Justice For Families

Alas bad people do exist.

We have done everything to warn her,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,she has actually said how lovely he is and how we are mad to think he could be a child abuser
Ask her................she can't ansswer/

My 7 year old made clear in that 20 minutes to his Daddy.............don't give in............

reminds me of daytime american soaps.

"days of our lives "

TC has identified me as a woman on here.
not the first time someone on here has got there back up at me and then done that.
Avenger did it when I stuck up for NRP
can someone please remove the post.
I did not give HER permission to.
its in her refridgerator post.
please
thank you

IM really shocked to hear this. Especially as he looks such a nice,happy boy. I know the trauma of having a child removed and hope he will be home soon.

It seems that some men can blind women to their true nature and its happened in this case.With men duping women and charm covering up true nature. That's why children find it difficult to believe that adults who are charming and nice to them can also hurt them.

Y'all ain't gonna believe this one!

First of all on the 19th of Oct. Barbara Wilding (chief constable of SWP) was ordered to attend court.- she did not turn up and then failed to send a rep.

Second, the SS failed to file any evidence. They said it was due to 'confusion- who was responsible for doing what'.

Due to this, our contested hearing was cancelled. and the judge gave another ICO for 28 days. He said it was because as they had no evidence, we could not reply so he couldn't get to the bottom of it.

He did tell the SS and the plod that they were 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' to keep our son from us. He aslso placed a 14 day order on Ms. Wilding that if she fails to address him and the court within 14 days, she is in contempt of court and could be imprisoned. (Apparently her answer was 'Screw him- it is only family court judge')


But wait! It gets better!

Friday Oct 23 the accusation of 'child neglect' was dropped................instead they want to charge me with 'making indecent images of children'; specifically that I had read a news story on SKY NEWS WEBSITE about a controversial photo that was part of a series of photos - 160- owned by ELTON JOHN which someone complained about called 'Klara and Edda Belllydancing'. Sir Elton had lent these photos to an art gallery in Gateshead. The police deemed the 'image' to be fine and not child porn in the context of the story. BUT, I had read the story on SKY NEWS and the picture was part of the article (sept 2007) I am not joking, the police are this desperate.

My solicitor stated that all they were doing was a ploy to keep a little boy from his mother because of her outsopken anti SS and poice opinions. Meanwhile the SS have admitted that my son is sufferring severe moral, educational, emotional physical and intellectual harm being in care. Any harm that he may suffer in
my care is nothing compared to this. The social worker has admitted that she would not trust this woman to look after one of her own children! For F sake, the woman who is supposed to the be foster carer is unable to do his homework with him because she can't read or write or do maths. I am expected to use part of my 'contact time' to do his homework with him-he is in a gifted and talented programme for his math skills. (He even has to help her work out change in the shops but leaves a 15 year old to 'babysit' so she can go to Bingo on Friday nights) But the LA say she 'ticks all the boxes' and is approved,. Every contact I am regalled with stories of people being 'glassed' in the street, fowl language, etc. The 'foster carer's' respsonse? 'He is too used to a nice middle class life that is nothing to do with the real world'. My 8 year old said to me on Thursday, 'Mum, I am going to need some serious anger management treatment after these wack jobs are done with me.' Says it all really

Oh and we are 'snobs' because his sister is at Oxford (Kings) and his older brother at Grammar School- preparing to study civil and structural engineering.

TC

Im sorry, were you the photographer or something of this picture?

Peter Waterman of Stock Aitkin and Waterman only learnt to read when he was
40. he has something like 40 top 40 hits. that alot of dough
and Im afraid this is Britain and there is a class war here. Did your husband not tell you
though I totally agree that you
and your sons human rights
have been totally drasitcally affected.
mine is the other way. I am working class, and my human right to a family
life has been anihalated.
I wish you the best of luck
you will get him back soon dont worry
itll all be alright
you will out smarts them all.
I know you.

Im sorry, were you the photographer or something of this picture?

No! It is a series of pics by a famous Canadian photographer and Elton John bought the series and lent it to a gallery for display. The photo in question was published on the SKY NEWS website- I 'clicked' on the article on SKY NEWS- that means I can be charged with 'making an indecent image of a child'. That is the full evidence at present to keep my son from home- to decide whether to actually charge me or not. If charged, and by some mystery found guilty, I will then be deemed a registered sex offender................loverly.

TC

I don't think you have much to worry about TC. It seems the judge can see the transparency of this case, and correct me if I am wrong, but has laid the burden of proof heavily at the feet of the so-called professionals bringing the charges, that evidence is needed before the case will be considered against you. How on earth can they do that in connection with your viewing a picture as part of an online national news article.

Don't we all do that at some point? I do it everyday as I read the news online, would that make me a potential risk to children? The media are responsible for regulating the images they publicise.

Stay strong, your case is without doubt on very shaky ground.

OK confession time....I do track the Peter Andre/Katie Price/Jordan saga online via the daily star website.....it is just so bizarre that it is fascinating...I know...My bad!

By the way on team Pete.

