1

The family Just-Trick System

Who Feels It knows

Davion & Elizabeth Plowright

This book is the unedited and unfiltered version written by Davion & Elizabeth Plowright

 Davion & Elizabeth Plowright 2014. All rights reserved

Published by Davion & Elizabeth Plowright

info@legalrebel.co.uk | www.legalrebel.co.uk

The moral rights of the authors have been asserted

All rights reserved, any part of this publication may be reproduced stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the Authors. The
Authors and publishers asserts that where any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other
than that in which it is published reference is made to the source of the information with a similar
condition being imposed on the subsequent user.
This eBook is free to all and should not be sold for profit.
Please share and circulate to all.
Contains Public Sector Information Licensed under Open Government License
v2.0 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-Government-licence/opengovernment-licence.htm)
Crown Copyright legislation is reproduced under the terms of the Office of Public Sector Information
(OPSI) and in accordance with Open Government Licence v2.0
Disclaimer
The information contained in this book is not, nor intended to be Legal Advice. Any reliance you place
on such information is strictly at your own risk. In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage
including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage whatsoever arising from or in
connection with the use of information contained in this book. You should consult a Legal Advisor for
advice regarding your individual situation.
We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and email. Contacting us does not create a
client relationship or obligation on neither you nor us. Please do not send any confidential information

to us until such time as contact is made and proper consent has been obtained. The information in this
book is derived from real events and designed to provide a general overview with regard to the subject
matters covered and may not be case specific. The author and publisher are not providing legal advice
or other specific advice to your situation. This book is based on real events and the names used in this
book are of real persons and places. This book is based on a true story and real events.
Copyright 2014 The Family Just-Trick System.

Dedication
Liberi mei vita mea sunt eosque protegam
simper
My children are my life and I will always protect
them

Our first-hand experience of the Family Courts and Criminal Justice System of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain (UK) is the catalyst that has led to us as husband
and wife collaboratively writing two books.
Balancing the Scales the Criminal Justice System
who feels it knows
&
The family Just-Trick system
who feels it knows

Acknowledgement
This book is dedicated to our children and all of those who were aware
of our circumstances, we thank you all for your support.
To the grandparents of our children, Mr Bryan & Mrs Merlene
Plowright. Thank you so much for the love and support. The children
are so fortunate to have such loving grandparents.
Tip, thank you for being there for us your warm personality, funny
and above all caring nature its no surprise were family! You always
remained optimistic, encouraging us in the fight for our Children!
Sheba, so grateful for your kind words and all that positive energy
you sent our way! Your support cannot be measured!
Sheenique, Hazel, Simone, Marsha, Zanja and Mounir, thank you for
all the assistance you offered. You have been very generous and well
never forget that!
Danielle, you have been amazing! You have taught us that even
through the tough times, good things really do happen! You are a true
Lawyer!
H, thank you for showing you still care. We cant forget you!
Ms R, thank you for being the professional you are, highlighting to us
what it means to take your work so seriously, we wish you all the best
in your career. Thank you Louise.

Thanks to you Veronica, we appreciate what you have done. You are
not forgotten! Dr Aboo, Kwame and Tracey! Also Nuff respect to
Bushay!
In finality, to everyone else who was not named above we appreciate
you all, you are not forgotten. We wish you all the best in life and
happiness. You are all truly blessed!
Last but not least, to all the innocent parents fighting for your
children; we are thinking of you, stay strong and never ever give up!
No Justice No Peace!-Davion & Elizabeth x

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against

principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high
places

10

Introduction
We as parents are not experienced in the art of word manipulation and
deceit. Most of the people we write about are masters of that craft. We rely
on the truth, and this book is the truth and our story.
A deplorable and putrid situation exists today in the Family Justice System of the
UK. There are countless avoidable situations of injustice taking place based in
most part by the failure of the professionals who operate in that industry. Oh yes!
Child protection and the Family Courts in the United Kingdom is now a fullfledged industry, with a host of benefactors and we are not talking about the
children or the parents who they should be serving. We have decided to write this
book to highlight our situation of extreme injustice, assist others and hopefully
bring attention to the situation as it exists in the child protection and Family Court
System.
The professionals that got involved in the dreadful sham of a case and attack
against our family are very fortunate, that we are mindful that one day our children
will read this book and of such, we are unable to truly express our disgust at their
unprofessional, deceitful, corrupt, incompetent, nefarious and unlawful acts
committed against our family. We as parents are always mindful of the language
that we use in the presence of our children and do not intend to change that now.
Further, if we started using certain language and terms that would best describe
these so called professionals it may detract from the important issues that will be
raised in this book. In any event, there are countless parents already championing
and carrying the torch and accurately describing and expressing their anger at the
incompetent and corrupt professionals that operate in this industry and our
additions to that would neither add nor take away from it.

11

The reasons created and offered in an effort to justify the kidnap still does not
justify the actions taken. The reasons are dubious at best, the actions of the
professionals are scandalous and the entire sordid affair would not stand up to
public scrutiny. What is clear based on our experience and research is that Social
Care in the UK is now in a dreadful state. On one hand you have Social Workers
and other professionals under pressure from the recent spate of high profile
child abuse cases where they have failed countless children and are under pressure
to raise standards. On the other hand, you have innocent parents being dragged
into a system which is fearful of making mistakes and have adopted a policy of
shoot first ask questions later- damned if you do damn if you dont sort of attitude.
This sort of culture is counterproductive to the interest of children and families.
This goes to the heart of our plight. Innocent families can now be ripped to shreds
on the basis of malicious referrals because all these professionals through fear do
not take the time to look at a situation objectively and every parent is now a
potential child abuser.
Even in the face of clear evidence that a family has been wrongly and maliciously
targeted, once the conveyor belt of injustice starts moving its impossible to bring
it to a halt and when the might of the state kicks in, it is irrelevant that you are
innocent. The situation is further amplified by a lack of accountability and a failure
by professionals to take responsibility when wrongdoing committed by their
colleagues is highlighted.
There are a multitude of potential reasons why our children were kidnapped by
these people; there are a lot of ingredients that went into this evil assault on our
family. The fact is our children were not kidnapped for the reasons concocted by
these rogues and the situation appears far more sinister. We have been asked on
countless occasions why do you believe your children were taken? and in all
honesty, we are truly in the dark on this one and dont really know why. The

12

professionals have made claims which are poorly concocted without a shred of
evidence to support them. What is definitely clear is that our case involves
corruption and misconduct on a colossal scale and of an entirely different order.
There are a range of ingredients that have gone into this vicious assault on our
family, to include but not limited to: Vindictiveness, discrimination, racism, coverup, prejudice, hate, incompetence, deceit and failure to take responsibility at the
highest level, which has resulted in us being in this position. What we have
ultimately learned from this experience is that sometimes in life you dont choose
your fights, sometimes your fights choose you!
One thing which is absolutely clear is that our children were all happy at home and
were not abused or ill-treated in any way, shape or form. We are an innocent
family, all of whom have been dragged into an intensely corrupt system, where a
web of intricate lies, deceit and corruption has been woven into a tapestry of
extreme injustice. Like so many other innocent parents we have spent many
sleepless nights worrying about the safety of our children, are they safe, hungry,
cold, sick or the other thousands of thoughts that run through your mind. You also
try to fight the selfish urge for revenge and the anger that you feel at those that not
only inflicted this wicked blow but also for those who allowed it to happen. You
are faced with a constant battle to keep the flood of hurtful emotions in check as
they can easily consume you and turn into hate and venom. The heartache that we
fell is at times so unbearable words cant begin to explain. There is one thing for
certain, we refuse to be anybodys victims and will not stop fighting for justice for
our children.
We would like to highlight to readers that we are just touching the tip of the ice
berg regarding our case and the issues we raise in this book. The full extent of the
malpractice, misconduct, incompetence and corruption in our case would fill
several encyclopaedias. We have not picked out the most serious matters to

13

highlight, we have just written the book in line with the evidence and facts we can
prove, there are countless other serious issues we have not mentioned, why?
Because of how hard this situation has been and the very thought of certain
aspects of this ordeal is too much to bear. Since the kidnap of our four children,
its like living in a constant state of bereavement.

In this book, the names and places mentioned are of real people and locations.
The only names altered are that of our children.
For far too long, the Rogue Professionals who operate in the Child Protection
industry and the Secret Family Court system have hidden behind the veil of
secrecy.
Many parents who have survived this torturous process, or are still going through
this horrible system are often fearful, assessed (labelled with a mental illness) and
unable to speak out or worse, many commit suicide.

We are very fortunate to have not subjected ourselves to any of these

sorts of assessment or trickeries whatsoever.

14

Through fear of losing their child/children and outright desperation, many parents
will often submit to any demands that are made upon them by these rogue
professionals, without considering the implications. Only, to find out when its far
too late, that they were being led like lambs to the slaughter.

Due to the sparse nature of how events unfold when you are attacked by rogue
professionals who work in the Family Courts and the Child Protection system, it
is a monumental task for anyone to tell their story in a coherent or systematic
manner.
How do you begin to outline a story of abduction, deceit and criminal acts
committed by the rogue workers of the state? These state employed workers are
supposed to be the ones we run to for protection, who do you turn to when the
protectors become the perpetrators?
The Authorities have at their disposal an arsenal of tools to silence, discredit and
destroy even Millionaires and men of power, so what exist to aid the average man
against such perils when he is attacked by corrupt professionals who hide behind
the almost impenetrable shield of the state.
This difficulty has also prevented many innocent parents from speaking out or
even attempting to write a book about their experience. As we outlined above the
structure of this book was hard to formulate, so in the end we decided to just do
our best and let the rest fall in place. There are many who are in the business of
critiquing anyone who dares to expose the malpractice and wicked acts of rogue
professionals, in an attempt to discredit, detract and protect the reputation of
rogues. Every comma will be checked and every sentence scrutinized. We would

15

like to make clear, that we always welcome constructive criticism; however, we care
absolutely zero about the opinions of rogue professionals and their minions. We
did not write this book seeking any approval or literary awards.
Who the cap fits let them wear it!

When a parent or family is attacked by the rogues in this system, it can be

overwhelming to say the least. They can find themselves dealing with a multitude
of agencies, in an instant, all appearing to have one thing in common; the
separation of child from parent or family. With that said, we have tried to outline
as best we can, what has happened to our family and our experience of the Family
Just-Trick System.

16

Family Just-Trick System

It is not our intentions to be pretentious, contumacious, DEFAMATORY,
SLANDEROUS or even malicious; in our efforts to highlight the injustice
that we have experienced, on the contrary, we have tried to offer as best as
we can a sanguine outlook when describing what has occurred in our case
and the subsequent injustice experienced by us.
The Family Just-trick System is filled with rogues who are very eloquent and
trickier than a three card shuffler! Innocent parents are no match for these rogues
who have an endless supply of resources at their disposal and tricks up their
sleeves. The family Just-trick System we experienced is riddled with deceit, lies,
manipulation, slight of hand tactics, corruption, arrogance and above all, immoral
to its very core. The rogues that operate in this system are very skilled at offering
an outward veneer of credibility and professionalism while privately committing
the most hideous acts against innocent parents. Every excuse is offered up to
justify their actions and if they cant find a problem or character issue to blame on
innocent parents then one will quickly be created, if they are caught out in the act
of wrongdoing and parents are successful in alerting the media then expert
consultants and crisis management experts will be drafted in to rectify the matter .
Which average parent has the resources to hire these kinds of experts? Most
parents arent even aware that these sorts of experts exist. The kind of parents
who have the resources to hire the experts needed to challenge the Family JustTrick System are not often the ones who have their children taken or kidnapped
and even with all the resources in the world, the system is so inherently malign that
it takes more than resources to even stand a chance of surviving.
The entire structure of the Family Just-trick system is antiquated and demands
reform. The very people responsible for creating the problems in the system are

17

often the ones relied on to offer expert opinion and implement any changes to the
system and ultimately this leads to nothing being done to address the countless
failures that exist in the system. How can a chef of an establishment who has
cooked an unpalatable meal, and who has received countless complaints from
patrons (all of which have been disregarded by Management) then be asked by the
same Management of the said establishment to implement and add more of his
unpalatable dishes to the menu? We are sure you would agree that such a policy is
a definite recipe for failure of any business or establishment. Yet, it is these sorts of
practices and thoughtless management structure that pervades the entire Family
Just-Trick System. There is no serious input or consultation undertaken on the
views of innocent parents and children that suffer malpractice and injustice by the
system, however extensive consultations are done with the benefactors of the
system and by benefactors we mean Judges, Lawyers, Fostering agencies, Social
Workers, Guardians, Adoption Agencies and a plethora of other service providers.
Innocent parents are simply labelled as disgruntled, quickly disregarded and held in
a blatantly contemptuous view by all these benefactors and are often seen as a
hindrance to their business but manageable occupational hazard. In most cases,
many innocent parents through desperation and fear of losing their children will
soon be forced to fall in line and comply with the demands of these benefactors.
Secret Family Courts
In this book there will be a lot of reference to the Secret Courts and we believe that we should at
least mention why the courts are referred to in such a manner. Most family Court Judges and the
professionals that ply their trade in the Family Courts are very uncomfortable with the term
Secret Courts. They much rather the term Private Proceedings, in all fairness the Judges are
not solely responsible for the secret, oh! Or should we say private nature of the Family Courts.
Contrary to popular belief Family Court Judges are not responsible for the secret nature of
Family Proceedings. The truth of the matter is that Parliament and not the Judges are ultimately
responsible for the secret nature of the Family Courts. It is parliament that has enacted the

18

statutes that offer the veil of secrecy that protects the family courts. Parliament enacts Statues
and the Judiciary interprets those Statues.
Lady justice Wall in the extract from the below judgement highlights the fact that it is parliament
not the judges that are responsible for the secret courts.
Lady Justice Wall in Clayton vs. Clayton Re: G (A Child): [2013] EWCA Civ 965 para 90 states:

90 ..Let it always be remembered that it was Parliament, not the courts, which
imposed the restrictions contained in CA 1989, section 97 and AJA 1960 section
12. The judicial task is to interpret and apply those statutes.
CA 1989 section 97 above refers to section 97 of the children act 1989 and AJA
section 12 refers to section 12 of the administration of justice Act 1960.
So there you have it, for all innocent parents who have been trying to get their members of
Parliament ( MP) to assist them in their fight to have their children returned only to be fobbed
off with a response along the lines that their MP or Parliament cant get involved in the workings
or business of the Family courts. This is clearly not the case as it is parliament that ultimately has
the powers to repeal the very statutes used to penalise parents and offer a shield of protection
from public scrutiny to the Family courts. After examining the countless useless responses many
parents receive from their respective MP, we have never written to our MP. Just to clarify, there
are however a lot of MPS who are fervently against the current state of affairs in the family
courts and have been keeping a watchful eye on the countless cases of injustice that are
occurring. What is needed at this current time is more than a watchful eye and for a lot more
MPs to become involved and address the long overdue issues regarding the Secret Family
Courts once and for all. There are also an increasing number of members of the Judiciary who
are very concerned at the illegal practices prevalent in the Family Courts.

19

There is a corrosive and corrupt network of nefarious incompetents operating

in the family just-trick system. Our situation is evidence of that fact!
With the above said, family court judges are complicit in allowing the miscarriage of justice that
occurred in our case. One case of injustice is one case too much.
All the rogues involved in our case undermine their profession and the Family Courts by not
adhering to the overriding objective, that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be
done. They are responsible for causing untold distress and heartache to an innocent family. This
was only possible because of The secret nature of Family Proceedings. If a Jury of our peers
were allowed to sit in these Family Courts, then they would not be able to do all the unlawful
and in most cases criminal acts, they readily commit in the family courts. No matter how
eloquently some family court judges try to butter the situation to the unaware public in their
claims that they are administering fair hearings and delivering reasoned judgements, that was not
what we experienced.
Whenever we are asked to choose what best describes the nature of proceedings we experienced
in the Family Courts, whether Secret or Private, we would have to say hands down Secret.
Secret justice is what happened in our case and we all know that secret justice is No justice at all.

20

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as

he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil
without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr

21

Below is a very potent extract of a ruling by Sir James Munby President of the
Family Division of the High Court which outlines the gravity and serious
implications a Care Order can have on children and parents.
SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION in

Re J (A Child)

[2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam) at Para:28 States:

I have said this many times in the past but it must never be forgotten that, with
the state's abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the
kind which family judges are typically invited to make in public law proceedings
are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered
to make.
Our case is testament to the fact that the majority of Family court judges are
handing out care orders to Local Authorities like candies without thorough analysis
or considering the implication for the very children they claim they are trying to
protect, ultimately causing untold harm and distress for many children and families.
Sir Munby appears to be trying to lift the veil of impenetrable Secrecy that insulates
the Family Courts and Family court Judges from public Scrutiny. This is
highlighted many times within is judgement none more so than at points 35 and 36
as outlined below:
SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION in

[2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam) at Para:35-36 States:

22

Re J (A Child)

35. In short, the remedy is publicity, "more speech, not enforced silence."
36. The second matter is this. The workings of the family justice system and, very
importantly, the views about the system of the mothers and fathers caught up
in it, are, as Balcombe LJ put it in Re W (Wardship: Discharge:
Publicity) [1995] 2 FLR 466, 474, "matters of public interest which can and
should be discussed publicly". Many of the issues litigated in the family justice
system require open and public debate in the media. I repeat what I said
in Harris v Harris, AttorneyGeneral v Harris [2001] 2 FLR 895, paras [360][389], about the importance in a free society of parents who feel aggrieved at
their experiences of the family justice system being able to express their views
publicly about what they conceive to be failings on the part of individual judges
or failings in the judicial system. And the same goes, of course, for criticism of
local authorities and others.

23

There are some who are concerned about the approach we have taken to name
the professionals in this book. For years Social Workers and other Professionals
who operate in the Family Just-Trick system have become very skilled at disguising
there malpractice and unlawful acts committed against innocent parents by hiding
behind privacy Laws and Human Rights Legislation designed to protect the
identity of children involved in proceedings. You will often hear arguments that
naming a Social Worker or other professionals will infringe a Childs Article 8 rights
to privacy and may expose the child to harm. While we must strive as a Society to
respect the rights to privacy of all, these sorts of arguments are outdated and
regularly used by rogues who wish to continually hide behind the veil of secrecy
offered by the Family courts. What is ironic however is that parents and families
privacy and human rights are readily violated when these professionals attack.
Sir Munby also addressed the issues of naming experts and professionals in his
High Court ruling:
Re J (A Child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam) at Para:21 States:
21. What may be called the 'automatic restraints' on the publication of information relating
to proceedings under the Children Act 1989 are to be found in section 97 of that Act
and section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Section 97 prohibits the
publication of "material which is intended, or likely, to identify" the child. But this
prohibition comes to an end once the proceedings have been concluded: Clayton v
Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878, [2006] Fam 83, [2007] 1 FLR 11. Section 12 does not
protect the identity of anyone involved in the proceedings, not even the child: see Re B
(A Child) (Disclosure) [2004] EWHC 411 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 142, para [82], A v
Ward [2010] EWHC 16 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 1497, para [79], In re X and others
(Children) (Morgan and others intervening) [2011] EWHC 1157 (Fam), [2012] 1 WLR
182, sub nom Re X, Y and Z (Expert Witness), [2011] 2 FLR 1437, para [32]. So, just

24

as in the case of experts, there is no statutory protection for the identity of either a local
authority or its social workers.

25

Intentionally Blank

26

For ease of read, we have formatted the book as outlined below:

We begin with Subsections to give you a clearer understanding of what is to come.
For example: Caveat, Why did you write this book, asymmetrical and word semantics and
so on. Feel free to read the book as you wish. However, we would recommend you read it from
cover to cover.

27

CAVEAT
In these politically correct times, one can be accused of all sorts and manner of
infraction upon the public or the state. When you attempt to highlight any form
of injustice that is experienced by yourself or others; so, to avoid any
misinterpretation, we think it necessary to include a caveat. In this book, any
reference that is made to a particular profession whether it is lawyers, Judges,
Social workers, Prosecutors, Police, Teachers or any other profession, is not
intended to mean all and every single member of that profession and in fact mean
each and every rogue, in a particular profession. On to the other matter, least we
are accused of inciting hatred or acts of violence or any other form of public order
offence towards any, persons, profession or body corporate. We solemnly declare
that it is not our intention to incite hatred or any acts of violence against persons,
profession or body corporate, we are exercising our right to free speech and
freedom of expression as guaranteed by article 10 of the EWHC. We sincerely
believe that it is in the public interest for our experience to be shared for the
benefit of all.

Every time someone challenges these institutions, there is always a response of

its just a few bad apples and it does not reflect the entire organisation.

You are then quickly accused of generalising and tarnishing hard working
professionals. Well, this is just an asymmetrical and semantic approach, to diffuse
and deflect away from any serious issues that are raised. None is more verse in
deflective tactics than the rogues, who operate in the Family Just-trick system. In
this book there are a number of terms we need to clarify, so as to give you, the
reader, a clearer understanding as you proceed.

28

In this book, when we say Family Just-Trick System, we are referring to the Family
Justice System, Secret family courts and the Child Protection System.
In our book, Balancing The Scales the Criminal Justice system, there is also an
identical section on the use of asymmetrical and word semantics. Throughout
history, most people in positions of authority have always relied on the use of
words as a medium of control. Things were simpler back then, however, in todays
politically correct society a complete new vocabulary is being used by people in
authority. The interesting thing about this new vocabulary is that its often vague,
subjective and in most cases, meaningless to the general public, who in most cases
cant really grasp what is being said by these authority figures. I can sometimes see
the smirk on the faces of some these authority figures when they regurgitate some
of the phrases that they have been taught (by over paid consultants who dream up
these lunacies), in the hope that the targeted individual wont be able to respond
and will just give in to their demands or be on their way. Nowhere is the use of
such phrases more prevalent than in the Family Just-Trick System. We believe this
book deserves its own small section on asymmetrical and word semantics. These
are some of the asymmetrical and word semantic terms commonly used in the
family Just-Trick System and we have given our own definitions based on our
experience.

29

Asymmetrical and word semantics

I am a Professional- We are professionals at ruining lives. Havent you seen our reports
lately? We do a professional job of cut and pasting information from our colleagues already
flawed reports, to create an even better flawed report. Who do you think you are? Dont you
know we have been doing this for a long time, without any repercussions? Ok, go ahead,
complain. Knock yourself out. You will soon find out our complaint system is also run by our
colleagues and no matter what we do, they will always find a way to tell you to get on your bike.
The simple fact is, these days everyman and his cat is a professional. However, the difference
between us vs. the man and his cat is very simple. We are government approved and we will not
be held accountable by anyone. Dont believe us? Then, you havent experienced us.
We have the childs best interest at heart- Pssst! Havent you been informed? Well actually,
the interest is not in our hearts, its actually in our pockets because thats where all the money
goes!
There is no smoke without fire!- Wheres the fire? Oh sorry, it must be the hot air coming out
of our mouths that is causing all this smoke and be careful these rogues breath is usually so hot it
might actually start a fire.
It has been reported- Wed rather not disclose where, or by whom we received this
information about you. However, we will still use it in our secret court , oh! Didnt you know?
Its all held in secret, and even when we commit perjury, or even present false information to the
family courts, its accepted as fact, or at the very least cogent and reliable evidence.
The welfare of the child, is the courts paramount concern- This is just another of our fancy
statements or mantra that we often say, that in practice means nothing. Our definition of
welfare and paramount concerns, are not the same as it is to the unaware public. PSST!
What planet have you been living on? Every self respecting rogue knows that in our secret
Family courts, Welfare means the welfare of our colleagues reputation and finances, if the true
extent of our wrong doing was made public then our gravy train jeopardised. Oh! By the way
paramount concern means the importance that we place on keeping the gravy train in place
and running on time. Dont you dare reveal this to the unaware public; you know one has got
bills to pay!

30

We have been informed- Please dont ask us by whom, it could be aliens or Bigfoot for all we
care. As long as the information is in our favour and fills a gap for us, who cares!
It is believed- We say this because we have no proof! But when we use the word believed
everyone accepts it as fact.
It appears- We have full run of these secret family courts, what we say goes! Havent you been
informed? Ok, lets get you up to speed. In our profession, if it appears so then it is so! We care
not about solid facts or innocent. Dont you see that we own the Family Courts? Are you blind,
just take a closer look even if we commit perjury or it appears we are committing perjury, it
doesnt matter to the court, we win, and you lose, simple!
Lets make clear- Im the professional here, and I know whats best for my, -oh, I mean your
child. Dont tell me youre a good parent or the love you have for your children -that just makes
you sound guilty!
You are not engaging! You are not doing everything we tell you to do. Stop thinking for
yourself and asking me too many questions. Just shut up and make my job easier!
Youre Paranoid Damn, these parents are on to us, their following the money and I cant let
the truth be exposed. Just do an assessment, take a label, after which you will definitely be more
compliant and easy to manage. Well strip you of your rights, just like the thousands of other
parents we have managed to trick! After all, no one listens, or even believes a crazy person!
We apologise- Didnt you realise we dont use the word sorry, we are professionals. In any
event, we rarely apologise, if ever! We have enough excuses to use and vague explanations to
give. Also, the implications could be too great; it may even expose us to having a bit of humanity
left in us, thats not good for business. Furthermore, we are not really sorry for the hurt and pain
we have caused, because we will do the same thing tomorrow, if we can get away with it to some
poor schmuck, so, we will just apologise. They wont even know or recognise the difference
that we are not really sorry, because they believe an apology is the same as saying you are sorry.
Not all social workers are bad- Now, here you go, exposing our business. Who do you think
you are? May I remind you, that we are government approved and it is irresponsible to criticise
my colleagues. Quite frankly, I dont care if we kidnapped your children and caused you and your

31

family undue distress and suffering. Dont talk the truth about us, because you may just alert the
public to how corrupt our profession really is. By the way, my colleagues have really messed up
when it comes to handling your case, I mean, how on earth didnt you get assessed and carted off
to some mental institution? Or, at the very least, put on some sort of medication, preferably the
type that makes you forget which planet you are on. Then, you wouldnt be here exposing our
business to the world.
Lets be clear- You dont listen well, do you? We simply dont care what you have to say. Its
our deceit and false statements and some perjury thrown in, for good measure versus, your love
for your children; and in case you dont know our secret courts are just like a department of
social services, so good luck!
Future Risk of Significant harm- We as professionals are aware, no one knows the future.
However, that will not be a barrier to us kidnapping your child. Also risk does not mean you
actually did anything or committed any crime. However, why are you blaming us? We didnt
make these rules. Go and get your copy of Agenda 21 or blame parliament for the wording of
the statute. Didnt anyone tell you the state is not really interested in the bond between child and
parent these days? The state requires children to be loyal to the state and not the parent?
Therefore, you dont actually have to be guilty of a crime or even commit an offence, for us to
take your child away from you. All thats needed is for you to be deemed a risk for whatever
reason, whether rightly or wrongly it doesnt matter. Not to worry, you dont have to be a risk
right now; the future will do just fine. What did you just say? How do we know whats going to
happen in the future? Well, we know the future because we are professionals and our crystal ball
back at the office, is never wrong.
Imminent risk- Our definition of imminent, is not the same as yours. Without any basis for
taking your child, we will just utter these magic words and that is enough justification to take
your child. No investigation, no enquiry nothing whatsoever, just the utterance of these words
and you are as good as guilty. Didnt anyone inform you the words imminent risk are very
subjective and one persons imminent could be another persons non-imminent, but who cares?
Certainly not us or the secret family courts, what we say is as good as gold in our secret courts,
so good luck in clarifying there was no imminent risk.

32

Generally - Its generally what we say that is accepted as fact, no matter how implausible or
ridiculous. I cant believe no one informed you. Its one of the main reasons, the family courts are
secret. Generally what we do in these courts could not stand up to the glare of public Scrutiny!
Normally- Its normally, our version of events that is accepted by the secret courts.
In the interest of the child- If you were unsure what we professionals really mean by
interests, then lets clarify. Its simply, the interest that we will collect from the money we make in
peddling your child to all our friendly agencies. Some of the agencies if you were in any doubt
are Adoption agencies, Fostering agencies, Psychiatric Consultants and list goes on and on!
We enquire into the circumstances of the child- We try to find any reason to take your child,
or if we cant find a problem, one will be created. If the first two options fail, we see how best
we can make some sort of referral, in order that our colleagues make a living and eat bread. By
the way, whats your problem? Dont you know, we also got bills to pay?

33

Chapter 1

So why have you written this book?

Justice demands it and our children deserve it.
This is a unique position that many a children and parents caught up in Public Law Care
Proceedings dont regularly get close to. Section 12 Administration of Justice Act 1960 and
section 97 Children Act 1989 essentially prevents parents from disclosing, or discussing on going
care proceedings involving their children. By the time proceedings are concluded its too late,
most parents are ruined beyond repair. We are the exception, instead of immediately initiating
proceedings to discharge the wrongly obtained orders we have decided to write this book in an
attempt to tell our story for the benefit of our children and others. We must admit, this is risky
business, because we are writing a book exposing ongoing corruption. We are not writers, far
from it, but you would be surprised as to the extent you would go to, and the skills you try and
develop, when your family is attacked and your children kidnapped. What most parents usually
do when they find themselves in our position is immediately initiate further proceedings to
discharge the wrongly obtained care orders and by so doing get dragged back into a situation, yet
again where they are further restricted from discussing ongoing proceedings. They are then
faced with a repeat of court imposed restrictions and a further exacerbation of the situation that
can drag on for a considerable period of time (in some cases years) without any guarantees of the
children being returned to them. The rogues are by this time in a position where they know the
parents strengths and weaknesses are much better prepared than before to launch a more
effective attack than the first and totally annihilate unsuspecting parents. Rogues are also by this
time more effective at cover-up their wrong-doing against parents who are desperate for the
return of their children and are much easier targets. As hard as it has been for us to actually make
the decision to sacrifice and write this book before going back into their Family Just-Trick, Local
Authority controlled Courts to continue the fight and discharge their rubberstamped and
illegitimately obtained Court Orders.
We were about to go back to court to apply to discharge the wrongly obtained orders and
decided to take this opportunity to write this book, chronicling our case, offering parents and the
public an opportunity to truly be involved in a case that by Family Court standards is effectively
still fresh. Another development which caused us great concern is the introduction by the

34

President family division an amendment to the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) which introduced
Practice Direction Part 15B.
This Practice Direction is made by the President of the Family Division under the powers
delegated to him by the Lord Chief Justice under Schedule 2. Parr 1, paragraph 2(2) of the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005, and is approved by Lord McNally, Minister of State, by
authority of the Lord Chancellor and comes into force on 31st January 2013
The introduction of Part 15B to the FPR is ripe for abuse by rogues. We wonder what Lord
Munby was actually thinking when he signed Part15B into existence. We fail to see how the
introduction of Part 15b will be of any use to anyone except the rogues. Okay, for those who are
unconvinced, lets have a look at point 4.1 of Part 15B: Fluctuation in a partys capacity to
conduct litigation

4.1 A partys capacity to conduct the litigation may fluctuate over the course of the proceedings. Litigation
capacity may be lost or regained during the proceedings as a result of deterioration or improvement in the
impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the partys mind or brain. The necessity for expert evidence
or evidence of a treating clinician as to a partys capacity can therefore arise at any time during the proceedings.

Yep, you read it correctly, what the above point 4.1 is saying in layman terms is that any party
(usually parent) can lose their mind anytime throughout proceedings and will need to be assessed
by a treating clinician (usually a psychiatrist). Ask yourself, who will be responsible for raising the
issue of capacity? If you are thinking the corrupt rogues then you are right on the money. . The
introduction of Part 15B we believe is an ill-considered move and will lead to the wholesale
labelling of innocent parents by rogue professionals. This will create a carnival of injustice in the
long run. We have experienced first-hand the nefarious and slight of hand tactics used on parents
in the family Just-Trick System and know full well that even policies that are made with the best
of intentions are readily abused. This Part 15B makes it so much easier for Family Lawyers,
Social workers and a host of others to silence parents, with the use of assessments. This Part15B
also affects those who are fed-up with their Family Lawyers (Professional Losers) and become
litigants in person. We will cover more regarding Part15B under the chapter from Parent to
Patient. Anyway, some would say you were not assessed so Part15B does not affect you?
Well, thats true! We were not assessed and were planning to return to court to discharge the
wrongly obtained care orders as litigants in person (by ourselves no Lawyers). However with the
introduction of Part15B spurious claims regarding a parents capacity is now much easier to

35

fabricate and with us experiencing first-hand the blatant corruption and overt injustice that
pervades the Family Just-Trick System, we know how easy it is for the rogues to manufacture
bogus reports, therefore we felt it necessary to make the world aware of our situation before
venturing back into the dungeon of deceit, lies and trickeries which is the corrupt Secret Family
Courts. Because who knows, Part 15B point 4.1 above is making clear that a parties capacity can
fluctuate lost or gained throughout proceedings, so effectively according to Part 15B 4.1 you can
walk into court a sane person and walk out insane. Thats no small matter! Part 15B has serious
implications for innocent parents who are fighting for justice and the return of their children.
Why? Because when someone is deemed to lack capacity they not only loose there right to
consent or not, they also become a Mental Patient who will now require treatment, who can and
in many cases are forcefully incarcerated for not complying with treatment of their supposed
condition. The fact that we were not tricked into an assessment still pose a problem for these
incompetents till this day and one of the reasons we can be here writing this book and not.

36

We have sacrificed greatly to write this book, not many innocent parents who have gone through
this corrupt process, survive to tell the story! The financial burdens alone are enough to put a
halt to many parents fight. When attacked by the corrupt and incompetent rogues in this system,
most parents falter. The incompetents get paid to attack parents, but parents do not get paid to
defend or ward off these attacks.

Our family, especially our children did not need any help or intervention from
none of these crooked incompetents! Hence why they ambushed us and
kidnapped our children from school and kept them from us for 2 months before
we ever saw them again. Without any justification for doing so!

From the beginning our situation as a couple and parents was a bit different and posed a
problem for these corrupt rogues when they chose to attack our family:
1. We had resources
2. Our children were happy at home
3. We have a stable home life and been married for 10 years at the time, now 12 years and
going strong.
4. We were in the habit of always taken notes and kept records.
5. Even throughout this entire process and throughout the entire Family Court hearings,
we took turns to take actual notes of the witness testimony of all the incompetents.
6. We have not been assessed psychiatric or otherwise
7. We have no convictions
8. We have no drink problems
9. We have no Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)
10. We have no drug related issues
11. We have no domestic violence issues
12. We have no history of depression/other mental health issues
Its was very difficult for these incompetents to build a case against us where none exist,
hence the use of force and trickery to kidnap our four children! All will be explained
further in the book. Keep on reading!

37

Basically, from the beginning we have nothing that the incompetents could have used to justify
their actions. Most parents are not so fortunate, as they will have something that the rogues can
use as spin to try and justify their actions. In our case there was and still is nothing to spin. Our
case represents the truly corrupt nature of Family Proceedings in UK today. Most parents find it
impossible to survive what we have been through and you cant blame them. We know exactly
how it feels to have your children used as a tool against you and there is nothing that prepares
any parent for the feelings that accompany that. We salute all innocent parents who continue to
fight and keep the fire burning! When the rogues kick into action every facet of your life will be
targeted in an attempt to tarnish and discredit you, the parent. It is a truly sad and diabolical state
of affairs that these contemptible crooks are allowed to continue with this vile trade in children,
destroying innocent families and children in the process to feed a corrupt system!

We firmly believe that we have made the right decision to write this book and expose these
rogues before going back into their corrupt system to rescue our children. We are extremely
fortunate to have survived this far. We can literally hear some people saying, No! You should
have gotten your children first, and then write about your experience. We can understand why
some would think like that. All we can say to those who harbour those kinds of thoughts is who
feels it knows! The Family Courts and Child Protection system of the UK are brutally corrupt
to their very core. We do not use the word corruption lightly. Its no less corrupt than any
criminal organisation and is the envy of most. I hear some of you saying where is your evidence
to support such a claim? To those we say our case is the clearest evidence, and in case the mind
wonders off into the territory of one case of corruption is not evidence of wide spread
corruption in the Family courts, then just ask the thousands of parents saying the exact same
thing. Or why not do a Google search of the matter or better yet, why not carryout your own
research into the matter. You may just be surprised what you find and realise we are actually
being modest. There are a lot of deservingly stronger words to use to describe the illegal and
illegitimate practices of this corrupt organisation, however brutally corrupt may begin to give you
the reader a true idea of the current state of affairs in the Just-Trick System.
When you are ambushed in the manner that we have been, locked up, children kidnapped,
maliciously prosecuted, deceived, lied to, threaten all in an instant- by rogues who are bent on
covering their heinous and cowardly acts committed against us even until this very day is nothing

38

short of devilish wickedness, then to have corrupt incompetents such as Justice of the peace:
Rosemary Baker, R. James, E. Walker rubberstamping these acts from the outset is
abominable.
After all, that our children and us as a family have been through at the hands of the rogues in
this system, it is by the grace of the Almighty God that we are still together as husband and wife
or even able to write a sentence. In an instant our lives changed forever, the Royal Borough of
Greenwich and the Metropolitan Police kidnapped our children, restricted us from seeing our
children for almost two months, for the first three weeks of the almost two months they had
absolutely no Lawful authority to have our children no court order or emergency protection
order (EPO), the rogues then went into overdrive and created a case from scratch to cover-up
their actions after which the Family Just-Trick System, Secret Courts Rubberstamped their
actions and wrongly granted an Interim Care Order (ICO), without so much as an Initial
Assessment or a Core Assessment being done. In reality these people have had our children for
over 2 years unlawfully and counting. The initial interim orders were wrongly granted and
rubberstamped by the three Justices named above, subsequently the other incompetent Judges
simply compounded the situation and continued the rubberstamping of their colleagues
wrongdoing. Sometimes we wonder whats wrong with some of these Judges, just to be here
writing this book after all this time fighting is unbelievable. These learnerd men and women
should know better than anyone that the Family Courts cant continue in the current form. The
blatant corruption and overwhelming festival of injustice currently taking place must be
eradicated from the system. The practices of the Family Courts are subverting the entire
Judiciary. People dont differentiate between Judges. To the average man on the street a Judge is
a Judge. The Long established and well respected profession or should we say craft of Judges has
remained relatively sacrosanct for generations. However the reputation of Judges on a whole is
under threat from the nefarious practices being perpetrated in the Family Courts of the UK. A
lot of the incompetent Judges in the Family courts along with the army of rogues do not realise
that we are now living in a new age. A time where information travels across the world faster
than they can say smoke screen! Unjust and corrupt acts are now harder to hide and cover-up
than before. Case in point, ages ago we would not be able to write and publish this book
detailing the injustice we endured. The fact is publishers would be afraid of the implications of
such a book exposing corruption and criticizing Judges. Our experience of Injustice could be
quickly blocked by rogues with the use of injunctions and false claims of defamation and slander

39

to threaten and stop a publisher from publishing the book. These rogues could then try and
bury their wrongdoing against us much like they did the Jillings Report or any of the countless
other atrocities that have been buried for years. However, with the advent of todays technology
and the internet there is no need for a traditional publisher. Publishers would probably also try to
edit and water down what we have to say. Now readers have the benefit of the raw unfiltered
story direct from the horses mouth so to speak. Our writing skills might not be the best, but
who cares!
Our case is so corrupt that we did not think it prudent to venture back into these Secret Family
Courts without first alerting the public to our situation. It is also an opportunity that many
parents do not take or even know it exists.
If parents summon the courage to speak out after the torturous process of the entire ordeal,
then they are swiftly vilified by the various mouth pieces of the Family Just-Trick System or
labelled as disgruntled by the professionals involved in their case.
The time honour slogan of a Judge has heard the case and made an order will most certainly
be touted by these rogue professionals. If the listener remains unconvinced then a further slogan
will be rendered such as: There was a thorough investigation carried out by competent
professionals after, which the court carried out an in depth inquiry into the circumstances of
the child. This will promptly be followed up by; the courts paramount concern in care
proceedings is the best interest of the child. The above three slogans in whatever order usually
does the trick to calm the nerves and settle the mind of anyone who may have an interest in a
case after hearing a parents plight of the injustice suffered.
After all, a Judge has made an order, therefore it is assumed by most that there must be some
sort of evidence presented to the court to substantiate the claims made by professionals so as to
allow the court to reach a conclusion that an order needs to be made. Or so you would think!
Unaware and well intentioned members of the public can be forgiven for assuming thats the
case. Most people have their personal problems and situations that require their attention, times
are hard for most and the economy is not in the best state at the moment. There are a trillion
other challenges life throws at people, so even though many would love to take an interest and
help parents, in most cases they themselves have no clue of what goes on in the Family Courts.
Most people are then left with a dilemma of who to believe, are they going to believe a parent

40

accused of mistreating their child or a Judge and an army of professionals? Well, you do the
math. Parents version of events will not be believed by most.
Truth is stranger than fiction when it comes to the Family Courts. Parents are in most cases
treated with contempt and disregarded by the Courts and rogue professionals. As indicative in
our case professionals can kidnap your children at first instance without any reason for doing so.
Then, without any evidence or basis for doing so being presented to the Family Court or even
with the clear evidence of perjury, deceit, lies or outright admittance by professionals that they
have shredded documents, an order can be obtained and your children swiftly taken or as in our
case, swiftly kidnapped then rogue professionals make up a case as they go along. Kidnap first,
make up reasons and excuses later! We often ask ourselves; what would it actually take for these
family courts not to make an order and or even attempt to hold these rogues accountable?
When you experience the sorts of attacks that we have endured, a book is the last thing on your
mind. At first we thought the atrocities that happened to us was unique, until we started meeting
countless parents who have had similar experiences at the hands of the rogue professionals
that ply their trade in The Family Just-Trick System. Parents would unload countless stories to
us, all the time never being able to unload it all in one meeting. Sometimes even on the fifth
meeting there was still new information coming to light. Now considering that we ourselves have
experienced injustice at the hands of this system, and know all too well how the attacks are
carried out we understood how hard it is to explain all that has happened. So, we thought if we
are finding it hard to grasp the entirety of a parents story who has suffered similar injustice at
the hands of the system, what chance have we got of being able to convey our story to anyone?
This simple fact has also led to many members of the public being unable to grasp what is really
going on in these Secret Family Courts and Child Protection system. The parents are deem as
disgruntled and not credible when in frustration and anger they try an explain the torture and
injustice they have experienced and the only source of information that the unaware public has
to rely on, which is deemed credible by many is the information provided by the very same
people (The Professionals) who are in most cases committing the most cruel and hideous acts.
These rogue professionals present and outwardly false persona to the unaware public, as if
butter would not melt in their mouths.

