The Truth About IPP Sentences

Cinderella Law dangerous State intrusion into families

Buckland's 'Cinderella Law' would be a dangerous intrusion by the State into family life

Buckland’s ‘Cinderella Law’ would be a dangerous intrusion by the State into family life

The latest insane proposal to come out of the Westminster asylum, introducing a criminal offence of ‘emotional abuse’ or a ‘Cinderella Law’, is politically correct, feminist driven idiocy designed to further the ambitions – and the profits – of ambitious politicians and protection charities.

The UK already has more child protection laws, more child protection charities and lobby groups, more biased court procedures and more biased judges than any other country in Europe. Despite all this, according to UNESCO’s child welfare report, the UK also still has some of the unhappiest children anywhere in the world. According to David Cameron, if you can ever believe anything he says, the UK also has some of the most negligent parents.

This week has seen two announcements relating to parenting: the first, that the government’s attempts to ‘fix troubled families’ has failed miserably – only 4% of ‘troubled’ families wanted anything to do with the £400m scheme – and the second, Conservative MP, Robert Buckland (presumably looking for a ministerial post after the next election) reporting that his proposed ‘Cinderella Law’ is to be championed by ministers.

Buckland has been working with one of the many, feminist infested, money-leeching children’s charities, Action for Children, in order to try and convince the government that a new criminal offence of “emotional abuse” is necessary. Buckland says, “..a range of behaviours, from ignoring a child’s presence, failing to stimulate a child, right through to acts of in fact terrorising a child” would carry a jail sentence. The new law would also criminalise the impairment of “physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development”; in other words, if you are not what the government regards as a ‘perfect’ parent, expect to go to jail.

According to Action for Children and the ambitious Buckland, the existing Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) tests would ensure that there are ‘safeguards’ to ensure that only the worst cases were prosecuted. TheOpinionSite.org must make clear that these are the same ‘safeguards’ that were to ensure that David Blunkett’s infamous Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP) would only jail “…a few hundred” people. In reality, there were 6,500 prisoners sentenced to an IPP, 3,500 of whom are still in jail despite being long past their parole eligibility date.

The CPS Code for Prosecutors stipulates two tests: an evidential test (which more and more relies on hearsay evidence and one person’s word against another) and the likelihood that a jury would convict. As no real evidence is needed, it is the second test that would decide if a parent should be prosecuted for ‘emotional abuse’ and, as most juries now convict in cases involving any kind of child abuse, it’s a fair bet that the prosecution would go ahead.

Thus, the parent is convicted of ‘emotionally abuse’ – on the uncorroborated word of a child – and the parent goes to jail; the child is taken into care and probably ends up being sexually and physically abused as well. A truly brilliant plan from Mr Buckland and Action for Children.

Buckland and his supporters (which include most of the other children’s charities, who wish they had thought of it first) claim that the current law dating from Victorian times is insufficient. However, any lawyer will tell you that the law relating to Domestic Abuse and the laws covering Neglect already include ‘emotional abuse’ in their definitions. They do not however necessarily impose a jail sentence.

Buckland and Action for Children relied for their evidence on social workers – about 200 of them – who were keen to give their opinions regarding ‘emotional abuse’; the same social workers who are so afraid of losing their jobs or being sued that they always regard every suspect as being a ‘high risk’ to children; not a credible source of research material. Needless to say, the police threw their hat into the ring as well; hardly encouraging, given their recent track record of dishonesty and political manipulation.

So, we have a proposed new law which isn’t needed and which, because Cameron is terrified of the children’s charities, will likely be taken forward. It will be misused and will wreck families. Much worse, it will also force a unified, government sanctioned model of parenting on every British parent, destroy what is left of the parental right to discipline their own children and criminalise individuals who are trying to bring up their children in a way different to that approved of by this feminist-driven government.

If this absurd proposal becomes law, we can also expect to see hundreds of ‘historic’ allegations of so-called ‘emotional neglect’ being brought to court, presumably under the same system that exists for historic sex abuse cases where no real evidence is necessary.

Why then has this absurd proposal been taken seriously?

