The Friday Night Song
Filed under FNS, Personal
Pingback: Long Train Runnin’Alternative News Network | Alternative News Network
nice tune, in other news
“We are currently liaising with the United Grand Lodge of England, and they are assisting us”
if that principle was applied in relation to a variety of other matters many misconstructed brick walls could be demolished and much progress in building a better future would be possible.
Yes, preferably a future without any Masonic constructions!
^ As it happens, I saw that article and showed it to a Mason friend of mine over the weekend.
He is a Malaysian, and a Muslim, so whatever else they Masons are, they are not racist. One interesting thing he told me is that the Masonic temple in Kuala Lumpr has been threatened by ISIS, because they (ISIS) view the Masons as Zionists.
If they were to clean out the builders yard of a couple of hundred years worth of stinking rubbish and keep it clean into the future, avoid having “rogue traders” in their midst who add nothing but a bad name to those who trade fairly and in future focus on charitable good works rather than allow some to seek only personal gain they could become a fine organisation.
in many ways the drawings were sound but they have had enough cowboy contractors on the job that the resulting structure is both ugly and unsafe.
as far as i can see addressing that will need to be a priority from inside and they certainly need to do some extensive ripping down before they can rebuild a sound construction. if it is to happen it will take their expert surveyors to help establish the faults and assist the demolition crews from their firm and specialists from the wider industry to remove the dangerous structures to leave a safe site for redevelopment.
The clearing of the spymaster’s name, is it time to put the real culprits in the frame?
^ Was Oldfield threatened with blackmail by the Soviets?
yes .their are quite a few to choose from but in 6 who the bad guys were is harder to [b]figure[/b] out.
to the best of my limited knowledge the soviets had no leverage as his colleagues had a “we know but we dont ask and he wont tell” policy. betty kemp was his close aide for decades and probably more than a little in love with him and she almost certainly knew as did several people who knew him well professionally.
i had not heard of the deathbed meeting with thatcher ( it could be interpreted as almost an apology from her rather than an out of the blue accusation, for all her faults she seems not to have been homophobic in private ) but the meeting ( if the story is true ,which seems likely ) that is perhaps more relevant is the 2 side hand written foolscap and verbal briefing that he gave thatcher in a private downing st meeting hours before he ” retired ” for the second time.
he had been tasked to return to service, having retired, and even though he was poorly and knew his time was limited he investigated the issues with skill .
he did find out what the “security problem” in ni was and who had bumped off dickie and airie, he nicked the hess papers as insurance for himself and his friends and then told thatcher exactly what had been going on in relation to domestic politics, the troubles, international politics and who had been doing what and why. apparently she was visible shaken by what he told her according to a witness who saw her immediately after the meeting and she never spoke of what he said in that meeting to anyone who has mentioned it since.
My guess is the part about how she came to power and who really “owned” her was rather a shock to her. the broader stuff should have troubled any pm but if she had a sudden moment of realisation the broader stuff was such that she had little choice other than carry on or resign on some pretext in her first year as pm her decision is understandable considering her nature.
“and who had bumped off dickie and airie”
were these on the same or the other side to those who bumped off Ian Gow (who by 1990, was one of Thatcher’s few close confidantes in politics, so I’d imagine his murder must have hit her hard)?
“My guess is the part about how she came to power and who really “owned” her was rather a shock to her. ”
Does this have to do with matters such as Operation Gladio, certain right wing Americans and white pro-apartheid South Africans?
It is a mistake to brand any fraternity which is a closed invitation and recommendation network or tribe as this or that unless it is a sated objective within the rules and regs of that body It is one am so I do not to have to explain further From long experience people use groups organisations bodies etc especially those which have power to further their personal interests, those of their families , Trust loyalty and even protectionism is commendable as long as it does not harm, pervert justice
If I could
You know I would
Let it go
The conversations opens up another on the nature of power and control in any individual state, between states and within and between other institutions and organisations such as international commercial and financial bodies and religious and charitable organisations and the whole apparatus by such bodies for obtaining and securing information its dissemination, the use of information to mislead and disrupt together with the mechanisms for population control, manipulation and influence. You need to have a thorough and comprehensive knowledge and understanding before being able to assess the validity of any information including what may appear to be evidence, especially once hard copy originals are replaced by the digital which brings me to the later session to day between the Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons where the committee now has the Benefit of the alleged leaked memo of the most recent chairman of the inquiry to Government and also my more modest and far less influential raising of issues which I have published and which if studied raises some of issues in the original conversation on the Friday song.
