 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / December 2006Barnardos and my search
` I've posted this everywhere, so why not here. I received another weaselly letter from Campbell Hooper, Barnardo's lawyers, on Thursday They object to my use of the word veracity (as in lack of) Perhaps someone can help me out with another term to use when one social worker within an organization tells you one thing and then another social worker from the same organization tell you something completely different? What's the polite way of questioning that? Well at least I Barnardo's seem to be refusing to comment at all on what I have said in a letter to its solicitor, re my father's family. Usually if Barnardo's know nothing on a particular issue there is a swift denial of all knowledge, I have to take that as affirmative, along with its offer to cooperate with an Adoption Support Agency of my choice. In making that offer it implicitly acknowledges that the file that it last year claimed to be complete, can not possibly be so if it has other information. Why do people who would like to claim that they are 'professionals' have to play these stupid games? Particularly over things that happened 50 + years ago Prior to the coming in to force of the Legitimacy Act 1959, Affiliation proceedings were heard in open court and reported by newspapers, so it is hardly that Barnardos are protecting some great secret. Particularly given the speculation that I have already passed on via Campbell Hooper its solicitors. All they would be doing is saving me some research at Colindale or the top floor of Romford library, where appropriate newspapers still exist. And perhaps they could then see that the whole thing is handled with some care and sensitivity. But in my experience Barnardo's Family Connections Project http://www.barnardos.org.uk/familyconnections.htm is much more in the business of protecting the Barnardo's corporate backside. As for those already found, apart from my alleged father's family from his his later marriage and the family of my brother who died, the rest all keep in touch at least. We tend to see each other at least once a year. The Germans, I keep in touch with via the internet. So I guess I can't have done all that much wrong so far. Robin http://harritt.eu * You could ask why Barnardo's is staffed with lying SOBs. As an alternative, you could threaten to blackmail them with incontrovertable proof that Dr. Barnardo was Jack the Ripper. On a sidenote, what' thsi about your putative father and the hypnotist? Of al lthe thigns he was, I wouldn't have pegged him as a drunk, at least not until he married the love of his life. Marley at all on what I > have said in a letter to its solicitor, re my father's family. Usually if > Barnardo's know nothing on a particular issue there is a swift denial of all [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > * > You could ask why Barnardo's is staffed with lying SOBs. > > As an alternative, you could threaten to blackmail them with > incontrovertable proof that Dr. Barnardo was Jack the Ripper. Ah...the case has Walter Sickert's DNA all over it according to that Patricia Cornwell woman, so I'm told. Besides poor old Thomas was a bit of a short arse he'd have had to carry a step ladder about with him. Would have been too conspicuous. He did steal lots of children and send them to Canada though. > On a sidenote, what' thsi about your putative father and the hypnotist? > Of al lthe thigns he was, I wouldn't have pegged him as a drunk, at > least not until he married the love of his life. > > Marley I've not even mentioned David to them yet, there is to be a documentary on TV here sometime next week uncovering new evidence about the abdication. Did he choose to go or was he Pushed? I've not heard anything about a hypnotist, I do believe he liked a drink though. Robin * > > You could ask why Barnardo's is staffed with lying SOBs. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > been too conspicuous. He did steal lots of children and send them to Canada > though. The Cromwell woman is pretty convincing. Jack is my all-time favorite serial killer, and in some respects it's nice to not know who he is. If we knew his name, the mystique would be gone. Sickert was certainly weird. > > On a sidenote, what' this about your putative father and the hypnotist? > > Of al lthe thigns he was, I wouldn't have pegged him as a drunk, at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > TV here sometime next week uncovering new evidence about the abdication. Did > he choose to go or was he Pushed? I've not heard anything about a hypnotist, I think he was pushed Why would somebody NOT want to be the King. I'd take the job in a minute, though the latest crew has become a bunch of civic-minded twats. I'd sit i the palace all day and let people do stuff for me. I found an old copy of Lord Russell's book on Queen Caroline--The Unhappy Queen-- today at the library bookstore. I didn't get it, but I think I will tomorrow. There was an article today on David. I'm not sure where I picked it up. Maybe the BBC. It was about the TV show. Apparently David went to a hypnotist about some addiction, and it's assumed it was alcohol. I'd say it was more interesting than that. Like leather clad women with whips and clamps. I don't think Mrs. Simpson was into that kind of behavior. I'm sure though that she had an accute talent for degradition. I don't think they had much of a sex life. BTW, I talked to my badad tonight. He knew Mao back in the post-war 1940s. He told me tonight that both he and Chou En Lai traveled with at least 4 women each. I don't think David did that. The poor guy could hardly handle one--at least after your rmother got through with him. > I do believe he liked a drink though. I think he did, too. I suppose it was Manhattans or something. But I've never heard that he was an alcoholic. > Robin > Marley > * > BTW, I talked to my badad tonight. He knew Mao back in the post-war > 1940s. He told me tonight that both he and Chou En Lai traveled with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think he did, too. I suppose it was Manhattans or something. But > I've never heard that he was an alcoholic. You adopted people are delusional and retarded. SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCH! Damzy-wamz >>> You could ask why Barnardo's is staffed with lying SOBs. >>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> Marley >> * I notice whilst googling the