The answer, sadly, is that any proposal that labelled ‘child protection’ now has to be accepted by the particular British government of the day. If the administration does not follow through, it will face the full wrath of the fem-motivated child protection lobby – not to mention the Daily Mail and the Sun. The best any British government can do is to delay for as long as possible.

Like it or not, Britain is now American in everything but name. This new ‘Cinderella Law’ is just the latest step in forcing the American model of life management, workfare, and family values upon us. Everyone has to be play ‘happy families’, even though it is all a massive lie. The next stage will be to ‘licence’ those who wish to have children, granting the licence only to prospective parents who agree to follow the government’s parenting model. This may seem an absurd idea but it has already been discussed and is still being talked about in Whitehall.

In the Unesco child welfare report referred to above, out of 29 countries the UK came 16th and the United States came three from bottom at 26th. Why on earth then would Britain want to follow the US model of parenting when American kids are some of the most miserable in the world?

Of course, as TheOpinionSite.org has made clear for some time, in 10 or 20 years, when British, mollycoddled, weak and helpless children become adults (about 30 years old by current standards), they will still be mollycoddled, weak and helpless; then the whole cycle will start again. However, with any luck, these pathetic specimens of child-minded ‘adults’ who do not know how to deal with risk, cannot solve life’s problems and who always expect someone else to do everything for them, may in fact never have children of their own.

It appears that British would-be parents are having second thoughts. Many regard children nowadays as just being far too dangerous to be around. Buckland’s Cinderella law will not help the situation as parents may find themselves in court 30 years after their child has left home, their offspring having accused their parents of being nasty to them when they were young and of being responsible for all the horrid things that have happened to them in their life.

Believe it ; it could – and probably will – happen.

So, roll out the Stars & Stripes, sing “Hail to the Chief”, wave the feminist flags and let the mayhem begin. Alternatively, you could try writing to your MP and try to persuade them not to be so incredibly stupid as to support this crazy proposal – provided of course that they are brave enough to stand up and be counted, which is doubtful.

(Discuss this in our FORUM)

19 Responses to Cinderella Law dangerous State intrusion into families

  1. Esther Russell
    June 29, 2014 at 2:49 am

    This is not another insane proposal. I am 44 years old and am still suffering the effects of my fathers emotional abuse as a child. It has taken me a long time to develop a sense of self worth and I still have a massive void inside me which I will probably carry with me for the rest of my life. There are also days where my head and insides are constantly screaming and in pain, all of these feelings are as a result of rejection and emotional abuse. Therefore, I urge not to describe this proposal as insane, it should be made a law to protect other children from suffering the emotional abuse that I and my siblings were subjected to. One man destroyed three lives!

  2. zeb
    April 24, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    yet another feminist driven piece of lunacy.

  3. Elena
    April 15, 2014 at 12:08 am

    A few years back I decided to home school my son as my he hated school and I had M.E so was finding it a challenge. Within a year I had dozens of so called professionals involved in my life and my sons which caused us both untold grief and upset. A social worker decided my case need to go before child protection and I was labelled with emotional harm. I have never put a hand to my son and was shocked at the decision. I was told he was ruling the roost and making the decisions in the home. ( he was 10 when it all started) At the time I was doing training within the NHS and was told following the baby P case social services needed to be viewed in a positive light and seen as the protectors of children instead of the kiddy snatchers that they truly are. A professional told me that 100, 000 more cases per year were now going to court and the majority were single parents who couldn’t fight back. Well my social worker got the shock of his life as I was not prepared to go down without a fight. I got advice from a solicitor who recommended that I put in an official data access request for myself and my sons notes from anyone within the past ten years so we could check what was within our notes. within 3 months the social worker left his job and each official suddenly was on annual leave, leaving their job or signing us off for no further involvement. I also threatened that I would contact brian gerrish the mp and it worked a treat as the new female social worker at a meeting said all involvement should now cease. I was put through hell and back and to this day my son nor I do not trust anyone official. I was forced to send him back to school to end this nonsense especially when 9 officials and the school made me have meetings on almost a monthly basis where I was forced to defend myself against social services lies. We had the school nurse thrown in for good measure to ask about inoculations over and over again. It was a nightmare and how I didn’t have a breakdown I will never know. It was like a witch hunt and the people involved acted like nazis. I will never forget the words uttered by the vile male social worker ” I haven’t found any evidence against my client so I need further time so I can try and find some” Now when you hear social services are involved do not assume that the parents are guilty of anything as most often than not they are not.