The use of medication to change the behaviour of children in care and young offender institutions. the role of the statutory Inquiry now chaired by Professor Jay and of Parliament.
Serious allegations have been made concerning authorised use of medication by the NHS with State knowledge to achieve short and long term change in the behaviour of children and young people in the care of local authority and other authorised bodies, in addition to their use on those committed to young offender institutions and the former approved schools, including the experimental use of medication, and which also raises the issue of legal approvals.
The allegations have been made in comments to a Needle Blog on the publication of the report on Kendall House. One correspondent mentions being asked to provide information to the Statutory Inquiry (under the Truth project and I have submitted a note on the two aspects about which I have direct knowledge from my experience first as a child care officer and then as a Director of Social Services.
I believe that the use of medication in an attempt to make permanent changes to the personality and behaviour of children and young people in care or to temporarily prevent self-harm or harm to others is a relevant matter for the Inquiry to investigate despite its focus on sexual crimes and their perpetrators. The departure of Justice Goddard and the appointment of a non-lawyer as chairperson and Inquiry leader, together with a new national political administration under the former Home Secretary who commissioned the inquiry for the Coalition government, also provides the opportunity for Parliament to seek clarification of what the inquiry is doing, the presently estimated timetable and costs, and if Professor Jay and her team now wish to change any aspects in light of the information already obtained.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs will meet on September 7th at 3pm to question the new Home Secretary on the departure of Justice Goddard, the appointment of Professor Jay and hopefully also raise some of the issues which cut across party political considerations.
My interest and concern has been that in several respects the remit of the Inquiry was too narrow and potentially flawed if one objective is to draw a line for victims, their families, and campaigners on the past and to provide solutions which will work for the future.
The problem can be summarised by saying that it impossible to separate the causes of sexual crimes against children whether in public care establishments or in domestic situations from those involving crimes of violence- physical, emotional and psychological and this quickly became evident when the Inquiry gave priority to what happened at Medomsley, the inclusion of the role of the of military and where the ongoing contributions from victims to Blogs is about the physical and other forms of violence as well as sexual. I suggest that no line will be drawn on the past until all unresolved crimes against children are addressed and which is one aspect of the Truth project may have already developed with its referrals to the police and other appropriate bodies if may already have been developed.
I suggest that in the public mind and that of the media there is confusion about the reference to institutional abuse. The decision was taken to separate allegations of a sexual crime committed in a domestic setting from those in an institution. The broad investigations of the extent of crimes against children in a domestic setting was referred to the separate Children’s Commissioners for England and Wales and where in fact the devolved administration for Wales has devoted proportionately more resources to the work of the Children’s Commissioner that the British Government has for the Commissioner for England.
However, the line is not so clear cut because sexual crimes against a child by a representative of an institution, a school teacher, a priest, an army officer, a Member of Parliament or Government Minister may take place in any location, including a home for children, a foster home, or in a custodial environment.
Early on in my managerial career attention was drawn to a young person who righty today is now regarded as still a child rather than a young person who had courageously reported that her father had raped her and invited his drinking partners to rape her at weekend, and the reason why she had decided to come forward was because her mum had grown weary of also being offered and raped and had proposed that a younger daughter join her older sister. Because of the courage of that child action was possible, but in how many other situations has a child been raped, their life changed negatively and without the recognition or redress now being provided to those where the representative of an institutional body was the perpetrator? Is that child former child to be treated as second class where it comes to national attention?
