been provided to them regarding David Michael's perjury.

Nothing solid has come out of it yet but we live in hope.

One thing of encouragement is that the vast majority of journalists contacted  are aware of our campaign and are supportive. Do we detect itchy fingers on their typewriters ?

We will see.

We have said all along that " No Injunction Can Be Taken Out To Cover Up For Criminal Acts."

Neither can an injunction be applied for in a criminal manner by providing false and fraudulent information to the courts.

Can it David Michael ?  

This article has been press released. 


Mike Hunt said...

As usual, keep at it Kevin-one day it will be our turn-let's hope we are alive to see it-and the children
taken unlawfully from a good mother.

Anonymous said...

Frightning they can abuse a family in this way and cover up with an injunction.

Anonymous said...

We could all find ourselves in the same situation.

Anonymous said...

Every Child in this Country could be in danger of abused.

This has to STOP!

Anonymous said...

This reminds me of Germany but don't ever forget they were exposed in the end.

Anonymous said...

The Story I"m Not Allowed to tell

Sorry we all know what you have done, to this innocent Child,and Family.

They can't get away with this forever they are exposed.

Anonymous said...

They should all realize the Lewis Family have the evidence.

The evidence is stacked against all those involved.

Good work Kevin

Anonymous said...

If there is anything i can do to help,going on holiday for a week when i get back i will send you an email.
shocking like a horror story

Anonymous said...

They can use injunction on anyone to cover up crimes.

Wake up Britain

Anonymous said...

Easy way out


Anonymous said...

Social Services destroy families

Anonymous said...

Beyond Cruel what's happened to the Lewis family.

Anonymous said...

Have all the evidence on your site
been before the Court.

Anonymous said...

Article 10 states Right to freedom of expression.

Section 12 has a number of components,first it prevents "gagging injunctions" being granted Ex parte except in the rarest of circumstances.It provides that if a court is considering whether to grand any relief which might affect the exercise of the Convention right to Freedom of expression, there is a presumption against the grant of such relief.No such relief is to be granted'unles the court is satisfied that the person seeking the relief has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent or there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notifieds
Thirdly s 12(4) provides that the court must have "particular regard "to the right to freedom of expression,and that where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims,or which appears to the court to be journalistic, literacy or artistic material,the court must have regard to the extent to which the material has,or is about to, become avaliable to the public or it is, or would the public interest for the material to be published.

Kind Regards

Anonymous said...

Article 10 in itself will require particular regard to be given to the right of freedom of expression,but the court will have to take acount of Strasbourg principles when reaching it,s decisions,and form its own view on the difficult balance between Article 8 and Article 10 on the facts of expression.there is little authority on how conflicks between privacy and freedom of expression should be resolved (see Winer v United Kigdom(1986)48DR 154at p170)
Neverthless the state cannot use s12so as to disregard the right to privacy
The court as a public authority, would be in breach of article 8if it failed to provide a remedy for VIOLATIONS of Privacy which were not justified by Article 8(2)

Hope you find this of some help

Anonymous said...

The whole case is abosultely outrages


Mike Hunt said...

We all know it goes on but the many people who have been scarred by this, me included, cannot tell our stories as a)it is almost unbelievable unless it happens to you and b)no one else really wants to listen as we are assumed guilty because how can the SS be wrong-they use examples where young children have died without their care as a frightener to use more of their powers to intervene(ie Baby p)-so for their purposes to alarm the public and cover their actions, some children have to die?

No one listens to the damaged parents who in some cases are suicidal. Our own case is particularly tragic and unjust. That's why we need people like Kevin!
Keep fighting Kev!

Anonymous said...

The Sysyem is so Corrupt and that makes the situation worring.

They have to do something has you have broken their injunction.


Anonymous said...

This injunction should never have been granted by the courts.

Anonymous said...

The Story I'm not allowed to tell .
I bet they never wanted this story told.

Top Man

Anonymous said...

This is all in the public interest so the injunction is meaningless.

Why not apply to have it set aside. NPT CBC then have to defend it!!

Anonymous said...

This is all in the public interest so the injunction is meaningless.

Why not apply to have it set aside and have NPT CBC defend or justify it!!

Mike Hunt said...

Les, the injunctions do not exist for the most part. They appear to be true but their are no Judges signatures, and only High Court registry stamps for Applications! Anyone can get one of those by a local district registry. It would be suicidal for a judge to put his name to an injunction later found to be false or to cover up a crime. I have the proof right here-Kevin is aware of all of this and he stands by us all. But to some point he is powerless for this injustice unless we the people act and as I said earlier, the public are only roused if they are involved themselves, or they do not believe it.