  4. Meridiana
    April 8, 2014 at 6:50 am

    Sorry, An adopter, but I feel you’ve been hoodwinked into believing the official, politically-correct story, as indeed have so many well-meaning social workers. As some of the others posters have indicated – the truth is far from rose tinted.

    I’ve worked with children virtually all my adult life. My cousin has fostered over 50 children. She now realises that all she was led to believe by social workers has been cast into doubt. Many of those children had been shuttled from one ‘care’ placement to another – which causes immense emotional damage. Many, without a doubt, will have ended up taking drugs, involved in crime, in prison, etc. Suicide is also common in those who have suffered under the state ‘care’ system – which is ultimately only concerned with its own reputation, power and influence. I also have a relative who adopted a child unofficially simply because the mother had a deep and fully justified distrust of the state. The child is now 18, entirely home-educated, and has no regrets. She lives in England, and officially she doesn’t even exist.

    My concern for state-sanctioned injustice towards caring families has compelled me to become involved with helping persecuted families flee the country into safe havens in Europe. This traffic in families is growing and is a one-way traffic. We must ask ourselves why this is so. There isn’t a single case of a European family fleeing their own country for Britain. Their child protection systems are far more humane and sensible than those of the British state – the least child-friendly country in Europe, and on so many levels.

  5. JH
    April 7, 2014 at 9:35 pm

    I completely concur pete. An excellent post.

  6. JH
    April 7, 2014 at 8:59 pm

    Well, what a feeble attempt at the art of sophistry to accuse me falsely of saying things I did not say. So, let us do some corrections:

    1. I did not say the CPS “always prosecute”. I said: ‘The CPS will prosecute anything, however trivial, that looks even slightly like ending in conviction by prejudiced intellectually-challenged jurors’. How is that “always”? and

    2. I did not suggest An adopter and his wife are unworthy parents. I was simply suggesting an understandable euphoria at being allowed to adopt a child that might explain defending those who allowed the adoption – though such a defensive attitude to my comment might suggest I have hit a nerve. But as I said, I am not drawing inferences.

    Language problems aside, the real problem with this latest post is that An adopter has read the CPS lies about their code of practice and taken them as proving me wrong. Is that how all of his “facts” are obtained – simply by reading what self-serving government agents claim about themselves?

    I suggest he reads about cases from sources other than the Daily Mail – the forum on TheOpinionSite.org is a good place to start. He’ll read on there about real people’s real stories – the lies, the false reports, the intimidation, laws deliberately drafted so as to render defence impossible, social services gleefully breaking up families (including ripping tiny children from parents because an illness such as rickets may have really been the result of child abuse), probation officers making minor offences look worse than they are and applying junk science for risk assessments, the police’s thirst for locking people up, police intimidating arrestees into admitting offences they haven’t committed, police routinely destroying evidence and lying about just about everything; the list goes on.

    Burying one’s head in the sand is a comfortable luxury we cannot afford these days if we are to survive.

    • An adopter
      April 7, 2014 at 9:39 pm

      Any rag that associated itself with the Nazi paper 5 years after the rest of Fleet Street saw the righting on the wall deserves not to be taken seriously… only laughed at…

      Secondly, and picking up on pete’s reply, yes social workers were rightly criticised for not doing enough to take baby ‘P’ away from his birth parent… however, if you remember when social services removed children from their parents due to perceived ritualised abuse in the 1980s, they acted too hastily…
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ritual-abuse-families-tell-of-years-of-hell-1575174.html

      Damned if they do act, damned if they don’t…

      Remember that childcare professionals make thousands of decisions across the UK every day. Some may be wrong, however they, from my experience, act with the best of intentions often when the birth parent(s) are not co-operating/being honest.

      You will only ever hear about the very very few cases, out of the thousands that these professionals work on, and then only from the complainants side… never from the council, due to confidentiality for the child(ren).

      Whether our exchange below can be interpreted as misinterpretation, I’ll leave for others to decide, however one thing is clear… our experience, differs from the opinions given here…

      Does experience or opinion carry a greater gravitas ???