41

We have checked far and wide for any book written by any parents who have been through
the Family Courts Public Law Proceedings (cases where the Local Authority initiate
proceedings to remove someones child) and survived to tell the story.
We found not one in this Country and we understand why. Having your children kidnapped or
even the threat of losing them can make even the strongest of characters loose themselves.
We found, we were also having problems unloading the entirety of what we are going through to
our friends and family.
Therefore we decided that in order to allow the public to get a clearer insight of what occurred in
our situation and hopefully get an idea of the magnitude of the injustice and atrocities we have
endured. The public needs to know the true nature of what is taking place behind the veil of
secrecy in the Family Courts, a book would hopefully convey the information in a format many
would probably understand. It has been the hardest challenge we have ever faced, because the
fact is, at the time of writing this book our children are still with the kidnappers and that makes
writing this book much harder and stirs up a lot of emotions for us both.
The alarming and incredibly surreal situations most parents who come up against the rogues in
the Child Protection system quickly realise is the overwhelming number of so-called
professionals(rogues) who ultimately get involve and the failure of these professionals to speak
out about the wrong doings of their colleagues. This failure to act further compounds the wrong
doings and suffering that is experienced and sustained by innocent parents. This sort of immoral
and callous disregard for doing what is right, and lawful results in the unnecessary suffering of
innocent parents and ultimately provides cover for the rogues. The public will also find it hard to
believe and digest innocent parents version of events because the unaware public in most cases
assumes that if the case was as bad as the innocent parents are making it out to be then at least
one of the many professionals involved would have raised the alarm or the Judge in the case
would not allow such injustices to occur. The sad fact is we thought the same. We thought that
at least one of the many professionals who got involved in our case would raise the alarm at the
obvious injustice taking place in front of their very eyes. Not one of these professionals had any
integrity or was brave enough to do what was right or at the very least Lawful.
Anyway, what do we know? Most people are more open to what a Judge has to say; therefore we
think Mrs Justice Pauffley, as touched on what is rampant in the Family Courts and is at the core

42

of why the professionals who got involved in our case were so arrogant and appeared certain
they would not be held to account. That they would be able to cover up or should we now say,
try to cover up their Immoral, vile and unlawful actions. Well, that strategy has ultimately failed
and this book is testament of that fact. Because even if only one person reads this book then the
wicked acts of these cruel incompetents is no longer a secret!!!
Mrs Justice Pauffleys comments are reticent and are reflective of what occurred in our case, of
such we have decided to include a more in-depth extract from her ruling so as to allow some
readers to get a better insight as to the terrible state of affairs in the Secret Family Courts and the
cosy relationship between the Judges and Local Authorities. In our experience, the situation is
actually worse; Mrs Justice Pauffley is actually being modest in her ruling, as quoted:

Mrs Justice Puaffley in Re NL (A child) (Appeal: Interim Care Order: Facts and Reasons)
[2014] EWHC 270 (Fam) outlines:

65. Whilst I might be able to understand why such methods may have been
developed, I am profoundly alarmed by their existence. Informal inquiries
reveal, anecdotally, that the practices I have described are not confined to
this area but are widespread across the country.
66. The first matter for emphasis is that every parent is entitled, pursuant to

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to a fair trial.

Article 6.1 reads as follows "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or
part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic
society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so

43

require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances
where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."

67. Seemingly, there were process failures in this case which significantly
interfered with the most basic requirements for openness and transparency.
There was, apparently, an established but largely clandestine arrangement
between the local authority and the court which, to my mind, has
considerable repercussions for justice and, equally importantly, the
perception that justice will be done. It is fundamental that nothing is sent to
the judge by one party unless it is copied simultaneously to every other
party.
68. Equally and just as importantly, it is difficult to view the Justices as having

been independent and impartial if, as happened here, they simply adopted
the local authority's analysis of what their Findings and Reasons might
comprise. The Court of Appeal has recently made clear that the wholesale
incorporation of such a draft is impermissible: see Crinion and anor v IG
Markets Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 587. As Sir Stephen Sedley observed,
"Unequivocal acceptance of one party's case has always posed a

problem for judges. To simply adopt that party's submissions, however

cogent they are, is to overlook what is arguably the principal function of
a reasoned judgment, which is to explain to the unsuccessful party why
they have lost. (T)he possibility of something approaching electronic
plagiarism is new, and it needs to be said and understood that it is
unacceptable. Even if it reflects no more than the judge's true thinking,
it reflects poorly on the administration of justice: for appearances
matter."
69. Just because there may be tacit acceptance on the part of many
professionals within the family justice system that the practice which
operated here exists, that does not mean it is right. It is patently wrong, must
stop at once and never happen again.

44

71. Whatever else, it should always be remembered that in public law

proceedings the local authority is the applicant. It is not and should never
be seen as the decision maker. That is the role of the court. There is no
room for confusion. Justice must be upheld. There is no scope for any
dilution of that most fundamental concept.

The situation in the Family Courts is far worse than Mrs Justice Puaffley is highlighting in her
above Judgement. Only a Judge can be so eloquent in buttering the true extent of the nefarious
and wrongful acts thats committed amongst its ranks. If it were us as parents or Mr Average Joe
who did what the Local Authority did as outlined in her Judgement above
clandestine arrangement then the language used to describe us may go something like this:

These parents have committed the most deviously contemptuous, wretched and devilishly
malign act in the face of the court; these parents clandestine arrangement is nothing short of a
calculating and cunning act of criminality. They should be charged with perverting the course of
justice in their attempts to bring the court into disrepute. I will be writing to the ministry of
justice outlining my recommendations concerning the matter.
However, as you can see above when the shoe is firmly on the other foot, when The Local
Authority and other professionals to include the court are caught committing what we would
describe as atrocious acts which are an affront to justice and blatantly undermine the courts
ability to administer Justice. It is not uncommon for the language to become diluted when it
comes to dealing with rogues. It is clear Mrs Justice Pauffley words are very palatable as outlined
in her judgement, Words such as: impermissible, considerable and repercussion becomes the
order of the day. Oh! And our favourite sentence in Mrs Justice Pauffley above Judgement is at
the end of para 69: It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again. Yeah
Right Mrs Justice Pauffley! As if those grown incompetents being paid as professionals were not
aware what they were doing was wrong in the first place. As said before if it was any average
parent who committed those acts in the face of the court the judgement would most likely not
read so smoothly and they would be lucky to avoid a prison term.

45

Intentionally Blank

46

Our children were Kidnapped

In this book, when we say our four children were kidnapped, we mean they were literally
kidnapped in every sense of the Law. Now, we can hear some of you saying; you are just angry
that your children were taken and blowing off some steam, that does not mean your children
were literally kidnapped? No! We are not blowing off some steam; our children were literally
kidnapped by corrupt and incompetent rogue professionals from The Police and The Royal
Borough of Greenwich, with the assistance of some senior staff at Invicta Primary School.
I can even hear some of you saying; parents always say that when Social Services take their
children? Well, in some instances that may be true, however, in our situation our children were
literally kidnapped.
Let us explain briefly, as will be outlined further on in the book, our children were kidnapped
and detained i.e. without parental consent, or a Court Order and against their and our will.
Our children were falsely imprisoned in the school they attended by the Headteacher namely,
Mrs Marie Corbett . Mrs Corbett unlawfully detained our children and denied us as parents with
lawful authority and control access to our children when we arrived to collect them from school
on the evening of March 29, 2012.
We dont want to put the horse before the carriage here so to speak. So please bear in mind we
are just clarifying the kidnap which occurred. We know at this point all sorts of thoughts may go
through the mind of some readers, such as maybe Mrs Corbett had a reason to detain the
children, well she didnt, and we will get to that later. Remember at this point we are just
clarifying the Law relating to kidnap. Matters will become clearer later on in the book.
The legal definition of Kidnap is defined as; carrying a person away, without his consent, by
means of force, threats or fraud.

The Laws are clear regarding abduction and there is no justification for what she Mr Corbett
has done, She is not above the law and our children have suffered immensely at the hands of
Mrs Corbett Headteacher of Invicta Primary School, who detained our 3 daughters all under
the age of ten at the time against their will and without our consent.

47

Children do not have the capacity to consent by law and the responsibility to give consent is
passed to the parent. Parents have what is referred to as Parental responsibility. Families also
have numerous rights enshrined by International Conventions and the European Union
Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) Articles. Article 8- right to family life protects families
from unlawful government intrusion in family life and article 8 protects everyone from inhumane
treatment. The simple fact of the matter is this, no public authority, civil servant or anyone for
that matter has authority to take anyones children without first obtaining the consent of the
parent. They must first go to court and obtain a Court Order.
Intrusion in a familys life is no small matter and Mrs Corbett as a Head teacher has no
business detaining children in school at her will!
As the Law currently stands and we hear everyday that no one is above it. Our children were
kidnapped and not because the assailants work for the Government should not make them less
accountable than the man on the street, on the contrary, it should make them even more
accountable because they are in a the position to know better.
Section 2(b) of the Child abduction act 1984 clearly outline:
Offence of abduction of child by other persons.
(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person, other than one mentioned in subsection (2)
below. Commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he takes or
detains a child under the age of sixteen
(a)so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of
the child; or
(b) So as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of
the child.
Just in case you were wondering what does subsection (3):
(3)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, it shall be a
defence for that person to prove
(a)where the father and mother of the child in question were not married to each other at
the time of his birth
(i)that he is the childs father; or

48

(ii)that, at the time of the alleged offence, he believed, on reasonable grounds, that he
was the childs father; or
(b)that, at the time of the alleged offence, he believed that the child had attained the age
of sixteen.

Just in case subsection 2

(2)A person is connected with a child for the purposes of this section if
(a)he is a parent of the child; or
(b)in the case of a child whose parents were not married to each other at the time of his
birth, there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is the father of the child; or
(c)he is a guardian of the child; or
(d)he is a person in whose favour a residence order is in force with respect to the child;
or
(e)he has custody of the child.
In layman terms: What the above statute is outlining is that anyone who takes or keeps a
child from the lawful control or lawful authority of (Anyone who is lawfully responsible
for that child i.e. Parents, grandparents etc) without obtaining their consent commits an
offence. So if a stranger on the street or even a relative takes your child into their car
without your consent, no matter for how long they commit an offence of abduction. The
consent of the person with lawful authority (Mother, Father, Parent etc) must be
obtained. Thats the Law, point blank. You can argue the semantics all day but if you take
anything or anyone without consent you are breaking the Law. The Law is no different
when it comes to Government Departments or Civil Servants, taking or detaining
without consent, the act of taking without consent is a crime, no matter who you are
theft is theft regardless of who commits it, abduction is abduction regardless of who
commits the act. Equality under the law is Paramount.
However, the authorities have at their disposal methods and words to use when trying to
cover their wrongdoing one of the key words of choice often used to hide behind and
obscure issues is the word reasonable. A very subjective word used the world over by
authorities to offer up explanations for their unlawful actions. The word reasonable is
like Mayonnaise, to the authorities. It can be used in different combinations or variations,
just add reasonable to anything and the meaning becomes obscure and vague.

49

Reasonable grounds, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonable cause, Reasonable

Excuse and the list could go on and on.
Officer T why did you arrest Mr A on the night in question? At the time I had
reasonable cause to believe Mr A was in the act of committing an offence. Thats all
thats needed to take away your freedom or your rights. If you ever dream of trying to
use the excuse of reasonable be warned, it only works for Government Employees.
Police Officer: Mr A, why dont you have valid insurance for your car?
Mr A: Well I have reasonable suspicion that the price of insurance is far too high. In
light of my reasonable suspicions, I have reasonable grounds not to pay insurance for my
car until I further investigate the matter.
We all know how that story will end. If you are thinking Penalty points, car pond and a
hefty fine, you are on the right track. So, the moral of the story is as most of us already
know one rule for some and another rule for the rest of us!
In light of the above, it appears that provisions have been included in the above
abduction statute that aims to insulate and protect the authorities from the offence of
abduction as outlined below:
The Abduction Act 1984 Section 5 Restriction on prosecutions for offence of
kidnapping.
Except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions no prosecution shall be
instituted for an offence of kidnapping if it was committed
(a) Against a child under the age of sixteen; and
(b) By a person connected with the child, within the meaning of section 1 above.
The above section of the abduction statue is a powerful one. To our knowledge, there as not
been a successful prosecution brought by a parent against a government department for
kidnapping their child or children. Does that mean that by Law it has not taken place? Our
situation is a clear case of kidnap. If we had taken someones child without their consent or
Court approval, they would throw away the key! These corrupt professionals who should know
better not only kidnapped our children, they were so arrogant that they compounded the
situation by continuing their unlawful and illegal acts for 3 weeks (No court order, No parental
consent no legal authority whatsoever to have our children, after which a Interim Care Order

50

was rubberstamped and wrongly granted by Three Justice of the peace namely, Rosemary Baker,
Kate James and M Walker, who failed to conduct their duties according to their oaths of office,
legislation, and relevant case Law that deals with Child care Cases that are brought before the
courts inline with the children act 1989. They failed to adequately enquire into the circumstances
of our children and the actions of the Local Authority in ensuring that the necessary Threshold
Criteria was crossed. We will be expanding more on this later in the book under the chapter
titled Judges. So for clarity whenever we make reference to our children being kidnapped in this
book we literally mean kidnapped.
Now if we had done what Mrs Corbett or The Royal Borough Of Greenwich did to us our
pictures would be on the 24 hour news channels and Parliament would probably bring back
capital punishment! However, when it is Government employees who commit such immoral
actions the Director of Public of Public Prosecutions takes a different view. In all fairness to the
Director of Public Prosecutions, at the time of writing this book we have not contacted him or
her about our case. We shall expand more regarding the kidnap of our children by the Royal
Borough of Greenwich, The Metropolitan Police (CAIT) with the assistance of Invicta Primary
School.

51

Unlike the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Secret Family Courts have no experience of righting
miscarriages of justice. What is needed is a Public Inquiry/Enquiry into this whole situation,
which would need to be chaired by someone with no ties either to the family courts, or to child
protection work. The glare of publicity would also force local authorities to ensure that
applications are properly prepared, and that social workers or expert witnesses did not abuse
their position by making unfounded or misleading statements. Experts giving evidence would
have their claims subjected to public scrutiny, and critical assessment by their peers.
We are more than happy for the public to scrutinize every facet of our lives. However, we are
equally eager for the public to scrutinize the reasons surrounding why our four children were
taken and the conduct of the professionals involved. Most Innocent parents are not fortunate to
be in a position such as we are in. What do we mean? Well, we have fought relentlessly to be
sitting here typing this book and not in prison. It has been an excruciatingly painful and arduous
experience to get this far. We have spent our life savings to be here right this minute.
What most people dont realize is that innocent parents are up against a Multi-Billion pound
Child protection industry and Secret Family Court system, an industry that does not who take
kindly to its practices and failures being revealed to the public. Therefore, no expense is speared
in an outright assault on innocent parents to cover-up wrong doing. Most innocent parents are
often tricked into doing an assessment or worse some find themselves wrongly convicted and
imprisoned. Further to this, these rogues will dig up any dirt they can find to tarnish innocent
parents. The rogues used numerous tactics against us and did extensive digging in an attempt to
find dirt to use against us; they even went as far as conducting checks with International Police
(Interpol) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). These sorts of extensive checks
were carried out on us even though we had no criminal records or prior criminal history. The
rogues were unsuccessful in their fishing expedition to find dirt. Even though some parents may
be innocent of accusations that are made against them, The rogues will use the most minor
infractions which have nothing to do with any accusations made against innocent parents to try
and paint the parents in a bad light. Therefore most innocent parents are afraid to speak out. The
list below outlines some of the main disadvantages facing innocent parents:
Lack of resources (Money)
Being labelled with a Mental Disorder
Any convictions whatsoever
Any history of Drug or Alcohol problems
Suffering from any sort of depression
Fear of being judged by society

52

 Fear of their friends finding out that they are or were subject to investigation by
Social Services
We suffer from none of the above, except lack of resources (Money) at the moment.

We have no criminal convictions

No mental disorder or suffer from any mental health issues

We have not been label by any Psychiatrist or otherwise

No depression

Do not fear being judged by society

Our friends have been very supportive throughout this entire process and
horrific ordeal.

We have read countless cases regarding parents who have had their children wrongly taken and
the professionals in most of those cases are always creative at offering up excuses to validate
their actions. What is overwhelmingly clear is that our case is unique only in the context that the
rogue professionals in the Family Just-Trick System have attacked a truly innocent Family, which
has been underestimated us in the process. They have been clearly caught out in the process, and
then to make matters worse they have encountered parents who will not be silenced, who at the
time of the attack had ample resources (Money). Lack of resources is a very serious issue facing a
lot of innocent parents; it is very serious and can be the difference between being sent to prison
for something you did not do or being able to put up a fight. Lets also make clear that resources
are not the only thing needed to stave off the attacks of these rogues, you also need a to possess
other qualities or develop them quickly. Qualities such as resilience, bravery, strength, tenacity,
determination and the willingness not give in to the pressures or threats, amongst other qualities.
Simply put, you have to be willing to stare death in the face and keep fighting!
We salute all the innocent parents who have, for whatever reason, could not continue the fight
for your children we know how hard it is. Keep faith!

53

The time you are here writing a book you should go fight for your children!
Ever since the kidnapping of our four children, all we have been doing is fighting and trying to
find a way to deal with the emotional turmoil that this situation has ultimately caused us as a
family. This book is an important and crucial part of the fight for our children.
No one has ever said the above comments to us. However, you sometimes get that impression
when some people ask so whats happening with the situation involving your children? We
then have to go into a lengthy explanation of what has happened and where we are now. Then
you see the expression on their faces change to oh, now I understand; I get it. The real fact of
the matter is that this book forms part of the fight for our children. They were kidnapped and
the perpetrators and those who allowed this kidnap to take place in the first instance, are not
known for accepting guilt. They have no intentions of giving our children back to us; because
there was ample opportunity to return our children early out and they did not. There was no
basis to kidnap them in the first place; at the very least the children should have gone home with
their mother on the day they were kidnapped. Things never worked out as it should for the
kidnappers, because if they had it their way we would have been assessed, labelled and either be
in prison or in some mental institution somewhere or worse, dead by committing suicide. Then
who would ever know what they did?
Even if the last three above never took place and the kidnappers just got a psychiatric assessment
of us done at the time then that would have been good enough to slap some sort of label
(paranoid, bipolar oppositional defiance etc) all mental disorders, on us and that would have
been enough to silence us, because when labelled if you dont comply with treatment you can be
Sectioned under the Mental Health Act 2007. Many sane and capable parents have found out the
above fact the hard way. Some say we were lucky to have not been tricked into doing a
psychiatric assessment. We always respond that it was not luck, its called being vigilant.
The rogues have been extremely incompetent and callous in their dealings with our family, it has
become safer for them to obfuscate the situation and would rather continue in absolute denial
than accept that they have done wrong.
When the rogues in the system get it wrong and commit the kind of abuses and injustice that
have been committed against our children and us, the stakes are even higher and they kick into
over drive in an effort to discredit you and justify their actions. The rogues literally attack from

54

every possible angle, for them damage limitation becomes the utmost priority. Rest assured all
sorts of favours will be called in by these rogues and document shredding and creation will
become standard practice! If you are able to survive, and thats virtually impossible in most cases;
but just in case you do then your world would have been changed forever.

55

Professionals
From the outset the rogue Professionals that got involved in our case sought to protect
themselves against the consequences that resulted from their unprofessional and unlawful
actions by further acts of discrimination and victimisation; they were aided and protected
by other rogue professionals in the Royal borough of Greenwich, The Metropolitan Police
and the Family courts system , while us as parents and our children were victimised and
discriminated against on a continuing and ongoing basis, this has continued even to this
day.

Some people hear or use the word Professional without actually knowing what it truly means
and the responsibility that comes with being a professional.
The people who perpetrated, conspired, colluded, failed to mention, Shredded documents,
abuse their positions, acted unlawfully, made clandestine agreements, acted illegally, maliciously
prosecuted, and turned a blind eye to the injustice and wrongdoing by their colleagues against
our family all claim to be Professionals. If only they were, then we would not have a need to
write this book.
This book is not an attempt at discrediting any True Professional or Profession; to the contrary,
it is to expose the rogues that disguise as professionals; the incompetents and vile rogues that
hide amongst true professionals.
It is in the public interest to expose the practices of these rogue professionals to the glare of
public scrutiny so that the disinfectant of forensic sunlight may bring to the surface and cleanse
these rogues out of the positions of power they infest.
On countless occasions we have heard people make statements such as, Mr V was a bad social
worker or Ms K was a good social worker. Likewise, similar statements are made about
Police Officers, School Teachers, Lawyers, Doctors, Judges, and Politicians etc. There is
normally a misconception or misunderstanding by people who make such statements, of what it
means to be a Real Professional. There is no such thing as a good or a bad Professional. A
professional is either Competent or Incompetent. Therefore, there is no such thing as a good or

56

bad Social Worker. There is either a competent or incompetent Social Worker. Professionals are
not employed or paid to be good or bad and they know this. Its not personal for a lot of
Professionals its just business and when it comes to business there is always the matter of profit
or loss. Every organisation or Government Department that operates in the United Kingdom
and employs professionals must have Professional Indemnity Insurance. Just in case a
Professional who is employed by the organisation was incompetent in the execution of their
duties, which caused injury or distress to others. Now, there are countless Guidelines, Rules,
Protocols and Laws that exist to protect employers, Professionals and the Public against any
wrongdoing and malicious claims. These rules and laws are there for a reason and no one can
blame a professional of any wrongdoing if they followed the rules and Laws that govern their
Profession in the execution of their duties. The rules also exist to protect professionals and their
employers from malicious or vexatious claims, hence employers place great emphasis on making
sure the Professionals they employ are adhering to the rules, guidelines, protocols and laws that
exist and govern their profession.
Every organisation is different in structure, and work culture; however the above applies to all
organisations that employ professionals. So how does the above play out in reality? Due to the
fact that incompetence may ultimately lead to liability, some Professionals and employers alike
cover and turn a blind eye to the inadequacies of their colleagues. One hand washes the other
type behaviour, in most cases its harmless and creates no harm whatsoever, in other cases it
causes untold distress and harm to others. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy or collusion
amongst professionals in most cases. Just Professionals looking out for the interest of another
professional! It makes good strategic sense if you look at it from their perspective. No one
knows the future and the professional who is in need of help today to cover his/her
wrongdoings maybe the one to help another professional with a cover-up, wrongdoing, or turn a
blind eye in the future!
When a private company or government organisation places a job advert to recruit a candidate
for a role, lets say for example, a Qualified Nuerosurgeon. They are looking for a Professional
in the field of Neurosurgery. The advert did not ask for a trainee Nuero-Surgeon. How can the
company possibly know that a prospective applicant is a Professionally Qualified Neurosurgeon?
Its by checking the credentials of any prospective applicant. What professional qualifications
does this person hold in the field of neurosurgery? Were the qualifications obtained from a
recognised institution and not bought at a boot-sale? How many years experience does the

57

applicant have? References will be checked and verified. After all this then there is still the matter
of numerous legislations to adhere to. There will have to be Criminal Records Bureau checks
now DBS and a ton of other procedures to adhere to before the prospective applicant even gets
invited for an interview. After all the above, there is still the small question of will the applicant
fit into the team of Surgeons and support staff they have to work with? Even with all the above
checks and balances the applicant will still have to do a probationary period of employment to
see if he/she can do the things they claim they can do and to see if things work out.
Now ask yourself, why all the above hassle to employ a Professional? The answer is simple,
Liability. The company or organisation is liable to be sued to high heavens if they make a mistake
when employing a Professional and it is for that matter that Companies are not in the habit of
employing a professional because of their sexy legs, handsome features, there eloquence, there
personal views and opinions or any of that rubbish. They employ them for their professional
abilities and expertise. Practicing Professionals in any field have a duty to be up to date with all
the current changes in policies and laws as it relates to their profession. This is serious business
due to the fact there are acres of legislations and protocol to follow for many Companies and
Government Organisations. Most Professionals in their role are privileged to highly sensitive
information and there are strict protocols and rules to follow. These rules and protocols are
there for a reason. They are the first to tell you that. Now, lets say for example the Company or
Hospital above looking for a Neurosurgeon, employ a candidate, only to later find out that
he/she was an imposter and had stolen the identity of a Neurosurgeon. There would be serious
implications for the employer, to say the least. Good practice dictates that to avoid the situation
recurring there would have to be an investigation into how an imposter got passed the stringent
security checks and due diligence mentioned above. The regulator of the of Medical
Professionals would most likely have to be informed in this case the General Medical Council
(GMC). However, lets say a patient of the imposter who knows nothing of the internal upheaval
going on regarding the imposter, then makes a complaint about a surgical procedure that was
performed on her by the imposter. Then the employers problems just got bigger! So, the point
we are making by the above is that Professionals are not employed because there employers like
there style of dressing. They are employed to carryout Professional duties and must adhere to
their Professional Codes of Conduct, Guidelines, Rules, Protocols and Legislations and above all
the Law, that exist and govern their profession. After all, thats what makes them a professional
in the first place. Therefore, when we accuse someone of behaving unprofessionally, we do not
say it lightly. It is a serious accusation. A professional can cause serious injury to others due to

58

their malpractice often resulting from their negligence or incompetence, which is often a result
of failure to adhere to establish rules.
A person cant claim to be acting in their capacity as a professional, then on the other hand are
behaving unprofessional and breaking all the rules and laws that exist which govern their
profession. Thats a contradiction in itself and what you call a Rogue Professional (Not really a
professional, discredit to their profession). Employers are always fearful of accepting when they
have actually made a mistake and employ a rogue professional in their midst, because the liability
can be too great and getting rid of them can be a costly affair also. Just think how costly it would
be for the Police if it was discovered that one of its officers of 11 long years was a crack addict
and occasionally sold drugs for the last 10 years of his 11 years employment? The implications
would be severe to say the least, not to mention costly. You can be sure every arrest this officer
had ever been involved with would have to be reviewed. Defence lawyers would have a party
with that information and then comes the civil suits. The obvious question would be how could
this drug addict/dealer slip past the Police service stringent checks and was not discovered for a
whole 11 years? The next obvious question would be, if they made such a mistake with this drug
addict/dealer, how many more drug addicts/dealers are actually within the police force
disguising as respectable police officers? The Leadership of the Police would have a monumental
task reassuring the public that this was a huge mistake or oversight on the part of whoever gets
blamed. But, rest assured in the end it would be a costly and damaging affair for the reputation
of the entire Police Service.
We have outlined all the above so as to make clear that we are not on a personal vendetta against
the people we have named in this book. On the contrary, we understand that true professionals
do exist. Most people work very hard and make painful sacrifices to become the True
professionals they are today, so we are very mindful of that fact. However, the rogues we have
named in this book do not fit into the above category and are an outright disgrace to their
respective professions. The simple fact is, we do not know any of them personally; they were
acting in a Professional Capacity when they committed all their heinous acts against our family. It
was not Billy down the pub who kidnapped our four children. Our four children were kidnapped
by Professionals. One of the kidnappers is Mrs Marie Corbett Headteacher of Invicta Primary
School. Now, Mrs Corbett made a malicious referral to Social Services on Wednesday 28th March
2012, alleging all sorts of fallacies, we will get to that later on in the book. Anyway, when we
went to collect our children from school on the 28th March 2012, nothing was said to us about

59

any concerns or about the alleged referral that was made. On the morning of Thursday 29th
March 2012 we dropped our children at school and even then nothing was said to us about any
concerns or referral that was made. Then on the evening of the 29th March 2012 when we
attended the school to collect our children, Mrs Corbett refused to bring our children to us and
stated that she had hid them in the school. At the time she claimed that the Social Worker,
namely, Ms Morris, had told her to hide our children in the school, however she later disclosed
that it was actually her decision to hide our children, because she had a situation at the school in
the past where she contacted Social Services regarding a parent and the parent came to the
school to collect their child and she had to give the parent their child.
Now remember, we are still on the topic of Professionals. So whats wrong with the above
actions of the Professional Headteacher Mrs Marie Corbett on the 29th March 2012?
Firstly, Mrs Corbett in her professional capacity as headteacher is well aware of the fact that she
has no lawful authority to hide children on the school premises or deny parents access to their
children because she feels like it or because of her previous experience with some other parent.
Secondly, in her professional capacity as a Headteacher, Mrs Corbett should not knowingly be
deceiving and telling lies to parents by stating that the Social Worker told her to do what she had
done, when it was clearly her own decision . Thirdly, as a Professional Headteacher she is not
qualified to or in a position to carryout child protection investigation.
As a professional Headteacher she knows that parental consent for all and any activity
concerning children requires parental consent. For some readers, you may be wondering or
rationalizing that Mrs Corbett might have been so concerned that she had to act to protect the
children. Well, the truth is no! She was not acting to protect our children. Besides her own
admission that she hid our children because some other unknown parent had attended the
school and taken their child due to her contacting Social Services regarding that parent and not
that she was concerned for our children. The fact still remains that she had made the referral to
Social Services on Wednesday 28th March 2012. If she was so concerned for our children then
she would have detained them on the 28th March 2012 or call the Police. Further, in her
Professional capacity there are procedures in place to deal with situations if a Professional Headteacher has serious concerns regarding the safety of a child or children and those procedures do
not include false imprisonment! Mrs Corbett was not acting as a Professional when she deceived

60

us and falsely imprisoned our children. Her actions were clearly those of a spiteful and malicious
Rogue Professional.
Parliament creates the statues and the statue that governs child protection investigations is the
Children Act 1989 and no section or part of that statue confers a right or duty on Headteachers
to deceive parents and falsely imprison children. If Mrs Corbett in her professional capacity
actually believed that deceiving parents and falsely imprisoning children were apart of her job
description then she is woefully incorrect and lacks the moral integrity to be in her position. Mrs
Corbett is paid a professionals salary in her Professional Capacity to fulfil her professional duties
as a Headteacher. She is not paid to falsely imprison children or carryout child Protection
investigations, hence the existence of a Social Services Department, in every borough to fulfil
that Professional function. Parents and families have rights enshrined in national and
international Laws, acres of statutory legislations to include established protocols and
procedures. Article 8 of the European convention on Human Rights- Right to a Private and
family life is there to protect families from unwarranted intrusions of the nature we have
experienced. Further, Section (2)(1) Children Act 1989 confers rights to parents of Parental
Responsibility. Children Act 1989 section (2) (1): Where a childs father and mother were married
to each other at the time of his birth, they shall each have parental responsibility for the child.
Mrs Corbett by her callous and unprofessional actions violated and acted contrary to numerous sections
of Schedule 2 of the Education (School Teachers Qualifications) (England) Regulations 2003.

Teachers Standards Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies July
2011(introduction updated June 2013). These are not just mere guidance that can be
disregarded. They are statutory rules and guidance that govern her profession and must be
adhered to.
Under no circumstances did the Rogue Professional Head-teacher Mrs Corbett have any rights in
law or otherwise to falsely imprison or detain our children on the 29th March 2012 and thereafter.
Now imagine if you went to school to collect your child and the Head-teacher is claiming she has
hidden them inside the school and refuse to bring your child to you. What would you do? Now,
most parents would start an Armageddon. Thats why there are procedures, rules and laws in
place so as to avoid Headteachers kidnapping and falsely imprisoning children. Mrs Corbett in
her Professional capacity as a Head-teacher, has not only acted unprofessionally or unacceptable
but has also committed a criminal act, which set into motion a most dreadful chain of events for
our four children and us as a family. Things will become much clearer regarding Mrs Corbett

61

later on in the book. However, as we hope we have highlighted for some that the title
Professional is not the same as personal. It carries responsibility and even salaries are dependent
on a individuals Professional credentials.

62

Intentionally Blank

63

Chapter 2

FACINUS QUOS INQUINAT AEQUAT

Villainy and guilt make all those whom it contaminates
equal in character
Background
What started this entire unfortunate situation?
Our children were being bullied at the school they attended. The school is Charlton Manor
Primary School in the Royal Borough of Greenwich. In early 2010 I Mrs Plowright turned up to
school as usual to pick up our children. On approaching the area of the school where I normally
collect our children I could see our eldest daughter standing with her teacher at the time Ms
Debby Coker facing a parent with their child. It was clear something was being discussed and
our daughter was crying and distressed. I was very concerned as to why my daughter was crying
and what had taken place. I moved quickly across the school yard and went to console my
daughter. She was so relieved that I had arrived and I could see the relief in her eyes. How was it
that this teacher was parading my child in front of another child and their parent? Our child has
parents of her own and if there is a problem with a child at school that warrants parents
intervening then we assumed that the appropriate thing to do is invite both parents to a meeting
and have a formal discussion. If thats not possible because of time constraints or schedule then
a letter to both parents raising whatever concern should suffice. Any parent would agree you
dont parade peoples children in front of strange adults! This sorts of behaviour was totally
unacceptable and caused our child untold distress.
I informed Ms Debbie Coker that I will be coming to see the head teacher the next day as I was
not happy with what she had done. When I arrived home I informed my husband of what took
place and naturally he was not happy about what had occurred. The following the day we went
to see the Head Teacher Mr Tim Baker. We had a brief discussion with Mr Baker and outlined
our concerns, He informed us that the teacher in question was not available to attend the
meeting so he was unable to address the issues we were raising, because it would not be fair to
her for him to do so.