Yousee it's a numbers game-we HAVE to get more people to listen to whats going on and that is Kevin's plight. The 'injunction application via the local registry, in most cases in NPT it is stamped at Cardiff District Registry-and the mere issue of an Application For Writ is enough for, in my case, panic a website provider to shut the site down.

So you see, they know how to play it.

We rely on Kevin to right these wrongs, and exposure of the Lewis case will be a start to bring them down.

Mr.Michael can of course ask for the odd 100 other ases to be taken into consideration during his plea, which with Kevin's help will come

Mike Hunt said...

I notice many references to the Geneva Convention in this blog.
Let's not confuse those that take part in these offences and actions give a damn about the Geneva Convention, or any other rules. Let's face, the UK Gov in London and Wales know all about what is going an and do nothing. Kidnapping is a serious offence. Some states in the USA still carry the death penalty. Here SS get a promotion.

Mike Hunt said...

Let us think,or consider at least, as we sit at our Sunday dinner, the plight of not only the parents who have that empty space where their son or daughter, stepchild or whatever used to sit. And also of course, the children who are no longer with their parents, and have to put up with a stranges' food and customs, and their rules, who see no reason for them not to be with those parents, and miss their mother's cuddle and wonder why mummy gave them away-which is exactly what the SS worker has told them-;mummy doesn't love you anymore' in a way to ensure they obey their new rules-this is fact not ficyion my firends. I was openly told told in and email from a memebr of NPT that they could not have contact as they wanted to keep the children calm and and they were being told'their new life story'. Blatant. I have all this on file for anyone who wants to read it via Kevin with his permission. Well mummy does love them and so does step daddy and no one can ever say we do nit They closed down our website by scaring our web hosting company with a fake writ again. Otherwise you could read all of it.

So now, we rely on our Knight Templar for Justice, Kevin. 'Those who live by the sword shall also die by the sword'

Make it so by telling as many people in the country that you can.

My name of course is not as shown, but I can be arrested if I use my own name. God bless all of you care and rise to the challenge.

Anonymous said...

There is no D notice they have been exposed.

Anonymous said...

It.s is obvious the injunction was made to prevent the truth from coming out.


Anonymous said...

Attack on humanity

What about the Child and family human rights

Mike Hunt said...

To various Anon's re D notice. You are assuming that issuing a D notice or rather the non issue would prevent them from defence by silence-IE non admittance. It will not. They have no intention of going under as the majority of people(voters think we are all cranks with an axe to grind and that Kevin is some kind of revolutionary-the 'Che Guevara' of the steel works)-not so. Until we shock the electorate into what is going on under their noses, the disbelief will continue. All TV networks covered Baby P and others like it yes,but Tia Sharpe and the inactivity of SS in that case (and yes there was some activity) remained blameless but us, the viewers were never made aware of why the SS had not intervened when the child was clearly at risk of at least 'grooming'.

The answer is clearly what Kevin is doing-bringing the attention to the people for the unjust and disfuncional way SS works in the UK-they are also very selective. It is my opinion that they will only slect those with a fairly high IQ so that their placements are easy to deal with, and the business of supply wages to bent lawyers and for the part I believe Judges, can continue. Let's face it, Children's court cases are a very lucrative pay packet via public funding (our taxes-yours and mine)and they are a loose cannon. They cannot be stopped by successive governments as the governments are run by the civil servants who, unlike the government remain in office no matter what. Kevin, by 'dismantling' the Lewis Case will also by this act draw attention to all the other injustice that has flawed our system for years.

I have been imprisoned and had threats to my life by people I do not even know, obviously recruited by someone. But still I and we carry on. The way around this is by stealth, not revolution.Also refernce to Freedom of Information will not be accepted by the court as they use the Data Protection Act to flout any attempts to gain that information. Which young child can put together a letter to allow date protection and under the age of 16? Checkmate I beleive.

Carry on Kevin!

This is not my real name by the way. Who could be that sick to call their child that!

Anonymous said...

Websites must stand up and make a

Well done we need more people like yourself.

Watching with interest.

Mike Hunt's Mum said...

The problem with website hosting companies they will not go out on a limb-understandably they have a living to make, and any threat to their liberty frightens them. SS and NPT know this, and can issue as many application via the registry without it ever going to the high court-this would expose the entire case.

There is no justice when a man in a pub comes up tou and sticks a pistol in your ribs and tells you to leave it alone. I don't scare easy but who do I report that to?

Anonymous said...

This injunction proves they are all
covering up.