      I hope politicians are taking note, rather than using the knowledge of the professionals to their own political gain !!!

      I’d rather let the professionals deal with the issues first rather than amateurs… and I include myself in the latter group BTW !!

  7. pete
    April 7, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    There’s a slight problem with making claims that “social workers and other professionals know what they are talking about” on the basis of personal, anecdotal evidence. I’m not disputing that “An Adopter” has witnessed terrible suffering amongst very young children and has been deeply moved by their stories. But here’s an indisputable fact: in the years following the harrowing death of Baby Peter, right under the noses, as it turns out, of totally incompetent social workers (who presumably thought that they knew what they were talking about), the number of care applications made by them in the UK soared by 70 percent. See the social workers’ own magazine, “Community Care”, of May 9th 2013 for confirmation.

    Either there was an unprecedented epidemic of child abuse, or, as Mr Peytors rather convincingly argues in his forthright article, these “professionals” became so desperate to protect their own jobs, reputations and careers that they adopted a militantly “zero risk” approach and began tearing vulnerable children from socially powerless parents with the utmost ruthlessness. Just because ruthlessness is driven by fear for one’s own professional survival doesn’t stop it from being ruthless, and neither does dressing it up as a spurious commitment to “protecting children”.

    A particularly vivid example of social workers and other professionals who know what they’re talking about came to public attention last year, after a vulnerable, pregnant Italian mother of two, Alessandra Pacchieri, was forced to undergo a Caesarean section because, it seems, the same professionals feared she would not co-operate with them during a natural birth (she suffered from a bipolar disorder). These professionals, who clearly believed they knew what they were talking about (a network which, shamefully, included doctors as well as the more poorly-educated social workers and cops), do not appear to have engaged with Ms Pacchieri in any meaningful way and instead conspired behind her back with lawyers to have her baby forcibly removed. The baby was then adopted against her wishes in February 2013.

    Barrister Barbara Hewson, who has extensive experience of forced C-section cases, wrote a careful analysis of Ms Pacchieri’s appalling case in spiked-online, and concluded that the UK authorities had “treated this woman unjustly and very badly indeed.”

    Forced adoption is also on the rise in the UK, but not in mainland Europe, where it is broadly considered a monstrosity.

    And again, while social workers who know what they are talking about will insist that childhood emotional abuse and neglect “cause” long term damage to children, vastly better qualified and incomparably more highly educated psychoanalysts would disagree: the human species has greater capacity to overcome adversity and trauma than any other species on the planet, and it is benighted and despairing miserablism of the worst kind to encourage children to believe that they are permanently damaged.

    We should always take care, it seems to me, to remember that adoption and State ‘care’ do not occur in a political vacuum; it’s never a simple case of nice, caring people offering to look after poor children who nasty, “abusive” people have maltreated. It’s always a tragedy when parents mess up in child-rearing, something that no one ever sets out to do, and they should receive intensive assistance, compassionate and practical help, to turn things around, not criminalisation, incarceration and the unspeakable trauma of losing their children to the State.

    The one thing which social workers and other professionals who know what they are talking about share is an adherence to a deeply punitive and paranoid ‘child protection’ ideology, which was indeed shaped largely by zealous victim feminists. Originating in the USA and profoundly unlike the sane and humane equality feminism which preceded it, it was from the outset a thoroughly reactionary ideology which relied heavily on using the most coercive agencies of an escalating punitive State – law enforcement and the criminal justice system – to discipline and crush all who defied its whims and assertions. This is the political context of UK child protection, which teaches social workers and cops to assume that the interests of parents and children are antagonistic whereas in the vast majority of situations, they are identical: hurt my child, and you hurt me; hurt me, and you hurt my child.