64

We finally had a meeting with Ms Debbie Cooker and Mr Tim Baker. The meeting was not
successful. There was five of us present at this meeting Mr and Mrs Plowright, our Eldest
Daughter and our son who was just over 1 year old at the time and Mr Baker and Ms Debbie
Coker. Ms Cooker did not see her actions as inappropriate and Mr Baker was trying to make
excuses for her. We raised the issue of our daughter being bullied at this meeting and Mr. Baker
outright denied that our daughter was being bullied at his school until we produced the letters.
The letters were apology letters from children who were bullying our daughter. They outlined
that these children were sorry for punching, kicking and pushing our child. No one informed us
of these matters we found the letters in our daughters book bag when she returned from school
one evening as it is customary for us to check their book bags when they return from school in
the evenings. It appeared that a teacher had got the bullies to write the letters of apology to our
daughter. However no one at the school informed us that the bullying was taking place. Our
eldest daughter would often return from school unhappy and begged us to stay home. We often
asked her if she was happy at school and she would always say no. She always complained of
being picked on and being called names, however we never had any idea it was as bad as the
letters outlined (Kicking, Punching, and pushing). Due to the fact that no member of staff at the
school took the liberty to inform us and we had to find out via our Childs book bag and her
accounts we as parents became very suspicious of the school. What else was happening to our
children at Charlton Manor Primary that the staff had failed to disclose? We were further
distressed to learn that the child and parent, that our daughter was being paraded in front of by
her teacher was one of the children bullying her.
My daughter was sitting in the room at the time all these matters were being discussed and it was
important for her to be reassured that these sorts of behaviours by the school and the bullying
would not be repeated.
When Mr Baker saw the bully letters his immediate reaction, was not, I am so sorry for what
your daughter has experienced or anything along those lines. It was where did you get these? In
reference to the bully letters. We both looked at each other in utter disbelief. Due to the overtly
offensive and defensive behaviour of Mr Baker regarding the treatment of our daughter and the
inappropriate behaviour of his staff, Mr Plowright asked him a direct question. Whose interests
are you at this meeting to defend our child or your staff? He sat across the table from us and
replied I am here to defend my staff. At that point I Mr Plowright got up and replied this
meeting is over, I cant stay inside this room another second I went on to say As a Headteacher

65

of a school filled with children you are wrongly defending an adult member of staff interests and
unprofessional behaviour instead of doing your job no wonder why Ms Debbie Coker behave
the way she did. At that point I held my composure because my children were present and I
didnt want them to see me get angry.
When we were leaving the meeting Mr Baker still had the bully letters in is hand as if to hold on
to them for safe keeping. I stretched my hands forward and gestured for the letters and he
reluctantly handed them back to me. On leaving I made clear that I did not want that teacher Ms
Debbie Coker anywhere near my child or him for that matter as they are arrogant and have no
idea how to deal with children. After we left the meeting we could see a calm content on our
daughter face. I will never forget what she said to me on that day. She said dad thank you for
coming to school and standing up for me today. I was completely taking by surprise with what
she said. She was only 6 at the time and I didnt even know that she understood what standing
up for someone meant. She took me by surprise with that comment, in any event on that day I
felt the same as I always do about my children. Really proud! However when she said what she
said on that particular occasion I felt Extremely proud!
Ever since and after the above events our relationship with the school took a turn for the worse.
Considering we didnt have a relationship in the first place. Matters just went from bad to worse.
We found out that our daughters were taken out of lessons on regular occasions to sit in Mr
Bakers office where they were asked all sorts of questions.
Our children began asking strange questions upon their return from school on a daily basis,
which they had never asked before, such as; where exactly do we live? Whats our door number?
How old are? Where does dad go in the evenings? How much does dad earn? What job does dad
do? These may seem like innocent questions for any child to ask, however, it became apparent to
us that something sinister was taking place, when we noticed that our girls were regularly given
sweets at school, when we asked why, they said they didnt know so we then asked if any other
children received sweets as well to which they replied no.
An incident which occurred that we were disgusted by was when another pupil spat in one of
our daughters hair. I Mrs Plowright spoke to the Deputy Headteacher namely, Mrs Sengupta
with regards to this and I was surprised to see how she dealt with the matter, she was
professional and had a way with dealing with parents and prioritising childrens needs. We began

66

dealing with her as we felt at the time that she knew how to communicate effectively with
parents, Mrs Sengupta was a marked improvement on Mr Baker.
We were slowly developing a relationship and were beginning to get along with Mrs Sengupta
when she called a meeting to discuss school trips. Our relationship with the school after the
unsuccessful meeting with Mr Baker was practically non-existent and we did not trust the staff
with our children inside the school grounds so trusting the school to take our children on trips
was a definite No! Mrs Sengupta was aware of the fact that we were not consenting to our
daughters attending school trips and suggested to us that it may single them out from the pupils
in the there classroom. Mrs Sengupta informed us that there was a school trip coming up on
Monday 15th November to the Florence Nightingale Museum and whether we would consent to
Beth going on this school trip. We thought about it and because we were actively developing a
positive relationship with Mrs Sengupta and believed at the time that she would take care of Beth
on this trip we allowed our daughter to go on this trip.
At the end of the school day on 15th November 2010, I, Mrs. Plowright, went to collect our
children from school and waited inside the school area like all the other parents as usual,
However, I noticed that they didnt come outside the school, then suddenly Mrs Sengupta came
and let me inside one of the class rooms. Mrs Sengupta informed me that they have had to
contact Social Services because the children have no toys namely, a Nintendo Wii. I couldnt
believe what I was hearing, I felt deceived by this woman. Then my children entered the class
room we were in and began playing oblivious as to what I had just been told. As I followed Mrs
Senguptas eyes looking behind me I saw Mr Baker who had a smirk on his face as it appeared he
was aware I had been informed about the referral. I told Mrs Sengupta that she had broken the
trust we had placed in her and that I was disappointed. It was evident the referral was malicious.
By the time the Social Worker from Greenwich Council (This was prior to the Local Authority,
LA becoming a Royal Borough) had attended our home, we were stunned to find that the
malicious referral morphed into a scandalous list of ridiculous and baseless allegations: Toys
locked in a cupboard, that our children were locked inside their bedroom, that us as parents are
well dressed and our children were not, that our children came to school with holes in their
shoes, and they claimed our children wore underwear which was tatty and worn. Needless to say,
the above accusations were malicious and baseless. However, a referral was made and the
mechanism of the system kicked. A social worker was deployed to investigate the matter.

67

All the allegations were patently and vindictively malicious; for example, we knew nothing of the
added allegations regarding children being locked in a room and the likes until the social worker
was actually in our home going all over our home room by room. All we knew was that the
school had made a referral citing no Nintendo Wii. Thats why social workers have to be vigilant
against malicious referrals, upon coming to our home if any of the allegations were true then the
social worker would have known. If the children were being locked in their room as was
maliciously claimed by Charlton manor where were the locks on the doors? We had no idea that
the allegation even formed part of the referral. Needless to say, there are no locks on any of the
doors inside our home.
The social worker investigated and undertook and assessment of our family circumstances, to
include the above malicious claims and upon the social worker being satisfied that there were no
valid concerns or basis for the allegations, the case was consequently closed. (It has been
disclosed by Mrs Sengupta, during her testimony that the referral that was made to social services
on the 15th November 2010 was made by Mr Baker.)
After the social worker concluded her investigations and closed the case, we as parents decided
that our children deserved to be in a school environment that was concerned with there learning
and development. Therefore, in the best interests and well-being of our children we decided to
remove our children from Charlton Manor Primary school.
It was also clear that resolving the constant bullying of our daughter was not a priority for
Charlton manor or its staff. It was now fervently clear Mr Baker the Headteacher of Charlton
Manor was more concerned with defending his staff and making malicious referrals. The
immense distress caused by the entire ordeal left us feeling drained. The bullying of our daughter,
the malicious referral, and the lies that were told about our family caused our family immense
distress. We informed the social worker of our intentions to change school, and she supported
our decision. Subsequently we made an application to Greenwich Council Admissions
department on the 29th December 2010 for places at a new school for our children.
We thought that was the end of the matter, we could now put Charlton Manor Primary behind
us and were looking forward to a fresh start for our children at a new school. Sadly, we never
got the fresh start we had hoped for. The worst was still yet to come.

68

Events that were transpiring behind the scenes without our knowledge after the case was
closed by a senior social worker in 2010.
The above situation highlighted the extent Mr Baker and some of his employees were willing to
go to. To make a malicious referral regarding a family without thinking of the effects that would
have on the children is utterly despicable. Now, with Mr Bakers shenanigans and malicious
actions revealed, by a competent social worker who was a credit to her profession, you would
have thought the matter would have ended there. No! It did not. Unknown to us at the time, Mr
Baker was busy in the background complaining to the council that the social worker had sided
with us as parents. Now, let us make clear for the readers, the malicious complaint was made by
Mr Baker in the first place. A random social worker, a Senior Practitioner, might we add, not
known to us whatsoever, attended and conducted her investigation and found the allegations and
accusations of Mr Baker and some of the staff at the school, to be without merit and basis.
However, we were to find out later that Mr Baker had the audacity and boldness to accuse the
social worker of siding with us, as if we had some magical fairy dust, or crystal ball to know
which social worker would have investigated the case and we somehow influenced her
professional judgement. When, it was simply the case that Mr Bakers malicious actions were
found out by a true professional doing their job. It appears Mr Baker is used to getting is way

and on this occasion he did not. His malicious and vindictive actions were unmasked by true
professional.
Mr Baker continued his malicious and vindictive actions and was at the time busy
communicating his displeasure, regarding the investigation he had instigated, not going the way
he planned. There was a positive outcome regarding our family. It is clear he wanted some sort
of negative outcome to validate his malicious machinations.
However, he was not just complaining to anyone, or using the councils established complaints
procedure to raise any issues, no! That would have further reveal his unprofessional conduct.
Therefore the record shows he found a shoulder to cry on, in the form of an influential and well
placed council employee and ex-police officer, Mr Ken Palmer.
The records show that, on the 7th January 2011, Charlton Manor (Mr Baker) was in numerous
communication with Mr Palmer, continuing to voice his malicious and fake concerns. Mr Baker,

69

was very strategic by him communicating with Mr Palmer, because Mr Palmers role at
Greenwich Council at the time was as Children Safeguarding Board Co-ordinator Schools.
What is very clear is that on the 18th January 2011 , records show that Mr Ken Palmer made a
call to Steve Myles. Who is Mr Steve Myles? I hear you ask, well, Mr Myles was the manager of
the social worker who investigated the malicious referral made by Mr Baker.
By this time, it is clear that Mr Ken Palmer was now acting as a mouth piece for Mr Baker and
abusing his unique position of trust in voicing Mr Bakers malicious concerns and portraying a
negative view of our family to Mr Steve Myles. The records show that there was a lot of activity
taking place between Charlton manor and Greenwich council on the 18th January 2011 as can be
seen below:
18th January 2011- Referral made to fair access panel regarding our daughters. The form was
completed by: Eleanor Maughan (In year admissions Officer)

18th January 2011, it is also recorded that- Mr Plowright is extremely controlling and paranoid
in a discussion between Steve Myles and Mr Ken Palmer.

What is very concerning for us as a family is that we have never met any of these two men (Mr
Ken Palmer or Mr Steve Myles). As a family our only interaction with the authorities was
through the malicious referral made by Mr Baker. We have no convictions (and possess clean
criminal records), No substance misuse problems, No domestic violence issues and no mental
health issues. Our family had no interaction with the authorities before the malicious referral that
was made by Mr Baker. Therefore the only official report from a Professional these two men had
to rely on was a positive one from the social worker, who carried out her assessment, gave a our
family a clean bill of health and closed the case. Upon discover of the above gossip between Mr
Palmer and Mr Myles and the resulting derogatory and offensive comments, we as parents until
this day would like to know on what basis or evidence was such deplorable comments made
regarding Mr Plowright and the resulting negative perception of our family formed by these two
fine gentlemen?

70

The records speak for themselves and it is quite clear from the records that Mr Ken Palmer with
the help of Mr Steve Myles was now championing the vile and malicious campaign of Mr Tim
Baker against our family. The records make clear, that they not only supported is malicious views
but were now acting on them.
We would like reiterate for the benefit of our readers that we as parents had no idea that the
communications between, Mr Baker, Mr Palmer and Mr Myles were taking place behind the
scenes at the time. In fact all this was not discovered by us until late 2012 after our children
months after our children were kidnapped in March 2012.
Further, from the records we have there was a lot of the communication and negative banter
about our family, this continued even after the case was investigated and closed by a senior social
worker on the 17th December 2010. What appeared to transpire through these conversations is
that negative views were formed and assumptions were held as fact by misguided, Malicious illinformed and Rogue professionals. Events that followed after these ill-informed, maliciously
speculative conversations is of great concern to us as parents and has been instrumental to the
events that lead to where we are today with the kidnapping of our children by The Royal
Borough of Greenwich, The Metropolitan (CAIT Team) and Others. The actions of these
Rogues are at the core of what has led to the continued unlawful detention of our children by
these authorities to this very day.

Fair Access Panel

As the records show and unknown to us at the time there was a nefarious referral made to
Greenwich council fair access panel without our knowledge or consent. Mr Baker was
instrumental to this referral being made. This referral was made after the social worker closed the
case that originated as a result of Mr Bakers malicious referral. So as is clear the social worker did
not accomplish Mr Bakers wishes, therefore a clandestine referral to a fair access panel and the
help of is sidekick in Greenwich Council Mr Ken Palmer and Mr Steve Myles would now do the
trick.
On the 18th January 2011, records show that a referral was made to the fair access panel, not
because our children needed such a referral and not because the social worker who investigated
the malicious referral of the 15th November 2010, and closed the case, having any concerns but
because and we quote: Mr Tim Baker: still has concerns and has voiced these concerns to social care. It

71

is abundantly clear from the records that the fair access panel was opened at the request of Mr
Baker, with the help of his misguided and ill informed contacts in The Royal Borough of
Greenwich. What was shocking to us as parents upon discovery of this information is the
overwhelming Influence Mr Baker has in the decision making process of The Royal Borough of
Greenwich.
How is it that a Headteacher has such influence in The Royal Borough of Greenwich? We mean
no disrespect to any of our readers but feel the need to break it down for some who may not
have got it.
Mr Tim Baker made a malicious referral to The Royal Borough of Greenwich Children Services
on 15 November 2010, without our knowledge. After which his malicious referral was
investigated by a random social worker (a Senior Practitioner), not known to us at the time.
Consequently her investigation concluded that his fake concerns and malicious referral were
without Merit. Not happy with the outcome and her positive report regarding our family. Mr
Baker enlisted the help of Mr Ken Palmer who then contacted Mr Steve Myles. To complain of
his displeasure with the outcome of the investigation he instigated in the first place.
Its like Mr A accusing Mr B of stealing a shoe and calling the police on Mr B. Only for the
police to investigate the matter and find out that it was Mr A, who had stolen the shoes all along
and had been lying the whole time and arrest him. The only difference with this situation is that
its not a pair of shoes that is at the centre of this malicious, deceitful and unprofessional
conduct. Its our family that these false accusations were being made against.
The referral that was made to the Fair Access Panel, (FAP) was a very significant step in the
continued attack of our family. Fair access Panel referrals are normally for problem families and
children with behavioural issues. There was no need for a fair access panel referral regarding our
family. The records show that on the 21st January 2011 a fair access panel was attended by Patsy
Montague (Manager for Family Solutions Service) regarding our family. We dont know who was
present or what was discussed at such a meeting, because as we said before we werent even
aware that a fair access panel referral was made regarding our family at the time. In any event we
believe that if we were to guess who were some of the attendees at the fair access panel meeting
we would not be far off the mark. However we are not in the business of guessing but I believe
you the reader know what we are saying. The fair access panel was now convened based on
another referral made by Mr Baker and not by the social worker who investigated the malicious

72

claims of Mr Baker. If there was any one in the position to make a referral to the fair access
panel then it would have been the social worker. However, there were no concerns raised during
her investigation or assessment of our family that warranted the need for a referral to a fair
access panel. We believe that the parties who had that fair access panel meeting were well aware
of their nefarious actions. Hence the reason we were not invited or informed of the meeting?
Why is it that we werent informed that a fair access panel referral was made? This fair access
panel deliberately set a horrendous and damaging chain of events into motion.
It appears very clear that the senior social workers investigation and her report were discarded.
(Fair access panel Fallacies)- On the 21 January 2011 the records show that fair access panel
noted that the children are not in school and there are relationship problems with the adults.
True Nature Of Events - The social workers report that was concluded on 17th December 2010
cited no Relationship problems with adults. It actually outlines under the heading Family and
Social relationships: From my observation the family appears to be close knit and the parents
appear to have a strong bond with their children by the way they interact with them and the way
the children respond.
Our application for new school places was submitted to Greenwich Council on 29 th December
2010 with a letter of support from the social worker and a letter from ourselves outlining the
reasons for removing our children from Charlton Manor Primary.
These misguided, reprehensible and ill-informed rogue professionals who took part in the
clandestine fair access panel meeting were now acting on the malicious machinations of Mr
Baker. It is clear they were communicating and actively discussing the fallacies that were being
peddled by Mr Baker. Our family was now being discussed by a bunch of rogue professionals
without our knowledge, and negative and mendacious information along with speculative
assumptions were being falsely presented as fact.

73

(Fair access panel Fallacies)- On the 21 January 2011 the records show that fair access panel
made a decision that Mr Plowright is not a very pleasant man.
True Nature Of Events (The social workers report raised no such issues and it is clear to see
that the professionals at this meeting were making personal judgements without any basis or
evidence to do so.
(Fair access panel Fallacies)- On the 21 January 2011, the records show that the fair access
panel concluded that the panel was concerned about these children. Conversation had with Mr
Steve Myles and he agreed for the case to be re-allocated for a social worker to address the
concerns.
True Nature Of Events- It is clear from the records and the facts I have outlined above that
malicious, inaccurate, derogatory and biased view were formed and cemented at this clandestine
gathering of the fair access panel. These rogue professionals who had never met us or interacted
with our family were now concerned for as they put it these children without any evidence or
reason to support there views.
Now let us not forget that the fair access panel was convened because Mr Baker still has concerns
and has voiced these concerns to social care. As outlined above. His concerns were investigated and
found to be without merit and the case closed. Let us also not forget that Mr Baker then
contacted Mr Ken Palmer to complain of his displeasure with the outcome of the professional
social worker who investigated the matter. Let us also not forget that Mr Ken Palmer then
contacted Mr Steve Myles Voicing Mr Bakers fake concerns and malicious views. Let us not
forget that Mr Steve Myles was the Professional Social workers manager. Let us also not forget
that the malicious concerns raised by Mr Baker were investigated by the social worker and a
report produced regarding her outcome on the 17 December 2010. Her report highlighted the
fact that there were no concerns regarding our family and the case was closed. Now ask yourself
how then is it that on the 21 January 2011 at a clandestine which should not have been convened
in the first place was negative remarks being made about our family? I believe the answer is clear.
This fair access panel started a detrimental chain of events which as affected us to this day. It is
clear from the records that, the fair access panel was now peddling in malicious, contemptuous,
biased and derogatory views regarding our family all courtesy of Mr Baker, Mr Steve Myles and
Mr Ken Palmer. Their putrid, malicious and speculative assumptions would now form part of

74

the information sent to the new school (Invicta Primary) where our children were offered places.
It is now clear that Invicta Primary School and staff accepted the contaminated and inaccurate
information that was presented as if they were valid and factual information being conveyed by a
panel of competent professionals. When, the truth of the matter was far more sinister. The
Putrid information passed to Invicta Primary was nothing more than the deluded and malicious
machinations of a clandestine gathering of rogue professionals.

The new school would have been misinformed from the outset that they had a problem family
heading their way and that there are ongoing safeguarding concerns regarding this family. Not
that this family had been through enough at the previous school where their daughters were
being bullied and the school failed to address the issues, their children were being probed and
picked on by the staff and children alike, the relationship between the school and the parents
ultimately broke down irrevocably, and the headteacher then maliciously created allegations and
made a malicious referral which was investigated and the case closed with a positive outcome
regarding the family. The outcome of which was that there were no concerns after which the
headteacher made a call to ken palmer and ken palmer then made a called Steve Myles. After
which a clandestine fair access panel was convened and the information you are now being
presented with is from this clandestine fair access panel meeting.

At the time we as parents had no clue that Mr Baker had any influence in Greenwich Council or
the fact that it was him who made the referral to the fair access panel. As stated above the
referral to the fair access panel was made because, Mr Tim Baker still has concerns and has voiced
these concerns to social care. Fair access panel

75

At the time we didnt even know what a fair access panel was. It is important that we point out
that the referral to the fair access panel was made after our application was handed to the
admissions department of the Royal Borough of Greenwich.
We really want you the reader to thoroughly understand what was taking place here and the
implications for our family of this fair access panel being convened under false pretences.
What then appeared to have transpired based on the records is that on the 7th Feburary 2011
records shows that a professionals meeting was held at Invicta Primary School. Again we had no
idea at the time that such a meeting had taken place. This is clear evidence that Mrs Corbett was
complicit and party to the malicious actions of Mr Baker even before our children started Invicta
Primary School she was having meetings about us without our knowledge. She has never
disclosed to us that she had this meeting on 7 January 2011. When our children started school
she presented the false persona as if she didnt even know our names. All the time this rogue was
having clandestine meetings about us in the background. We say meetings because we have no
idea how many such meetings occurred, at the moment we are just writing this book based on
the evidence and records that we have. What about the unrecorded meetings or the documents
that have been shredded in our case? What would they reveal? For all we know Mrs Corbett was
probably at the clandestine fair access panel meeting? However thats pure speculation we have
no evidence of that. Until this day we do not know what was discussed at these meetings.
However we have no doubt that it was not cupcakes and strawberries. The records show that the
outcome of that meeting was that Mr Steve Myles instructed Invicta Primary School to monitor
us. We have only found out about all these clandestine meetings behind our backs long after our
children were kidnapped in 2012. When some, not all, documents escaped in the bundled of
documents they painstaking release. The real question for us still is? How many more
clandestine meetings took place without our knowledge? All these people, oh! Sorry, all these
Professionals were making all sorts of plans and having all sorts of discussion about our family at
these clandestine meetings and for the entire time not one of these Professionals thought it
prudent to inform us of those meetings or offer us an invitation. Now ask yourself why would
professionals who have nothing to hide behave in such a manner? Could it just be that the
professionals who were party to these clandestine meetings were acting in an unprofessional
manner or knew that they were actually doing wrong and up to no good? Could it account for
the shredding of documents in our case by the Royal Borough of Greenwich? My grandma

76

always said whats in the dark shall one day come out into the light. No amount of shredding
of documents can stop the truth coming out. Us writing this book is testament to that!
On the 14 February was the first day of school at Invicta Primary for our daughters. We as
parents were looking forward to a fresh start for our girls. When we arrived at the school we
were met by The Mrs Cuff along with a host of other people. We were very surprised to see
these people and were not expecting our children first day to begin as it did. We were told that
this was a reintegration meeting and that they were there to discuss our daughters reintegration
into their new school. We now know that the reintegration pitch was a blatant lie. (At this point
we should point out that we had no idea at the time that this reintegration plan that was being
proposed was a fair access panel recommendation.)
Anyway, we had no idea what to expect at the new school and were hoping for a fresh start,
All the talk of reintegration would have been fine except that they had in the meeting a member
of staff from Charlton manner Joseph Turner-Wing. We asked what was he doing at this meeting
and at the time they claimed he worked for both schools. We had no way of verifying that at the
time and made it clear we do not want him around our children as this is a new school and fresh
start for our children. We should mention at this point that we have aware of Mr Turner-Wing
from Charlton manor an he always appeared to us to have an overtly close relationship to Mr
Baker and we saw his presence at the meeting of this new school for our children as
inappropriate and unnecessary. From that point we felt as though this was not turning out to be
the fresh start we had hoped for. In any event we decided that we were at a new school and
would give it our best shot for the sake of our children.
Mrs Cuff informed us on that day that as part of the schools policy children who attended the
school as part of in year admissions were offered reintegration so as to help them settle in. Now
considering that our daughters had just endured a traumatic experience at their previous school,
we actually thought that was a good idea at the time. However it is now clear to us that no such
school policy exists and reintegration was part of the fair access panel recommendations and had
nothing to do with helping our children to settle in.
It now appears to have been part of the monitoring activity regarding our family that Invicta
Primary School had agreed they would do at their clandestine Professionals meeting On the 7
February 2011. Mrs Corbett never disclosed to us when our children started attending Invicta
Primary or anytime thereafter that the school had agreed to monitor our family. The first day our

77

children started school would have been an appropriate time for her to outline that she had a
meeting at her school on the 7 February 2011, discussing our family and as a result she was told
to monitor us. She could have also taken that opportunity to inform us of her concerns if she
had any with the information if any that was presented to her at the clandestine meeting which
took place on 7 February 2011 and what was discussed at that meeting. However Mrs Corbett
said nothing. In fact, when we look back in hindsight we were deceived by Mrs Corbett from the
first day our children started attended Invicta Primary School. She had accepted misinformation
via the fair access panel and had already made an agreement to monitor us before ever even
meeting us. Upon meeting us she presented a false persona to gain our trust and acted as though
she didnt even know our names. When all the time in the background she had already accepted
the fair access panel malicious filled recommendations and agreed to monitor us. Now thats the
true definition of a Rogue Professional. If you ask us what the definition of devious is we would
say Mrs Corbett fits that definition perfectly.
Anyway, we reluctantly agreed to the reintegration plan. As part of the reintegration plan a
woman called Kate ODonell assisted the children with the reintegration into the new school.
Kate ODonell was not a staff member at Invicta Primary School and as we later found out she
was sent to the school as a result of the outcome of the clandestine fair access panel meeting.
Kate worked with our children shortly after they started school in February 2011 to the
beginning of April 2011, after which time she left. Shortly after her departure we noticed a
marked change in the behaviour of Mrs Corbett and other staff members. We as parents were
adamant that we would do everything possible to not let a reoccurrence of the negative
experience our children suffered at Charlton manor primary school happen again. Our children
had already been through enough and they were let down by their previous school. They had
suffered at the hands of bullies and also by unprofessional and vengeful teachers.
We were desperate to form a good relationship with Invicta Primary School, for the sake of our
children so that our girls might start to heal from the bad experience at Charlton manor Primary
school. So in the spirit of fostering good relations with Invicta Primary School and not have a
repeat of Charlton Manor School, we as parents devised a plan. It was simple but effective. Mrs
Plowright would do most of the interactions with the school, while Mr Plowright just got
involved if the situation really demands it. It appeared that both schools had a problem with Mr
Plowright so; We decided that Mr Plowright would stay out the way of the school. We thought,

78

hopefully, out of sight out of mind. This arrangement was working very well- for a while, or so
we thought, until it became a problem for the school. Knowing what we know now, our plan
did not make any difference whatsoever. The fact is Mr Bakers fair access panel had already
coloured the views of Invicta Primary school towards us as parents and everything we did was
viewed with suspicion and the accumulation of subjective judgments and untested tittle-tattle
was already in full swing.

On 9th June 2011, we were informed of a family bereavement and our girls did not attend school
on the morning of 10th June 2011, this had been their first absence since they started Invicta
primary in February 2011. We spoke to the school that morning and informed them there was
bereavement in the family and our children would not be coming into school that day. Shortly
afterwards at 9:30 am or thereabouts, we received a call from Mrs Marie Corbett, she had not
called to offer her condolences, but to express her concern regarding the absence of our girls.
Understandably, we were stunned to hear Mrs Corbett contact father expressing how
concerned she had been because our girls had not attended school. When father explained the
reason for their absence, Mrs Corbett requested that the girls be brought into school for half
the day after lunch and that there is a form to fill in to request leave of absence. It was at this
point it became crystal clear that something sinister was definitely going on. This was beyond
unacceptable. We found her behaviour disrespectful and inconsiderate. We had bereavement in
our family and all this woman could say is she has concerns and that we should still send our
children in for half a day. Our children started school in February 2011 and 10th June 2011 was
the first time they were ever been absent from school and it was due to a family bereavement.
It was very alarming to us at the time to have a headteacher of a new school for our children and
very new to our family for that matter where our children had only been in attendance at the
time for nearly four months, to claim she is concern because they have not attended for one
day due to a death in our family. Especially the fact they have not been absent in the almost four
months since they started attending her school. The word concern means; there is some sort
of worry or fear of something being wrong. Due to the fact that Mrs Corbett had accepted to
monitor our family without our knowledge or consent, it is now very clear why she had chosen
to use the word concern.

79

This rogue disregarded the fact that there was bereavement and failed to express any
condolences but had been adamant that we send our girls into school for half the day after
lunch. The records highlight and we quote; Office alerted me to the girls absence today.
Mrs Corbett was concerned about the absence. We believe Mrs Corbett has demonstrated
herself as a cunning individual and we as parents were unaware at the time that we as a family
were being monitored by the school, Mrs Corbett on the other hand, had already agreed to
monitor us as a family based on flawed information from the fair access panel (and as we have
now come to find out there were regular meetings being held at the school with Mr Ken
Palmer behind our backs). Now, at the time we were very confused as to why a headteacher
needed to be concerned for our girls? Or have the office alert her to the fact that our
children were absent from school? We found the choice of words revealing and very disturbing
and from a school which our children have only attended for nearly four months!
We were upset, and at this point we felt as though this was turning into another Charlton Manor
Scenario. Mrs Corbett response to our family bereavement was cold and unsympathetic. During
the call we outlined that we require an urgent meeting with her on Monday 13th June 2011, where
we planned to discuss how we felt about her actions.
On Monday 13th June 2011, we attended a meeting with Mrs Corbett and Ms Vikki Cuff. We
outlined clearly how we felt about the manner in which Mrs Corbett behaved and her choice of
words. We outlined that we take the use of the word concern very seriously. We further
outlined that we are the parents of our children and we found it offensive that Mrs Corbett
would be as disrespectful, offensive and condescending as to claim she was concerned for our
children, because they were absent from school for a day and in the care of their parents. We
outlined that our children have been in our care from the day they were born, and we have been
providing them with love and care ever since. We made clear to Mrs Corbett that she was not
their when our children took their first step, said the word mum for the first time, changed their
nappies, kept them warm, wake up at all hours of the night to attend to their needs, look after
them when they got sick, experienced their first smile, hear them speak their first words or many
of the other countless joyful moments we have shared with our children. We pointed out that
they (Invicta staff) are the strangers to our family and if anyone should be concerned, its us as
parents being concerned about (Invicta staff) who are still strangers to our family. We also
outlined to Mrs Corbett and Ms Vikki Cuff at this meeting that we were worried that our
experiences with Charlton Manor was now happening all over again. Therefore, we as parents

80

took the opportunity to try and suggest steps we could take to address the situation to avoid it
from reoccurring. Our suggested steps are outlined below:

Clear communication between the school and us as parents.

The school should inform in a clear manner regarding any issues they may have with our
children in a clear context.
Any report should include a what, how, where and when. So as to avoid
misinterpretations.
The school should refrain from the use of obscure or misleading descriptions.
We inform Mrs Corbett that communication is a two way street and we would do our
part in this new arrangement and talk to the school about any concerns we may have
about the school.

We concluded the meeting outlining that we would desperately like our relationship with this
school to work as we came to this school for a fresh start. However, little did we know that all
our efforts made not the slightest bit of difference, because as is now clear to us Mrs Corbett had
already took the corroded baton of malice which was past to her by Charlton Manor, via the Fair
Access Panel and was now and active participant in the relay of relentless pursuit of our family.
Even at the above meeting when we discussed the need for openness an transparency Mrs
Corbett did not take the opportunity to come clean and inform us that she had been told to
monitor us.
.

Summary.
Charlton Manor Primary school and is where the malicious referral originated and essentially
where our problem as a family started. Subsequently, a Senior Social Worker namely Mrs R, who
was assigned to investigate the matter closed the case and outlined in her report that she had no
concerns. Relationship between parents and school broke down irrevocably, parents made a
decision to take children out of the school. Parents applied for new school places through the
Royal borough of Greenwich admissions department. After which, Mr Baker enlisted the help of
his contact in the Royal borough of Greenwich namely, Mr Ken palmer who then contacted Mr
Steve Myles who was the manager to Mrs R, who had done her investigation and closed the case.

81

Subsequently, a fair access panel was formed by the Royal borough of Greenwich, as it was
stated that Mr Baker still has concerns. Our children and our family were now being pursued
by a malicious headteacher. Fair access meeting held without parents knowledge. Fair access
panel had made negative assumptions regarding parents based on negative information tendered
by Charlton manor. The outcome of fair access panel negative information formed the basis of
information sent to Invicta. Invicta Primary School formed biased views against us as a family,
before our children even began attending school and agreed to monitor us without our
knowledge. Mrs Corbett Headteacher, failed in her professional responsibility to be fair and
impartial from the outset and was having clandestine meetings behind our back without ever
revealing to us as parents that these meetings were taking place. Mr Ken Palmer was one of the
parties who attended meetings at Invicta primary school regarding our family without our
knowledge.

82

Intentionally blank

83

Chapter 3
The week of 26th March 2012
March 26th 2012 was a Monday
The Easter holiday was fast approaching and we were excited because we were now in a position
to finally move home. We had bought a new car and were preparing to leave. We have been
viewing houses, the week before and had taken our children with us to view some of these
places. They were naturally exited and asked tons of questions, as our children normally do;
whats this? Whats that? When are we moving? We like this house! We explained to our children
that we would be moving soon and that they would not be going to Invicta Primary School after
the school holidays. We could have left before the Easter break which started on 30th March
2012 an usually last for a duration of two weeks. However, we decided that would not be fair to
our children, as they would not get to say goodbye to their school friends. So we decided to let
them attend school up until the time they could say their goodbyes before the Easter break.
On the Wednesday 28th March 2012, it was a routine school day like any other. Drop our
children off at school and at the end of school collect our children as usual. Nothing was said to
us by anyone, not Mrs Corbett, no one, it was just a routine school day.

29th March 2012 (The Day of the Kidnap)

On the morning of the 29th March 2012, our children were dropped off at school as routinely as
the day before, kisses and hugs and see you after school. We had no idea that this would be the
day that our lives would be changed forever and the day our children would be kidnapped and
we would not see them for months afterwards. We were about to get a taste of true unfiltered
deceit and corruption on a scale we never even thought was possible, all this to be committed in
the United Kingdom of Great Britain 2012. The actions of all these Rogue Professionals are
what can only be classified as a different kind of wickedness. The events that unfolded on this
date and afterwards will remain with us and our four children for the rest of our lives.

84

On the evening of the 29th March 2012, we went to collect our girls from school as usual. My
wife went in to collect our girls and I (father) waited in the car with our son, Daniel who was
only 3 years old at the time and did not attend Invicta Primary School. Shortly afterwards I saw
my wife returning to the car, without our girls and she informed me that Mrs Corbett is refusing
to bring the girls. My immediate reaction was to say what is it this time? We took our son from
his car seat and we all walked into the school together.
When we entered the school and walked up to the office we were met by Mrs Corbett and Mr
Maslin (Deputy headteacher). I (father) asked where are my children? Then Mrs Corbett
responded by saying that there has been a disclosure and she had contacted Social Services. We
asked are our girls ok, because at this point we had no idea what the disclosure was made. We
were getting very anxious now, as all sorts of thoughts kept running throughout heads. Did
someone at the school hurt my child? Or were they injured and the school was trying to coverup something? Remember, by this time we had no trust for the school. So we asked her (Mrs
Corbett) what is the disclosure? She said she cant tell us, her response got us even more anxious,
as we now believed Mrs Corbett was really trying to cover-up for someone. We had no idea what
was really going on and Mrs Corbetts very vague replies and unsettled behaviour made us very
uncomfortable. We demanded that she bring our daughters to us immediately, she again refused
however, this time she stated that the police and social worker were on their way. It was now
clear that something serious was about to unfold, what could have happened at school between
us dropping our children to school and us collecting them that would warrant the Police or social
services being called?
The situation was getting very heated as we were not happy about the fact that Mrs Corbett was
refusing to bring our children to us, yet she failed to say why, except that a disclosure has been
made and the Social services and Police were on their way. We outlined to Mrs Corbett that the
Army could be on their way, we dont care just bring our children to us. She then asked If we
brought the children, will you leave the school with them? We as parents found this question
very strange, however, we kept repeating to her to bring our children to us. Mrs Corbett then left
and we waited in anticipation to see our children. Mrs Corbett returned and stated that the social
worker was on the phone. I (father) went and spoke to the social worker on the phone, she
identified herself as Marie Morris. I asked her if she had instructed Mrs Corbett to detain my
children and she said yes. I asked her for what reason? And she claimed she will discuss it when
she arrived. I told her to tell Mrs Corbett to bring our children to us immediately because neither

85

she nor Mrs Corbett had any rights to detain our children. Marie Morris then asked the same
question that Mrs Corbett had asked earlier; if they brought the children to us will we leave the
school with them? I told her no, we would not take our children and leave the school, we just
want to see our children to make sure they are ok. I then said to Mrs Corbett go get our children
to which she replied the social worker will be here shortly and we should just wait. I was on the
verge of losing my temper at this stage and then I saw my son in the arms of my wife and
thought differently. Our son was just 3 years old at the time and he is a happy child. However, in
the midst of what was now unfolding, I saw a sad and confused look on his face, as if he was
asking us where are my sisters? So I immediately thought that he should not be exposed to this.
Our son and our daughters have never been left with anyone before, not a child minder or baby
sitter, further our 3 year old son had not attended any nursery as yet as he was not due to start
until September 2012. Most people might find it hard to believe, however, we are very protective
of our children and have never left them in the care of a babysitter or friend since the day they
were born. My wife and I take turns to look after our children. My wife is a full-time mother and
dedicated her life to her children. She had not been away from her children since they were born,
only to go to the supermarket and when they went to school or other short absences, and in
those absences I am the one who would look after our children. We decided long ago that we
would be responsible for our children until they were old enough to be responsible for
themselves. With all the stories we heard of people coercing and abusing children we have always
been very protective of ours. Every family dynamic is different and this was ours. The above fact
was not taken to be true by these professionals when it was disclosed to them by us and our
children.
In any event, I left the school with our son to get him out of what was turning into a highly tense
and stressful situation. The school was well aware that we always came to pick up our daughters
with our son and it was very strategic and deliberate for them to pounce and ambush us in the
evening and not the morning as my wife would normally drop the children to school by herself
in the mornings. However, we would all go together to collect them in the evenings (even
though I Mr Plowright would normally wait in the car). The first time my son was left with a
stranger was that day. I could not allow my son to be in the presence of what was turning out to
be a seriously unnerving situation by the second. So I quickly took him to our neighbour who
had small children of their own as well, whilst my wife waited at the school. I shall never forget
till the day I die the look in his eyes-It haunts me till this day. His eyes were filled with tears and

86

he was looking straight at me as if silently sayings please dont leave me. I had no idea that was
the last time I would see my son for 3 months.
Upon arrival back at the school and as I was getting out of the car, I had noticed that I did not
take the satellite navigation off of the dash and placed it into the glove compartment as I usually
would, and it was in full view. So I quickly pulled it off and because I was in a rush I tried to
bundle it in the glove compartment. It would not fit inside the compartment therefore I had to
remove cologne I had inside to make it fit. It was after removing the cologne that I spotted the
recording device I had bought previously to record any discussion or future meetings we had
with the school because they were turning out to be liars and deceivers. I grabbed it quickly and
headed inside the school. My wife was standing by herself at this point; she then updated me as
to what had occurred in my absence.
We then started searching the school grounds and headed in the direction my wife said they
went. We then came to an out-building, a converted container which had glass doors at the front;
through a window in this building I could see my eldest daughter, Avery sitting slouched on a
chair in the corner of a room in the building, she looked sad. There were already police officers
at the gate and in the school yard. So we approached the door and knocked and were let into
this container converted space. There were a number of people already in the room, and there
was a large table in the middle of the room and chairs were all around the table. The building was
cold and badly lit. Upon entering the room, we asked where are our children? and a man in
what looks like a cheap and badly coloured washed out grey suit asked us if we could have a seat
around the table they would explain what was going on. We sat around the table and were joined
by the man in the cheap suit and two women. I could already workout from his mannerism that
the man in the cheap suit was with the police, however, I did not know which, of the two
women was the social worker I had spoken to over the phone. It was clear by their actions and
what my wife had disclosed to me earlier regarding the unprofessional manner in which they
conducted themselves and their entire presentation that they were either highly unprofessional or
rogues. I took the recording device out of my pocket fiddled with it not knowing how to turn it
on, because this was the first time it was being used. I informed everyone that it was on and with
their given consent I started to record.
They did not introduce themselves to us by name and it was way into the conversation that my
wife reminded me to ask for their names. (In hindsight my wife really saw them for what they

87

were before I had). They failed to identify themselves on the recording at first and I had to ask
them their names). These rogues were a very tricky bunch, because had they not confirmed their
names, then it would make it easy for them to deny it was them on the recording. However, by
confirming their names they were locked in and had to stand by whatever they said.
The recorded conversation at the school is crucial and literally saved our lives! To us it was a
conversation; to them it was an investigation. We were sat around the table with Marie Morris
(Social Worker), Detective Bret Cooper and Detective Carla Cullinane. All these professionals
mannerism had changed since the recording device was produced and their tone shifted
significantly. DC Cooper took the lead in alleging that our eldest daughter, Avery had made a
disclosure to a school teacher which he investigating. We were totally focused on the
conversation and had not realised that the room was now occupied by a very increasing number
of uniformed police officers. They were standing inside and outside of the room and were acting
very unsettled. I was in mid conversation when the recording device made a bleeping type sound
and then went off. DC Cooper realised instantly that the recording device was now off and no
longer recording and immediately stood up and said I am arresting you on suspicion of assault.
The uniform police officers who were standing at the door were now all of a sudden standing
behind me. I asked where are my children, then DC Cooper responded by saying Police
Protection. I had no idea what that was at the time. A uniform female police officer placed
handcuffs on me and I was taken to a waiting police van parked outside of the school. At that
point I (mother) noticed Mr Maslin, Deputy headteacher standing next to Mrs Corbett
headteacher watching. My wife was not arrested and walked with me (by now I was handcuffed)
to the waiting police van. After I was placed in the van my wife walked towards our car which
was parked right behind the police van. I then saw DC Cullinane and two uniformed female
officers running towards my wife. My wife was shouted at by the officers asking wheres the
baby? was at that point, I realised that with all the mayhem going on I did not tell her which
one of our neighbours I had left Daniel, my son with. The simple fact is, we had no idea that I
would have been arrested at the school that day or that whatever the disclosure was would lead
to any of us being arrested. I thought that we would all be going home together, that evening.
Our children were all happy when we dropped them off in the morning and there was no
problems at home, we were all looking forward to moving over the Easter holidays so we had no
reason to believe otherwise. I thought that whatever the school was planning this time, they have
really crossed the line. There would be no turning back with this one.