To return to reality when they 'cloned' my computer, here is what/where I visit everyday:
*my hotmail account (email)
*allrecipes.com (I collect recipes)
*sky news
*the register (alternative news site usually about computers/internet laws)
*inquisition 21st century
*JFF
*OBU investigations
*Donny.com (yes folks....donny osmond..........all laughing can move to the right)
*crossstitchers.com (I do petit point needlepoint)
*googlegroups/uklegal
*the mottleyfool (the money saving guy who is on radio 2 every week)

Now don't I just sound like a really dangerous woman? I don't use ebay, facebook, myspace, etc because I don't get how they work. I have told them (police) I am a PHD (push here dummy). I know how to turn a computer on and type- end of.

My question is, how can they charge me for an 'image' that was on the sky news website?

TC

Well TC, you know the law on publishing, possessing and distributing indecent images as well as I do, I am sure.

I suggest that you write to the Times legal team and ask them if they have had any police contact or have taken legal advice about the image that they published and distributed on said date. Tell them you have had allegations made (you don't need to give them any details) and that you believe they would be a party to any criminal proceedings brought against you. When you get their rather stroppy and off-handed resonse, undoubtedly giving full cover for their backs, you will be able to get your solicitor to send it to all parties in your case.

KIT
You officially recieve my genius of the week award.....brilliant idea!

Love it!!!!!!!
TC

I'm Quoting from Privacy Protection and Computer Forensics. I've got long nails at the mo so please excuse the typos.

Quote
1.2.4
Anyone accessing the inernet .... is vunerable to ending up with files on his or her compuer whose possession may be illegal under local law, and yet he or she may never have activley solicited them.

1. While browsing the web, we have all come across web sites that also flash assorted images of nubile females in scant clothing as part of ads that show upon the screen. These images can (and often do) get stored in one's hard disk automatically. If it turns out that the images depic females who are under age, or (in some countries) if the images are merely explicit, regardless of he age of the person in those images, they can be deemed to be evidence of having downloaded and possessed illegal material.

2. When we receive email containing attachments, even unsolicited email that gets deleted without even being read, depending on the email progam used and how it has been configured by the user, the attachents usually stay on one's computer despite th deletion of the email message itself. One must take special steps to delte those attachments or to configure his or her email software to delete attachments when the email that brought them in is itself delted.

3. It has been documented numerous times that, when one isonline on the internet, or on any internal network, it is usually possible for a savvy hacker at a remote site... to gain free run of one's computer and to remove, modify, delete, or add any files to that compuer. This obviously includes being able to add incriminating evidence.

In all of the above cases, it would take an internet savvy defence lawyer to convince a typical nontechnical judge or a jury of non technical "peers" that such illegal data files just happened to be on the accused individual's computer (which, in fact, may well ahve been the case). If the files are deleted by a "semi savvy" hapless user, this can make things worse because those files can often be discovered through computer forensics; at that point, the accused person will also ahve to defend him or herself for not only having ostensibly downloaded and possessed them but also for having taken active steps to delete that evidence.

Innocent individuals who never connect their computer online to anything are not immune from hostile computer forensics either.

Reference
Privacy protection and computer forensics 2nd edition
Michael A. Caloyannides



1.4.6 Digital Evidence is often evidence of nothing.

The potential for miscarriage of justice is vast, given that many defence lawyers, judges and juries are unaawre of the esoteric details of computer science. This "dirty little secret" about digital evidence isconveniently soft pedalled by the computer forensics industry and by the prosecution, ....

1e ... it is a fact that nothing in life is really free, the revenue source for many "free web sites" we visit on the internet comes from advertising in the form of pop up ads, scrolling text, images and the like. Often these advertising images are for facial creams and vacation packages but show unclad underage persons. Although one can rapidly go to a different web site, the fact is, unless one has gone to the trouble to change the web browsers default settings (of storing web pages on the disk) to not storing anything, these offensive images get stored ("cached") on one's hard disk drives.
Over a period of time , enough of them collect in any of ourcomputers and an overzealous prosecutor can claim that there is an "obvious pattern or proclivity that stretches over a few years." A hapless deless defendant will have a very difficult time convincing a technology challenged judge or jury that he or she knows nothing about how those images got ther.

The legal and social problems with this phenomenon is that most individuals in the legal and law enforcement professions are unaware of at least some of the many ways whereby the data they present as evidence is really not evidence of anything because it is routinely placed on computers without the knowledge or complicity of their owners.
How that helps!!

You might want to get this book. It's classic training for the Computer forensics degree. You might want to quote it to the police. Anyone with a degree in Forensics will recognise it. Your lawyer can quote it.

You can see the term "overzealous" and that's pretty appropriate in your case.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Protection-Comp ... 303&sr=8-1

Product Description
Going far beyond typical computer forensics books, this thoroughly revised edition of an Artech House bestseller is the only book on the market that focuses on how to protect one's privacy from data theft, hostile computer forensics, and legal action. It addresses the concerns of today's IT professionals, as well as many users of personal computers, offering more detailed "how to" guidance on protecting the confidentiality of data stored on computers. Moreover, the second edition has been updated to include specific information on the vulnerabilities of ancillary computing devices, such as PDAs, cellular telephones and smart cards. This cutting-edge book identifies the specific areas where sensitive and potentially incriminating data is hiding in computers and consumer electronics, and explains how to go about removing this data. The book provides a systematic process for installing operating systems and application software that will help to minimize the possibility of security compromises, and numerous specific steps that need to be taken to prevent the hostile exploitation of one's computer