    So if we are to suppose that social workers know what they are talking about, we are entitled to ask, “What is the “knowledge” they refer to when they talk?” There is a massive power differential between an economically disadvantaged, barely literate parent and a social worker with enormous State power. You can be sure the “knowledge” informing social work practise has been cooked up by social workers, not by the parents who are their prey. Knowledge pertaining to human affairs is never neutral; by the time “facts” have been established, political sides have already been taken up (for example, by deciding what does and doesn’t count as a fact in the first place and how it should be interpreted). As the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan once put it, knowledge will reflect the systems of domination which construct it, whereas truth punches a hole through such knowledge in its essential opposition to systems of domination. You will never get the truth by listening to social workers, a powerful vested interest, no matter how conceitedly they proclaim to know what they are talking about. The Cinderella Law Raymond Peytors has written about so perspicuously in this article is based upon social work talk, not the wishes and concerns of ordinary parents, and it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that it is designed to make the legalised child abduction of State agents a good deal easier.

    It seems to me that we need a militant, anti-Statist parents’ movement to resist this growing State tyranny, which is seen as deeply odious overkill throughout much of Europe.

  8. JH
    April 7, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    The trouble with the point An adopter is having trouble making (and I note his obvious fury from which I will draw no inference), is that we’re not talking about “the very worst cases” or “the last resort”.

    The issue here is the power that these ridiculous widely drafted laws give to jobsworth so-called professionals (and I suggest An adopter looks up the minimum qualifications required to earn that title if he has now decided he is interested in facts). The CPS will prosecute anything, however trivial, that looks even slightly like ending in conviction by prejudiced intellectually-challenged jurors; of that there is a well documented antecedent history.

    It is perhaps no surprise that someone who is approved of by these “professionals” will rush to their defence – after all, they did allow the adoption.

    • An adopter
      April 7, 2014 at 7:21 pm

      As an amateur photographer, I am all too we’ll aware of poorly written/implemented laws…. The anti-terrorism act as one example…. section 44 etc. etc.

      The devil is always in the detail, however as you claim, the CPS do not “always prosecute”… I suggest you read the following:
      https://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/questions/prosecuting_child_abuse_wda70195.html

      Adoption is a long and laborious process… having a go… trying to insinuate that my wife and I are unworthy parents and the system has failed the children with us (and put them in greater danger than their own birth parents) just demonstrates your mentality and lack of your understanding of the system and it’s safeguards….

      If you have sat on a jury, you will also know the high bar that is set for a defendant to be convicted…. it’s called “beyond reasonable doubt” !! That’s a very high standard to meet…. so whether the CPS even choose to take action, the so-called evidence will be examined in huge detail…

      I really feel pity this evening… and it’s not for our children….

  9. JH
    April 7, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    It is extremely worrying to know that an adopter of children accepts the “authority” of half-educated ambitious nobodies who act as lackeys for the government in pursuance of the government’s nefarious vote-harvesting power-grabbing agenda.

    People who stand in awe of such evil “professionals” must either have the same agenda or be seriously lacking in education. If it is the latter, then they need to get wise – quick.

    So here’s Lesson Number 1:

    The “professionals” don’t have to know what they’re talking about. All they need to know is that if they follow the government’s victim-feminist dominant narrative agenda they can make a living and perhaps a name for themselves by wrecking the lives of ordinary people through lies, intimidation and oppression.

    • An adopter
      April 7, 2014 at 5:26 pm

      Oh dear… it’s is clear that your experiences of social care professionals are very different to ours. Please complain and shout as loudly as you can in every press outlet you can with regards to whatever atrocity had happened to you personally.

      My wife and I have dealing with one County council… for obvious reasons I won’t say which one… Maybe we’re lucky and all the other professionals in very other council are evil….

      I hope you have first hand evidence, otherwise you are making yourself sound like a rabid, frothing at the mouth, fire spitting, empty vessel!

      Remember that politicians are listening to child are professionals, who work to protect children day in day out… the article is, IMO for once out of step with reality. There are many parents/other who harm their children, perhaps intentionally, perhaps due to their own poor parenting model from their parents… Prosecuting many will be unfair, however taking action again those who do harm their children physically or mentally will be appropriate in some cases…

      Please do not take that option away !

      It saddens me to realise that many are suspicious of social/child care workers. In many expects I was too… but in our experience I found that generalisations can be harmful… and they can harm those that we love the most… the next generation !!!

  10. An adopter
    April 7, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Having adopted two children, it’s very clear that emotional abuse… and I include neglect as an example…. is/has been hugely damaging. A stand needs to be made somewhere as physical scars may heal, but emotional scars rarely repair and often can lead to anti-social behavioural traits in later life, if not addressed.