88

The conversation that took place in the school before the device went dead Protected us from
the lies that appeared to were being concocted. Considering that these rogues lie at the drop of a
hat, if we had not brought the recording device the allegations to be of a different order entirely.
Throughout the entire conversation at the school we were told practically nothing except lies and
being deceived. DC Cooper, Marie Morris and DC Cullinane, failed to disclose what the alleged
disclosure was and behaved in what we can only describe as very vague and evasive. We were at
our wits end with the vague, evasive and belligerent behaviour of these professionals.
All the above professionals claimed they were there to carry out a Section 47 investigation. At
the time we had no clue what section 47 was. However, based on the fact that they clearly
allowed the school to unlawfully detain three children and hid them in the school they had lost
credibility with us from the start and their attitude on arrival didnt alter our views. They just
quoted Section 47 as if it gave them some sort of authority and we should know what it is. Their
attitude was very dismissive and unprofessional. They claimed this Section 47 gave them the
right to question our children without our consent. Throughout the beginning of the
conversation they claimed they had not spoken to our children as yet, and then later in the
conversation they all claimed to have spoken to the children. My wife and I looked at each other
in utter amazement at these professional who were now revealed to be true rogues professionals.
They blatantly lied about what they had done and lucky for us it was on record. All that was
going through my head at the time is where my children? What reason do these professionals
have to lie to us? What do they have to gain from lying to us?
After being arrested at the school my wife and I were taken to Plumstead Police station in the
Royal Borough of Greenwich. We were in a state of shock by this time, and we were now in state
of panic and worry regarding where our children were. I thought how distressed they must be
waiting for us to collect them from school. My wife was going to make them Lasange for dinner
that evening and they were all excited. Our children love when my wife makes Lasnge (I do too),
they love eating it with garlic bread and coleslaw too. They would always complement their
mother when she made them their favourite dishes (and lasagne was one of their favourite) by
saying to their mother she is the best cooker in the world! They even reminded us that
morning to make sure we got their favourite garlic bread to go with it. I was now very angry that
this had gone too far. Just as we were now in a position to move on with our lives the school had

89

pounced. I thought the effects this will have on the children who would be waiting at school to
be picked up and had no idea where we were or what had happen to us would be difficult to
soothe. It dawned on me and stamped into my beliefs that I was dealing with an absolute wicked
bunch of individuals, who had no care or regard for our children. I knew from the outset that
something was desperately really wrong. We were arrested and bundled off to the police station
without having a clue as to why. For the entire time we were only being told that a disclosure has
been made. However, the lies we were told by the detectives and the social worker at the school
(They claimed they didnt speak to our children then afterwards admitting they did) had me
feeling even more confused and distrustful of these people. Then I made the decision not to
trust any of these detectives or social workers as they had started out with a lie.
We have saying in Jamaica that goes: gone bad a morning cant go good a evening. I thought of
my son and the impact for him would have been the hardest because he was only 3 years old at
the time. I decided that he was better off where I left him than with any of these cunning,
calculating and deceitful, lying so-called professionals. I remembered the look in his eyes when I
was leaving him with the neighbour and I got so overwhelmed with emotions, my eyes filled with
tears. The events that had just unfolded and us now being in a police station felt unreal.

90

Intentionally blank

91

Chapter 4
Upon arrival at the police station
Upon arrival at the police station I (father) was taken to a cell and sometime later brought to an
interview room. It was while I was sat inside the interview room being interviewed, was the first
time I was told snippets of what the all so-called disclosure was based on. Some of the questions
I barely managed to hear; I was in a state of shock and anger at this stage. The detectives,
namely DC Cooper and DC Cullinane, were at this point asking all sorts of what I perceived to
be silly question which they knew the answers to such as, where do you live? and how many
children do you have? I had already given them all my address details when they were checking
me in at the front desk. They had my drivers Licence. Further, they were fully aware that all my
children belonged to my wife and me, as a result of our consummation. I was in no mood for a
silly discussion with these two detectives therefore; I offered a no comment interview because
it was clear to me that I was dealing with deceitful rogue professionals that cared nothing about
our children. Their attitude at the school was disgraceful, biased and unprofessional, and to go as
far as detaining our children then arresting me and my wife for no clear reason was
unforgiveable.
The next day, Friday 30th March 2012, I was released on bail, with bail conditions not to go
within 500 metres of Invicta primary school and to have no contact with our four children who
were now labelled according to the bail conditions prosecution witnesses. Our mobile
phones were seized and we were still in a daze.
We have to highlight how detrimental and inhumane the bail conditions imposed on us by
the deceitful DC Cooper ultimately caused untold distress and suffering to our family. The
bail conditions were a blatant abuse of process which violated not only our article 3 & 8
rights but were also immoral and cruel.
No one had told us where our children were and the bail conditions outlined that we should not
contact or interfere with prosecution witnesses (our children). My wife was released shortly after
with basically the same bail conditions as me. We were both confused as to the new label that

92

was placed on our children. We were told that if we tried to contact or speak with our children
directly or indirectly we would be in violation of our bail conditions and we would be arrested.
In hindsight the actions of these rogue detectives were very calculating and wicked to place bail
conditions on us as parents to deny our children the right to see us and denying us our rights to
see them. The other condition of the bail not to go within 500 metres of the school was very
strategic, and would make it appear to other parents at the school that we as parents were guilty
of some crime, because we were no longer able to come to the school and the schools version of
events would be the only version of events being told to other parents at the school. As one
social Worker Mrs Teresa Amprako-Appiah made clear to us when we told her to remove our
children from the school, she said How would it look if we did that now? We believe Teresas
response sums it up succinctly.

The bail conditions imposed by DC Cooper that day, set a most horrible chain of events into
motion and compounded even further an already dreadful situation for our family, especially our
four children.
What we as parents would later find out is that the Royal Borough of Greenwich Social Services
department returned our children to the very same school Invicta Primary school. (The entire
referral of the 28th March 2012 was not only malicious; it appears the entire kidnap of our
children was actually planned). We later found out that, the next day 30th March 2012 the Royal
Borough of Greenwich returned our daughters to Invicta primary school by force and without
our consent, and kept them there for over a year to come. Against our children and us as
parents wishes.
We were very fortunate that I (father) had brought the recording device into the school on 29th
March 2012, because it is now clear to us that we are dealing with a group of professionals who
we believe and is clear are pathological liars. If it wasnt for the recording that was taken on the
29th March 2012 at the school, we would have been open to all sorts of further malicious
accusations and lies, which consequently would have us in prison! Mrs Corbett claimed we were
aggressive on the 29th March 2012 when we came to collect our children. On the same day she
falsely imprisoned them. The fact is we were not aggressive, however, anyone would probably
believe that any parent who went to collect their children and was denied access to their children
would create havoc. On the balance of probabilities that would most likely be an accurate

93

assumption in some cases to make, however, in our case it was not as we were calm and
respectful as is proven by the recording that was taken on that day. Now, with evidence to boot,
Mrs Corbett couldnt help herself and was not about to concede and accept what was clearly
obvious that she had lied and exaggerated our presentation on that day. She instead now has
changed her tune to what can only be described as a contradiction of terms and one we have
never heard before, Mrs Corbett then claimed that we were aggressively calm. Well, we are no
experts but those words dont seem to go together. Her actions were nothing short of a
desperate attempt by a callous, cunning and unprofessional Headteacher in an attempt to try and
justify her unlawful and immoral actions. As said above. The real question is this, what if we had
not brought the recording device on the 29 march 2012? A lot of innocent parents get wrongly
accused by these rogues all the time, and when it is your word against theirs they lie and side with
each other. But a recording does not lie. It is now clear and our belief that we were dealing with a
very, calculating and manipulative person.
If we had not brought the recording device on the 29 march 2012, we are certain the flood gates
of false accusation would be flung open and we would be open to all sorts of further malicious
allegations. Which may have included: Our staff was violently attacked and we were verbally
abused, we feared for our lives, our staff had to hide in the school and were cowering behind
the desks or the parents presentation was of such it caused us significant alarm, fear and
distress. Two of the favourite accusation rogues love to make against innocent and
unsuspecting parents is alarm and distress or harassment. In our situation the recording device
put a halt to all that nonsense.
Based upon the overwhelming deceitful and unlawful acts committed against our family by Mrs
Corbett and the other Rogue professionals, we firmly believe she and the others would have
made further claims in an attempt to cover their actions. She has already shown she has the
propensity and clearly lacks any moral compass. Mrs Corbett actions exceeded the threshold of
basic compassion and humane treatment for our children. By disregarding established child
protection guidelines and breaking the law then ultimately falsely imprisoning our children
without considering the effects this would have on them, is outright reprehensible. They were
expecting to be picked up from school by their parents and were then held and detained and
falsely imprisoned by Mrs Corbett for her own deviously wicked and spiteful gratification.

94

Key Point
We were arrested on Thursday 29th March 2012, and it was not until late July 2012 that we got
the formal referral form outlining the alleged disclosures that were claimed to have been made to
the Royal Borough of Greenwich Children Services by Mrs Corbett on the Wednesday 28th
March 2012. These Rogue professionals had ample time to concoct their false story and even
then, made a mess of it. We have come to find out a very serious tactic that rogues deploy on
unsuspecting parents. They will withhold doing their statements until the other party (parents)
complete theirs, and then they will be in a better position of how to word their statement to
make it appear true. By refusing to tell us the nature of the disclosure or provide a written
statement of the said disclosure, however, arrest us and take us to the police station and ask
father a host of questions (mother was not interviewed by police at the station just unlawfully
detained against her will) regarding our home and life, then it would be much easier to know
what accusations would be best to put on their referral form. Our daughters made no disclosure
to any of these people on the 28th March 2012 or any other time for that matter.

Points to Highlight
1. The school claimed that on the 28th March 2012 our eldest daughter, Avery disclosed to a
learning mentor named Mrs Webber that dad hits her.
2. This allegation of dad hits her claimed to be made on 28 March 2012, then morphed into
punch in the face at the weekend. The school later claimed that on the 28th March 2012 our
eldest daughter, disclosed to Mrs Webber that she and her sister, Cassie were punched in the
face at the weekend and made to face the wall.
3. The school claimed that on the 28th March 2012 our eldest daughter disclosed to Mrs Webber
that as a result of the punch in the face that occurred over the weekend her back was sore
on the 28th March 2012.
It appears the conspirers were not sure which date to run with at first, therefore to be safe the
at the weekend appeared a safer option to run with at the time. This later morphed into 24th
March 2012. So for clarity we would like to point out to you the reader that the 24 th March 2012

95

was a Saturday. Also notice the type of allegations by the school: dad hits her, Punch in the
face, and her back was sore.
The school claimed the above was disclosed to them on the 28th March 2012. Now, as we stated
above nothing was said to us regarding the above so-called referral when we went to collect our
children on 28th March 2012 and our children returned home with us as usual. No one from the
school or anyone else for that matter raised any concerns (and we know how Invicta Primary
school namely Mrs Corbett likes to raise concerns).
Even when we dropped our children off on the 29th March 2012 in the morning no concerns
were raised with us regarding any disclosure whatsoever. The clear and simple fact of the matter
is that the school created the allegations and made a malicious referral. It was clear to everyone
involved from the outset that the punch in the face and other claims made by the school was
not only implausible and malicious but also impossible. You the reader ask yourself a few simple
questions and you may start to realise the absurdity and malicious nature of the situation and
ultimately how all the subsequent professionals who got involved failed in their duties and got
this so disastrously wrong!

Important questions!
1. Why were our children allowed to go home on the 28th March 2012? If such a
serious disclosure was made punch in the face on two children and the other
allegations as listed above?
2. Why werent the parents informed on the 28th March 2012 about the so called
disclosures?
3. Why werent the parents informed of the alleged disclosure when they dropped
their children off at school on the morning of or during the day of the 29 th March
2012?

96

Mrs Corbett- Headteacher Invicta Primary School

The simple fact is, our daughters never made any disclosures whatsoever to any
member of staff at Invicta Primary School. Dont take our word for it though,
continue reading and make up your own mind. Mrs Corbett and her band of vile
incompetents were not as clever as they thought they were at covering their dirty
deeds. What we have come to realise about evil and vindictive people is that there
actions ultimately reveal there true intent.
You can fool some people sometime but you cant fool all the people all the
time!

97

Mrs Corbett is at the centre of this entire tragedy and injustice that we as a family have endured.
Especially the trauma caused to our children by this entire ordeal Why do you say that? We
can still hear some asking. Well let us break it down for those who havent really got it yet. Mrs
Corbett is not only responsible for falsely imprisoning our children in the school on the 29th
March 2012, no, she is has turned herself into the head cook and bottle washer of this whole
unfortunate event. Mr Baker is what we believe and can only describe as a very despicable and
vindictively spiteful character, however, even he was not as stupid and reckless as Mrs Corbett
was in detaining our children unlawfully. Mrs Corbett allowed herself to become an unwitting
accomplice in the continued malicious pursuit of our family.
When the police attended Invicta primary school on the 29th March 2012 and kidnapped our
four children. The first time we ever saw them again is outlined below:

Mother first saw our youngest three

which is Daniel, Cassie and Beth

Saturday 19th May 2012.

Mother first saw our eldest child,

Avery

16th June 2012

Father first saw Daniel

Father first saw Cassie
Father first saw our eldest child Avery
We all saw each other again for the
first time as a family on

30th May 2012

02nd June 2012
12th July 2012
12th July 2012

98

There was no justification for denying our children and us as parents from seeing
our children. Throughout the entire time between March 29th 2012 12th July 2012,
we had no idea where our children were. The torture was unbearable.
Now back to Mrs Corbetts role in the continued denial of our children from
seeing us. As outlined above we were both arrested at Invicta Primary school on
the 29th March 2012. On the 30th March we were released from the police station
with the following bail conditions being imposed:
1. Not to approach, communicate or interfere with prosecution witnesses, either directly
or indirectly, namely Avery, Beth, Cassie or Daniel Plowright
2. Not to go within 500 meters of Invicta Primary School, Invicta Road SE3 7HE.

As stated above, in the mean time, on the 30th March 2012, the Royal Borough of Greenwich in
its infinite wisdom, were busy returning our children back to the exact same place they were
falsely imprisoned and hidden in the school by Mrs Corbett. Until this day we are still disturbed
by the fact they returned our children back to Invicta primary school the very next day without
our consent and as documents reveal, against our childrens wishes also. The Royal Borough of
Greenwich nor Invicta nor the police had any legal authority to have our children in their care
on the 30th March 2012 or anytime for that matter and to return our children to the school where
the so-called allegations originated is morally reprehensible . From a True Professionals
perspective and we have spoken to a few, there response is always the same utter shock then
they make clear that at the very least no unbiased investigation could have possibly been
conducted. However, as you will later find out there was no intent on investigating anything.
Even the blind could have seen that there was something overtly sinister going on.
They returned our children back to the school the very next day and unknown to us at the time
was shuttling our children all over the place, to only God knows where! Where did our children
sleep? What did they eat? Were they warm? Were they cold? Who comforted them when they
cried and asked for their mummy and daddy? Until this day they Royal Borough of
Greenwich(RBG) have failed to provide us with that information. Even writing this now fills us

99

with so much distress, because even 2 years and nearly 8 months later and numerous requests,
the (RGB) refuse to tell us or provide the information regarding where our four children are or
were. Who do these people think they are? The distress caused to our children is immeasurable
and at the time of kidnap would have been unbearable. What sort of people treats children in
this way? When we found out that they had returned our children to the same school, we were
livid and were going straight their to get our children regardless of any bail conditions, it was a
friend of ours who stopped us and let us know that we should not play into their hands, because
had we attended the school to get our children we would be in violation of the bail conditions
and consequently, would have been arrested and sent to prison for violating bail conditions.
The situation was so absurd; we were prevented from seeing our children by bail conditions
which should not have been placed on us in the first place, while the people who had our
children had no lawful authority to have them! This is abuse of process on a different level.
The Police, nor the Local Authority had no Emergency Protection Order or no Section 20
agreement , no Interim Care Order nothing whatsoever to justify them having our children. Yet
they were there shuttling our children all over the place and returned them to the kidnappers
while denying us as parents with lawful authority access to our children.
We as parents have full parental responsibility for our four children. The unlawful state of affairs
is one thing; however, when did common sense and morality evade these people?!
Well, we know the answer to that question, no headteacher would have been callous enough to
detain children in the manner she had on the 29th March 2012.

100

Point to mention
Mrs Corbett never just stopped at falsely imprisoning our children; she facilitated the continued
kidnap and shuttling around of our children. Readers, we firmly believe Mrs Corbett by her
actions has reveal that she cares nothing whatsoever about children. Just think what type of
human being denies children from seeing their parents? And then hides them in a school? She
was not thinking about the wellbeing of our children nor the emotional trauma she would be
causing our children by her actions. One parent reported to us that our son was brought to the
school and he was crying and extremely distressed. Our son doesnt attend Invicta Primary
school and should not have been brought there after he was kidnapped. It was reported to us
that our son was so distressed and making a scene that they (social services) stopped bringing
him to the school altogether. It is clear that our son, Daniel has associated the school with the
negative experience. The last day he saw his parents were as a result of events that happened at
the school. To think of the absolute trauma that this experiences as caused our son is
unthinkable and for a 3 year old it would have been complete emotional torture, he would have
remembered that on that day (29th March 2012) would have been the very day everything he had
become familiar with all his life was turned upside down, no reason why he couldnt see us,
nothing! None of these people had any concern for the impact of their actions upon our
children who were all under the age of 10 years old at the time. Our son was three years old. The
audacity to kidnap our children and return them back into the arms of the very people who
kidnapped them and then denied them access to their parents is what you classify as a cruel and
contemptible wickedness. The records show these people had our children in the school on
Friday 30th March 2012, from 8am in the morning (school starts at 9pm in the morning) until
6pm in the evening (school finishes at (3:30pm) our children were at the school for a total of 10
hours! Thats two hours more than a working adults 8 hour shift at work-and we are talking
about children!!! After such a traumatising experience, why was it thought necessary to have our
children attend school for 10 hours? The Royal Borough of Greenwich Social Services should
have seen the situation for what it was and returned our children home immediately, however
the very least was to keep them away from the school and put a stop to their unlawful actions.
These incompetents at the Royal Borough of Greenwich appeared to have thought these sorts of
immoral, callous and unlawful actions were okay. There actions were not only disgustingly
horrid, but unlawful and illegal. We will be covering some of the legal ramifications below;
however, we would like to highlight the nature and callous attitudes of these people. When did

101

common sense and moral integrity vanish from these rogue professionals? There is no excuse for
their callous actions. Every parent who has children attending Invicta Primary school should be
aware of the callous and cold character of Mrs Corbett. There is no plausible deniability for the
actions of Mrs Corbett or any of these Rogue professionals. From the outset we made clear to all
that the school had fabricated these allegations. Yet, they thought it prudent to return the
children back to the school. The record shows our children told the second social worker
namely, Ms Alison Mc Donald that they did not want to return to Invicta Primary School, even
us as parents pleaded for the removal of our children from the school after we found out that
they were keeping our children there. Remember, we have parental consent and these people
have no lawful authority to have our children and our children should have been removed from
the school immediately. Did anyone listen? No! As one social worker Theresa Amprako-Appiah
put it How would it look if we removed the children from the school? That sums up their
approach to dealing with the situation. Not the wellbeing of our children, but instead how would
it look for the school. Every effort to cover the wickedly callous and immoral actions of Mrs
Corbett and her staff has been taken against us as parents and when you read further, you will
see just what lengths these rogues will go to in their failed attempts to discredit us as parents and
cover their actions.
This entire situation is very stressful for us to say the least. Just imagine having your children
kidnapped in an instant and the police hand over your children to the kidnappers. This was a
torturous experience for our children and us and one we will all never forget.
Mrs Corbett and all the Rogue Professionals who facilitated her are named in this book. They
all appear by their very actions to be void of any human decency or moral dignity. We believe
they are all criminals of the lowest order. These are not atrocities committed only against adults,
these are atrocities committed against children. It takes a deviously wicked and calculating person
to do what Mrs Corbett has done and it is our belief that she is exactly that. This is the worst
kind of atrocity that can be committed by a headteacher or anyone who occupies a position of
trust; our children are innocent of Mrs Corbett lurid machinations and vindictive actions. How
did she possibly think she and her band of Rogue professionals could have gotten away with this
is beggars belief! These people need to realise that the world has changed and we are now living
in the world of the internet i.e. social media and other technological advances. As we outlined
earlier in the book suppressing wrong doing and cover-ups are a much harder today than it was
back then. No matter how much manoeuvring and threats are used to try and suppress the

102

truth. It finds its way out. Some parents are afraid for whatever reason to speak out. We can
understand that, but we believe that only serves to allow these Rogue Professionals to perpetrate
there wickedness on others.
There is no statute of limitation on child abduction and they can rest assured that private
criminal prosecutions will be brought against her and the deceitful and corrupted police officers
and social workers who facilitated her. Our books are the first step in that direction. We would
love to call Mrs Corbett purest evil, however that would be a compliment considering what she
has done.
If there was any truth or evidence to the disclosures you can be certain Mrs Corbett would have
called the police on the 28th March 2012, remember she had already accepted the orders of the
clandestine fair access panel via Mr Tim Baker, Mr Ken Palmer and Mr Steve Myles to monitor
and spy on us. Then on the evening of 29th March 2012 on the basis of the same so called
disclosures they claimed were made on the 28th March 2012, our children were detained and
kidnapped.

Why didnt the children go home with mother?

We feel the need to clarify that as we have been asked by numerous people who have shown an
interest in our situation. When the police and social worker, namely Ms Marie Morris had arrived
at Invicta Primary school on the 29th March 2012, they claim to be there to investigate a
disclosure claimed to have been made by Avery against father. They would did not say what the
disclosure was. Mother was not the subject of their investigation and it was made clear that no
disclosure was made against mother by any of our children. So why then didnt the children go
home with their mother? Until this day not one of the many, Rogue Professionals involved can
answer that question. The police arrested mother, sorry, falsely arrested mother at the school for
obstruction. How did this obstruction occur? We can hear you ask. Well, after arresting father
and taking him to the police van, mother was free to go and was on her way to our car parked
outside of the school, when DC Cullinane and two other female uniformed officers approached
her and shouted wheres the baby? and mother responded by saying what baby? DC
Cullinane along with the others repeated wheres the baby? and mother had said no
comment and then these rogues then said should we do her for obstruction? So in a nut shell,

103

they arrested mother for answering no comment. This heavy handed approach was disgraceful.
The arrest was a false arrest and the officers abused their power. They claimed that the reason
they arrested mother was that our son Daniel, was now in police protection and by mother not
answering their question, she was obstructing them. Well, what these rogues in their hasty and
overzealous action did was to actually use the excuse of obstruction to unlawfully arrest and
detain mother. These child protection incompetent professionals ought to have known, that you
cannot take a child into police protection that you have not seen. To take a child into police
protection the child must be seen. Section 46 of the Children Act 1989 allows officers to take a
child into police protection; however, the child must be seen. How do you know the child needs
protection or protecting if you havent seen him or her?
The legislation does not confer that power. Now, you would think by the time these bundling
band of incompetents arrived at the police station, they would have realised their blunder and
release mother. No, they didnt! What is clear is the meticulously cold calculation of DC Cooper
and DC Cullinane. It is clear they knew that mother should never have been arrested and our
children sent home with her. When they got back to the police station they did not question
mother regarding the so-called obstruction. Now, for those who dont know, when someone is
arrested by police, and taken to a police station it is usually for further questioning. Police and
criminal evidence Act (PACE) 1989 and a plethora of other statues govern police procedures
regarding arrest and detention and none of these statues support the use of police powers and
resources for arresting an innocent mother under false pretences. Anyway, we will be covering
that later.
Now after taking mother to the police station and not questioning her for the so-called
obstruction or any alleged allegation regarding our children, these rogues were now faced with a
problem; they had to come up with an excuse to justify the unlawful arrest. Unknown to most, is
that the length of time someone stays in detention is governed by statues and police must either
go to court or release a person from custody within a specific time period. That time period was
coming to a close and they did not want to go to the court (in these circumstances it would not
be the family court, they would have to go to the criminal court) because obstruction is a
criminal offence and criminal courts are open to the public and that would have revealed their
unlawful acts. So at the last minute, mother was offered and refused a caution for the alleged
obstruction for which she was arrested. The thing about a caution is you have to consent to
receiving one. If a caution is offered by the police and the person refuses to accept it, then the

104

police can then proceed the case court if they wish. However, cautions are usually offered when
the police have no evidence to support a claim. In any event, mother refused the caution and
that was the end of the matter. The police were so calculating and played a great role in the
injustice that was perpetrated against us. While being discharged from the police station, bail
conditions were placed on mother restricting her from seeing her children. The bail conditions
are outlined below:

Variation
Not to approach, communicate or
interfere with prosecution either
directly or indirectly, namely Avery,
Cassie, Beth or Daniel Plowright

Officer in Granting Bail

Time:
Date:

Reason(s) why conditions appear

necessary
To prevent the commission of further
offences and prevent any
interference with prosecution
witnesses. This condition will apply
until directed otherwise by Officers in
case or Greenwich Social Services
PS Suggitt (P225037)
17:20
30/03/2012

Until this day, the police cant explain why these bail conditions were placed on mother
restricting her of seeing her four children, when no allegations were made against her by any of
the children. Remember, when they attended the school on Thursday 29th March 2012, they
claimed they were investigating a disclosure made by Avery, regarding father. Mother was
never the subject of their enquiries or investigation. Yet, they placed these unlawful bail
conditions on her not thinking of the impact this would have on the children of not being able
to see their parents. As you can see, the bail conditions above labelled our children as
prosecution witnesses. Witnesses to what? The officer granting bail PS Suggitt clearly has no
idea what she was doing when she applied these bail conditions. Whats interesting to note, is

105

that the Royal Borough of Greenwich is also named on the bail conditions. These bail conditions
are serious human rights violations. The bail conditions restricted not only mother from seeing
her children but more importantly, restricted four young children from seeing their mother. This
is outright wickedness, to kidnap a mothers children then to arrest her under false pretences is
distressing enough, but to then go further and restrict her from seeing her children then to
impose inhumane bail conditions is outright wickedness. She was not question or interviewed at
the police station regarding any allegations relating to the children. So why did they place bail
conditions on her restricting her from seeing her children? What crime did she commit? No
crime whatsoever. By their actions it is clear DC Cooper and Cullinane did not want the children
to return to mothers care. On what basis were these unlawful actions being taken? Who was
authorising these decisions? Anyway, it will become clearer later on. Mother has never been
arrested and this was her first time in a police station (the entire ordeal of was horrendous) and
until this day she has no criminal record or any other issues. There is no justification for their
actions and mother should have gone home with her children. If the police or social services
wanted to restrict mother from seeing her children, for whatever reason then an application
should have been made to the Courts for an (EPO) Emergency Protection Order. The family
Courts regularly rubberstamp EPOs however, there must be something to rubberstamp, for
example, a history of alcohol problems, a criminal conviction, an Anti-social Behaviour Order
(ASBO) or anything to spin a story. However, they had nothing to rubberstamp in our case, as
mother is as clean as they come! She does not drink, not suffer from alcoholism or smoke, she
has no convictions, no ASBOs, no mental health issues, no history of depression or anything
these people could latch onto, so in this case they could not go to any court. Further, they had
already started off on a bad footing with all the unlawful acts, conspiring and monitoring, then to
top it off with the false imprisonment of the children in the school. Therefore, the bail
conditions were used as a means to navigate the court process. The use of bail conditions was
immoral, unlawful and an outright repugnant act.
Where was the Royal Borough of Greenwich we have the best interest of the child at heart ?
incompetent social workers in all this? As you can see above from and from the bail conditions,
they supported these incompetents in their horrific and unlawful conduct without considering
the effects on our children. These incompetent rogues, who appear calculating and meticulously
callous by their very actions, clearly had the backing of senior management. Or are they a law
onto themselves? Anyone would think that some senior member of staff would put a halt to the

106

situation getting any worse and make attempts to remedy the situation. Nope, what occurred
afterwards is that ever attempt is made to justify the actions of the rogues, in an effort to coverup their wrongdoing. This has led to corruption on a scale we as parents were not prepared for.
Every conceivable lie and trickery used and all sorts of collusion and barefaced deception. We
were now a THREAT to these incompetents because; they had been very careless in their
shameless and unlawful acts. They had appeared to underestimate us and as is seemingly clear
will stop at nothing to prevent us from making known the extent of their malpractice and more
importantly their vile wickedness. If word of their wickedness got out then, there is no where to
hide, because you can fool some people sometime but you cant fool all the people all the time.
Therefore, instead of putting a halt to the wrongful acts committed by these incompetents and
return our children, someone somewhere made the horrible decision to proceed with a full scale
attack on our family. Whoever the rogue or rogues were that made the decision not only made a
wrong decision, but also made a selfish decision, because they have caused an unnecessary
injustice and have dragged our innocent children into a disgustingly corrupt system. Also they
have unwittingly dragged a lot of other blameless people into their web of deceit and lies. That
has been the worst decision these people could ever make because, if they had accepted their
wrong doing early, they would not have caused unnecessary suffering for our children and us.
We ultimately wouldnt be in this position almost three years later!
The first thing they tried to do, in the full scale assault on our family after realising they are truly
up the creek by the plethora of unlawful and cruel acts against our children and us as parents was
try and drag mother into the equation to try and justify not returning our children to her and
hopefully limit the damage, however, their efforts only served to make the situation worse and
provide actual evidence , in the form of a document that, in our opinion as established that, they
are pathological liars who fabricate documents and serves as actual documentary evidence that
just as they created this document thats exactly how they created the so-called referral.
Just to reiterate, there was no allegations made against mother, by any of the children on either
the 28th March or on the 29th March 2012 when these band of incompetents kidnapped our
children. She was not questioned regarding any allegation when she was arrested on the 29 th
March 2012. Now, the actual referral which they claim was sent to social services on the 28th
March 2012 has no allegations listed against mother. Our children should have gone home with
her. This point is further confirmed by a letter sent by mothers then, family solicitor namely, Ms
Gan.

107

Ms Gan was doing nothing about the situation of our children being held unlawfully by these
incompetents, so we took the initiative to write a letter i.e. a notice, demanding the return of our
children. This prompted Ms Gan to write two letters of her own, which was sent to the police
and social services. This letter highlights the fact that no allegations were made against mother
and asking for the removal of the bail conditions as it affected mothers human rights. The letter
is dated the 17th April 2012, even at that stage none of these incompetents thought it prudent to
put a halt to their destructive course of action. None of these people thought about the impact
for our children and the distress and trauma this was causing them.
Below is the letter by Ms Gan :

FAO: PC Cooper
3rd floor
Marlow House
109 Station Rd
Sidcup, Kent
DA15 7ES

Our ref: DXG/39593/1

Your ref: Custody Number 01RA 1986 12
Date:17 April 2012
Direct line:020 7482 8427
Direct fax:020 7485 5660
email:

108

Dear Sirs

Our Client: Elizabeth Plowright

We are assisting and advising Mrs Elizabeth Plowright with respect to her family law matters.
Mrs Plowright is the mother of four children, Avery Plowright (DOB 29.04.2003), Beth
Plowright (DOB 24.07.2004), Cassie Plowright (DOB 09.10.2005) and Daniel Plowright (DOB
15.10.2008). Our client and her husband, Mr Davion Plowright are the children's primary
carers. The children have never been cared for by anyone other than our clients and have
never, prior to 29th March 2012, spent so much as one night away from their parents
We understand that the Child Abuse Investigation Team ('CAIT') is investigating an allegation
that Mr Davion Plowright assaulted the eldest child, Avery Plowright. We understand that the
CAIT is further investigating our client with respect to an obstruction of justice. Our client is
under police bail until 22nd May 2012 and one of the bail conditions is that she is 'not to
approach, communicate or interfere with prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly,
namely Avery, Cassie, Beth or Daniel Plowright'. Prior to the bail conditions being imposed, all
four children lived with our client. As Mrs Plowright has not been charged with any offence,
the bail conditions will not have been reviewed by any court. We are most concerned that the
police have effectively therefore removed the children from our client's care until 22 nd May
2012.

We are concerned that this is a serious violation of our client's human rights, specifically, her
Article 8 right to respect for a private and family life and her Article 6 right to a fair trial. As
you will be well aware, section 46 of the Children Act 1989 permits a constable to take a child
into police protection for a maximum of 72 hours. The Children Act is very specific about this

109

and after this period, the child must either be returned to their parent(s), the relevant Local
Authority must have obtained the consent of the parent(s) to accommodate a child, an
emergency protection order or an interim care order. Parliament is very clear that a child
should not be removed from their parents for a period of greater than 72 hours without an
order from the Family Courts or agreement of the parents. We enclose a copy of R(G) v
Nottingham City Council [2008] EWHC 152 (Admin) in which Mr Justice Munby reiterated
that:-

"[15] The law is perfectly clear but perhaps requires re-emphasis. Whatever the impression a
casual reader might gain from reading some newspaper reports, no local authority and no social
worker has any power to remove a child from its parent or, without the agreement of the
parent, to take a child into care, unless they have first obtained an order from a family court
authorising that step: either an emergency protection order in accordance with section 44 of the
Children Act 1989 or an interim care order in accordance with section 38 of the Act or perhaps,
in an exceptional case (and subject to section 100 of the Act), a wardship order made by a judge
of the Family Division of the High Court.

[16] Section 46 of the Children Act 1989 permits a police constable to remove a child where he
has reasonable cause to believe that the child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant
harm, and that power can be exercised without prior judicial authority. But the powers
conferred on the police by s 46 are not given to either local authorities or social workers.

[17] Local authorities and social workers have no power to remove children from their
parents unless they have first obtained judicial sanction for what they are proposing to do. Only
a court can make a care order. Only if a court has authorised that step, whether by making an
emergency protection order or by making a care order or an interim care order or in some
other way, can a local authority or a social worker remove a child from a parent. And the same
goes, of course, for a hospital and its medical staff.

110

[18] As I said during the course of the hearing, no baby, no child, can be removed simply 'as
the result of a decision taken by officials in some room'.

[19] This is all elementary. It is well known to all family lawyers. And it is, or ought to be, well
known to all social workers. That is why, as the media accurately reported, I made the comment
during the course of the hearing that 'The professionals involved in this case should have known
better'."

We are of the view that were we to seek to judicially review this matter then we would obtain a
similarly robust judgement.
We note that the bail condition was made to prevent interference with the course of justice or to
prevent any further offences. Given that neither Elizabeth Plowright nor any of the other
children have made any allegations against our client we are not aware of why this condition is
necessary to prevent interference with the course of justice. No doubt you have been liaising
with social services. If there were genuine concerns that a further offence would be committed
against Avery Plowright or any of the children, social services would investigate the matter and
issue public law proceedings pursuant to Part IV or Part V of the Children Act 1989. This
would be the appropriate course of action in the event that Mrs Plowright is seen as a risk
towards her children, and she would be represented in any such proceedings and of course the
matter would rightly be reviewed by a Court.
We are not aware of what, if any, investigation has taken place to consider whether or not Mrs
Plowright does pose a risk to Avery Plowright and what less draconian protective measures may
be put in place to ensure that the Plowright children are not placed at risk of harm and so we
are unclear whether such a bail condition is proportionate and necessary.
We would urge you to reconsider these bail conditions forthwith. If you do not amend these then
we shall advise our client to seek judicial review of this matter.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
OSBORNES SOLICITORS LLP

111

Enc
CC: DS Sarah Fisher

The above letter also stands as evidence and negates the cruel attempts of Mrs Corbett in
fabricating further baseless and sicken allegations.
Even On the 17 April 2012 as is evident by the above letter their was no allegations made against
mother. However, the rogues in the case tried to create and add allegations to the original malicious
referral (we mean this literally) to try and drag mother into their web of lies in an attempt to try and
justify the children not going home with her. (They were not aware we already had this letter and it was
not just the our lawyer (professional loser) -who had a copy). Remember parents dont usually get their
files. However, they messed up again because mother was not arrested or question on 29 March 2012
for any allegation. Remember she was falsely arrested for obstruction and not question. It was a brazen
attempt by the rogues to try and fabricate allegations against mother to try and justify her arrest of the 29
March 2012.
Mrs Corbett made further false and sickening allegations claiming they form part of the malicious
referral of the 29 March 2012. Realising the absurdity and clear problems Mrs Corbetts false
Allegations would present they were swiftly withdrawn by the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Mrs
Corbett and the other rogues false claims and attempts at fabricating allegations to justify mothers false
arrest and detention was unsuccessful. They created false allegations and were caught in the act. That is
pure corruption and criminality. DJ Alderson made no mention of that clear corruption and criminality
in his Sham Judgement. There will be more on this later in the book.

112

Intentionally blank

113

Chapter 5
Legal Ramifications and chronology of the unlawful actions against our
Family
To the casual reader, what happen at the school may only appear scandalous; however
there are also legal ramifications for the conduct of the Rogues involved in this corrupt
and diabolical ordeal.
This chapter was written to give a basic idea of the irrefutable legal position that existed
before and after our children were kidnapped.
We live in a country govern by Laws and contrary to what Rogue Professionals believe or the
speculative assumptions of some, no one is above the LAW. What appears to be prevalent in
todays society is the us against them sort of mentality fostered by many of those charged with
the serious responsibility of upholding the law and serving the public. This applies right across
the board. Its as if there is a positive assumption made on the part of many Civil Servants,
especially the Police and social workers and a host of others that they are above the Law. Well,
those who entertain the misguided belief of being above the law will be dealt with according to
the law!
We all breathe the same polluted air and no man is above the other. A man is just a man. A lot of
these rogues appear to suffer from an inflated case of self-importance and a false sense of
superiority. Now, our situation has transpired into the travesty it is today and caused our
children and us untold suffering, which was totally avoidable. All that was needed was for anyone
of the countless professionals that got involved to do their job and highlight the utter scandal.
Especially, our so-called solicitors however, what they did was to allow themselves to become
complicit in the wrong doing. Well, if you look at it objectively, the rogues pay better than us! In
any event, whose version of events will the public be more likely to believe? Should these
professionals be revealed and the truth exposed the parents who will certainly be accused of
being disgruntled or the polished professionals who hide behind the veneer of credibility.
These professionals in most cases believe they can talk their way out of any situation no matter
how horrible the situation is. The word sorry has all but disappeared from their vocabulary
and accountability might as well be a foreign country, which they dare not visit. The law and
statues as they exist are there for the benefit of all. These rogues appear to be under the illusion
that the law does not apply to them. For example, if an average man or woman had taken our

114

children without consent, they would be guilty of kidnap full stop. Now, because it is a
government agency then some may think its not kidnap. Kidnap is kidnap and the government
agency should be no less liable than the average man in the street because they should know
better and setting a better example. If the British government wants to allow schools, police and
social workers to kidnap children, then they should un-sign all the international conventions that
they are signatory to and stop claiming Britain is a democracy that upholds the rights of
individuals. Now, the law has not changed and the actions of all involved in our case are clearly
unlawful and in some instances according to some statues outright illegal! Just to clarify for
some of the readers of this book. There is a difference between an unlawful act and an illegal act.
Unlawful Acts: Behaviour that is not authorized by law; commission of or participation in an
activity that violates criminal or civil law.
Illegal Acts: Contrary or forbidden by law especially criminal law.
For those still unclear about the differences between unlawful or illegal acts; Unlawful acts are
usually those acts that in most cases dealt with in the Civil Courts and illegal acts are in most
cases dealt with in the Criminal Courts. Illegal infers an act done contrary to criminal statues for
example; Theft Act 1968, Firearms Act 1968 etc.; whereas unlawful acts are normally done
contrary to civil statues for example; Defamation Act 2013, Designs and Patents Act 1988 etc.