subject that David is not the only one to have been to a hypnotist, Mr Hewitt has also been to his hypnotist re his liaison with the ex President of Barnardo's. I never did see that documentary. It's the use of hypnosis aspect that interests me. But returning to Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David Windsor, ex King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the British Dominions beyond the Seas and Emperor of India, for a moment. I don't think Mr Baldwin liked him and his antics with that American divorced woman very much. What do you know about Jerome Brannigan by the way, was he in the pay of the British government? If not which was the "foreign power" that he claimed to be in the pay of. Not Herr Hitler I think, I understand that promises might have been made and accepted as to what would happen had Mr Hitler been more successful in his venture. Anyway I shall watch the latest documentary with care to see if I can see anything to support my claim to be the senior and most direct descendant of Sophia Electress of Hanover. Actually if you were to know some one important from 20th century history Mao and Chou En-lai are defiantly far more impressive than the powerless 20th century British puppet Royalty (that would have to change if I take my place) Robin R * >So I guess I can't have done >all that much wrong so far. > The cup is half full... not half empty.. Jackie Two observations. > Prior to the coming in to force of the Legitimacy Act 1959, Affiliation > proceedings were heard in open court and reported by newspapers, so it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > or the top floor of Romford library, where appropriate newspapers still > exist. 1) Then why not research it? 2) Barnardo's will be concerned about negative publicity. If they have information that you want and need, they will not be happy about your publicizing the fact that they are not providing it to you. The first step in setting them up for such publicity is to pin them down. You want to write a letter to them that a) references their proclaimed policy of assisting everyone adopted through their agency and b) makes reasonable requests in reliance on that policy as one so adopted. This letter should be wholly unprejudicial and dispassionate, but it should convey the importance of the requested information to you. The letter should communicate the facts clearly and concisely enough that anyone picking it up can figure out what the situation is. If they refuse your requests, then they will look like weasels. And they will know that. This will cost them heartburn, substantial legal fees, and just possibly some usable information. Hello John > Two observations. >> Prior to the coming in to force of the Legitimacy Act 1959, Affiliation >> proceedings were heard in open court and reported by newspapers, so it is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> or the top floor of Romford library, where appropriate newspapers still >> exist. > 1) Then why not research it? At the moment because health problems prevent me from doing so, also because Barnardo's have a moral duty and perhaps a legal obligation to care in cases such as this. > 2) Barnardo's will be concerned about negative publicity. If they have > information that you want and need, they will not be happy about your > publicizing the fact that they are not providing it to you. Indeed, I suspect that has been the main leverage in obtaining the information that has been forthcoming > The first step in setting them up for such publicity is to pin them down. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > clearly and concisely enough that anyone picking it up can figure out what the > situation is. That has been tried more than once, by me and by others, I even use quite expensive lawyers. Barnardo's now have to comply with the most recent legislation and can not refuse outright to provide all information on file. It should provide access to parts of the file that concern the individual seeking access. It should seek consent from others, it should within reason allow access to parts of the file that hold information about those who are deceased see Gunn-Rosso v Nugent Care and the SoS for Health > If they refuse your requests, then they will look like weasels. To a lot of people, they already look like weasels and worse. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LVZ/is_12_17/ai_90108597 <quote> Mr Roger Singleton (Barnardo's) to the Health Committee on 1 June 1998, re Child Migration to Australia and Canada "On the insurance matter, we are acting on legal advice. You will be familiar with the fact that risks are insured. The present position of our insurers is ultra cautious, to put it mildly, on anything which would remotely resemble making a public apology, and I do not think we need to dwell on speculating why that is so. We have taken legal advice on the position of our insurers and the legal advice to Barnardo's and its trustees is that we should continue to be cautious although we are continuing to press our insurers to try and ease their attitude where it is absolutely clear that by the standards of the time a particular migrant had a rough and difficult time. We want actually to be able to formally say sorry on behalf of the organisation. The only resources that the organisation would have to be able to meet, for example, any compensation claims which flow from that would be in relation to money donated for today's work and that does mean that the trustees have to take very careful account of the legal advice they receive." <end quote> No other child care organisation's insurers were so insistent or taken quite such heed of, my opinion is that Singleton and his colleagues were more concerned about the effect of bad publicity, but insurance seemed like a damn good excuse. > And they will know that. This will cost them heartburn, substantial legal > fees, and just possibly some usable information. Barnardo's seem quite happy to spend large amounts of their beneficiaries contributions on lawyers' fees, rather than to negotiate a compromise over access to the outstanding part of the file. The attitude here seems to be that adopted people have very little right to know about their patrilineal family particularly those of it who were also born outside of marriage. Barnardo's is in many trapped in the 1950s in its thinking on these issues. Robin http://harritt.eu * |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.