    Funding for children’s support charities and workers is all too lacking and it’s important to ask the question of what legal bar must be reached prior to prosecution and whether a birth parent themselves might also have been physically/emotionally abused, so they are following the only parenting model they themselves know.

    Cruelty in all it’s appalling forms should be addressed… and prosecution is all to often a blunt and imperfect tool for this, but it shouldn’t be ruled out.

    It’s sad to, for once, read such language as”feminist infected”. At best this is unhelpful, and as a father of adopted children, its clear that in the worst examples, prosecution should be an option. I say this on the condition that it is not the first, but the VERY LAST option, when all else has failed and the damage to those most at risk/without a voice (ie children) has been done intentionally.

    It’s very clear to me, that the social workers and other professional know what they are talking about. All too often they are criticised and undermined by those who are happy to metaphorically throw stones, yet would never do the job themselves !

    • Anne
      April 7, 2014 at 1:40 pm

      I have children and the last thing I want is for the state to tell me how to bring them up. God forbid they should turn into a new labour feminist.

      As for your precious ‘professionals’, they shouldn’t be allowed to use the term given their miserable track record, the deceitful and manipulative way they write their reports and the manner in which they lie to the public and exaggerate potential threats.

      You say, “It’s very clear to me, that the social workers and other professional know what they are talking about.”

      I beg to differ. Most are in it for the power trip and with one or two exceptions, the rest are incompetent. Just look at the trail of carnage the leave behind them wherever they go.

      • An adopter
        April 7, 2014 at 4:54 pm

        Sadly your experience is vastly different to mine. Before our contact with child care professionals I relied too much on the say so of the Daily Fail and the like…

        Today, 3 years after we began our adoption journey, my wife and I can see first hand the hard work that those on the ground do, the long hours they put in, often to the detriment of their own personal lives, and know the low wages they are paid. I couldn’t do their job… and based upon the abuse and unfair mistrust they receive (all are being tarred with the same brush as a result of the actions of a few) I doubt that you or many others would either.

        I am yet to meet a social/child worker who is on a power trip….

  11. JH
    April 7, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    It’s parents who bought into the notion that child sex offences are “worse than murder”. That has led to some vicious thought-crimes, the worst of them being the so-called grooming law which is being used to incarcerate innocent men on what it is thought they intended to do.

    Now it’s happening to parents. I’m spoilt for choice as to which axiom to quote, but here are two of them: Be careful what you wish for; what goes around comes around.

    And don’t forget – MPs, police, probation officers, social workers, NSPCC employees, and even feminists (at least those who don’t bat for the other side), are parents.

    I think it’s brilliant. Bring it on!

    • SamS
      April 7, 2014 at 4:39 pm

      What you say is spot on. I do not have children (and these days steer clear of any children under any circumstances) but have seen time and time again one great fact about parents and children : in so many cases the kids become the opposite to their parents. Thus those who led ‘alternative’ lifestyles often have children who stick to the straight and narrow. As in friend’s case one child is an accountant, the other a financial expert but both were brought up in almost a commune type situation.
      Yet others I know have had a single mother who was an alcoholic and went sober 15 years ago both both her daughters suffered the effects and now crave luxury and stability in the form of not terrible suitable but rich men.
      As in so many cases when parents and children fall out (often becoming friends again as they age)how many children will be tempted by compensation and the continual media battering that they have been ‘neglected’?.
      What a Kafkaesque future Britain is constructing !

  12. Michael Locan
    April 7, 2014 at 12:33 pm

    So Orwell’s 1984 is finally upon us. Are we now under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite that persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as “thoughtcrimes”. This will surely follow.Its only a matter of time until the thought police are kicking in the doors.

  13. Maximus
    April 7, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    The writer is correct. Children are too dangerous to be around. Anyone having anything to do with them nowadays is asking for trouble, even parents. This new law will simply make things even worse and as the article says, when today’s children become parents, they will have the warped, politically correct mentality with which they have been forced to grow up.

    The government and MPs don’t give a f*ck about children; only how they can be used and manipulated to political advantage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SPAM protection: Please fill in the missing number... Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.