Now, to the casual reader the events that unfolded at Invicta primary school on the 29 th March
2012, might seem horrendous in the general context of things, however not knowing child
protection procedures nor the law governing these matters the layman can be forgiven for not
knowing the legal implications of the actions of these professionals. These Rogue Professionals
however, are fully aware of the legal ramifications of their actions and in most cases every effort
is made to conceal their wrongdoing from the nave or unaware. Further, in a case which is
clearly loaded with clear deceit, unlawful and illegal acts, malicious actions, abuse of power and
malfeasance in public office, by rogue professionals, then the battle lines will be drawn and every
conceivable effort will be made to cover-up their actions and discredit parents. The only life line
we as parents can resort to, against these sorts of attacks is the tried and tested supremacy of the
Law.

The standard response for the wrong doers when exposed can vary, but usually goes like this:

We cannot comment on individual cases, each case is based on its own merit, Social Services
follow procedures and the court makes the final decision, these decisions are not taken lightly.
We can assure you that in our case no procedures were followed and the Family court
rubberstamp and acted dishonourably, and remain complicit in the atrocious acts committed
against our family. (More about this later on in the book)

115

We will break it down into sections and using Statutory Procedures and Guidelines, along with
Statues and case law governing child protection cases, outline how far off the legal and statutory
framework these Rogue professional were.
The police and social worker attended the school (29th March 2012) touting that they were there
to conduct a Section 47 investigation.
Now, most parents or even many members of the general public have no clue what a Section 47
investigation is; Section 47 relates to Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. Section 47 gives a
Local Authority (LA) a duty to investigate, nothing else nothing more. It does not confer
Parental Responsibility or any other rights or powers to the LA. Before a Section 47 investigation
is initiated, (bear in mind it is very serious investigation) and can have serious implications on
anyone who is subject to such an investigation, because of the serious implications of such an
investigation, there are a plethora of rules, procedures and guidance which have been produced
and must be followed. These are Statutory Guidances and rules that must be complied with so
as to protect families and children from malicious referrals and unwarranted state intrusion into
families private and personal life. London safeguarding board guidelines forms part of these
statutory procedures. In any event, a true professional knows that you cant get to the stage of
carrying out a Section 47 enquiry without first completing an Initial Assessment, and to carry out
an initial assessment, the child must be seen. Therefore, how did the social worker namely, Ms
Marie Morris and and DC Cooper, with DC Cullinane turn up at the school touting Section 47
without first carrying out an Initial Assessment i.e. without first seeing the child? Please note
readers; according to statutory rules it would have been Ms Marie Morris, the social worker who
would have carried out an Initial Assessment and NOT the Detectives who should never have
attended the school in the first place! Further if any of these professionals were adhering to
procedures which are clearly outlined in the London Safeguarding board guidelines and should
be elementary to all practicing professionals, which outlines what procedures to follow if an
allegation of physical assault is made by a child, and these procedures does not include calling the
police. The statutory guidance dictates that an initial assessment should be conducted. London
Safeguarding board guidelines 2010 outlines:
in Part 6.4.4 Initial assessment (Allegation of physical assault with no visible or minor injury (other than to a pre-or nonmobile child) For clarity a pre or non-mobile child is in reference to small babies
What the above outlines is that if a child makes an allegation of physical assault and there is no
visible injuries then the LA should carryout and Initial Assessment. As a part of this initial
assessment the child must be seen. Nowhere does it say that the Police should be called or that
the child should be hidden in the school. So the simple fact is DC Cooper and DC Cullinane
should not have even attended Invicta primary school on the 29 th March 2012. If procedures
were followed, then the social worker, Ms Marie Morris, would have contacted us on the 28th
March 2012, informing us of her concerns, then she would have arranged to carry out her
initial assessment after which if she still had any concerns then she could escalate the matter to
court or otherwise.

116

Following correct procedures in these situations and carrying out section 47 child protection
investigations is no small matter, this was recently highlighted by His Honour Judge Anthony
Thornton, in the case of AB & CD and the London Borough of Haringey 2013 EWHC 416,
where two social workers were themselves the subject of a Section 47 investigations. They
sought judicial review and were successful against the Local Authority (LA) regarding the failure
of the LA to follow correct procedures. This ruling highlights the correct procedures to be
followed before a Section 47 investigation can be initiated and also the need for caution and
vigilance because of the implications of such an investigation. In relation to our case, the entire
ruling could be quoted however; we have only highlighted the relevant sections:
HHJ THORNTON AB & CD and The London Borough of Haringey 2013 EWHC 416 states:
The legal framework
5. This case involves a consideration of whether the defendant local authority lawfully decided
that a section 47 enquiry should take place to ascertain whether the two claimants' daughter was
suffering or was likely to suffer significant harm.
6. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989, in Part 5 of the Act entitled Child Protection, provides as
follows:
"47 Local authority's duty to investigate.
(1) Where a local authority
(a) are informed that a child who lives, or is found, in their area
(b) have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their
area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm,
the authority shall make, or cause to be made, such enquiries as they consider
necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or
promote the child's welfare ... ."

11. A section 47 enquiry has in recent years become very damaging for the life, career and family
relationships of many who are parenting or caring for the child being assessed. There are now
extensive statutory checks that must be made about adults who are caring for or working with
children or who are coming into contact with them in an educational, health, pastoral or care
context. Thus, involvement in a section 47 enquiry may often result in the ending of a career
involving contact with children. This will usually be for good reason but this is not always so and
there will rarely be a means for those unfairly marked out by involvement in a section 47
enquiry to eradicate that stain on their professional and personal reputation.
12. A section 47 enquiry can of course prove to be very damaging for a child, for her parents and
for their mutual relationships. In particular, the lives of parents can be badly affected if and
when adverse conclusions are made about the harm that they have inflicted on their child.
These can include criminal prosecution, the loss or their child, intrusive involvement in their
family and private lives, loss of employment or being barred from working with children and an
adverse entry on their records held by reporting authorities such as the police and various

117

regulatory bodies. A particular trigger for any of these adverse effects is the fact that a section 47
enquiry was undertaken in relation to their child at all since its threshold is that significant harm
has occurred or that there is a risk of it occurring. Thus, a section 47 enquiry, which will often
be reportable by the parents concerned, can blight their lives irrespective of the nature and
extent of the significant harm or of their involvement in it or of the reasonableness of the
suspicion that generated the enquiry in the first place.
13. For all these reasons, the simple and apparently straightforward terms of section 47 mask a
myriad of problems and to help deal with these, a plethora of rules, procedures and guidance
have been produced. These are largely found in the statutory guidance issued by the
Department for Children, Schools and Families and by statutory authorities such as the London
Safeguarding Board. Statutory guidance is issued with statutory authority and it must therefore
be complied with unless local circumstances indicate exceptional reasons to justify a departure
from it in a specific case. This body of guidance is intended, if followed, to enable the very
difficult decisions and exercises of professional judgment to be made satisfactorily on a case by
case basis. These judgments are taken so that the substantial harm affecting the child may be
investigated, her best interests may be protected and the rights of parents and carers are taken
into account.
14. In particular, the guidance sets out detailed decision-making procedures that must be followed
save in exceptional circumstances. These procedures particularly cover the assessment process
and how it should be carried out. A common assessment framework or CAF has been devised
which is intended to guide and focus the many different types of assessment of children that are
available in a structured way. This structured decision-making to enables the wide variety of data
to be assembled and built into the decision-making process so as to enable the child's
development needs, the parents or carer's capacity to respond appropriately to those needs and
the wider family and environmental factors to be identified and addressed in any future working
with the child and her parents, family and other carers.
15. For section 47 enquiries, three distinct phases of assessment are provided for, being the
screening assessment, the initial assessment and the core assessment. These three phases are
geared to the referral nature of a local authority's Children and Young Person's Service
("CYPS") and its need to undertake child protection work in conjunction with the many other
agencies involved. A CYPS will take referrals from social services, from external agencies and
from concerned members of the public. These referrals will contain limited details of the
children who are considered to be at risk of significant harm. Most, but not all, of these referrals
will be from identified people who can provide a primary source of information. Regrettably, a
small but significant number of referrals are from anonymous sources and, even more
regrettably, some of those references are maliciously motivated or fabricated.
16. On referral, the CYPS will initially screen the referral and sift out the relatively few referrals that
are clearly not ones that will reach the relatively high threshold of a section 47 enquiry. Those
that remain are then subjected to an initial assessment which is intended to be completed within
10 working days of the receipt of the referral and, crucially, to include input from both the child
and her parents or carers. The decision to initiate a statutory section 47 enquiry is taken
following this initial assessment by a strategy meeting held with relevant interested
representatives of social services and external agencies such as the police, GPs and other
medical personnel, schools, carers and, in appropriate cases, more specialised individuals. If a
section 47 enquiry is decided upon, it is undertaken by conducting a core assessment using the
CAF, the input of all relevant professionals and, of course the input of the child and her parents
or carers. This enquiry is intended to be completed within 42 days of the referral which should
include the ten working days of the initial assessment.
17. It is important to keep in mind the different objectives of the initial assessment and the core
assessment processes. The objective of the initial assessment is to ascertain whether the child is
in need and whether the threshold for a section 47 enquiry exists. This requires considering

118

whether there is reasonable cause to suspect whether the child is suffering or is likely to suffer
from significant harm. The assessment process must include, so far as is consistent with the
child's safety, the child being seen and her views being taken into account if the child is old
enough to express them. It must also include the involvement of appropriate agencies and a
decision to proceed taken after full discussion at a strategy meeting.
22. All professionals working within SFR are trained and are expected to work within the auspices
of the Children Act 1989, the statutory guidance contained in Working Together to Safeguard
Children and the local level guidance provided the London Safeguarding Board's Children
Board's Child Protection Procedures which aims to promote consistency between London
Authorities. They also have to work with the internal guidance provided by LBH's Thresholds
of Need and Service Responses: Guidance for Staff. In addition, they must work with a plethora
of further statutory, non-statutory and local guidance documents, practices and procedures. [3]

As is outlined by the above judgement a Section 47 investigation can be very damaging, however
more importantly it places emphasis on the need for professionals to follow correct procedures.
Invicta primary and the incompetent social worker Ms Marie Morris have a lot to answer for as
to why she allowed Mrs Corbett to falsely imprison our children and then to attend the school
touting Section 47 without first carrying out an Initial Assessment. She would love to hide
behind the exceptional circumstances loop hole, however the situation was not exceptional,
because if it was then on the 28th March 2012, when they claimed the disclosure was made no
action was taken? In any event, all these Rogue Professionals were complicit in their
wrongdoing, and by touting Section 47 they attempted to deceive us, trying to give the illusion of
authority they did not have. Ms Marie Morris until this day has not produced a statement to the
family court or otherwise even after countless requests. The simple fact is she cannot produce a
statement as her actions on the day were nothing short of gross incompetence. If she had done
her job then our children would not have endure this horrific ordeal. Instead she allowed herself
to be duped by a vindictive Mrs Corbett and deceitful DC Cooper and DC Cullinane, both of
whom should have not been at the school in the first place. We have covered incompetent Ms
Marie Morris under the chapter social workers below and DC Cooper under the chapter Police.
After the failure by all these incompetents to follow procedures DC Cooper then claimed to
have taken our children into police protection, our children should have gone home with their
mother at the very least. However lets highlight the fact that these people came to the school to
kidnap our children and had no intention of doing any investigation whatsoever. DC Cooper
claimed that he placed our children into police protection after he arrested father and before DC
Cullinane arrested mother. Now, for those who may have just missed it; the children made no
allegations against mother, they claimed to attend the school to investigate an alleged allegation
against father and mother was free to go. They then arrested mother on the basis of
obstruction of police exercising police protection powers for a child they have not seen, (our
son) on the basis of police protection powers that never existed for him in the first place (Police
protection cannot be taken or used on a child you have not seen). As is clear DC Cullinane
abused her power by falsely and unlawfully arresting mother for obstruction, it seems this was
done to prevent mother from taking her children home.
So, we have a unique situation of abuse of power and process of a different order. According to
London Safeguarding Board procedures the police should not have been at the school in the first
place, our children were falsely imprisoned in the school, the police or social workers had no
parental consent to talk to any of our children. They wrongly used police protection powers on
the day and then compounded the situation by falsely arresting mother based on police
protection that never existed for our son in the first place. This arrest was unlawful as there

119

was no justification for the arrest, other than to prevent mother going home with her four
children.

No Police protection existed!

No police protection existed in our case. DC Cooper used the guise of police protection to
kidnap our children. Does the fact that he is an ex colleague of Mr Ken Palmer have anything to
do with his unprofessional conduct regarding our family? In any event, to use police protection
powers is a serious step and police protection should not be taken on a whim. It is confirmed
that DC Cooper upon attending Invicta Primary school on the 29th March 2012, did not so
much as open is notebook. So what investigation was he there to conduct? Considering a
detective statement is written from is notes, what did DC Cooper rely on to write is statement?
For a detective to not even so much as open his note book, and then proceed to take children
into child protection? The question still begs to be answered, what is the basis that such powers
were used on the day? Whenever a child is taken into police protection Home office guidelines
makes clear that a Police Protection Authorisation Record must be completed outlining the
reasons police protection powers were used, there should be a separate police protection record
completed for each child; until this day, no such records have been produced. Even during the
sham family hearings no such records were produced. We have requested this police protection
record on many occasions, but none have been produced. Procedures further dictate that, where
the immediate removal of a child is needed, Working Together indicates that the LA should
rely on an application for an Emergency protection order EPO and not Police Protection
powers. However as is clear there was no reason to remove our children and these rogues had
to fraudulently use the services of the deceitful and incompetent DC Cooper and DC
Cullinane to carry out the kidnap of our four children. Until this day friends and family still
make comments such as how they can take all four of your children in 2012 England. Its
just not possible! We normally respond by saying Who feels it knows!"

Unlawful Bail conditions Violating European Union convention on human rights Article 3 and
8 of the (ECHR)
Dc Cooper further compounded the situation by placing unlawful and inhumane bail
conditions on both mother and father. When mother was taken to the police station, she was
not question regarding any obstruction, however she later found herself being restricted from
seeing her children by unlawful bail conditions. Similar bail conditions were now imposed on
both of us denying us access to our four children. This violated our childrens and our article 8
rights to family life. This was also inhumane not only for us but also for our children who were
denied seeing us and this kind of cruel and inhumane treatment is prohibited by Article 3 of
the ECHR. The bail conditions prevented us from seeing our children for months. None of
these incompetents in their infinite wisdom considered the effects these erroneous and
vindictively placed bail conditions would have on our children. Out of the many acts
committed by these rogues the bail conditions highlight the true extent of the cruel and vile
nature of these professionals. The bail conditions which denied our children from seeing us

and us from seeing them were absolute cruelty. Even murderers get to see their children, and

120

we have no criminal records whatsoever. There was no justification for this vile action by DC
Cooper and DC Cullinane.

No section 47 existed?
DC Cooper and DC Cullinane along with Ms Marie Morris deceived us at Invicta Primary
School, by claiming they were there to carry out Section 47 investigation, knowing they had no
such authority. They also further deceived us by lying and claiming they had not spoken to our
children, after which they then claimed they had spoken to them. They knew what they were
doing was unlawful and hence tried to cover their tracks. That was a blatant act of deceit and
luckily for us, we have it all on tape!
As a result of all the above unlawful actions and atrocities, every effort was made to try and find
any information that would justify the over-zealous and vile acts of all involved, so extensive
unlawful agency checks were carried out on us as parents to include; Interpol checks, checks
on our immigration status and (SOCA) the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Yep! They went
as far as carrying out Interpol checks. They had no authority carry out those checks as they had
not followed the correct child protection procedures, were deceitful and had in fact kidnapped
and falsely imprison our children without any basis for doing so. Checks can only be carried
out as a part of a lawful Section 47 investigation and the fact that the matter was tainted by
unlawful acts, collusion between Royal Borough of Greenwich namely, Mr Ken Palmer, Mr
Steve Myles and Mrs Marie Corbett of Invicta Primary and clear deceit of DC Cooper, Dc
Cullinane and Ms Marie Morris, the entire process was tainted from the initial outset. It is
explicitly clear that the Information gathering process adopted by the Royal Borough of
Greenwich was utterly, unlawful!
Aside from the above unlawful and procedural irregularities that exist, there is also another
matter of great importance which highlights how blatantly corrupt this entire dreadful situation
is from the beginning. Until this day, no Section 47 investigation has been carried out in this
case. This is evidenced by the fact that there has been no Core Assessment. As part of a
Section 47 a Core Assessment must be carried out to assess the needs of the child and family.
We had no needs just a bunch of incompetents, up to no good. Anyway, a Core Assessment
can take anywhere up to 42 days. These incompetents kidnapped our children on the 29th
March without so much as an Initial Assessment, and then tried to use our children as some
sort of ransom, in their demands for us to sign a Section 20 Voluntary Agreement. In any event
we refused, they had nothing to go to court with and instead of realising the errors of their ways
and return our children to us, they again compounded the situation by further false
imprisonment of 3 weeks, before they issued proceedings. There was no possibility of a core
assessment being done, as they had acted unlawfully from the outset. What most people cant
understand is how far off the framework these incompetents have gone. Until this day they
have carried out no:
Initial assessment
NO child protection conference
NO core Assessment
NO Child Protection medical

121

After committing the above atrocities and with all the unlawful acts committed the three justices
at the first sham Family hearing in wells street Family Proceedings Court (FPC) without seeing a
shred of information to justify the unjustified actions of the police and social workers granted
and interim care order. Then restricted and denied us contesting that order because there was
nothing available to contest. They went further and restricted us talking to anyone about the
case with the threat of imprisonment (being in contempt of court). No consideration for the
children or the impact of the kidnap and being denied seeing their parents. What is heart
wrenching is the manner in which most family court judges are swift to castigate parents for the
slightest infringements using arcane laws while allowing the incompetents to run riot and create
havoc. Our children have severely suffered by the failure of and malicious actions of these
rogues. Ultimately, these justices are to blame for their dereliction of duty, for being biased and
corrupt, in caring out their duties. We have covered these incompetent family court judges
under the chapter titled judges.

Lady Arden highlights in her below judgment that a child should not be separated from their
parent without competent authorities subject to judicial review. Lady Arden in the judgement
Clayton vs. Clayton Re: G (A Child): [2013] EWCA Civ 965 para: 78
.. Thus, Hodgkin and Newell, Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights

of the Child, Unicef, 3rd ed (2007), p 296, state that "there is a presumption within the
Convention that children's best interests are served by being with their parents wherever
possible". This is reflected in UNCRC, which provides in article 7 that a child has "as far as
possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents", and in article 9, which
requires states to ensure that;
'a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent
authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and
procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child"'
There was no competent authority or judicial review involved, when our children were kidnap
at school on the 29 March 2012. There was no adherence to any applicable laws and these
incompetents failed to seek judicial review of their actions. However they sought and obtained
Judicial rubberstamping 3 weeks later on the 20 April 2012.
What we find disconcerting while researching to write this book is the arbitrary and subjective
manner in which child protection legislation and judgements are often worded. Anyone can
place their own meaning on terms such as that separation is necessary for the best interest of
the child. The rogue professionals are the only ones benefiting from these arbitrary and
subjective terms to offer utterly implausible reasons for their incompetent behaviour. For
example: Miss social worker A, what was the reason for separating the child from their parent?
Response: Based on my professional judgement (opinion) and nothing else such separation is
necessary for the best interest of the child, and thats it, your child may be taken and the
reasons created after.

122

The United Nations convention on the rights of the child that were violated by the action of the
rogues in our cases; we could quote the entire convention however we have highlighted a few to
emphasize the severity of the actions of those involved sections below:
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Article 9-You have the right to live with your parents unless it is bad for you.

Article 11-You should not be kidnapped.

Article 12-You have the right to an opinion and for it to be listened to and taken seriously.

Article 18-You have the right to be brought up by your parents if possible.

Article 19-You have the right to be protected from being hurt or badly treated.
Article 30-If you come from a minority group you have the right to enjoy your own culture,
practice your own religion and use your own language.
Article 35-No one is allowed to kidnap you or sell you.
Article 36-You have the right to protection from any other kind of exploitation.
Article 37-You have the right not to be punished in a cruel or hurtful way.
Article 42-All adults and children should know about this convention.
Our article 8, 3 and 6 rights were violated without justification. The European convention on
Human Rights (ECHR):
Article 8- Right to Family Life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such
as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.
Article 3
Article 3 Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

123

Article 6- Right to fair Trial

In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him,
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and
impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and
public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or
national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the
private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in
special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."

As we have outlined above the role of Mr Baker, Mr Ken Palmer, Mr Steve Myles and the
clandestine Fair Access Panel.
Our point of reference concerning Invicta Primary School,
1. Mrs Corbett agrees to monitor and spy on our family before our children started
attending Invicta Primary School at the clandestine meeting held at Invicta on the 7th Jan
2011. This is contrary to good practice and against openness and transparency. Another
way to put it would be outright sinister, we had not yet started the school and there was
no consent given by us to the Royal Borough of Greenwich to share and disseminate our
information to third parties in an effort to monitor and spy on us as a family. That was a
clear abuse of the procedures in place to facilitate and find school places for our children.
2. Mrs Corbett claims that our eldest daughter made a disclosure on the 28 th March 2012 (a
Wednesday,) alleging to have been punched in the face on the 24th March 2012 (the
previous Saturday). It was also reported by these crooked geniuses that due to the force
of the so-called punch our daughters back was hurting her on Wednesday 28th March,
when they claim the disclosure was made.
Now, before we get down in to the procedures. Lets examine the claims closely. Mrs
Corbett and staff claim our eldest daughter Avery and her sister Cassie was punched on
the 24th March 2012. So as to not confuse some of our readers, the allegation regarding
Cassie was created by these rogues as they made up their story to justify their actions.
When the social worker and Dc Cooper and DC Cullinane attended the school on the
29 march 2012, they claim they were there to investigate a disclosure made by Avery
and no other child. The recording that we did at the school highlights this fact. Anyway,
they claim the punch was of such that Avery back was still aching on the 29 march 2012
as a result of the punch. Now, they claim she disclosed this to them on 28 th March 2012
a Wednesday, so according to their claims after being punched on the 24 march 2012
in such a manner as to cause her back to ache the Wednesday of the following week 28
march 2012, our daughters somehow turned up to school on Monday, Tuesday and no

124

one saw any bruises on either of our two daughters, or any behavior which would
indicate a child or (according to their claims) two children being punched. Then, on
Wednesday 28th March 2012 it is claimed one of the children who were allegedly
punched made the disclosure still no bruising reported, after which nothing was done
and both children were allowed to return home, after such a disclosure. Further, no
concerns were raised with parents regarding the so-called disclosures of punch in the
face by any member of the school staff. These people live in fairytale land!
Now, this is where the lies start to unravel. Firstly we would like to make it clear to
those who still have not got it up to this point. None of our children were punched on
24th March 2012 or have ever been punched by their father at any time in their entire
existence. Our children were very happy at home and were taken against their will and
without our approval or consent.
It is clear the allegation had no truth or basis from the very outset, at the very least
bruises would have been visible on Monday 26 th March 2012, when our children
returned to school after the weekend. There would have at least been a medical
examination carried out on the faces of both of our children and they would have been
checked for brain injuries via a brain scan immediately after they were kidnapped by
theses desperate rogues to preserve evidence. There was no such medical or other
examination, in fact until this day the rogues have never carried out a facial examination
of the children they claimed were punched in the face. We had no clue what was
brewing in the background. The evidence is clear; these people colluded and conspired
to kidnap our children. Sometimes its the little things that highlight the big things! Ask
yourself, why is it that these people who kidnapped our children on the 29th March
2012, citing Section 47 and mantras of protecting the child, took no action on the 28 th
March 2012 to protect the child/children? Is it because our child/children made no
allegation on the 28th March 2012? What is clear is that our children need protection
from these rogues without further delay.

On the evening of the 29th March 2012, Mrs Corbett falsely imprisoned and kidnapped our
children by detaining them in the school and refused us as parents with lawful authority, access
to our children. This is contrary to common sense and the law as it stands. It was the duty of
Mrs Corbett and Invicta Primary School, if it was proposing to act as it did, to ensure that it was
acting with lawful authority. If it chose not to, if it chose simply to assume, that what it was
doing was lawful, then it must take the consequences of its imprudence. Mrs Corbett by her
callous acts have violated a plethora of statues and human rights laws.
Mrs Corbett acted callously and contrary to:
Section 2(b) of the Child abduction act 1984 as outlined above.
Her actions further violated our rights as parents with full parental responsibility, Children Act
1989 section(2)(1) : Where a childs father and mother were married to each other at the time of his
birth, they shall each have parental responsibility for the child.
Mrs Corbett also violated our ECHR Article 3- Freedom from cruel and inhumane treatment

125

Mrs Corbett actions further violated our children and us as parents ECHR Article 8- Right to
Family Life.
She was negligent in the conduct of her duties and acted contrary to the rules which govern her
profession. These rules are statutory rules backed up by Schedule 2 of the Education (School
Teachers Qualifications) (England) Regulations 2003 and not just mere guidance that can be
disregarded. Teachers Standards Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing
bodies July 2011(introduction updated June 2013)
Part Two: Personal and professional conduct:
A teacher is expected to demonstrate consistently high standards of personal and professional
conduct. The following statements define the behavior and attitudes which set the required
standard for conduct throughout a teachers career.
Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and
behavior, within and outside school, by:
1. Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times
observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teachers
Professional position
2. Having regard for the need to safeguard pupils well-being, in accordance with statutory
provisions
3. Showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others
4. Not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual
liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.
5. Ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils vulnerability or
might lead them to break the law.
6. Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the
school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.
7. Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks
which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.
The above lists of violations are by no means exhaustive and we have not even begun to list the
procedural and other violations. This chapter is just to give you the reader an idea of the
countless violations that occurred. There are also clear moral and ethical failings on the part of
all these rogues.

126

There are acres of case law regarding kidnap and taking children without consent, however what
is crystal clear as is outlined above, is that the statues were written in a manner to insulate
government workers and other professionals with more emphasis being placed on parents or
others taking children without consent. Professionals such as those in this case will have a hard
time hiding behind their malign interpretation of the statues as their actions are not just a mere
deviation from established procedures but a blatant disregard for the statues, laws and
procedures that govern child protection. Their actions are so riddled with malice and
incompetence, that it is a complete and utter disgrace.
This situation is so unbelievable, annoying and stressful; to think, all we have been through and
then to have to sit here painstakingly writing this book makes our blood boil! Why have all these
rules and laws, if the people responsible for upholding the law and doing whats lawful and right
just disregard them when they get caught doing wrong? If we were to go out and commit the
smallest violation, we could be thrown in prison and even out of the country! We are tired of the
hypocrisy and double standards that infest the system. Back in the days it was covert, now these
people are out in the open with their hypocrisy and double standards.

Court Hearing on 20th April 2012

How did the family court make an interim care order on the 20th April 2012? How did they get
away with the making of an Interim Care Order in the Family Court?
The above question has been asked by many a real professional people who have got a grasp of
our case. The last person to ask this question was one of our Criminal Lawyers. Its a fair
question and goes to the heart of the terrible state of the Family Courts. The three Justices at the
first hearing namely, Rosmary Baker, K.James and R.Walker failed miserably in their duties. It
was as if the Court belonged to the LA. The Local Authority and their Barrister and Social
Worker, were not treated as applicants, but instead were treated as the bosses and owners of the
Court. While us as parents were treated in a condescending and contemptuous manner. Every
time a parent outlines the injustice they face in the Secret Family Courts, the Judges and
professionals that work in the child protection industry respond with a resounding the parents
are disgruntled and are not presenting a true nature of events another favourite is; the court

conducts a proper balancing exercise and a thorough enquiry is conducted into the
circumstances of every case, then it is stressed that the Courts do not make Care Orders on a

whim. Now, how bad does it have to get before some people start realising the utter fallacy of
those comments? Especially those authorities with the power to change and reform the Family

127

Just-Trick System. Our case highlights the fact that none of the above mantras are true. How can
a Local Authority kidnap children and deny parents with Parental responsibility, access to their
children for no reason for a clear 3 weeks unlawfully violating countless statues and procedures
throughout the process? Then they (LA) turn up to Court and deceive the court and after all
that, an order was made. If the Justices did the slightest inquiry into our case, it would be
impossible for the Royal Borough of Greenwich to obtain an order. The audacity of the Royal
Borough of Greenwich and the arrogance, of all their incompetent workers to initiate
proceedings after all the unlawful acts they have committed, is not only brazen but a true
testament to the despicable state of the Secret Family Courts. Then for these professionals to go
further and disrespect and undermine the rule of law by deceiving the court demonstrates they
themselves have no respect for the family courts or the rule of Law .
The LAs Threshold Document which had been presented before the court for consideration
at the first hearing on 20th April 2012 at Wells Street (FPC) Family Proceedings Court was
scant, inadequate, filled with inaccuracies and did not mention the unlawful acts committed.
There was no reason for an (ICO) Interim Care Order to be granted if the Justices were fulfilling
their duty and putting the interest of our children first and not focusing on legalising the actions
of the LA. The Threshold Criteria that exists in Public Law child care cases normally referred
to as Part IV Proceedings that are brought in line with the Children act 1989 were not met in our
case.
The application for a Care Order went before the Justices on the 20 th April 2012, at Wells street
Family Proceedings Court. This was after 3 weeks of the Royal Borough of Greenwich having
our children without an EPO or any legal or other justification for doing so. The Justices failed
to conduct an entirely proper balancing exercise, considered all the factors of relevance and nor
met 'the test' for interim removal. The decision of the Justices was wrong and unjust due to the
catalogue of Unlawful actions, serious procedural and other irregularities. Further there was no
evidence of abuse or bad parenting presented to the court. Us as parents and our children were
unfairly treated from the outset, there was no evidence or reason justifying the separation of our
children from us as parents and the decision to compound the situation and grant an Interim
Care Order was flawed; the Justices' decision to further separate us as a family, was wrong,
because it was clear by this time that our children were kidnapped and our children safety could
have been secured by returning them to their mother at home if they had concerns regarding
father; and that, accordingly, the ICO, further tainted the matter and made the court complicit in
the continued unlawful separation of our children from us as parents.
The effect of the 20th April order for our children and us as parents is that the conveyor belt of
injustice that was already set into motion was now WRONGLY given the seal of approval by
the Justices. Any professional that works in the family courts know all too well that once an ICO
is granted, whether justly or unjustly, it sets into motion a negative chain of events for children
and parents which is virtually impossible to bring to a halt. The above facts are reiterated in
numerous case law and Judgements and should be well known to every member of the Judiciary
who practises in the family courts. However, the importance of the need to take precautions of
such events occurring is extremely paramount.
It is important to point out that no judicial approval was sought by the rogues in our case.
Judicial approval was only later sought in an attempt to legitimise their actions (although it
hasnt). There are countless statues, case laws and rulings outlining the fact that the actions taken

128

by the rogues are against the Law and the fundamental principles of justice. Too much for us to
list in a small book such as this, however, and excerpt from Mrs Justice Pauffley below
judgement highlights the seriousness implications for children and families once separation has
occurred.
Mrs Justice Pauffley in her judgment Re NL (A child) (Appeal: Interim Care Order: Facts and
Reasons) [2014] EWHC 270 (Fam) Para 55 states:

This case provides a good example of how once separation has occurred there can be a certain
inevitability that it will be perpetuated. It is often and rightly said that the decisions taken about
placement at the outset of public law proceedings are amongst the most significant. They can be
and often are the most difficult. All the more reason, I would say, for immense trouble to be
taken so as to ensure those decisions are based upon good evidence and fully justified. Anything
less would be to ignore that a child, as the result of what occurs at the beginning of proceedings,
may be denied the opportunity, ultimately, of remaining within his natural family.

It is important to point out that these rogues in their overzealous and hasty removal of our
children did not even follow the basic procedures and were so far off the legal framework its
actually disgraceful. They just turned up kidnap children and did not even bother to seek judicial
scrutiny for this serious breach of human rights and intrusion into our family life. This sort of
brazen, careless and callous behaviour by rogue professionals is only possible because they have
full run of the family courts. They are fully aware that their will be no repercussions for their
repugnant and unlawful behaviour by incompetent family court judges who are often complicit
in the wrongdoings committed against innocent parents.

129

Chronology

28/03/2012-20/04/2012

At this point we should point out, for those who have not read the intro to the book and have
come straight to this chronology that DC Cooper, the lead detective who attended the school on
29.03.12 and used the excuse of Police Protection to kidnap our four children is the former
colleague of Mr Ken Palmer. They know each other from the days when Mr Ken Palmer who is
also a former police officer was assigned to the same unit (CAIT) as DC Cooper. DC Coopers
unprofessional and incompetent actions are at the centre of the injustice we have suffered, from
the beginning he did not attend the school to carryout an investigation, his actions make that
clear, and he failed to even open his Police Pocketbook to take any notes on 29.03.12 when he
attended the school. When you consider the serious fact that Police officers statements are made
from the notes taken at the scene of any incident. Ask yourself why DC Cooper fails to open his
police pocket book on such a serious investigation. Was it the fact that our daughter made no
disclosure and there was nothing to take notes of? Furthers serious questions are still
unanswered such as on what basis was DC Coopers statement written? and on what basis did
he decide to use police protection when it is clear he did not carryout even the basics of an
investigation this is evidence by the failure to even open his police pocket book to take any
notes. Well, as is clear a make it up as you go theme was in full effect. Even rooky police officers
know that, the first thing you do whenever you are carrying out an investigation is to open your
pocketbook and start taking notes. If you have ever encounter police officers you will know that
the first thing they do is flip that pocketbook out (it is usually black in colour) and start asking
you questions while taking notes. Making contemporaneous notes of any incident is a very
serious matter; it is a job requirement for serving police officers and actually forms part of what
makes a competent investigator, Police Officer or detective. Memory can be a fickle thing at
times and notes taken at the time of an incident is very important evidence. It can have serious
implications regarding a persons liberty or incarceration. Many an innocent people have avoided
prison on the basis of their innocence being proven by contemporaneous notes that highlights
their innocence. The opposite is also true. DC Coopers failure to open his pocketbook is clear
evidence that no police protection actually existed in law. Dc Coopers claim of using police
protection is not only flawed but virtually impossible. Police protection powers were not
designed to be used in the manner or guise that DC Cooper has attempted to use it. It is clear it
was used as a rouse to kidnap our children and as an excuse. This again is evidenced by the fact
that no notes were taken by him on the day or otherwise, is deceitful actions throughout the
entirety of this dreadful ordeal, the unlawful use of bail conditions and the countless other
unlawful, illegal and immoral acts committed by DC Cooper against our family.
This has been established in his cross examination in the Family Court. Until this day, he has
failed to give a clear reason as to why he felt the need to kidnap our children. As is clear and has

130

been established at many intervals in our case; No Police Protection Authorisation record exists
for our children. Home office circular stipulates that whenever police protection powers are
used a police protection authorisation record must be completed. This is a statutory
requirement and must be adhered to. The police protection authorisation record has many
important sections which must be filled in whenever a child is taken into police protection for
example part 19 of the police protection authorisation record has the heading:
Full circumstances why police protection was taken subsequent actions, decisions made and
reasons. To include date and time.
As you will find out later in the book, incompetent District Judge Alderson (Family Court)
claimed he did not know when police protection started or ended in this case. This
incompetence and what we believe to be clear slight of hand tactic is beggars belief. All that was
required for him to establish when police protection began or ended was to ask DC Cooper
when he was on the stand in the family court or at the very least request the police protection
record which by the way should have already formed part of any document presented to the
family court regarding children who were kidnapped and held without lawful authority. However
the request of any such document or addressing the obvious would highlight the unlawfulness
and absurdity of the entire situation, therefore as is clear it was safer for this incompetent
District Judge Alderson to deny knowing when police protection began or when it ended. This
sort of incompetence and slight of hand tactics is what flourishes in the secret family courts of
the united kingdom of Great Britain.
We have outlined below a brief chronology of events starting on the 28 March 2012 and ending
on the 20 April 2012.
Wed: 28-03-2012- Alleged disclosure made to Ms Alison Webber (Learning Mentor at Invicta
Primary School). Ms Webber claims our eldest daughter, Avery and her sister Cassie, were
punched in face on sat 24-03-2012. The school made a referral on the 28-03-2012 to LA
Social Services department.
(We were not informed of any concerns regarding our children even when we went to
collect our children after school on the 28-03-2011.) The question still remains and one
which is of great concern to us as parents, that if there was such a serious risk of significant
harm why were our children allowed to come home with us on 28 March 2012? Why didnt she
(Mrs Corbett), inform us of the so-called disclosure? Even on the morning of the 29 March 2012
when we dropped our children off to school, there were no concerns raised with us as parents.
Even throughout the day of the 29 March 2012 there was clear opportunity to inform us of any
disclosure that was made on the 28 March 2012 before we attended to collect our children on
the evening of the 29 March 2012. It has always been known by us that our daughters or
daughter made no disclosure to any of these corrupt rogues. What is absolutely clear is that
Mrs Corbett, Ms Webber, Mr Maslin and the others involved appeared to have intended to elicit
the element of surprise. As the records highlight events that transpired leading up to and on
the 29 March 2012 was clearly to ambush us and kidnap our children.

131

Thurs: 29-03-2012- Upon Arrival at school to collect our children. Mrs Corbett (head teacher)
refused to bring our children to us, claiming that one of our children has made a disclosure
(the disclosure we refer to is the same so called disclosure that is claimed was made on 28-032012, when nothing was done. We were not informed and our children were collected as
usual). We told her (Mrs Corbett) to bring our children to us and she refused.
(Mrs Corbett, had no legal authority to withhold our children from us as parents with full
parental responsibility as defined by Section(2)(1) Children Act 1989.
Thurs: 29-03-2012: Our Children were kidnapped by Police. Upon arrival at the school the
Social Worker Ms Marie Morris, DC Cooper and DC Cullinane behaved in a very unprofessional
and hostile manner. They were all clearly deceitful in the execution of their duties.
They were not interested in any co-operation with us as parents or interested in getting our
views. If they had, our children would be at home today. Even before speaking or seeing our
children they did not request or obtain permission or parental consent to speak to any of our
children which were by this time being kept unlawfully and falsely imprisoned in the school by
Mrs Marie Corbett. Police officers can speak to any adult when carrying out their investigations.
However, the law is clear in regards to children. Police officers must obtain Parental consent,
consent of the childrens Guardian or the permission of a Court, before speaking or in our case
interviewing and interrogating children.
Arrested and taken to police station. No comment interview. We have no idea where our
children were taken, who was responsible for their care or who had access to our children. Our
children should have gone home with their mother who was present on 29 March 2012 and
was not the subject of any of the so-called allegations or disclosures alleged to have been
by our children to the school or otherwise.