Whatever the limitations of the UK People’s Tribunal it has not made this arbitrary separation and I suggest that the summary at the commencement of its recent Interim Reports says much of what the Statutory Inquiry will say but at dramatically less cost.
This brings back to the issue of the use of medication to achieve a permanent change in social behaviour and in a particular instance to stop a child at school from coming to the repeated attention of the police, the juvenile court and being sent to an Approved School.
This used of ‘medication’ was developed in the 1960’s by Dr Milner, the Psychiatrist superintendent of the Staffordshire County Psychiatric Hospital, and promoted by Dr and Mrs Kahan, a Child Psychiatrist and the Children’s Officer, for Oxfordshire and subsequent, Deputy Chief Inspector at the Children’s Department of the Home Office and who then transferred to the Social Work Advisory Service of the Department of Health with the creation of Social Service departments in 1971 in England and Wales.
The Kahan’s organised a presentation by Dr Milner attended by Councillors, Magistrates, management and staff from the Oxfordshire County Council where I worked as a child care officer and at which I believe a number of subsequent Directors of Social Services were also present (Donal Morrissey- Trafford, David Clifton- Bedfordshire, and Louis Minister-Richmond, and Deputy Directors Jenny Fells- Oxford City and Keith Hall- Essex). There were also representatives from Oxford City and at least one neighbouring County.
In summary the medication, a form of LSD, sent the subject on a controlled bad trip as part of regression therapy and where Dr Milner, a fundamentalist Freudian, argued that contemporary and previous behaviour was being governed by sex and death wishes or actions which occurred in childhood. The subject was played back recordings of what had emerged and because the behaviour causative event occurred as a child, was persuaded that the event should not be allowed to govern the rest of their lives.
I was asked to undertake one case before the Juvenile Court where the subject was placed on an interim care order rather than sent to an Approved School and where the school age subject and parents had to give consent following a visit to the hospital to meet Dr Milner where the process was explained to us both and then there was a private visit between the Dr and the subject. The treatment had an amazing positive outcome and with the approval of the Court the subject was immediately returned home under supervision with the order discharged. I met the subject and the parent by chance a year later when having a haircut and they insisted on taking me to tea so I could see and hear of the transformation that had taken place. The substantive causation presently falls within the remit of the Peoples Tribunal but I not thought by the Statutory Tribunal but is now more likely.
Some years later I became aware through Community Care and Social Work Today in a particular that that the use of the medication was discredited and the subject of litigation. I cannot remember if there was any kind of formal investigation and I cannot recall further issues about this kind of permanent personality changing use of medication since. This is something which members of the Social History network may have more knowledge or be aware who has. The Departments of Health and Education as well as the Home Office may have records or be aware where records are located in national archives.
What I became more familiar with, as I assume are former colleagues who worked as managers or social workers in care and protection within Social Services Departments after 1971, was the use of medication for short term control of behaviour to prevent self-harm or harm to others. In the North East the main centre where, I believe medication was used was Aytcliffe, a former Approved school and which became a Community home with education on the premises (Controlled/Assisted Status) and which also provided the Regional Observation and Assessment Centre and which included a secure unit.
As stated I was alerted to the issue through a 36-page discussion in the Needle Blog following the publication of a report on Kendall House and which covered the use of medication with devastating consequences. I have been directly contacted by one victim survivor who previously had not pursued a potential referral involving a now convicted individual because there was no memory of the event and the allegation had been made to another individual from the same care establishment in question who had been present. Reading the Kendall House discussion reminded the individual that according to their local authority care record they had been prescribed medication used to help those with epilepsy but where there had been no event or diagnosis and therefore the medication may have been used as a sedative or to behaviour control.
From the viewpoint of the those who worked for a Children’s Department Authority or Social Services Department was the legal guardian for the child or young person consulted in advance and permission gained? This would have been even more significant if the medication was experimental and the side effects or potential long term implications of the ‘treatment’ were unknown.
We now know that medication is used in order to rape and that some victims have no memory but only the physical evidence afterwards. Is the statutory Inquiry focussed on this aspect or will it be?