30/03/2012: Restrictive, unnecessary and unlawful Bail Conditions Placed on both of us.
Preventing us from seeing our children; we have no idea where our children were taken or who
was responsible for their care after they were taken or who had access to our children. Also we
have no idea where our children were or are until this day.
01/04/2012: Expiry of so-called Police Protection Powers. We have no idea where our
children were taken or who was responsible for their care. It has yet to be established what
authority or powers were used to on 29 March 2012. It is clear Police Protection Powers were
not actually used on 29 March 2012 or has even ever legally existed in relation to our children.
We have no idea where our children were or who they were left with.
02/04/2012: Continuation of children being illegally and unlawfully in the care of the Local
authority and the Police. Parents have no knowledge, no idea where our children were taken or
who was responsible for their care after they were taken. We were prevented from
communicating or seeing them by unlawful bail conditions imposed by DC Cooper and
Greenwich Social Services. We have no idea where our children were.

132

03/04/2012: Continuation of unlawful and illegal actions to include false imprisonment of our
children. That occurred at the initially on 29/03/2012 and has continued throughout the
entirety of this sordid ordeal until this day.
04/03/2012: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day.
05/03/2012: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were.
06/03/2012: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were.
07/03/2012: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day.
08/03/2012: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day.
09/03/2012: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day.
10/03/2012: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day.
11/03/2012: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day.
12/03/2012: Continuation of unlawful and illegal actions. Also we have no idea where our
children were or are until this day.
13/04/2012: Continuation of unlawful and illegal actions. First Unlawfully conducted ABE
Interview at Marlowe House. Children being illegally and unlawfully in the care of the
Local authority and the Police. Parents have no knowledge or idea who was responsible for
their care, after they were taken. Where our children were taken or who had access to our
children? What was being said to them as to why they couldnt see their parents? We were
prevented from communicating or seeing our children by bail conditions imposed by DC
Cooper. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day.
14/04/12: Parents have no knowledge or idea who was responsible for the care of their children
after they were taken. Where our children were taken or who had access to our children. What
was being said to them as to why they cant see their parents? We were prevented from
communicating or seeing our children by bail conditions imposed by DC Cooper and Greenwich
Social Services. Children being illegally and unlawfully in the care of the Local authority and the
Police. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day.
15/04/12: Children being illegally and unlawfully in the care of the Local authority and the
police. Parents have no knowledge or idea who was responsible for their care after they were
taken. Where our children were taken or who had access to our children. What was being said to
them as to why they cant see their parents? We were prevented from communicating or seeing
them by bail conditions imposed by DC Cooper and Greenwich Social Services.
16/04/2012: Children were taken back to school without obtaining parental consent and
against the wishes and feelings of our children nor any legal authority. Also Police conducted a
second unlawful ABE of the court. We have no idea where our children were.
17/04/12: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day.

133

18/04/12: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day.
19/04/12: Same as above. Also we have no idea where our children were or are until this day,
continuation of unlawful and illegal actions to include false imprisonment of our children.
20-04-2012: Date of first Court hearing. After falsely imprisoning our children and having kept
them unlawfully for 3 weeks and them being restricted from seeing us by bail conditions
imposed by DC Cooper and Greenwich Social Services a Interim Care Order was wrongly
granted by court because it was said we had bail conditions restricting our contact with our
children and the court needed to legalise the position of Greenwich Childrens Services. We
could not make it up if we tried! After all the injustice, abuse of power, abuse of position and
just outright immoral actions of these so called professionals that occurred and without any
evidence whatsoever presented to the Family Court. Same as above, also we have no idea where
our children were or are until this day, continuation of unlawful and illegal actions to include
false imprisonment of our children.

We as parents have no information regarding the whereabouts of our children from the time
they were taken until now! Our children were Kidnapped on the 29th March 2012 and it was not
until the 19th May 2012, which was the first time my wife had seen our youngest three children,
namely, Beth, Cassie and Daniel and then on the 16th June 2012 was the first time my wife had
seen our eldest child Avery, since they were snatched. There are so many unanswered questions.
Where did our four children sleep? What did they eat? What were the conditions they were
staying in? Who were they with? Were they warm? Where they safe? who had access to our
children?
One thing is for sure, they have suffered immensely not knowing what was going on and being
prevented from seeing us. Especially, our son who was only 3 years old at the time! What
questions they must have been asking themselves and each other; Are my mum and dad okay?
Are they safe? Where are my mum and dad? Why didnt they pick us up from school? And the
ultimate question we know must have been on their mind and one no child should ever be
made to think; Are my mum and dad dead? We firmly believe these callous rogues didnt show
any regard for the distress and emotional turmoil and also the severe mental torture they have
inflicted upon our four innocent children, showing no care or regard to the position they have
placed our children in. Yet the audacity of these same professionals wholl claim to have the
child best interests at heart! and that The interest of the child is of paramount concern. We
have no knowledge or idea where our children were taken or who was responsible for their care
after they were taken and that situation has remained the same until this day. We were prevented
from communicating or seeing them by bail conditions maliciously imposed by DC Bret Cooper
and Greenwich social services.

134

The unlawful and illegal state of affairs and the countless violations existed for the entire 3
weeks that our children were falsely imprisoned, and continue to this day. The Threshold
Criteria was not even close to being crossed when the Royal Borough of Greenwich
fraudulently obtained an (ICO) Interim Care Order rubberstamped by Justices Rosmary
Baker, M. Walker and K. James on the 20th April 2012.

ADDITIONALLY:
30/03/2012: The day after our children were kidnapped and Restrictive, unnecessary and
unlawful Bail Conditions Placed on both of us. We have now found out that our children were
made to attend and taken back to Invicta Primary school without our knowledge or consent.
They were made to remain their against their wishes and feelings, without parental
consent nor any legal authority of the court or justification. This state of cruel affairs
continued for over a year after our children were kidnapped.
The Royal Borough of Greenwich and its staff have a lot to answer for in its cruel and
disgraceful assault on our family.

16/04/2012: This was the date of second ABE interrogation of our children. Our children
who were by this time still being held unlawfully after being kidnapped on the 29 March 2012
were picked up from to Invicta Primary School and taken to Marlow House Sidcup to be
interrogated. All this without us as parents having any knowledge of the whereabouts of our
children and while being restricted by unlawful bail conditions. All these rogues carried out their
unlawful acts without obtaining parental consent and against the wishes and feelings of our
children nor any legal authority of the court. So in a nutshell without the parents who have
lawful authority and consent knowing where their children are these incompetent rogues took
our children back to the school in the arms of the original kidnappers and also kept them fully
informed, who by the way have no legal authority or otherwise to have our children in the first
place and where the allegations originated. Hitler must be brimming with pride in his grave that
is sorts of ruthless and wicked practices live on today in the systems of the united kingdom of
Great Britain so-called child protection. Only Nazi Germany under Hitler can be compared to
the current practices of the likes we have experienced. Grossly cruel and manipulatively wick.
Also, there had been no change in the legal situation and it was the same as on 29/03/1202/03/2012.
16/04/2012: The Second ABE was conducted (Without our knowledge or consent). By this time
the same conditions existed as on 30/03/12 and 02/03/2012.
(1). Considering that they had our children illegally and it is a requirement that parental
consent is obtained before an ABE interview can take place NO ABE interview should have
been conducted.
By the time the police conducted both ABE interviews (13 April 2012 and 16 April 2012) while
our children had not seen us since being taken on the 29 March 2012 and it has been disclosed
that no explanation was offered to our children as to why they werent been allowed to see us.
Further, it was later also disclosed they were asking to see us and were ignored.

135

On 29/03/2012 our children were kept and interviewed spoken to together and in the
presence of Ms Alison Webber, (who it is claimed the alleged disclosure was made to) She (Ms
Webber) should never have been present and allowed to be around our children on that day,
further no interview should have taken place. However these rogues have disclosed that Ms
Webber was very instrumental in this entire affair and it was her job to remain with the children
wherever they were being hidden in the school and was with them on the 29 March 29 2012 until
6 pm in the evening and every school day after that, much like a jail house screw or a lookout in
a robbery. The sad thing is this is our children that these manipulative and vile people were
traumatising. It has been disclosed that our children were left hungry on 29 March 2012 and it is
only when Mrs Webber felt hungry that she realised that our children might be hungry as well.
4. It is recorded that our children were questioned 7 times (we believe it was more) by people
not trained or qualified to conduct ABE interviews involving children. These interviews were
done before and leading up to the ABE interview of 13/04/12 and 16/04/2012. This is what has
been disclosed officially, who knows how many other times they were spoken to without it been
recorded? The truth of the matter is far worse hence, the shredding of documents in our case!
The catalogue of Laws that were violated as a result of the actions of these people is countless.
Having a child for one day UNLAWFULLY or ILLEGALLY raises so much legal issues. They
had our children for the first initial 3 weeks without any LEGAL OR LAWFUL authority to
do so and that unlawful situation exists until this very day. Now the malicious actions and
prejudice involved in our case is so evident and scandalous that its practically unbelievable.
Every effort has been made by the Police and the Social Services to try and discredit us to cover
up their actions. All their efforts have been unsuccessful. However, they still cant explain why
they had our four children initially for 3 weeks unlawfully. It is an established fact that goes to
the heart of this case.
All this for what? Because some narcissistic rogue professional is carrying hurt feelings or is their
something more sinister at play? This entire situation originated at Charlton Manor Primary
school. It appears very clear this was all done in effort of Mr Tim Baker (Headteacher of
Charlton Manor primary School) and the burning question for all you rogues is this; was it worth
it? Perhaps we should direct that question to; Mrs Corbett, Mr Maslin, Ms Webber, Ms Cuff, Ms
Morris, Ms Mc Donald, Ms Carrington, Mr Myles, Mr Ken Palmer and DC Cooper, DC
Cullinane, DS Sarah Fisher and DI Justin Armstrong and to you also, Director of Children
Services Royal Borough of Greenwich, Ms Gillian Palmer- Was it worth it?! The web of deceit
you have all woven in your efforts of trying to tear apart a loving family and traumatising four
young innocent children is outright disgraceful. Shame on all of you!

136

Section 20
All the unlawful and illegal actions taken by professionals in our case were totally avoidable.
Had the so-called professionals acted in their capacity as professionals and had not acted
deceitfully, biased and unprofessional, this unfortunate situation would have never occurred.
Had they approached the matter with integrity, they would have discovered from the outset that
the referral was malicious. Our children and us as a family would not have suffered this tragic
injustice. Its like giving a person treatment for an illness they do not have; based upon an
incorrect and malicious diagnosis by professionals. All the while the person has been protesting
that they do not have the wrongly diagnosed disease. Yet, they are completely ignored by
professionals who should know better. When it is discovered that they (Professionals) were
wrong in their professional conduct and have acted unlawfully every possible action is taken to
cover their wrong doing and further compounding the suffering of the person.

The rogues in our case had no section 20 Agreement. Section 20 Agreements are voluntary
agreements between Local Authority and parents that can only exist when a parents consents
and voluntarily agrees for the Local Authority to accommodate their child or children. This will
exist in the form of a document which the parent must agree to sign. Without the signing of this
document no such agreement exists. The temerity of the Royal Borough of Greenwich in their
dealings with us was to first kidnap our children, then in a manner only befitting of the mafia try
to illicit our consent to a section 20 agreement. Naturally we did not consent and outright
refused to be forced to sign any such document and demanded the immediate return of our
children. They can call it what they like but we were clearly being blackmailed. If someone
comes and steals something of immense value from you and try to get you to sign a document
regarding what they have stolen, in an effort to legalise their actions then thats what we call
blatant kidnap. We could go on forever on this point, however we believe it sufficed to say that
Section 20 of the children ACT 1989 was not designed to be used in a manner that would
make the mafia blush. We have highlighted a 2012 judgement below regarding Section 20 to
give you the reader a clearer understanding of the principles of Section 20.

Section 20 case
Section 20: Re CA (A baby) [2012] High Court Family Division Hedley J 30th July 2012
WWHC 2190 (Fam)
CA is the fourth child of her mother. Her older siblings are the subject of placement orders
and have been placed for adoption. The mother has undergone several assessments in
proceedings involving older children and the local authority had determined pre- birth that
she would be unable to parent CA. They planned to remove the child as soon as she was fit
from discharge from hospital after birth and initiate care proceedings with a care plan for
adoption. The mother was aware of the plan to remove the child and not actively opposed to

137

it. The mother was admitted to hospital for emergency surgery in the late stages of the
pregnancy and CA was delivered. The mother was not able to talk to the social worker
immediately after delivery. Later in the day she was able to and refused to consent to the
baby being accommodated. Later still, she was administered morphine and saw the social
worker again. This time, after discussing the matter on the telephone with a friend and her
partner, but not her lawyer, she agreed to the baby being placed in foster care. She had not
appreciated that if she had refused, the baby would have stayed with her in hospital and
there would have been no grounds for the local authority to seek an order for removal. The
court made an order for a care and placement order on a case which was described as
overwhelming. The mother also made a claim for damages for herself and the child for
breach of their right to a quiet and family life arising out of the circumstances of the
accommodation of the child immediately after birth. The local authority conceded the claim
and damages were agreed, but the court took the opportunity to set guidelines on the use of
section 20 of the Children Act 1989:
(i)

Every parent with parental responsibility and capacity has the right to
consent to accommodation of his child under section 20.

.(vi) If the social worker is not satisfied that the parent fully understands,
consent should not be pursued and managers advice should be sought.
(vii) The social worker must be further satisfied that giving of consent and the
removal of the child is fair and proportionate.

Let us break down this judgement in layman terms: what it clearly states is although
the mother in the above judgement was assessed the actions by the social worker
(Local authority) were against her and the babies human rights, why? Well, as a
parent with parental responsibility, you and your child/children have a right to
private and family life and even with this case, where mother had been assessed and
her three other children adopted, the local authority still had no grounds to remove
the baby and we quote: She had not appreciated that if she had refused, the
baby would have stayed with her in hospital and there would have been no
grounds for the local authority to seek an order for removal. This case is just
one example of the seriousness of having no section 20 agreement and
accommodating children without any legal basis for doing so, so imagine in our case
there were No grounds to remove our four children in the first place and further
compounding the unlawful situation without any such agreement, violating us as
parents and our childrens right to private and family life. This explains why, in our
case they repeatedly pressured us to sign an undated Section 20 voluntary
agreement and when we didnt sign the rogues were not pleased, we were accused
of not engaging with the local authority! Further may we clarify, that even if the
Section 20 agreement had been dated, we would not have signed it, after all it is a
voluntary agreement!

138

The above judgement highlights to us that the rogues in our case were knowingly
trying to cover-up their wrong doings. At the time we had no idea what a section 20
agreement was(BUT THE ROGUES DID) and as is now clear our lack of knowledge
then regarding section 20 was clearly being taken advantage of. However the manner
in which our children were taken and the subsequent pressure to sign this document
had alarm bells ringing for us. As the judge highlighted in the above judgment if
parents refuse to sign a section 20 agreement the local authority should seek an order
for removal. Not kidnap children then after having them for a considerable period of
time unlawfully turn around and try to deviously illicit a section 20 agreement from
the parents as they did with us. As the law currently stands, if there is no section 20
agreement or court order in place the children should not be accommodated by the
Local Authority or otherwise and in fact should have been returned to us as parents
immediately. Everything regarding how these rogue professionals handled this
entirely corrupt ordeal is abominable and should be testament of what should never
again be allowed to happen.

139

This page is intentionally blank

140

Chapter 6
Social workers

Artwork by Albina Kumirova

This chapter covers the social workers involved in this ordeal and outlines some of what they did
or fail to do and their actions in date sequence. We say some of because the entirety of their
malpractice in this ordeal would fill a couple encyclopaedias. We have to give these rogues A +
for tenacity and brazen callousness. Upon our extensive research and experience we have come
to establish what it means to be a competent Social Worker. In all fairness it is important to
point out that some of the social workers who ultimately got involved were unwilling
participants to this entire sordid affair. However that does not immunise them from their
complicity in the unlawful and immoral acts committed against our family. The immoral
monopoly that exist in child protection and the family Just-trick System by Local Authority
social workers and other such professionals creates a breeding grounds for wrongdoing and
corruption of the likes we have experienced. There is no truly independent oversight or effective
scrutiny nowhere to be found in the current system. Our case and the thousands of other
innocent children and parents screaming to be heard is evidence of that fact. When is enough
really enough. To say the current system does not work would be a clear understatement. What
will it take for a real change to occur? Incompetence is one thing but rampant corruption is a
wholly different matter. At present punishing parents and children who dear to speak out seems
to be the order of the day and covering for the corrupt a priority. Well we have done one better
and named all the corrupt and incompetent we have come across, so based on the current state
of affairs there should be a lot more punishing coming our way and a lot more cover-up. The socalled professionals responsible for scrutinising the actions of these rogues are as independent as
two butt cheeks. Anyway there is a lot more that could be said regarding the rogues, incompetent
and corrupt in the social work profession; however we would like to take this opportunity to
commend the competent social workers. It is often said that the rogues are just a few bad apples
and do not represent the entire profession, we find the reverse to be true. Being as it may and In

141

any event we would sincerely like to encourage those who consider themselves to be competent
social workers to refuse to accept the wrongful practices that are prevalent in your profession.
Once upon a time long long ago social work was a respected profession until it became infested
by rogues with nefarious intentions. Today most competent social workers who have a sense of
empathy and human dignity quickly leave the profession because of what they see as rampant
malpractice and corruption. Many a competent social workers are also forced out of the
profession after becoming isolated for doing the right thing and highlighting wrongdoing or
malpractice. What seems to currently pervades the profession are those who care nothing
whatsoever about being competent social workers and do not have the slightest interest in the
wellbeing of children or families. No one wants to rock the boat even in the face of overt wrong
doing and corruption. One of the social workers we spoke to as a part of our research to write
this book (she was not involved in our case whatsoever and asked to remain anonymous)
disclosed to us that Job security and financial commitments are the other of the day where she
works. She also disclose to us that many of her colleagues were regularly bullied and pressured to
meet targets, pressured to use colourful language (falsify witness statements) by senior staff
members so as to effect the removal of children, facilitate adoptions and cover their back. She
further outlined that this has resulted in many of her colleagues having nervous breakdowns or
leaving the profession all together. However she said some people are forced to put up with it
because they have children and mortgage and other commitments. After speaking to this social
worker and many others we got a peek through the peephole of what happens on the other side
of the fence and made us more empathetic to the plight of some social workers. Do not get us
wrong, we will not be crying a tear for any social worker anytime soon. However, our
anonymous whistle blower paints a disturbing picture and goes some way in highlighting why so
many competent social workers leave the profession and many of those that remain are mute
through fear of upsetting the status quo.

The Social Workers in our case

In our case alone, there have been a total of five Local Authority Social Workers. However,
based on how we know genuine, professional Social Workers are supposed to behave within
their role, we believe it imperative to mention the rogue individuals who dare to call themselves
Professionals Social Workers, who claim to have the childs best interests at heart. Now,
these individuals are known as:

Marie Morris
Alison Mc Donald
Victoria Carrington
Teresa Amprako-Appiah
Fardowsa Galal.
Not one of the above raised any issues as to the deplorable and wicked
actions of the school, Police or their colleagues. They showed no
empathy for our children as to the serious, emotional and traumatic
effects of being kidnapped and detained. They have had our children
from the day they were kidnapped until this day. They have all sought to

142

clandestinely ignore and cover up the actions of their colleagues, to the

further detriment of our children.

1st Social Worker, Ms Marie Morris

This individual was the initial social worker, its a shame she didnt even bother to carry out an
Initial Assessment! Absolutely, unbelievable! We believe Ms Morris has demonstrated to be as
useful as a fork used to consume a bowl of soup!!!
On the 29th March 2012 when she arrived at Invicta primary school, she was noticeably heavily
pregnant. When we write about this woman, every single thing she did not do is actually how
the situation unfolded at Invicta primary school, on Thursday 29 th March 2012. I, Mrs Plowright
was the first to encounter Ms Marie Morris. Upon her arriving at the school, with DC Cooper
and DC Cullinane; Ms Marie Morris stated that there has been an allegation and with that said,
she will need to speak my children. She did not disclose what the allegation was and I did not
give my consent. She wrongly and deceptively claimed Section 47, would enable her and the
detectives speak to my children, even if I did not give my consent. Nothing is further from the
truth. A Section 47 is an enquiry carried out by local authority, only if it has reasonable
cause to suspect, a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. It does not grant
any special powers to social workers or police officers and it certainly does not override the
lawful rights of parents or the need for parental consent to first be obtained. If an LA is denied
access to a child then, they should immediately apply to the Court. Ms Marie Morris would in
the first instance, be required to first see my children, to establish that they are indeed suffering,
or likely to suffer significant harm, however as highlighted earlier in the book, no such thing
happened as she never even bothered to contact us as parents to carry out an Initial Assessment,
yet by some magical means she got to the stage of a section 47 enquiry without so much as
seeing the children first.
29th March 2012, Marie Morris, in the presence of us as parents, DC Cooper and DC Cullinane.
Ms Marie Morris claimed to have the childs interests at heart.(We have evidence of her stating
this via our recording done on the day) Then when it was established that she and the two
detectives have already spoken to our children she deceived us, making it appear as though they
had not been spoken to our children when indeed they had. Also, we made clear that an
independent adult should have been present. Ms Morris clearly did not have the interests of our
children at heart and instead of making clear to Mrs Corbett that our children should have never
been detained, she further compounded the situation. Marie Morris, made clear to us that if we
had an independent adult sitting at the meeting (interview), then, she could not be sure what
relationship that individual would have with the child and further claimed that she could not be
sure what sort of impact that individual would have.

143

As a professional, why did Ms Morris allow Miss Alison Webber to sit in on the interview at the
school? Ms Morris failed to establish what impact having Ms Webber amongst god knows who
else present at the interview at the school would have on our children, she failed to consider that
fact and she failed to place the needs of our children above the schools, namely, Mrs Corbett, Ms
Webber, Mr Maslin (Deputy Headteacher).
Also, for a Social Worker, whose main concern should be the children and after a long school
day and with the time as late as it was, why was there no concern for our childrens well being by
this rogue, the fact they would not have eaten and the fact that they would be tired, would have
any competent social worker seriously concerned. Ms Morris on the other hand was not
concerned.
No injuries- What remains a telling feature of this ordeal and incredibly bizarre, is why, when an
alleged allegation of physical abuse was made on two children punched, why then did she fail
to follow the London Safeguarding Board Guidelines? The London Safeguarding Board clearly
states, whenever there is an allegation of physical abuse made by a child, with no visible injuries
then, it is a matter for a social worker to investigate as part of an initial assessment. Police as
(CAIT) intervention is not deemed necessary and would not be warranted had the correct
procedures been followed. Now, the question begs to be answered, whether Ms Morris lacks
training in her role as social worker? No matter which way you look at it, by no means should
this situation have warranted a joint investigation had correct procedure been followed.
24th October 2012 Fact finding Hearing at Gee Street Family Proceedings Court- What has
remained concerning for us as parents and throughout these family proceedings, is the fact that
Ms Morris has never submitted a statement, giving an account of the events that transpired
after the referral was received by the LA or what had occurred on the 29th March 2012 the date
our children were kidnapped. Why is this? Could it be because she never so much as conducted
an Initial Assessment? Or the fact that she failed to carry out a visit to our home address as part
of that Initial assessment? Ms Marie Morris stated the reason why we as parents were not
informed of the referral made by Mrs Corbett on the 28th March 2012, was because she claimed
our family, were known to social services(she has not made clear what she means by were
known to social services as our only encounter was on the basis of the malicious referral made
by Mr Tim Baker) and that the reason for the allegation was why we were not informed( We
have no clue what this even means as it does not make sense to us what reason?).
Ms Morris made clear, that Ms Webber had not been present when our children were first
spoken to by detectives on 29th March 2012, when in fact Miss Webber was in actual fact
present. Ms Morris has exposed herself as what we believe to be a calculating liar, she claimed
Ms Webber was not present at the interview at the school with the children, as she had been
aware that by having Ms Webber present would impact upon what is said by our children, her
cunning ability to give an account emitting Ms Webber from the interview at the school was a
blatant attempt to make it appear when she spoke to our children that she as a Social Worker
carried out an impartial and unbiased interview, when indeed she had been aware that in fact that
was not the case.

144

In her attempt to justify our children not seeing us on March 29th 2012, she claimed our children
did not want to see their parents. Which has been a fallacy regurgitated by numerous rogues! Our
children cry and beg us to come home on practically every occasion that we see them.
It is clear on document known as case notes, that Ms Morris had consented to our children
attending breakfast club to commence at 8am on Friday 30th March 2012 and Ms Morris also
consented to our children attending after school club to finish at 6pm and I quote her reasons
as to not cause any further disruption to them. Curious choice of words; after our children
were deprived from seeing their parents and then sent back to the same school who have
members of staff active in their role of falsely imprisoning young children and making a
malicious referral. Ms Morris appears to be unable to take into account the impact her actions as
a so called professional has caused. As a social worker you are presented with three children
under the age of ten at school, and yet at the end of the school day anticipating being picked up
by their parents are then thrust into a world unknown and confronted by strange faces, one
namely, Ms Morris who transported our children to places an people unknown.
Concern- Ms Morris claimed that when she saw our children on 29th March, she observed, all
their legs were extremely dry and did not look like they had been creamed that morning. This
did not make any sense because based on the malicious and morphed allegations made by
Charlton Manor and Invicta with regards to so-called neglect and hair being matted and claims
they were unkempt does indeed contradict what Ms Morris had claimed to observe, as she did
not mention anything negative about the condition our childrens hair had been in and the
presentation of their uniform etc. So you have a situation as the lies and decit were unfolding the
stories start becoming bizarre and contradictory. The sad but qurious Part of all this is that these
rogues put their sordid machinations on paper confident in the knowledge that the secret family
courts will shield them from public scrutiny. Well on this occasion we have preserved the files
and we are adamant the public deserves the right to know what is being done in its name and
with its tax revenues in these secret courts. It is clear our children were not sent to school with
dry legs absolute nonsense and lies told by what has been proved to be a deceitful Social
Worker. Thats the thing about lies, the more people involved, the harder it becomes to keep up
with the lies!
We have come to see that for an incompetent Social Worker such as herself, who didnt even
carry out an Initial Assessment, she is not qualified to carry out or even be relied on for such an
observation as she has proven herself to be a liar, unprofessional and deceitful, it is clear her
words cannot be trusted and with that said, she is a disgrace and should be ashamed to state that
she is a professional who claims to put the interest of the child first, when on the day of March
29th she clearly had the needs of the Invicta malicious staff and CAIT detectives at the forefront.
Furthermore, Ms Morris stated that the alleged allegation seemed inconsistent to her
knowledge, however, she proceeded in any event.
24th October 2012 Gee Street Court- Ms Morris made clear that indeed a Strategy Discussion
did take place, she claimed she was not present However, stated that her Manager Ms Alinda
Benade was present along with Assistant Team Manager, Ms Karen Sholtz. Even though Ms
Morris attended court, she has still failed to submit a statement, despite our requests, we wonder
why? Could it be because she failed to carry out an Initial Assessment? An all the other

145

misgivings would be highlighted. This is clearly unprofessional and highlights the extent of the
corruption we have endured. Everyone who is required to give evidence in court is require to
complete a statement. You cant question a witness without a witness statement or can you? Well
in the family court anything goes and documents being shredded by rogues or created after the
fact is no big deal to the incompetent judges we have encountered. In their haste to cover-up and
side with their colleagues a small issue such as the failure of the initial social worker in attendance
to give an account and make a statement outlining the reasons to support her professional
judgement regarding the monumental and life changing decision of removing four children from
the loving care of their parents who were their soul and only carers and all they have grown to
known was not very important to these incompetent judges who ultimately got involved.

Ms Alinda Benade (Team Manager for Ms Marie Morris)

Let us introduce you to Team Manager, and Ms Morriss Manager, Ms Alinda Benade; this
individuals name has kept rearing its head throughout our ordeal. I, Mrs Plowright, have only
ever seen this rogue on one occasion, while she was in the company of Ms Alison Mc Donald
the second social worker they had installed on this case, I will expand on our brief encounter
below. Now, it is clear that she was in actual fact present at whatever so-called strategy
discussion they claimed took place(it seems these rogues had more of tragedy discussion rather
than a strategy discussion), what remains unclear, is whether Ms Alinda Benade or Ms Karen
Sholtz, Assistant Team Manager, contacted the Police in the initial stages? We know the answer,
but well leave you, the reader to decide. In the Royal Borough of Greenwich Social Work
document marked Case notes dated 29th March 2012, which clearly displays and were indeed
entered by Ms Alinda Benade outlines, that we as parents are unlikely to sign Section 20
accommodation after this time..

As a senior staff who should know better and the fact that countless guidelines and laws were
already broken and with no evidence of any so-called punch in the face or otherwise occurring,
Ms Benade should, under no circumstances should have instructed Mrs Corbett to detain our
children at school (as it was stated by Mrs Corbett, Headteacher of Invicta, during her cross
examination in court.) Further, the fact that a Manager can conduct herself in such a manner, it
is very clear as to why and how Ms Morris behaved the way she had on the day of the 29 th March
2012. It is established That Ms Benade was a social work manager involved in this ordeal, with
manager the likes of her no wonder matters unfolded as they did. Who is responsible for
employing this level incompetence at The Royal Borough of Greenwich? A serious waste of tax
revenues if there ever was. Ms Benade is what we believe to be a poor excuse for a social work
Manager and should be absolutely ashamed of her self; she is a complete disgrace to the social
work profession.

Ms Karen Sholtz (Assistant Team Manager)

This individual is Assistant Team Manager, it was confirmed by Ms Morris that Ms Sholtz was
indeed present at the Strategy Discussion. It was also later confirmed by DC Cooper that he had
contacted AJ who as it is reported then spoken to Ms Sholtz.

146

Now, Ms Sholtz is not in a position to claim plausible deniability as she was complicit regarding
the decision that our children be removed and essentially was aware that no court order had been
in place hence, Ms Karen Sholtz being present on the first day at court on 20th April 2012. As an
Assistant Manager, and professional Ms Sholtz, demonstrated incompetence in her ability to flag
up or raise concerns regarding our case and the false imprisonment of our four children. On
April 5th 2012 had been the first time us as parents were meeting both Ms Mc Donald and Ms
Sholtz together. However, it is an experience which we have remembered, because during that
time Ms Sholtz being aware of the current situation appeared amused, she laughed
uncontrollably almost throughout the entire time we were present. It was as though she had been
laughing about something we were unaware of, completely unprofessional. Further, she did not
hesitate to disregard us as parents when we had stated our daughter was born on 29 th March and
not 29th April as the incorrect date had been suggested, when we corrected Ms Sholtz that our
daughters birthday was in fact 29th April, she doubted what we had told her particularly as
parents who would know when their child was born she appeared to accept the 29th March as
our childs date of birth. However, it is common for these professionals to disregard parents
and not believe anything they say.
Strategy Discussion- In our case and unknown to us at the time, a Strategy discussion had
taken place. A strategy Discussion; is to decide whether the referral made would require a Joint
Agency investigation e.g. (CAIT) Child Abuse Investigation Team, and/or if so, whether the
LA, would need to obtain an (EPO) Emergency Protection Order, even without involvement
from Police (CAIT). Prior to this, the professionals would need to ascertain whether the
child/children are at risk and so an Initial Assessment would need to establish that fact. Also,
if needed whether the LA would need to initiate proceedings.
Present at this discussion, to our knowledge and confirmed in cross examinations, were Ms
Alinda Benade, Ms Karen Sholtz and from the Police, DS Sara Fisher, which took place either
on 28th March or 29th March 2012. We have continued to request the minutes of the strategy
discussion and to this day have never seen it as we would receive answers to questions regarding
how these Professionals arrived at the decision to take all four of our children and why the
authorities namely, The Royal Borough of Greenwich, CAIT or Social Services failed to obtain
an EPO?

Ms Alison Mc Donald (2nd Social worker)

Talk about going from bad to worse, Ms Marie Morris was incompetent, however, Ms Alison Mc
Donald, by far would have to be the worst social worker our family has had the misfortune of
encountering! Now, for clarity we would like to point out that while all the social workers who
got involved are complicit in the unlawful actions, wrongdoing and injustice our family have

147

suffered. We believe Ms Alison McDonald is the worst of the worst, when it comes to social
workers and she appears to be in a league of her own when it comes to incompetent and coldhearted social workers! She is the quintessential personification of what a social worker should
not be. If we were to make a guess this one has got serious personal issues which has damaged
the balance of her moral compass. However we are not in the business of guessing but we can be
sure plenty of innocent parents up and down the country have their own Alison McDonald in
the form of an unbalanced and malign rogue professional.
We will explain more in a moment. We were left shocked as this womans utter disregard for the
law and also lack of concern for our four children, and as to what sort of impact this situation
would have on them.
Now, Alison Mc Donald took our case from the 2nd April 2012, for clarity and emphasis we
would like to reiterate and make crystal clear that, by this time our children were now being held
unlawfully by the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Social Services. As a social worker, Ms Alison
Mc Donald would be aware that the local authority had no right within the law or otherwise to
further falsely imprison our four children. In this situation Alison McDonald should have gone
to Court to apply for an Emergency Protection Order, (EPO) which lasts for 8 days. She could
have even applied for an Interim Care Order (ICO) which lasts for 8 weeks? Instead, she decided
to hold her very own, (LAC) Looked After Child review and she did so without, a reviewing
officer or parental consent! Regardless, she went ahead with it. As instructed by her masters, she
carried out unlawful agency checks on us as parents, these included: Immigration checks, checks
in Dublin, Edinburgh and checks with School Nurse, Health Visitors, also checks with Serious
Organised Crime Agency, (SOCA). Checks were carried out with the International Police, known
as (Interpol). All of this appeared to be thought prudent and happened to be carried out without
our knowledge or, consent! Oh, and it does get worse! On 3rd April 2012, the first Statutory
LAC visit took place again, may we reiterate this took place without our knowledge. A
Looked After Child Review, (LAC) is exactly what it means Looked After Child, meaning the
child is looked after by the Local Authority and of such regular reviews take place with an
Independent Reviewing Officer, who is chair of the meeting (remember what we said about
independent earlier in the book). The children or child must be looked after via the Court or
with the agreement of the parents for example a Court Order or Section 20 which is a signed
voluntary agreement. A LAC cannot be held, when the children the local authority have in
their possession are not subject to any court order or voluntary agreement! (But we will
explain more about that later on in the book.)
The records highlight that present at this meeting were our children, Ms Alison Mc Donald and
the Foster Carer. Now, when we came across this information from the social workers case
notes namely, Ms Alison Mc Donalds case notes. We were shocked to find that even though the
Royal Borough of Greenwich had our children unlawfully, we could not believe that there was
neither regard, nor consideration as to our childrens cultural needs. It is appalling, the foster
carer had no clue in regards to caring for our childrens skin or hair care; she had been given no
financial support to purchase clothing for our children as they were kidnapped and left with just
the clothes on their backs- literally! What we feel was incredibly unacceptable, and irresponsible
is that fact that Ms Alison Mc Donald gave no regard as to establishing whether our four

148

children had any allergies or illness and merely checking with the school and asking our eldest
daughter, Avery is not sufficient, as our son Daniel, did not attend the school. It is still unclear
if she ever checked with the school or even asked our eldest daughter about any allergies or
illness. If correct procedures were followed this entire situation would not have occurred. This
sort of snatch and grab operation involving children by rogue professionals, after which a web of
lies is concocted to justify their overzealous actions and given the seal of approval by the secret
family courts is now turning into an epidemic.
On the 10th April 2012, Ms Mc Donald held a meeting with our four children without our
knowledge or consent; she failed to inform us of why she had not proceeded to Court or where
our children were. It appeared very clear from our evidence that Ms Mc Donald, had been
quizzing our children inappropriately and here is one of the many questions asked by this rogue:
What do your parents do in the sitting room, when the door is closed and the lights are
off? Now, this has been documented, just imagine what manner of questions were asked to
young children all under ten years of age at the time, which were deliberately undocumented?
What was she trying to introduce into the minds of our children? Now, our children responded
as any child would unaware of the sinister sordid veneer and mind of this rogue. Is it any wonder
why these rogues always accuse parents of sexual abuse in these clandestine courts?
Further, even at this point our children had been stating that they want to return home to their
parents. Now, Ms Mc Donald being aware that the bail conditions were put in place preventing
us from seeing our four children, failed to inform them as to why this was not possible, hence,
leading our children to feel as if we as parents did not want to see them or simply didnt care. Ms
Mc Donald never once even told our children that we love them, and that in itself, is completely
disgusting!
Even a week later, the foster carer at that time, still expressed concerns that she still did not
receive financial support to care for our four children. Unknown to us as parents, our childrens
hair was left neglected and not done until Friday 13th April (or thereabouts,) only after being
moved to another foster carer which would have to be almost three weeks after they had been
kidnapped and still with out Court Order!
And to think these rogues kidnapped our children from a loving home where all their needs were
being met and thrust them in to a vile system where theirs basic needs were obviously being
neglected. Mrs Corbett is especially vile to take the actions of falsely imprisoning our children in
order for them to be kidnapped and dragged into a system which is well known and documented
to emotionally damage countless children. From the moment they were kidnapped the
documents revealed our children were being mistreated by these rogues.
At this meeting of 10th April 2012 our eldest daughter, Avery, made clear of her being bullied at
school and not happy at Invicta primary school. However, our children were still returned to that
very same school. Without as much as a shred of evidence or reason for their actions these
rogues were now in a bit of a pickle so to speak. The so-called punch story made by the school
would not itself hold water and offer justification for kidnapping four children further it did not
incorporate mother. Low and behold and like a magic trick and slight of hand than can only be
accredited to a amateur three card shuffler further fanciful and colourful allegations start to raise

149

their heads. These we credit entirely to Ms McDonald, she literally highlights that she gave birth
to these further allegations and disturbing machinations. She actually puts her name to them. Ms
Mc Donald, not being trained to conduct any sort of Achieved Best Evidence interviews,
brought it upon herself to ask our children all sorts and manner of questions, and before we
knew it the allegation of being punched had now escalated to; punch on bridge of the nose, slap
with belt, hit with remote, hit with wire, children being picked on by mother. Ms Mc Donald
even asked our Avery, What is the difference between slap and smack? To which she did not
know. Please bear in mind the (ABE) Achieving Best Evidence Interview had not taken place
and this rogue took over from the previous incompetent on the 2 April 2012, at this time days
have passed since our children were kidnapped and denied seeing us or we them, the trauma for
them must have been unbearable. Yet, this incompetent did not consider the impact her
conniving and cruel actions would have on our children and so, this inappropriate and torturous
interrogation by Ms Mc Donald, who is clearly not trained in conducting ABEs and grossly
incompetent would inevitably have contaminated, what would become an unlawful ABE.