Coinciding with the Needle discussion the important and influential Cathy Fox Internet site republished an extraordinary writing alleging the influence of the London Tavistock Institute on personality behaviour changing on the United States and includes references to the role of social workers.
The Institute has been separate from the Clinic since WWII although there was continuous cross over in terms treatment theory and practice and for once the Wikipedia entries are inadequate, given failure to make reference to the Winnicotts, with Clare one of the key founders of professional child care and social work based on fundamentalist Freud who ‘bossed’ the child care course for many years at the London School of Economics and where her husband bossed the Clinic with its Advanced Child Care Course. Dr Donald Winnicott who started as a paediatrician and became a psychoanalyst Changing Minds (See Cathy Fox Tavistock-The best kept secret in America)
It is also important to appreciate that the use of medication has always been one aspect of changing behaviour and mind control with psychoanalysis and behaviourism two commonly known methodologies.
Mrs Kahan was a major force in the Inquiry led by Sir Alan Levy called Pindown 1990/1991 on the importation the Approved School and Young Offender Institutions of the use of behaviour control and behaviour change methods in Staffordshire Social Services department and where government then asked all local authorities and care bodies to undertake an audit of past and ongoing practice in all establishments.
As emphasised earlier there can be no drawing of the line on what happened in the past if physical mistreatment of children in care is kept separate from situations where the physical violence was part of a sexual crime.
It is also significant that the Inquiry has separated the search for Truth from the Hearings where my understanding is that the Hearings are about the establishment of fact according to due process and where I am puzzled about how those already announced and underway fit into the promise of comprehensiveness and thoroughness, especially if the six to eight weeks of length is to be adhered to.
I was involved in one inquiry with a number of core participants where three weeks of hearings became eleven and where the recent Hillsborough Inquest took significant longer than anticipated, that involved the decision to go to war in Iraq spread between Parliaments. Leveson II does not appear to be taking place and the belief that the Bloody Sunday Inquiry would draw a line is being shown misguided. It is not clear to me if the decision to hold up to twenty-five Hearings was part of a clearly worked out plan in terms of meeting the core objectives of comprehensiveness and thoroughness and it is difficult to understand their point if they are not to be open in terms of streamed media, or what part they play in determining who participated in the cover by state institutions, religious and other bodies, and why and where presumably if there is any suggestion of an illegal purpose, especially attempting to pervert the course of justice, then this is a separate matter for the police and related professional bodies, if for example, the use of medication was unauthorised.
When I contacted the Inquiry to clarify if the Hearings announced was an amended total I was advised they were the first tranche and Justice Goddard then made this public at a preliminary hearing
I am puzzled that the Inquiry is concentrating on only one individual at present, Lord Janner (a Labour man) than say Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith (Liberal Democrat and Labour) or Lord Leon Brittan (Conservative) who all are dead and where police investigations have concluded or are more advanced, and in terms of officers, the roles of Peter Righton for example and the paedophile Information Exchange, or that of the former Director of Social Services Newcastle who recommended placement in the homes of the twice convicted owner of Bryn Alyn Homes sending 69 Newcastle children to the homes (both also dead) would appear merit just as great attention. Given the ongoing Parliament concern that the Macur, Waterhouse, Jillings and Banham inquiries were limited or constrained to get to the truth it is puzzling the Bryn Alyn privately owned homes are not the focus of a Hearing in the context of the mentioned inquiries.
By now the Inquiry should be a in position to provide some idea of its overall timetable and expenditure plan and to confirm that it will issue individual reports, findings and recommendations in relation to each Hearing and if a mechanism has been established for making interim recommendations which have a more general or wider significance than arising from an individual hearing and if the recommendations are being made direct to Government or will be available to Parliament as they are made rather than await the concluding report of the Inquiry. Clearly service providers, future victims and their families do not want to wait five or ten years for a recommendation if it could prove of significance now.