How could we forget, after our children had been detained for all that time, it was claimed by the
Social Services namely, Ms Alison Mc Donald, that our children did not want to see us. Even our
son Daniel, repeating the word, mum was interpreted by Ms Alison Mc Donald, that he
looked unsure, about wanting to see his parents and return home.
Let us give you a brief caption of what Ms Mc Donald stated and we quote: I am of the
opinion that if the children are returned to their care, they will move away, removing the
children from school.
Did you spot that reader? Ms McDonald was claiming she objected to our children returning
home not because she feared father would punch them or that they were not being fed at home
or clothed or kept warm or loved. But because they will move away, removing the children
from the school! We often ask ourselves How did these schools come to have so much power
and influence in the affairs of The Royal Borough of Greenwich and more importantly our
personal life? The last time we checked people had a choice as to where they choose to live or
what schools they decided to send their children. Well, in a nutshell it appears this incompetent
rogue literally denied our children returning home on the basis that we would remove then from
the school. Effectively, in the best interest of the school.
This is the individual our family has had to deal with, so because of that opinion whether she
believes it to be real or not, does not offer justification or support the overzealous actions taken
by this gang of incompetents. She would rather falsely imprison and traumatise four young
children than to reunite us back with our children because she is of the opinion that we as
parents will move away, removing our children from the school. Now ask yourself a few
questions reader, why would it have been an issue to remove our children from Invicta Primary
school? What would our children reveal to us had they been returned to us at the time? Why
was so much effort made to keep our children at Invicta Primary school even at the expense of
breaking the law and traumatising our children in the process? Why were our children forced to
remain in the bosom of those that falsely imprison and were complicit in their kidnap? They

150

kidnapped our children on the 29 March 2012 and returned them to Invicta Primary school on
30 March 2012 the very next day without our knowledge or consent and as the records show
they had our children at that school from 8pm in the morning till 6 pm. To treat any child in the
manner these rogues especially Mrs Corbett and Ms McDonald treated our children is just
calculating wickedness to its very core.

151

These professionals had our children for a considerable period of time and were making no
attempts at returning them or even facilitating contact, therefore on 12 th April 2012, we handed
in a notice to all these professional which we have copied below:
We namely Davion AND Elizabeth PLOWRIGHT PUT ALL PARTIES INVOLVED ON
NOTICE OF OUR PROPOSALS CONCERNING OUR CHILDREN.
FIRSTLY WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO SIGN A SECTION 20 AGREEMENT IN
THE TERMS EXPRESSED.
These are our proposals
1) Immediate lifting of Bail Conditions For my wife Mrs Elizabeth Plowright which
restricts her from seeing our children.
2) Our children, Avery, Beth, Cassie, Daniel Plowright Be reinstated with my wife.
3) As the allegations are made against my husband Davion Plowright he has agreed to find
alternative accommodation and to reside there until a full investigation has been
completed.
4) To adhere to these proposal conditions until investigations have been completed.
The manner in which this entire situation has been handled from the initial stages until now has
caused our family severe distress, anxiety and lack of trust in those involved namely Greenwich
Children Services, the Police and Invicta Primary School. There has been no clear written
communication and no contact made between us as parents and our children for a considerable
period of time (from the 29th March 2012) and we are extremely concerned of the effects this
experience will be having on our children.
In the interests of transparency and the safe return of our children Avery, Beth, Cassie, Daniel
Plowright.
My husband has already secured alternative accommodation.
We hope we can come to an amicable conclusion in this matter.
Yours Sincerely,
Mr and Mrs Davion and Elizabeth Plowright.
Copies of the above letter were sent to; Ms Alison Mc Donald, Assistant Team
Manager Ms Karen Sholtz, and Local Authority Legal department Solicitor
namely, Ms Davidaire Horsford via email, post and handed in person at the
council office; Wellington Street, Woolwich London. Copies were also sent to
the two Detectives of the child abuse investigation team (CAIT) Sidcup, Kent
namely, DC Cooper and DC Cullinane.

152

Dear reader,
If you or your family find yourselves in a similar position where a local authority has your
child/children without any authority lawful or otherwise, feel free to use the above notice.
Because we took active steps in requesting our four children are returned to our care
repeatedly. We know it is hard, but make sure you remain active, write letters and photocopy
them as your proof, keep postal receipts. We know, even when the local authority are in the
wrong, such as in our case, they will claim that you, as the parent did not take any steps to
request the return of your children, so even if it feels like nothing is being done, youll have the
proof in the form of these letters.
We wish you all the best!
Even to this day, we have not received a reply from the local authority (LA) or the police,
furthermore; Ms Mc Donald, suggested that we were not engaging with social services, which
is absolutely shocking considering they (LA) violated countless laws, not to mention our families
Article 8 human rights with regards to children and families! The impertinence of these people,
they kidnapped our children and in a fashion that would make the Mafia blush! Turnaround and
try to illicit our compliance to their demands based on the fact that they have our child as
ransom.
On 12th April 2012, in the evening when we returned home after a long day delivering, emailing
and posting our above Notice, we were then surprised to see upon opening our front door a
note from Ms Alison Mc Donald and I quote:

Mr and Mrs Plowright I attempted to come and see you today but unfortunately you werent
in. Ill try again another day.
Alison Mc Donald, Social Worker.
Let us break this note down, firstly, Ms Mc Donald and social services have never (prior to us
sending them this Notice) sent us or delivered any correspondence, in the form of notes or
letters. It just so happens that on the same day the Notice was delivered to the royal Borough of
Greenwich; Ms Mc Donald delivers a note? Let us put it this way, it appears that the LA were
forced to act as though they had made a single attempt to make contact. However, did you
read the words within Ms McDonalds note? Ill try again another day. Ms Mc Donald choice
of words; try again another day, made clear to us, her intentions of not wanting to give us a
specific day or time she will return. The sort of unannounced type visit which was prompted by
us delivering the above notice was not to be tolerated by us. They had our children in their
possession unlawfully and were actively carrying out unlawful agency checks amongst a host of
other misgivings and this rogue without any basis or authority was now dropping notes through
our letter box. Unannounced type visits were for people who signed a section 20, subject to a
supervision order and importantly for those whose children are with them at home. In their
haste to try and cover the basis and respond to the notice, not wanting to be exposed for the
incompetents they are, someone forgot to inform Ms McDonald that the children need to be in
the care of their parents before you can do an unannounced type visit, thats the whole purpose
of such a visit. To turn up unannounced and check on the wellbeing of children, unannounced

153

type visits of the likes that Ms Mcdonald was attempting to execute cant be carried out when the
children are already kidnapped and not at home.
On Monday 16th April 2012, Ms Mc Donald took it upon herself, to very brazenly escort our
three eldest children, namely, Avery, Beth and Cassie, to participate in an Achieved Best
Evidence interview (ABE), which is basically, a video recorded interrogation of children by
police, and may be used in Court dependent upon a Criminal prosecution. It can also be used
within Family Proceedings. These ABE interrogations have caused countless innocent parents to
flee the fight for their children or submit to the demands of rogues. Why? The disclosures that
are sometimes made by children in these ABEs, everyones personal life is different and
sometimes the things that come out in these ABEs are very personal.
For example a parent may be having an affair that they do not want the other to find out about.
Only for the child to be asked who lives with you? or regularly visits your home? And the child
in absolute innocence says the man or woman who the parent is having the affair with. These
rogues relish in these sort of negative information and capitalise on them to the fullest of extent.
There will be questions as to the identity of the person who is involved in the affair and their
background will be checked for any criminal record so that the rogues can cook up appropriate
accusations regarding the parent putting the child at risk by exposing the child to known
criminals. In any event the devastation and relationship turmoil that would ultimately be caused
and the fallout afterwards is usually immense. Not to mention the shame of whichever parent
was caught cheating. Think the story is bad yet? Just think of the rogue who after finding out a
female partner is having an affair informs the male partner of their concerns and raises the issue
of paternity testing to see if the child/children belong to the father. So, a couple can go from
hero to zero as fast as you can say blueberry pie when manipulative rogues get involved. These
are the sorts of attacks many parents face at the hands of these rogues. There are so many stories
we could go on and on. Anyway we hope you get the point how these people can twist
situations. The parent does not have to be guilty of harming or doing anything to their child in
anyway, but because of personal and shameful disclosures most innocent parents abandon the
fight for their children. Just to make clear, the above is a scenario and is not reflective or relates
to us or our children in anyway shape or form, but actually forms the experience of many parents
we have spoken to in the course of writing this book. In any event, in the ABE interrogations
unlawfully conducted by these rogues none of our children made any disclosures which were of
any substance or shameful in nature. Especially the fact that they were being held hostage and
not knowing where we were or what has happened to us for so long could have easily filled them
with resentment. However our children are true fighters and in any event, there was nothing for
them to tell, nothing happened.
Now, just to make clear, both Charlton Manor and Invicta primary school were also informed
that this (ABE) would take place, however, as parents we were not informed, nor did she (Ms
Alison Mc Donald), obtain our consent. In fact, she transported our children to Marlowe house
in Sidcup, Kent, in her own vehicle. We were so concerned to find out Ms Mc Donald had
transported our children in her car, that is extremely unacceptable to put it lightly! Anything
could have happened, an accident (God forbid) or a whole host of scenarios. Further this
woman was shuttling our children all over the place, without our knowledge or consent. What is
even more shocking is that later on in our case we came upon a document that proves that there

154

was not only one unlawful ABE conducted, there was in actual fact two! The first one had taken
place on Friday 13th April 2012 and the second Monday 16th April. It seemed Ms Alison Mc
Donald had more than enough latitude to interrogate our children in preparation for not one,
but two ABEs! Lets put this into a bit of perspective, these rogues should not have carried out
the first ABE as they were in clear violation of endless statues and by this time had our children
without any lawful authority whatsoever (NO EPO or otherwise) not to mention the unethical
position of all this. Also, parental consent must be obtained before any such ABE interrogation
and thats the Law. But in brazen arrogance these rogue without the authority to conduct the
first ABE compounded the already dreadful state of affairs by conducting two. Why should these
rogues care? they were on a role in this carnival of injustice and the secret family court would
provide the cover they need should these parents chose to spill the beans. Not even grown adults
who are accused of crimes are not put through this sort of torture the likes they put our children
through. If there was ever a case of clear attempts at coercing children by these sick incompetent
rogues it is this. The evidence of two ABE speaks for itself.
Although, we made clear to Ms Mc Donald that we objected to our eldest three children being
returned to the same school in which the Headteacher, Mrs Corbett detained them unlawfully.
She (Ms Mc Donald) disregarded our concerns. Further to this, we have read and been informed
that our children had been protesting, the return to Invicta primary school on numerous
occasions. As a Social Worker, taking into account the childs wishes and feelings should remain
of paramount importance and would have been taken very seriously by any competent Social
Workers. Even when our Avery made clear of the fact that she is experiencing being bullied at
Invicta, Ms Mc Donald failed to address this and our children were forced to remain at Invicta
and their voices remain unheard. What we came to find most distressing and as the record shows
was that when Ms Mc Donald attended the school, Avery had been kicked and punched by a
pupil at the school, and we were not informed as parents, nor were any of the medical staff
during the so called medical which took place on the 25th April 2012 almost a month after our
children were kidnapped. Ms McDonald deliberately and deviously withheld that
important information. Why?
On Tuesday 17th April 2012, I, Mrs Plowright, was on my way out when I was met by two
women on the walkway close to where we live, I identified the first woman immediately as Ms
Mc Donald and the other I had never seen before. Ms Mc Donald stated the womans name as
Ms Alinda Benade. We later found Ms Benade is Ms Mc Donalds Team Manager and the
individual we have mentioned above who is also deceitful Ms Morris manager as well. Ms
Benade presentation was very unprofessional and she was incredibly rude. This was the first time
I was encountering this woman in my life yet upon meeting her she was immediately demanding
to know where I was going in an abrasive tone as if she was under the illusion she had some sort
of authority, naturally I refused to give an answer. Ms Mc Donald then made clear, that she
wanted to carry out an unannounced visit. I found this very baffling, as I had carried out some
research of my own, which made me aware that Ms Mc Donald was being deceptive. In the first
instance, the Royal Borough of Greenwich had no court order, namely a Supervision Order,
which would permit unannounced visits to be carried out when and only when the
child/children are at home with either parents/family or Guardian. Under no circumstances
should an unannounced visit take place, especially with no court order! What we realised was

155

because everything the individuals within the social services department, namely, Ms Marie
Morris and Ms Alison Mc Donald had not done, every attempt was being made to carry out a
surreptitious assessment of our home, even if this was disguised as an unannounced visit. After
all, how can you kidnap four children from their parents without seeing the living conditions
first? To this day, No social worker since the kidnap of our children in March 2012 has ever
stepped foot inside our home.
On April 18th 2012 over two weeks after the kidnap, the records show Ms Mc Donald had
attended Invicta primary school, to speak with staff and speak with our children, again without
our knowledge or consent. On this day, what appears to be very peculiar is that Ms Mc Donald
claims to have witnessed scars on our children. We would like to note, her ability to be precise
and we quote from a document known as the Social Workers Chronology Beth has 2x

scars on her left forearm, approximately 1.5 inches, which was an injury sustained from Mr
Plowright, however she could not remember what had happened. Ask yourself reader, how
was Ms Mc Donald able to approximate how long this alleged scar was without a medical first
taking place? Bear in mind that this visit to the school took place on the 18 April 21012 and the
so-called medical was not done until the 25 April 2012. Did she have a measuring tape or as it
appears to us, their may have been two medicals carried out? In any event, how was she able to
jump to such a conclusion that their father was responsible for the alleged scar? Firstly the
burning question for us is who gave this woman consent or authority to have our children and
further to be examining them. The legal and ethical implications created by the inconsiderate
and immoral actions of these rogue professionals will live with our children and us as a family
for a long time. Ms Mc Donald appeared to have formed a negative view of us as parents from
the outset. As a Professional she has clearly demonstrated some element of hatred against us
as parents and it is that hatred that is transferred into anger but as we as parents know anger has
a tendency to blind, what do we mean? Well through a bit of research we found out that getting
angry releases an enzyme namely, tryptophan hydroxylase which has been proven to temporarily
reduce the IQ. This discovery goes some way in highlighting some of the actions taken by these
rogues. Rogues are always busy doing their best to annoy and anger innocent parents even to go
as far as ambushing us at the school? Anger distorts everything, once blinded one does not have
the ability to see straight, even if it is right in front of them.
Also, we have now found out that on 18th April 2012; our son, Daniel was feeling poorly, it is
recorded hat Ms Mc Donald consented to our son being taken to see the GP. Now you may say,
Well, whats the problem? Your son was not well, and the Social Worker consented to him
going to see the GP, surely, theres no harm in that? We had a right to know what was happening
to our son. This is why laws are in place to prevent these sorts of heartless and wicked situations
from occurring. Parental responsibility; All rights, duties, powers and responsibilities that by
Law a parent of a child has in relation to the child. Parental responsibility is not something to
be taken lightly. Our son was sick, no Court Order was in place, and we had a right to know
what was happening, furthermore, without the use of unlawful bail conditions our children
would be home. We should have been able to see our son and comfort him.
On 20th April 2012, the local authority obtained a wrongly issued Interim Care Order, which was
effectively invalid. We feel the need to go into the statement of Ms Mc Donald dated, 19th April
2012, now, before we begin we must stress that this individual deliberately deceived the court

156

presenting false information contained in her statement and we quote; Mr and Mrs Plowrights

home was searched for Daniel but he was not there, items such as a mattress on the floor
where all the children sleep with no duvet just a single sheet, a bag full of money when neither
parent works; copious amounts of pornographic material; toys and films. We should make
clear that during the proceedings, the LA introduced a sexual element, in order to traumatise us
as parents; however this allegation has since been withdrawn. Why? We can hear you ask, well,
apart from the alleged allegation being completely false, Ms Mc Donald had taken her lies to
another level, as she had stated and we quote copious amounts of pornographic material; toys
and films. As we have established Ms Mc Donald never attended our home, further, as you will
read under the chapter that deals with the two detectives from CAIT, only one namely, DC
Cooper had searched our home, yet he never reported finding or seeing any pornographic
material or any toys, further, there were no photos taken to substantiate Ms Mc Donalds
assertions that and we quote; a mattress on the floor where all the children sleep with no duvet
just a single sheet, Even in DC Coopers statement he made no recording or reference to there
being a mattress with a single sheet. So ask yourselves reader on what basis or where did Ms
Mcdonald pluck all this fantasy from? Ms Mc Donald, clearly has an abnormally overactive
imagination and is a extremely callous, calculating individual, who will lie to get whatever she
wants at the expense of our children.
This woman was clearly not acting in the best interests of children, this is very clear as
demonstrated in her statement and we quote, Mr Plowright said that they want their children

back but were not demanding or requesting information as to their whereabouts

Really ?When we read that document that was our reaction. This individual has claimed that we
have not demanded or requested the return of our children, so we guess, the Notice we had
sent on the 12 April 2012 along with countless other verbal and written demands for our
children to return to mother and that father would move out, was not seen as a valid request or
demand by this rogue. If we had been any more assertive in our demands then we would be
accused of threatening behaviour.
Also, Ms Mc Donald had been fully aware of the unlawful bail conditions used to deliberately
prevent us from seeing our children; further, any request to ascertain our childrens whereabouts
would have been a violation of the bail conditions. Ms Mc Donald also states in her statement
that and we quote; I am of the opinion that if the children returned to their care, they will
move away, removing the children from school. Why would that be a problem? Hypothetically
speaking, we as parents have a right to remove our children from Invicta primary school, a
school might we add where our eldest Avery, was being bullied. Also, Ms Mc Donalds
opinion, should not be the basis for four children not being returned to their parents care,
and the assumption that we as parents will move is still not enough grounds and as we know the
local authorities case for acting against us as parents over an alleged punch without any evidence
to corroborate the allegation is not enough grounds to restrict and prevent children from seeing
their parents. The Royal Borough of Greenwich went further in their campaign of deceit by
presenting a false pretence to the court in their efforts to obtain a order. Without having any
reason or evidence to support the unlawful actions they had taken against our family they went
further and compounding the already corrosive state of affairs by, stating that, The view of the

157

local authority is that an Interim Supervision Order would not protect the children
experiencing harm. As the No Order principle. Mr and Mrs Plowright will retain parental
responsibility for the children, and their safety and developmental needs will remain unmet.
Now, briefly, a Supervision Order happens when a court makes an order to allow children to
remain at home with their parent, however, a Social Worker can make unannounced home visits
to check on the children, as you have read the LA did not want that as it would not be safe
for our children to return home to us as parents even though they have no reason to prevent
them from returning home as the Royal Borough of Greenwich, social services failed to prove
that it would have been dangerous to have our children return to us. The three Justices who sat
and made an Interim Care Order without the threshold ever being crossed, (There is an
abundance of case laws and rulings regarding threshold criteria. In theory the basic premise is
that for threshold to be crossed allegations and statements must be backed up by facts and real
evidence not the speculative assumption of social workers). However we are talking about the
reality of the SECRET family courts in this book not the theory. These justices we experience
dont bother themselves with trivial issues such as threshold criteria. The only time threshold
criteria seems to be mentioned by rogues that work in the family Just-Trick System is when they
are telling an unaware member of the public that the decision to take children are not taken
lightly and threshold criteria needs to be crossed. In an effort to make themselves appear
reasonable while knowing that no such consideration or regard is given to threshold behind the
closed doors of the secret courts. If they paid any attention to threshold criteria we would
certainly not be here typing this book. Anyway back to the matter at hand, no regard was given
to any threshold criteria and without seeing any evidence whatsoever the incompetent justices of
the peace wrongly made an order. We cover this more in-depth under the chapter titled Judges.
It doesnt stop there, as Ms Mc Donald goes further to give the Court the impression as if she
had visited our home and we quote; there was an abundance of designer adult clothes and
shoes with very little seen for the children. The house did not appear child-friendly. It would
be fair for the three Justices during the hearing on 20th April 2012, to assume Ms Mc Donald had
indeed conducted an all out assessments of the family home. However, Ms Mc Donald in her
calculating ability, knowing we as parents had refused her access to our home on more than one
occasion, deliberately and deceitfully tried to deceive the Court. How can she be making such
statements? This woman or any of her rogue colleagues have never set foot in our home. Now,
ask yourselves how many social workers, the ones who are pathological liars, obtain Interim Care
Orders from family court Judges or Justices based on the fallacies contained within their
statements? The answer is far too many! It is so unfortunate, it is the poor children that suffer
for this and pay the ultimate price, particularly those which have been adopted based on those
lies and this is the disturbing truth, of a lot of the cases being conducted behind closed doors in
these Secret Family Courts. Although, the content of Ms Mc Donalds (Social worker) statement
is deceptive and sinister to put it mildly , this remains common practice, but we must state; this
needs to stop, our children and countless others have suffered enough. Parents beware, of this
individual, who is not only malicious but, has continued throughout, as you see when reading
further, she has shown no remorse, neither has she held back with regards to the continued
fallacies and left a trail of destruction and continues to do so as she continues working as a Social
Worker.

158

Ms Mc Donald clearly ignored us as parents by leaving our children at Invicta Primary school
against our will and also against the wishes and feelings of our children namely, Avery and we
quote from Ms Mc Donald: They even stated that the children should not return to Invicta
Primary School as the School are being prejudice. Even though we stated the reasons why our
children in particularly Avery should not return to Invicta we were ignored, by the LA who had
no court order, hence having no authority to make any decisions for our children. What is
most disturbing is Ms Mc Donalds clear disregard for our childrens wishes and feelings, under
the under the heading, The childrens physical, emotional and educational needs Avery

reports that she is not happy at school.. she says she is being bullied at school.. Avery will
continue to attend the same school whilst in foster care. This demonstrates Ms Mc Donalds
no care attitude, claiming to be there for children when in fact she had clearly placed the wishes
of Invicta, namely Mrs Corbett first. This is clear emotional abuse as a result of Ms Mc Donald
leaving Avery at Invicta fully aware of the fact that she was being bullied, a Social Worker is not
to knowingly place a child at risk of harm, we were completely in shock as you will read below
the level of bullying Avery was exposed to and it is clear without us as parents defend her the
bulling became physical (which was never the case previously at Invicta, when our daughter
Avery was in our care) and yet Ms Alison Mc Donald had failed to inform us.
On April 25th 2012, the day of the Looked After Child, (LAC) review and Medical. Firstly, I, Mrs
Plowright would like to add that it was at this LAC review that I first met the Foster Carer and it
was at this meeting she (Foster Carer) made known that when she first began looking after our
children that the state of their hair was very messy, she stated how she had spent hours
doing each of their hair. Now, it was indeed Ms Mc Donald that stated on the 5th April 2012 that
my children would be taken to the hairdressers to get their hair done. However, this was not the
case as their hair was left neglected and remained in a condition which was of such that this
woman who was the foster carer seemed alarmed to receive children whose hair was in such a
state that required a considerable length of time spent on each child. Since taking our children
on the 29 March 2012 our children hair was left undone for weeks by these people.
Due to the bail conditions us as parents were restricted from attending the medical. We would
also like to add that Ms Mc Donald had been there to accompany two of our children namely,
Avery and Cassie during the medical, whilst the Foster Carer accompanied our other two
children namely, Daniel and Beth. Ms Mc Donald gave her written consent on behalf of the
Royal Borough of Greenwich, for this medical to take place. How could she possible give
something she was not in a position to give? This also highlighted that these rogues were clearly
aware that they were acting unlawfully (they deceptively offered consent, so they do know
parental consent is needed and must be obtained). Our consent as parents was not sought or
obtain as parents did not give our consent for this medical.
However, instead of Ms Mc Donald being there to observe, she was active in painting a false
picture of us as parents to the Medical staff, there were inaccurate and inconsistent information
reported to Dr, R Neciunskaite. One fallacy being, that the Child Abuse Investigation Team
(CAIT) Police attended the school the same day (29th March) the alleged allegation was reported
by the head teacher. Ms Mc Donald failed to inform the Dr, R Neciunskaite of the facts; that the
referral was made to social services on the 28th March 2012, by Mrs Corbett head teacher, and
CAIT attended the school on the following day (29th March 2012).

159

According to the social worker parents refused to consent for the medical assessments and
Interim Care Order was obtained. Again misleading information given to Dr Neciunskaite,
being given the impression a Court Order was obtained because we as parents, would not
consent to a medical failing to mention, The Royal Borough of Greenwich failed to obtain a
court order from the outset and omitting from that, the impact the unlawful actions have had on
our children. Ms Mc Donald does not stop there, and I quote; Social Worker Alison Mc

Donald told me that the children are allegedly not allowed to look out of the window, left alone
at home a lot and apart from going to school appear to cut off from the world.
Ms Mc Donald failed to mention to Dr R Neciunskaite, our eldest daughter Avery being kicked
and punched by a pupil at the school, the fact that our daughter made clear on more than several
occasions of being bullied and unhappy to remain at Invicta and it appears Ms Mc Donald felt it
necessary not to tell the Doctor, instead she stated; .Charlton Manor raised concerns about

the children being neglected with ill fitting clothes and unwashed hair and the youngest, Daniel,
who was 2 years old at the time, observed to be very quiet in the presence of his father Mr
Plowright. The type of individual, claiming to be a professional who attended the medical of
two of our four children has caused a biased view with Dr R Neciunskaite who had never met us
as parents or heard our side of events and hence the first recommendation of the Doctor is and I
quote from Dr R Neciunskaite; Social Care and Police should safeguard Avery and her
siblings. The impression of us given to the Doctor was as though we were the kind of parents
who abuse our children when that is far from the truth, however, the word of a professional is
usually trusted. To put it blunt, we were deemed as predators, criminals who should be kept away
from their children.
2014-It has recently come to our attention and confirmed our suspicion from the outset, that
there was indeed a previous medical which had taken place before the 25th April 2012. Now, this
explains how Ms Alison Mc Donald had been so sure of her measurements, this medical had
taken place on 16th April, and states and we quote; once they return from school Holidays on
Monday (16 April 2012) a health check will be conducted. They namely, Ms Mc Donald would
require our consent to carry out such a thing however, they proceeded in any event. Thats the
thing parents like us are confronted with everyday, because we are directly involved in this
situation, there is only so much we can see and so, causes us to wonder, how many other pieces
of information do we have yet to spot? Well, when we get a legal team together to sue the Royal
Borough of Greenwich Social Services, the Metropolitan Police and Invicta primary school, not
to forget the Fostering Agencies involved who were also complicit, hopefully by then will we be
able to answer that!!!
In closing, with Ms Mc Donald, we are saddened to have experienced such an individual and it is
a disgrace that in this time with such high profile cases and revelations being made with regards
recent and historic cases where children are being abused, children- might we add, who are in
dyer need of help. A Social Workers job is demanding, complex and challenging enough as it is,
only to waist the time and lives of our family and that of our children. She should be ashamed to
call herself a Social Worker, yet, she has falsely accused father of working in a care home without
no evidence to support such an allegation, Ms Mc Donald appears to demonstrate skill when it
comes to creating fallacy, she should indulge in writing books, of a fictitious nature!

160

Victoria Carrington (3rd Social Worker) - This individual was a marked improvement
on the previous two social workers. However, the damage was by this time already done and we
had no trust for none of these incompetents. Our experience of Ms Victoria Carrington exposed
to us that although she appeared to have read the events surrounding the kidnap of our children,
as a professional she chose to side with her colleagues as they do and proceeded without any
regard for our four young children and failed to raise concerns regarding the case.
25th April 2012- Ms Carrington took over the case on 25th April 2012. Now, although this
happened to be on the first day of the LAC and the medicals she did not attend. However,
unbeknownst to us as parents then, with the aid of Ms Mc Donald the stream of inappropriate
questioning continued and therefore appeared to give our children the impression they were not
safe. Ms Victoria Carrington also failed to inform our children of the bail conditions that
prevented us from seeing them and she failed to tell our children that we love them and want to
see them.
1ST May 2012- I, Mrs Plowright, had a meeting with Ms Carrington to discuss eventually seeing
my children. I was surprised as she stated that my children had scars all over their body and
her accusatory tone. As a parent who knows the allegations were false, I did not accept what she
was saying in regards to this. Ms Carrington did not seem concerned as to the length of time my
children had been deprived of not seeing their parents. Ms Carrington took on the same mantra
as Ms Marie Morris and Ms Alison Mc Donald, claiming once again, that all four of my children
do not want to see me or their father and she further stated that this was unusual. In the same
token, she contradicted herself stating that my youngest three would see me on 2nd May 2012,
however, and I quote Ms Carrington stating; if Avery, and Beth, change their mind, they dont
have to go. Again she stated that my Avery is adamant for not wanting to see me nor their
father. I found Ms Carrington to be very strategic in her choice of words during that meeting,
she was quite repetitive in terms of making clear that it was the childrens choice for wanting
to see me or not and that if they were to change their mind it was their decision.
2nd May 2012- This day would have been the first time seeing my youngest three children in over
a month. However, this did not take place and I was unable to see my children and the
contact was cancelled by Ms Carrington on request of the school as we as parents have
come to find out. Ms Victoria Carrington has displayed clearly her disregard for our childrens
desires and placed the staff of Invicta namely, Mrs Corbett and Ms Cuff as priority as to their
feelings opposed to me having contact with my children. That day unknown to us and
established at a later date. Mrs Corbett brought it upon herself to add undue pressure to my
children by pressuring the children to change their minds as to not attending contact and I quote

Mrs Corbett described drawing a line on a piece of paper, with yes on one end, and no on the
other and asked the girls to indicate where on the line, their decisions. Now, Ms Carrington
failed in all areas to let Mrs Corbett know that this was inappropriate and as a headteacher who
detained children within her school, was not in any position to ask my children who she in the
first instance deprived of seeing their parents, so is it any wonder the contact was cancelled? Ms
Carrington did fail to place the wishes of the children first and instead listened to the wishes of
Mrs Corbett, and I quote: ..the Headteacher both felt that it would be in the best interest of the

children to cancel contact.

161

Who installed this Headteacher as the parent of our children?

When on the 2nd May 2012, Victoria informed me that my son Daniel had nightmares the
previous night with regards to seeing me, I did not believe this for one second, when our
children were at home, my Daniel was only 3 and had not started school yet, he was very
attached to me, following me around the house, we spent the most time together as our three
eldest were at school. To say the eldest three didnt want to see me was hard to believe, however
for my son, my little boy? Who would follow me wherever I went-never! I was beyond hurt, I
was completely heartbroken and disappointed and Ms Carrington who clearly placed the feelings
of the school above that of our children and in essence lost sight of her role as a Social Worker.
Ms Carrington on the 02 may 2012 claimed none of them want to see you further, referring
to our children, adding that the contact scheduled for Saturday 5th May 2012 would also be
cancelled, I was disappointed, because I had thought with a new Social Worker on the case she
would at least place the needs of our children first, but she never did!
11th May 2012 at Wells Street Family Proceedings Court- As parents, we were not fully aware
of the type of social worker, Ms Victoria Carrington indeed was. It is a day, we will not forget.
We were both pulled aside as parents, and given some troubling, disturbing and distressing news,
in the form of a disgusting alleged sexual disclosure, the kind only a sordid mind could conjure
up. Dear reader, as this process has become an eye opener we have read many cases and have
come to realise that it is very common for these rogue Social Workers and rogue teaching staff
to throw in an allegation of a sexual nature. Now, we as parents could not believe what we were
told and not surprised as to whom the disclosure had originated from; Ms Webber, of Invicta
school. When District Judge Crichtion asked the local authority Barrister Mr Matthew Persson,
how long ago Ms Carrington had known of this sexual disclosure? She replied two weeks ago.
This revealed a side to Ms Victoria Carringtion, that we would regard as very calculating, she
knew two weeks, prior to the Court hearing and appeared to find it appropriate to inform us
as parents prior to entering the court room via our Lawyers? This was carefully planned, as to
gain the desired effect, however, again, that did not work! It was extremely difficult but we had
to bite our lip and focus on our goal-to get our children back! Yes, it was a very traumatic
situation; we were troubled as to the lies. Did you know, when a parent is told of a sexual
disclosure involving their child, many parents throw in the towel? Not because they have done
anything wrong, but, because they become overwhelmed as to the lengths these rogues will go to
in an effort to break the parent and sadly for the child, this tactic works, over and over again. On
this day we were shocked to read within the Ms Carringtons, statement, that the LA were
seeking to obtain a, No Contact Order, which meant she Ms Carrington was intending for us as
parents and our children to have no contact whatsoever, even though we had not seen our four
children since 29th March 2012! This individual had been willing to take the next step in ensuring
that we as parents would not have any contact with our four children, regardless of how our
children felt all on the request of Mrs Corbett. It didnt stop there, Ms Victoria Carrington
disregarded what we found to be very disturbing and troubling comments made by Avery with
regards to me her mother and the impact not having any contact had caused and I quote; Avery

said she did not really remember what her mother looked like and asked Beth if she could.
Just typing that has caused me to pause for a moment, as my eyes are filled with tears- Im still
disturbed by what my children have said. As a Social Worker this comment should not only

162

indicate that our children need to see their parents but also makes clear that the length of time
deprived from seeing me has been for far too long, for my children to be unable to remember
me, their mother or what I look like?! Yet, Victoria displays complete callousness and her utter
disregard to this desperately shocking statement made by children who were never told why they
had not been able to see their parents. Ms Victoria attempted to throw in justification just as the
others before her and began attacking us as parents and I quote; I asked her if he ever hit her
mother. Avery said no I suggested to her that she should ask her mother This line of
questioning and suggestions are completely inappropriate, unprofessional, and utterly
disgraceful to suggest to a child and even introduce an element of domestic violence, particularly
when that child had not stated that to be the case, however, this suggestive nature of placing
words into a childrens mouths, creating ideas that just do not exist, is exactly how these rogues
work. Even when nothing is there, the rogue serves to create the most disturbing picture. Why,
as a Social Worker would you assume it okay under any circumstances, to instruct a child to ask
their mother whether their father has hit her? Without the child first, volunteering that
information unprompted? Unfortunately, these rogues know just how pliable children can be,
and so will stop at nothing, to take advantage of innocence children and this sadly has become
commonplace with these rogues and by no means is this acceptable! If there is no problem with
a family, these rogues will create one- literally! Ms Carrington even suggested I, Mrs Plowright
show no emotion, each step of the way there was to be a constant underlying and dishonest
attempt by these rogues to justify my four children being kidnapped. Even with Ms Mc
Donalds failed attempts to gain access to our home, we would be wrong to think Ms Victroia
Carrington, wouldnt try her luck! Well on the same day, 11th May 2012, it was claimed that a
document was sent via email which contained confidential information that should never have
been sent to us as parents. Ms Carrington stated that she would need to attend our home
address with us as parents to ensure the email would be deleted. Now, being the parents we are,
we had brought our laptop and dongle with us and so we explained to Ms Carrington that there
would be no need for her to attend our address as we would be happy to comply and she deleted
the email in our presence- problem solved, attempt failed, miserably!
11th May 2012 Wells Street - During the court process, due to the LA violating countless orders
of the court to obtain the evidence from both schools, Ms Carrington had been instructed by
DJ Crichton, to assist the schools due to the fact that orders from the court demanding the so
called evidence from both schools was still outstanding. However, we as parents were able to see
that she actually has another skill and that was working as a journalist, she actually attended both
schools and typed up a statement from Mrs Sengupta to name but a few. This was so bizarre for
a Social Worker to shift occupations and actually take statements as if she were a solicitor. Now,
for the question, how were these recently created documents, ever allowed to be submitted in
court in the first instance? Well, thats thing about these secret courts, anything goes!!!

4th June 2012- Ms Carrington contacted via phone informing us that father could attend contact
on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Keep in mind that father had only seen the youngest
two children namely, Cassie and Daniel as Ms Carrington had claimed our eldest two did not
want to see him and that our eldest did not want to see mother neither. We were pleased to hear
the news that we would be able to see our youngest two more often and we would discuss seeing

163

our other child, Beth as it was claimed she did not want to see father but wanted to continue to
see mother, and so we made clear we would need to perhaps add an extra day for her to see
mother. This shameful situation which was created by these vile people was about to get worst.
The Manipulative and under-hand tactics were endless.
14th June 2012- We as parents were shocked to receive an email from our Solicitor which was
sent to her by the local authority legal department who were instructed by Ms Carrington
claiming father should not have attended contacts, claiming he should have only been in
attendance on Thursdays. This was shocking as we recall the time Victoria made clear it was fine
for father to attend on those days. However, Ms Carrington stated she had not told us this.
Again, when it comes to these rogues, always get confirmation in writing; telephone calls are not
enough, as we had learned the hard way. In the letter it stated, This is clear violation of the
agreement. What agreement? We had no agreement, we are very sure the individuals in our
case and particularly those professionals involved have no clue as the meaning of the word
violation, as the events which led to our children being kidnapped in the initial stage, also our
children being prevented from seeing their parents was beyond a violation and in fact involved
countless unlawful acts. These rogues were clearly not in a position to use such a word. In any
event, the letter went on to state, that if father is seen near the contact venue than the Police
will be called. As you can understand we were in shock from the date when Ms Carrington
called us in early June 2012, it had apparently taken her over a week to notice that father
should not have been attending contacts? No, what actually appeared to have happened is that
Victoria needed a way to cause disruption claiming we were in violation of an agreement. The
fact is Ms Carrington was in fairyland. We have never read or signed any agreement with any of
these rogues, but any fallacy will do to cause disruption and then claim that we as parents are at
fault? This is just one of many stunts these hopeless rogues try and just some advice for you
readers, always get confirmation in writing.
16th June 2012- This was a very significant date, as it was the first time I, Mrs Plowright had seen
Avery, after almost three months since she was kidnapped on 29th March 2012!
Avery, my eldest, stated she wants to return home and I quote from write up of contact dated
16th June 2012; Can I go home? which in effect contradicts all the fallacy created by these
rogues regarding our children especially about our children not wanting to see us or come home
and is testament that everything, Ms Victoria Carrington, Ms Marie Morris and Ms Alison Mc
Donald, claimed from the beginning with regards to my children in particularly, my eldest Avery,
to be false. For a child to not see their mother for almost 3 months and to clearly state that they
want to come home sends a clear message to all!
Consent- Ms Carrington and some of the staff at Invicta had decided to allow our children to go
to another pupils house, without first, asking us as parents. It remained very clear that Victoria
treated the school, namely Ms Cuff and Mrs Corbett, as if they had parental responsibility for
our children. Ms Carrington agreed later when it was put to her that we as parents should have
been told, she accepted that we should have been informed, however, if she had been well
intentioned and her priorities focused around the children, then this would have never have
occurred in the first instance. Completely, unprofessional!