It was always debateable whether the Home Affairs or Education Select Committees were the best forum for considering the work of the inquiry, its Chair persons and terms of references and the issue of medication now brings in the Health Select Committee and which was responsible for Child Care and Protection service policy and resources 1971-2006 the greater period of the Inquiry investigations, together with the role of the justice department and services.
The most obvious way for Parliament to learn the plans, the progress and developments of the Statutory Inquiry is for some form of Joint Select or ad hoc committee representing all the relevant interest in both House to be invite attendance and the provision of information in advance, but if this is not possible or appropriate then I suggest the Inquiry would be wise to issue progress, plans and budget reports to sustain parliamentary and public support.
The is also a need to make available the work of the research group at appropriate times together the established historical narrative about what was done in the past: the changes in the law, the completed national, agency and local inquiries and the completed police operations. There has been some attempt to publish lists of completed Inquiries. The Department of Health published information and analysis of Inquiries in two publications covering the period 19731-1990 Child Abuse 1973-1981 with a forward by Norman, now Lord Fowler, and but covering 1980-1990 but because the Director of Social Services (Newcastle) was allowed to conduct his own investigation into the most serious crime of an officer in charge of an establishment committing crimes against children in the home (and for which he was convicted) uncovered to that that time 1975/1976, the 73-81 Government report on Child Abuse made no mention.
There was a further attempt to list investigations by Corby, Doig and Roberts in Public Inquiries into Abuse of Children in Residential Care 2001 and various social media interests and bloggers have attempted compile lists including completed police operations, but my understanding is that each individual survivor support group and lawyer group has to try separately to locate information in relation those they represent, the individual perpetrators, institutional bodies and locations. The early publication of the information centrally by Government, or the Inquiry would be helpful again once police inquiries and the judicial processing has been completed.
I suggest it would also be helpful for publication of the key research and other publications upon which the narrative of what happened and why is being based. The failures and limitations of residential and fostering care 1948-1966 was covered by the National Children’s Bureau in two summaries and overviews of research in its studies of Child Development Facts and Fallacies (Dinnage and Kellmer Pringle 1967) and which included research in the USA, Western Europe and Israel.
As the Home Affairs Committee and interested parties have been aware much of the work of the Inquiry on establishing what happened and why, especially on the issue of failure has already been undertaken. The first Blair administration spent a year considering findings of the Utting inquiry and report People Like Us. Over a decade and a half before the Lord Tebbit explained the British Way of cover up on the Andrew Marr programme, Frank Dobson on behalf of the government wrote in 1998, “This was not just a failure by the care staff. The children had been failed by social service managers, councils, councillors, police, schools, neighbours, the Social Services Inspectorate, Government Departments, Ministers and Parliament. Some people from all these categories and institutions had worked hard to do a good job for these children but many did not. The while system had failed. “The Government then concluded Additional Resources are being made available (my insert £450 million over three years). There can be no more excuses. On November 5th in the statement made to House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Health and Baroness Hayman in the proposed action was outlined and John Bercow established the money was additional, and not recycled, while former Minister of State, Virginia, now Lady Bottomley, explained the problem was intractable. A similar study and conclusions took place in Scotland in the Systematic Historical review of abuse in Residential Homes and Schools 1950-1995 and online via devolved administration.
The other key documentation available on line is the Fourth Report of the Home Affairs Committee Cm 5799 April 2003 into the Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children’s Homes together with the seventy plus responses to a questionnaire from the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sunderland South MP Chris Mullin and where former Prime Minister David Cameron and present Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Tom Watson were members and where many believe it was the PMQ from Mr Watson to David Cameron which kicked off events which have led to the current Police Investigations and the Statutory inquiry.
Hopefully everyone next week will be focussed on the needs of victim survivors and those who have not survived and their families given the Parliament returns for the political knockabout before the conferences to enable the broad strategy and tactics for the rest of the Parliament to be
“Clearly service providers, future victims and their families do not want to wait five or ten years for a recommendation if it could prove of significance now.”
That is a sensible point.
Yo Topaz, what’s up.
Let’s get married and shit.
Let’s go to Vegas.
Let’s go to Glastonbury.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.