164

6th July 2012, LAC Review- Upon reading the case notes of Ms Carrington we can accept that
we did over estimate her. At the LAC review, Ms Carrington appeared very aggressive and
argumentative, regarding inaccurate information presented on the front of the previous LAC
minutes back in April 2012. Now, we as parents wrote a disapproval letter which stated the
minutes of the previous LAC had been incorrect, Ms Carrington stated that it was correct,
however, her behaviour was unbecoming of a professional Social Worker. We as parents were
stunned to witness this side of her and had previously, never been exposed to this side, in any
event we continued with the LAC. After the meeting we had the opportunity to speak with the
Foster Carer and it had been the first time father had met her. Upon reading a document we
began to understand the mindset of this individual and here is a quote after we had left the
building; The parents were observed to sit outside the office in their new car for at least twenty
minutes. We need to make clear, why would a Social Worker who should be concerned for
children become so absorbed with regards to the condition of the parents car. Furthermore, we
would have no reason to wait outside a council building for twenty minutes, as she has stated.
This kind of mentality is exactly why rogue Social Workers never keep their eye on the goal;
which should be to work with families and help children, not log what condition or should we
say the well-being of the parents car!
30th July 2012- We as parents received an email which stunned us and this email was sent after
Ms Carrington had left her role as Social Worker. The email was titled a weekly diary sheet
from the Foster Carer with regards to Daniel our son; the document was dated 7th May 2012.
Upon reading this troubling account, it became very clear to us why Ms Carrington and other
Social Workers continued to repeat our son not wanting to see us, and we quote, Daniel, has

been off his food, very weepy, sleeping during the day Whilst playing he gets very moody
and starts to scream and shout for no reason. Daniel, was very upset after I asked him if he
wanted to see his mum. He only settled down when he received the gift from his parents
which was a bag of toy cars. Now, upon reading this, what do you as the reader think? Does
our son appear to be unaffected by continuing to be prevented from seeing his parents? The
answer is no, Daniel has displayed distress, sadness and even behaviour which clearly displays his
longing to be reunited with his parents. We were very disturbed how the Foster Carer stated our
son gets very moody and starts to scream and shout for no reason. We would not consider a
3 year old being kidnapped and falsely imprisoned, denied access to his parents as, no reason
to behave in such a manner, however, this sort of dismissive, cold and inconsiderate attitude and
behaviour, from not only the Social Workers but now clearly also from another person who is
paid to look after children, the Foster Carer, no wonder why we are still in this position! Now,
with our son clearly demonstrating his longing to see us it was felt necessary to continue to
deprive him from us, to put it bluntly if Daniel had been able to see us he would have refused to
go back with them (LA, Foster Carer) once he had seen his parents and frankly they wouldnt be
able to manage, a young boy fighting, screaming to stay with his parents and this appears to be
why Ms Carrington failed to allow us to see him. It is no surprise why we havent been given the
other weekly diary sheets in particularly the ones showing the first week our children were
kidnapped, we wonder why?!
23rd October 2012, Shocking revelation at Gee Street Family Court, - As mentioned above
Ms Victoria Carrington ceased working for the Royal Borough of Greenwich Social Services

165

department as of the ending of July 2012. During this process we had come across a document,
which we were not informed about previously. The document is dated 2nd May 2012, and if you
remember, this was the same date mother was to have contact with the youngest children. The
document is quite alarming and appears to have taken place at Invicta, it states, Avery, and her

sisters arrived late for breakfast club today. Avery, looked a bit upset; she said that she needed
a plaster. She wanted to show me her cut on her leg. She looked very angrily at the driver, and
he said that he would leave as she wanted to show me her cut, but not with him present. The
fact that Ms Carrington failed to inform us as parents highlights to us something was desperately
wrong, how was her leg cut in the first instance? Why did she not want the driver present? These
are children, Ms Carringtons failure to consider that fact is disturbing and reflective of her work
and treatment of our family. Now, as parents we still have many unanswered questions, nothing
has raised more suspicion and concern than the revelation that was made by Ms Carrington that
documents in our case have been shredded, she has claimed it is because she left her role as
Social Worker and because it is a paperless office. Yes, you read it right, we know immediate
thoughts for some would be Enron, however, it begs to be asked, the obvious reason why an
individual or company would shred documents in a case as corrupt as this, would be to conceal
and hide information or a way of ensuring confidential/top secret or damaging information
doesnt get out. The Royal Borough of Greenwich should be ashamed to be shredding
documents in a live case. Either way, no matter how you try and dress up shredding
documents it is ultimately a way of destroying papers/documents or evidence. What were they
hiding? We continue to search for answers, the one thing we do know, what happens in the dark
must come to light! Eventually, just like many other cases, where corruption exists the truth will
always come to light. To you Ms Carrington, just as your attempt to gain access into our home
failed, so shall your document shredding exercise also fail!

Ms Kathy Elliffe, (Team Manager)

Let us introduce you to this individual, Ms Elliffe she was Ms Carrington Team Manager. Now,
we had sent a letter of complaint to Ms Elliffe regarding a situation where it was claimed by Mc
Carrington that she had told the Invicta School not to send us parents any correspondence with
regards to our children. Now, Ms Elliffe claimed it was not Ms Carrington who told the school
not to do this, and we quote, I cannot answer for the Headteacher Mrs Corbett as to why she
failed to send you copies of any reports. The Managers for these rogues are very good at
shifting blame and not accepting any responsibility for anything.
17th April 2013- We discussed with Ms Elliffe how the case began and was surprised at her
response she stated we had a shaky start! if a local authority commits unlawful acts and falsely
imprisoning children they had no business detaining and her summing up of this to be a shaky
start, then it is no wonder why we do not seem to be getting anywhere with senior staff! Also,
by this time we had refused to attend Court as we were tired of the continued lies and deceit of
these rogues, also we were in protest at all the brazen corruption and the effects the actions of
these rogues was having on our children, especially protesting after the fact finding sham. Ms
Elliffe wanted to establish whether we would consider attending court. Ms Elliffe tried to
provide us with a list of Lawyers in other words the professional losers, as every party had
been aware we had fired our so called Solicitor and Lawyer. We did not accept the up front

166

payment as this would be interpreted as consent and acceptance to attend court which we did
not attend. Court- Ms Elliffe has shown an interest in our case as she has managed from May
2012 to continually make an appearance with a pen and note book at the ready she is always seen
making notes in the court room. We believe it was her note taking which informed the responses
of the rogues. That was a devious way to keep her colleagues informed and updated. This gave
them the opportunity to be fully prepared for any questions put to them. Ask yourself what was
she doing at court anyway? There was already a social worker on the case? Ms Elliffe is like all
the other incompetents. It is a shame she failed to act inline with her statutory duties and follow
the correct procedures with regards to our case! However, to be fair she was not on the case the
from the initial stages, however, that is no excuse.

Mrs Teresa Amprako-Appiah (4TH Social Worker) - We as parents believe it

important to mention this individual, even though she is nothing like the previous three Social
Workers, her failure to act is in itself disgraceful and makes her as complicit as all the other
rogues in this situation. she continued and further compounded the unlawful and inhumane
situation.
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.
He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mrs Amprako-Appiah took over our case once Ms Carrington had left until late 2013. On
countless occasions we told Mrs Amprako- Appiah of our concerns as to our children remaining
at Invicta and yet, she did nothing, only giving us false promises that they would be changing
school soon. It turned out that our oldest three children namely, Avery, Beth and Cassie, were
not removed from Invicta until the summer of 2013, conveniently once the criminal prosecution
against father was thrown out.
On 8th August 2013- When we as parents arrived to see our children at contact, we were
surprised and baffled to see our children arriving separately, Avery and Daniel in one vehicle and
Beth and Cassie in the other, but we were always used to seeing them arriving together. Ms
Amprako-Appiah failed to inform us when our children were first separated from each other.
Our children were living away from each other. As you can understand it was a terrible feeling
first your children are kidnapped and then just over a year later they are separated, our children
have never known what it was like to live in a home without their parents let alone without each
other! The fact we were not told and had to find out from our children is exactly how a lot of
these Social Workers treat parents as though they just do not matter. Although Ms AmprakoAppiah stated her dislike for such a case riddled with questionable actions, she did not muster
the strength to voice her concerns instead continued to do as she was told. Ms Amprako-Appiah
made clear that our case was Political and that the Director was involved in what appeared
to be an attempt at distracting us from her inaction and maybe hopefully into perceiving her
confiding in us as some kind of pathway to trust. Even then, Mrs Amprako- Appiah revealed
herself that she is just like Ms Alison Mc Donald and Ms Victoria Carrington, even had the

167

audacity to attempt a request to come to our home for a meeting with the guardian, we declined
stating another location.
28th November 2013- As parents, we had received an email stating that Ms Amprako-Appiah
had been promoted to Team Leader and that there would be new Social Worker on our
case, this new Social Worker would be the fifth Social Worker to be put on our case. It was so
nice to know that regardless of the inconsistencies in our case and the corruption which remains
in our case the fourth Social Worker namely Ms Amprako-Appiah who failed like the ones
before her, to highlight or draw attention to the continuous suffering of our four children has
managed to gain a new title of Team Leader? Well, its good to know someone is doing well on
the back of our case!

Ms Fardowsa Galal (Fifth Social Worker)- Now, although this individual came in at
the end, she has exposed herself to us as parents as being intent on carrying on the The Royal
Borough of Greenwich social Services tradition of incompetence and corruption.. At a meeting
late last year (2013), we had a discussion regarding our case and we had outlined the failings of
the Royal Borough of Greenwich Children Services. When we had stated to Ms Galal the fact
that no abuse had taken place and that our children should have never been removed her (Ms
Galals) response was that because Avery is dark skinned any bruise could have faded. We
couldnt believe what we were hearing it was as though she was claiming there had been reason
to remove our children from us and worst of all she had insinuated a punch did take place.
During the time our children were in care we made clear of the fact that our children not have
any change to their natural hair, because us as parents have never cut their hair, as one day we
had been intent for them to get locks. However, without our knowledge or consent and with Ms
Galal as the Social Worker, and on the day of contact (19th August 2014) we were shocked to see
that our son Daniels hair was completely cut and two of our daughters namely, Beth and
Cassies hair has been permed with chemicals, we know to be damaging to afro-Caribbean hair.
As parents we made a decision to grow their hair however, this was taken from us as it was
decided without us knowing. We as parents know these are the types of things rogues do it is a
way of letting the parent know, we can do what we want with your child, we have a care order!
Oh, we have been going through this kind of hell for well over 2 years now. We have chosen not
to be reactive but pro-active and we are continuing to fight for our children and will get them
back and you know what? Hair grows!!!
The email- When we received this email we were stunned and felt insulted at the complete and
brazen audacity of Ms Fardowsa Galal, instead of the Royal Borough of Greenwich accepting
they have caused a serious injustice, they appear to be searching for reasons to exclude and
appear to be trying to find ways to get rid of us. This is the exact email, minus the names of my
parents which are referred to as A and B below:

168

Dear Mr and Mrs Plowright,

As we previously discussed, I would like to apply for passports for the children so they can go
on holidays with their foster carers. Although you have refused to provide me with your birth
certificate, I have managed to obtain your birth certificate Mrs Plowright, I understand you was
born in Greenwich and I have the details of your parents respectively, A and B. I need to
clarify whether you have British Citizen by way of nationalisation and what date you or your
parents were nationalised.
I would appreciate it if you could provide me these details without the need for me to explore
further as it is a simple matter, but your refusal to cooperate with the local authority makes
matters very difficult and the children would benefit from going on holiday with their foster
carers.
I am always willing to meet you to discuss further.
Kind regards,
Fardowsa Gaal
Social Worker
Childrens Team A
I, Mrs Plowright was born in Greenwich Hospital, my parents are not from this country
however, Ms Galals disrespectful attempt at asking whether my parents were nationalised and
yes, Ms Galal the word your were looking for is naturalised not nationalised! The complete
disregard to state that we as parents are refusing to co-operate! Your Local Authority kidnapped
our four children and Ms Galal is aware of that and to obtain my birth certificate without my
knowledge and consent! This is what these rogues do; we do not accept any of these actions.
Readers, just to make clear, this is a blatant attack and has exposed that this borough are
searching for a way to get us as parents out of this Country and by asking whether I, Mrs
Plowright or my parents were naturalised here in the UK is just attempts at finding out whether I
have a legal right to reside here in England, after all they have done is just plain repulsive and
disgusting and shows how desperate they are as a Local Authority. The rogues are all aware that
we as parents are showing no sign of giving up on our children that they have now resorted to
trying to establish whether there is any chance of a successful deportation. The depths these
rogues will stoop to does not surprise us in the least. My husband is Jamaican and I am British,
and Ms Galals attempts at gathering information regarding status seems to suggests these
rogues are actively searching for any possibility as to whether there is any way to deport us from
this Country by way of obtaining whether I am legally in this Country clearly demonstrates they
are showing no sign of admitting that created this injustice. It might appear to some that we are
jumping to conclusion on this one, however we are not. There have been quite a few cases
involving parents who have met that fate. Children kidnapped and then they are deported from
the UK for dubious reason.

169

For the record and especially Ms Galal and all you other rogue professionals I, Mrs Plowright
was born here in Greenwich, London which your department for Children services would be
well aware of as they carried out unlawful agency checks to include our immigration status, so
instead of asking me, she should be asking her colleagues. For Ms Galal to state that our children
are to go on holiday with foster parents- children might we add you still have unlawfully
because they should have never been removed from us as parents. You see reader, this is the
fashion with which these rogues behave- Beware, the rogues!

Ms Kate Collins, Homefinding & Fostering (Supervising Social worker)Just to make clear readers, Ms Collins is not an employee of the Royal Borough of Greenwich,
she is employed by the fostering agency who had our children without lawful authority, namely
Home Finding & Fostering. In the case notes entered by Ms Mc Donald dated 13/04/12 Ms
Collins has dismissed the fact that our children were held unlawfully and has made clear that the
fostering agency can provide school transport and I quote; Kate informed that the agency may
be happy to provide the transport if it was over the weekend. This is absolutely unacceptable
how can you state that transport could be provided for four children your agency has no
business having in the first place? What these rogues have in common is a complete disregard
for the law, didnt you know readers? Its the local authority who pays these agencies namely,
Home finding & fostering.

Ms Toyah Holness- Orange Grove (Supervising Social worker)On 10th April 2012, without any court order, Ms Holness, who is unknown to us as parents as
we have never met her, however, according to Ms Alison Mc Donalds Chronology and we
quote: 10/04/2012 Placement Meeting held. Present: Foster Carer, Toyah Holness (Orange

Grove Supervising Social Worker), Alison McDonald (Social Worker), Avery Plowright
(Young Person), Beth Plowright (Young Person), Cassie Plowright (Young Person), Daniel
Plowright (Young Person). Foster Carer informed that she expected the placement to be an
Emergency one therefore would require the children to be placed elsewhere by 13 April 2012.
As Supervising Social Worker she would have been aware of the fact there was not any
existence of a Court Order. Ms Holness attended a placement meeting with our four children
with Ms Mc Donald, without our consent or knowledge but above all no lawful authority!
Further, she makes clear that the placement should have been an emergency one and that
with no authority they claim to no longer place our children with their agency beyond 13th
April 2012. Ms Holness is complicit as a Social Work Supervisor she should have flagged up
what was happening and if she was not aware that makes the matter a lot worse! The fact that
Orange Grove had our children in their care makes them as an agency no different to Home
Finding & fostering and they will be held to account no one is above the law; it seems greed with
these agencies is contagious! All willing to accept the money paid by the Local Authority for our
four children, but not bothering to ask for to see the important paperwork to establish that the
children were lawfully in the care of the Local Authority or the lawfulness of the accommodation
of our children (any form of authority given by the Court or a Section 20 Voluntary agreement

170

signed by the parents.) They allowed themselves to be accomplices and complicit in the
wrongdoing of The Royal Borough of Greenwich. This is how children get trafficked every day.
These greedy, self-centred money grabbing fostering agencies failed to carry out their statutory
duties and check the lawfulness of the children being they get paid to accommodate.

Ms Gillian Palmer- (Director of Social Services Royal Borough of Greenwich)

Even though this is the chapter on social workers it is important we point out that Ms Gillian
Palmer has not been a Social Worker in the case that was created against us. Ms Gillian Palmer is
far more significant to what unfolded; she is actually what we view as the head cook and bottle
washer! The queen bee of incompetents if there was ever such a thing. This entire ordeal has
been allowed to take place all courtesy of Ms Palmer. We will try to be fair to her though,
something which she never did for us.
Ms Palmer is the Director of Childrens Services for the Royal Borough of Greenwich and
ultimately responsible for the conduct of her staff and the unlawful actions and immoral actions
they have committed. If she was offering competent leadership her staff would not be able to be
so brazenly incompetent and arrogant in the conduct of their duties. If she was an effective
leader she would certainly not allow such wickedness to be perpetrated against innocent children,
and parents. Just in case she tries to claim she did not know we, took the liberty to complain to
her directly in an effort to inform her of what was taking place on her watch, for good measures
we also lodged a complaint against her for her role in what occurred. We displayed our
willingness to resolve the situation by offering to meet and discuss the matter with Ms Palmer,
however, she failed to take the opportunity to set things right. The tone of her response was very
abrupt and dismissive.
Who is Gillian Palmer?
According to the London government executive website Ms Palmer qualified as a teacher in
1977, she did a stint in Fulham and Hammersmith; rising to become Chief Inspector and
Assistant Director for Schools and pupil support she left in 2003 to join Barnet as A chief
Education Officer then rising to become Director of Childrens Services for Barnet. Her time at
Barnet was not without its controversy. Ms Palmer was the Director of social services when the
tragic death of Sean Denton occurred. One newspaper headline at the time in Dec 2008 read:
Tragic toddler Sean Denton left by Social Services to die at the hands of his drug-abusing
mother who had already served a jail sentence for manslaughter.
Shortly after the story broke it appears Ms Palmer left Barnet (fleeing a scandal) and was
employed by her current employers The Royal Borough of Greenwich, where her current salary
is 150,000 as display on the Freedom of Information website: www.whatdotheyknow.com
We were eager to know more about the head cook and bottle of all these incompetent social
workers we have encountered in this horrid process and why they were so arrogant in their

171

behaviour and conduct. An incompetent professional is indicative of incompetent leadership in

an organisation. The actions of these rogue social workers are indicative of the type of leadership
that is currently in place at The Royal borough of Greenwich social services department.
Anyway, we have never met her personally, so decided to get a feel of this character before
writing about her. So we attended the Children & Young People Scrutiny Panel meeting on
Tuesday 18th November 2014 at 19:00 and it had been open to the public. At this Scrutiny Panel
meeting, Ms Palmer was due to make a presentation. As a woman, I, Mrs Plowright couldnt help
but notice Ms Palmer and her appearance. We felt it was overdue to finally see this individual
and put a face to the name and in my opinion she appeared completely distracted, she arrived
wearing a black knee length leather skirt, charcoal coloured polar neck jumper, black transparent
tights complete with suede black ankle length gold buckled, mid heel boots, which I could recall
appeared new as Ms Palmer seemed to be encapsulated by them. During the meeting in between
speaking Ms Palmer appeared fixated on her boots! The only thing missing from her outfit was a
whip!!! If this woman gave our situation the kind of focus, such as the attention she was giving
her mid heel boots then we would not be here typing this book. A word of advice to Ms Palmer,
in the future focus more on important issues and not your boots!!!
She and her team were making a presentation to the committee so this was a good opportunity
to get a feel of her personality. We were two of only four members of the public who were in
attendance at this meeting. We arrived very early for the scrutiny Panel meeting so as to not miss
anything. Ms Palmer arrived for the meeting on time with her team as we would expect,
immediately upon her arrival a member of her team appeared to have recognised us and was
busy trying to discreetly inform her that we were in the room.
At the scrutiny meeting she presents as a woman who likes to be in charge. She was regularly
interrupting and clarifying on behalf of her team and answering questions on their behalf posed
by the committee directly to them and not her. She appears to be the type of leader who likes to
be on top of things. This sort of overarching controlling behaviour reveals that the social worker
Ms Teresa Amprako-Appiah was definitely correct when she disclosed that our case is political
and the director is involved. The kind of incompetence and corruption involved in our case
would not go unnoticed by the type of controlling and bossy character we encountered at the
scrutiny panel meeting. Ms Palmer has no plausible deniability for the unjustified and cruel acts
committed by her staff against our children and us as a family. The Royal Borough of Greenwich
surely knows how to pick them. After the scandal surrounding Ms Palmers role at Barnet
regarding the tragic story of Sean Denton, The Royal Borough of Greenwich choose to employ
her and here she is again, this woman is now responsible for yet another travesty. The
kidnapping of four children, what we find staggering as parents is the fact that even though, the
records and evidence is absolutely clear our family was target by a whole bunch of incompetents
under her watch. She knew about it and failed to act. It is clear she has a history of making
extremely bad judgements.
Ms Palmer incompetent subordinate social workers had children unlawfully in their care, which
were restricted and denied from seeing their parents amongst a host of other inhumane conduct.
Our children were deliberately trafficked all over the place by her workers without any concerns
for the traumatic effect their actions were having upon our children. Ms Palmer in her capacity

172

has Director of Children Services has failed miserably in her duties and has clearly displayed that
she condones these sorts of dreadful actions against children. What sort of message is she
sending to her subordinates? Go kidnap children and your boss will do all she can to cover your
back. She is another of the incompetents that should be nowhere around children or anything to
do with children and families. She clearly appears to be out of touch and void any moral
integrity. She also seems the type who has no clue as to the challenges real people face on a day
to day basis; you know the type we are talking about reader? The type who has no idea what a
loaf of bread costs, the type who is void of the real consequences and human effects of their
decisions. We could write an encyclopaedia on the likes of Ms Palmer however, we will leave it
as is for now and close with the final paragraph below:
Ms Palmer represents the quintessential personification of incompetent leadership and
governance. She appears more suited to the running of a debt collection agency, than the person
who should be in charge of a social services department. As our observation of her during the
presentation reveals, she appears to be overwhelmingly target driven and appears to be void of
any sense of basic human empathy.

173

This page is intentionally blank

174

Chapter 7
Schools

Primary schools and key members of staff Involved!

Most schools today are increasingly becoming like prison compounds for children! Many a
parent who have spoken to us are concerned at the overly intrusive behaviour of some teachers
& Headteachers in their lives. Some teachers & Headteachers are behaving as though they own
the children left in their care by parents throughout the school day. There are tons of activities
taking place inside schools that if parents knew the full extent would make them withdraw their
children from some these schools immediately! Some teachers are increasingly becoming overt in
their disregard for parents and are regularly behaving as though it is their children and not the
parents. If parents question the schools policies or actions regarding their children, they can
quickly find themselves the subject of a malicious attack by school staff or even a visit from the
dreaded Social Services. Social Services referrals by schools are now fast becoming the tool of
choice to threaten and keep parents in line. Most parents dread the involvement of Social
Services in their lives and often shut up and put up with the demands of rogue teachers and
school staff. Many of the parents we have spoken to have become extremely stressed by the
above fact and feel trapped not knowing who to turn to. This is an appalling and sad state of
affairs, that Social Service and Social Workers are known by many, to be untrustworthy and
corrupt. The reputation of Social Workers in the eyes of many parents we have spoken to is so
horrendous that many parents are actually in fear of a referral to Social Services.
Our experience confirms that the fears of many parents are not unfounded. The majority of the
Social Workers we have encountered are arrogant, deceitful and are very untrustworthy. What
has the world become when the threat of social services can be used to illicit the compliance of
loving parents? Many of the parents we have spoken to are in serious fear that their children
might be taken away and placed in care if they do not comply with the demands of schools.
These rogues who are operating in many schools are well aware of this well placed fear by many
parents, and take advantage of it at will. Rogues know all too well, the corruption that exist in
the child protection system and the Family Courts, they are fully aware that children can be taken
from loving parents without any justification whatsoever. Referrals to Social Services now also
form part of what clearly appears to be a ever increasingly devious tactic used by the mostly
vindictive and racist teachers and Headteachers as a form of attack on immigrant families. The
sad part of all this is that schools used to be a place where children go to learn, however most
schools are now more concerned about targets and the pupil premium money they receive than
the wellbeing of children. Dont get us wrong, there are many hardworking and dedicated
teachers out there that do their very best for the children they teach. We are talking about the
small but increasing bunch of vile teachers, such as the ones who are involved in the kidnap and
emotional torture of our children. With the state of the economy at present, paying the bills and
putting food on the table, is becoming harder and harder for a lot of parents. Most parents are
already burdened by the pressures of daily life, the daily commute, dealing with work related

175

issues and a host of other life and work commitments. The last thing most parents have time for
is a spat with the school their child/children attend over what in most cases are trivial issues. If
parents refuse to be drawn in by petty squabbles by rogues or if they attempt to address any
issue raised by their children regarding their treatment by school staff they can quickly find
themselves or their children being singled out and targeted by rogue school teachers, and staff
members. There is no truly independent and appropriate mechanism in the current system to
deal with many of the issues highlighted above. Malicious referrals and behaviour by some
teachers and staff go unchecked and it is the children who ultimately suffer at the hands of these
vile rogues.

Charlton Manor
This chapter needs to start with the school where all of our problems began namely, Charlton
Manor Primary School, we will expand and make clear how so called professionals were
complicit in their efforts to tarnish and discredit our family. Who better to begin with than the
individual who has been ultimately responsible for the initial malicious referral and later eliciting
the assistance of Mr Ken Palmer and the Panel, the Fair Access Panel back in 2011, without our
knowledge or consent.
Note: In this book we have typed that our children left Charlton Manor and 2 years later documents
created, what we need to make clear for those that may want the exact time frame is that this would be 1
year and 6 months which is nearly 2 years, lest we be accused of misleading!

Mr Tim Baker (Headteacher)Mr Tim Baker gave a false perception that we as parents withdrew our girls from his school
because of the malicious referral he made to Social Services, when in fact the case had been
closed because the Social Worker namely, Mrs R had no concerns about our children or us as a
family. We had removed our children from the school because our relationship with the school
had broken down irrevocably. The catalyst for this state of affairs was the bullying our daughter
endured and key staff repeatedly taking our children out of class to be probed, without our
consent or knowledge amongst other misgivings.
For our eldest Avery, who has been bullied at both Schools, her school report from Charlton
Manor and her then Year 2 teacher namely, Miss Murphy states and we quote: Avery, has
seemed very unhappy in school. Although she tries hard to contribute she gets very upset if she
doesnt get an answer right or if occasionally she is not chosen. She cries several times a day.
We are looking into the root of her unhappiness in an effort to improve her school day. Avery
reads with reasonable knowledge of her single phonemes. She has some recall of words she has
read before. The report further continues, No. of white slips 0, No. of Yellow slips 0, No. of
red slips 0. She has made progress in all areas of the curriculum and I wish her all the best in
Year 3. To quickly explain to some readers, so you can more understand the white yellow and
red slip system. The white slip is used for behaviours such as low level defiance, the yellow for
example, persistent rudeness and red slips used for extreme behaviour.

176

Mr Baker, and other members of staff have denied our daughter was bullied at Charlton Manor
Primary School, it is clear Miss Murphy has noticed that there is something wrong and this is
reflected in this school report above, however, Mr Bakers clear denial that our daughter was
bullied is the reason why no attempt had been made to address it. However, we were targeted by
Mr Baker and staff after raising the issue, hence the targeting of our family. Mr Baker clear denial
that our daughter was being bullied is also why at the meeting with Mr Baker and the incident
with Ms Coker, he tried to take the three letters of apology written by the bullies, which we had
found inside our daughters book bag. The slips as mentioned above relate to children who
misbehave, now it is evidently clear in as outlined in Averys school report that she received no
white, no yellow or red slips which conflicts with Mr Baker and other members of staff who
alleged Avery had behavioural issues, which was yet another lie. The evidenced speaks for itself.
It had been stated by Mr Baker, when Ms Rosetta had closed the case regarding the referral in
2010, that he (Mr Baker) still had concerns, shall we entertain this? Hypothetically speaking,
lets say Mr Baker had concerns for our girls and he was being a genuine headteacher. Well, lets
expose him to be the callous malicious individual we believe he truly is, as this document below
clearly demonstrates. Readers, bear in mind Mr Baker had concerns and we quote from this
document from beginning to end;

Mr Plowright asked to be shown around the school. I walked him round and he seemed
pleasant on the first meeting. However he then asked some strange questions. Firstly, he asked
me what the school emblem was. I explained it was a Griffin. He looked at me suspiciously and
then asked why. I explained that it was an emblem from the original coat of arms for Charlton
House. He then asked if I knew what it meant. I told him no and asked him what he meant.
He said you look it up. He then asked me if I was a mason. I told him I wasnt. He saw my tie
pin and asked what the symbol on it was. I told him that it as an emblem of a Swedish town and
as a gift from a Swedish teacher. He then said again are you sure youre not a mason. I again
assured him I wasnt and asked him why he kept asking. No reason, he replied. All through
the visit however he kept asking me about the Griffin and the tie pin. Did I know their
significance? Why did I wear the tie pin? Why a Griffin? He seemed quite fixed on them. He
then left.
T Baker Heateacher
As you can imagine, we were taken aback by this document, which was undated and unsigned.
This was clearly no accident as it had been submitted during the fact finding at Gee Street
Family Court, which had taken place in October 2012. Ask yourselves readers, where is the
concern for our children? He further, continued until a clandestine Fair Access Panel had been
instigated without our knowledge, also key staff at Invicta had agreed to monitor us as a family
as a result of Mr Bakers concerns. It is fair to ask where these are so called concerns expressed
in the only document from this individual. Simple answer, there were no concerns, just what we
believe to be a very bitter individual, which appears to stop at nothing to get what he wants.
Back to this very bizarre document, what message had he appeared to be conveying to the
Judge? Now, we will be very clear we are not asserting the Judge sitting during the fact finding is
connected in anyway to Mr Baker, we are simply making known that this document is not a
rushed spontaneously created document, and in fact was typed up to convey a message and to

177

paint a picture of our family and elicit a desired effect. Why would a Headteacher, one might we
add who claims to be so concerned for children as to go as far an make a referral choose to
mention a Griffin and Masons? Well, we would like to make clear, and very clear at that, Mr
Baker once again just like the malicious referral was creating yet more fallacies, this meeting
never took place and no such conversation ever took place. We as parents have been hit with
many documents containing fallacies and incorrect dates, but this one actually left us speechless,
we read it over and over again. If you claim to care for children who had been removed from
your school, why then has that document not outlined your genuine concerns for each of the
children? It appears Mr Bakers uncontrollably devious and callous personality has affected his
sense of basic moral decency. This is reflective in his abnormal behaviour and clearly
demonstrates he has no limits to his level of degeneracy. To clandestinely, maliciously and
continuously pursue our family even after we left the school is shocking to say the least. Even at
two years after our children were removed from Charlton manor primary school and after all the
malicious talk and clandestine fair access panel all this Rogue can mention in poorly created
document is Griffin and Mason. This is absolute beggars belief, but even the beggar would
have a hard time believing the calculating callousness of this rogue.

Mrs Victoria Sengupta, (Deputy Headteacher)

Now, Headteacher at another school in Bexelyheath, as of September 2012, Mrs Victoria
Sengupta had come across to us at the meeting we had attended in 2010 as extremely
professional, she presented as understanding the need to communicate effectively between
parents and staff in the best interests of the child and that is what she did, unlike Mr Baker
although he essentially was Mrs Senguptas Manager, the minor way exceeded her Superior and
this was the reason why we allowed our daughter to attend the school trip on November 2010.
As parents we believed Mrs Sengupta demonstrated her ability to address issues as I, Mrs
Plowright had spoken to her with regards to Avery being bullied, and she was very sympathetic
and approach the matter with candour. With that being said, when it comes to all of the key
members of staff who targeted our family, Mrs Sengupta by far has shocked us, to the extent of
letting us down, she made us feel as though we were given a fresh start, and a new approach
however, that soon turned very, very sour. Monday 15th November 2010, after the school day
and after Beths school trip, I Mrs Plowright was spoken to by Mrs Sengupta who had informed
me that Social Services had been contacted because and I quote; the children have no toys or
Nintendo Wii, I couldnt believe what I was hearing, I felt betrayed and shocked by this as our
children have toys but no computer games like the one she had mentioned. I could not
comprehend how, it had been deemed necessary for a referral to be made based on a family not
owning a Nintendo Wii? The shocking part when she told me she appeared to have a serious
expression on her face, as if Nintendo Wii is some kind of requirement or part of the School
Curriculum! I believe the reason why she had stated this was in the hope of upsetting me.
However, I rose above it and collected my daughters.

178

Thursday June 14th 2012, we as parents were taken aback to read a document which appeared to
be a statement which had been typed by the then Social Worker, Ms Victoria Carrington. After
the referral had been made and Mrs Sengupta informed me of the ridiculous concern she
further added that I, Mrs Plowright had then stated to her that an I quote from her statement;
Im not telling him tonight, he is socialising and I am not ruining his socialising. The word
that came to mind when we first read this document in mid 2012, had been- Crazy! A mother
has just been informed by the Deputy Head, that a referral has been made and responds in this
manner? It is actually condescending and an insult to us as parents for Mrs Sengupta to
suggested that Mrs Plowright would have responded in such a ludicrous manner. Our trust for
Mrs Sengupta had been broken and that is what I had told her on the day, (15/11/10) that the
only reason Beth went on this trip is because of you (Mrs Sengupta)- betrayal is what I felt.
Further, in this document Mrs Sengupta stated that our daughters would not play together and
she continues to claim, ..the children appeared to have very little interest, interaction or bond
with each other.
12 November 2010, we will demonstrate to you just how and what is alleged by Mrs Sengupta is
complete fallacy, showing the lengths some these rogue professionals will go to in their
attempts to discredit us and we quote directly from the document word for word:

13th November Mr Plowright came to the school and the end of the day and demanded very
aggressively to speak to myself. I agreed. However that day the community police were on site
so I asked them to stay as Mr Plowright can be very intimidating and quite aggressive. I took
Mr Plowright into my office, he was just shaking his head repeatedly said as a mother you
should know better, trust you have betrayed my trust. His eyes were permanently focused on
mine which I found very intimidating and mentally draining. I firmly told Mr Plowright that as
an Education establishment that is our duty of care to refer any disclosures that we deemed that
required intervention. He informed me that I had joined the filth from the top and that we just
inappropriately probing his children and intruding on his personal life. He also kept referring
to having intruders in his home and how would I feel if these people came looking into my
home. I ensured the conversation was about his own children and not my life. He then kept
referring to me as Deputy Head he would not call me Mrs Sengupta throughout this whole
meeting. I was actually very upset after this meeting as I felt he was trying to insinuate that we
were conspiring to question his children and make him and his wife out to be bad parents. We
only ever wanted to ensure that the children were happy and safe. The children were all very
quiet and socially and academically behind their peers. I dont think I ever saw the children
smile, laugh or enjoy themselves. They were all very serious and behaved like little robots.
Reader, as we have typed the letter word for word this includes all and every mistakes made by
this professional. Now, readers, besides the alleged allegations made about our children and us
as parents, have you spotted anything? Perhaps the date? Mrs Sengupta has claimed this
meeting took place, well this never happened; the 13th November 2010 was clearly a
Saturday! This document was prepared for court and is not uncommon of the countless other
type of documents which were riddle with fallacies, yet were relied on as cogent. Mrs Sengupta
was very cunning, stating father had been aggressive and intimidating on a day the school
was clearly closed. However, during her testimony in October 2012, she claimed this was a

179

mistake. We would like to repeat and make clear that when a fallacy is purported and claimed
to be the truth and then it is a lie, cracks will soon appear, they will become more visible, if you
just look hard enough, well, in Mrs Senguptas case, we didnt require much effort in looking!
October 26th October 2012, testimony of Mrs Sengupta, this day revealed a lot as to what had
happened whilst our children were kidnapped. When it had been put to Mrs Sengupta the cause
of her leaving Charlton Manor, she paused looking down, it appeared as though she was in
mental conflict as to how best answer the question and before she could answer the question,
the Judge, namely DJ Alderson, intervened, stating she did not have to answer. Mrs Sengupta
claimed not to know Mr Ken Palmer, also stating she had spoken to Ms Cuff from Invicta over
the phone with regards to Charlton Manors concerns. However, she had stated that she had
spoken to Ms Cuff at Invicta and Mr Ken Palmer at a meeting, inside the (Invicta) office and
spoke about the family. We were shocked to hear Mr Palmers name re-emerged once again,
and of his involvement in discussing our family. Some of you reading may say, Well, it is normal
for a Child Protection Co-ordinator to discuss families? Not in our case, as you will read later, as
to who Mr Ken Palmer really is linked to. After Mrs Sengupta gave evidence and all parties had
left the court room for a break, as we were having a conversation with our Barrister we were
disturbed by a loud noise, the sound had come from Mrs Sengupta who began crying
hysterically! We believe it was the feeling of guilt, all the fallacies, told against our family, the fact
that she was no longer working at Charlton Manor Primary School, but appeared to still be
under Mr Bakers control. To seal it off, her heavy conscience, knowing that our children had
been taken on the back of what began from a malicious referral from Mr Baker and his
followers. We believe this statement sums up how we feel; Wicked people can only continue to
perpetrate wickedness, because good people let them! In essence the good become wicked
through witnessing and assisting them and consequently, them too, become wicked. Mrs
Sengupta failed our family, when she had the opportunity to tell the truth, she chose not to. By
her failure to do the right thing she has caused our family and particularly our innocent children
to suffer needlessly. She is just as complicit as all the rogues named in this book.

Mr Joseph Turner-wing, (Behaviour Manager)

This individual had been present at a meeting to our shock because this meeting had taken place
when our daughters were due to begin at Invicta in February 2011, it was a new school, why was
he there? During the meeting we couldnt understand why it was thought necessary to have
someone from Charlton Manor to attend, however unbeknownst to us it had been as a result of
the clandestine Fair Access Panel and by having Mr Turner-Wing present would have made it
seem as though our daughters had some sort of behavioural issues. Once again, the
contradictions continue, as Mr Turner-Wing who alleged that our daughter, Beth was upset and
he had been required to calm her down. We would like to make clear, that we are referring to
a document dated 19th June 2012, two years after our children left Charlton Manor. The
document in question which appears to be typed by a Social Worker hence the terms used. We
find it very ridiculous that a number of staff had documents clearly dated in June 2012 relating
to alleged concerns back in 2010, this simply cannot be reliable as no one without some kind of
recoded log or notes taken at the time can simply rely/depend, on their memory for reference. If
we were to ask you the reader, if you can remember exactly what you were doing back in 2010,

180

with the use of just your memory, then that would not be a reliable account. Most people cant
even remember what they did last month.
Why do you think that even within Courts, (Excluding the Secret Courts) that a persons
memory cannot be relied upon? Well, because we can be prone if not deliberately, to things that
did not happen and then muddle it up with the truth. Why do you think those professional
Police Officers prefer to record a witness statements soon after the incident? With a school
known to teach hundreds of pupils, it is unreliable to depend upon a professional, to state that
they remember exactly what had taken place two years ago, it is very likely that other pupils
can become mistaken for others, events that did not take place have been written as having taken
place and then dates get muddled, the list is endless! In any event, Mr Turner-Wing alleged in
this same document that, and we quote, Mr Plowright immediately appeared defensive and
claimed that the school was painting his daughter in a negative light. This seemed a bizarre
thing to suggest as the only meeting with Mr Turner- Wing which included Beths teacher, us as
parents and Mrs Sengupta had been a pleasant meeting hence us allowing our daughter Beth to
attend the school trip on Monday 15th November 2010. It would be absurd to be present at a
meeting which is based on Mr Turner-Wings memory, and then trust the same staff responsible
for our children namely Beth to go on a school trip-outlandish! The contradictions made by Mr
Turner-Wing are evident in the letters we received concerning our daughters given to them by
Mr Turner-Wing, stating, I am very pleased to be able to inform you that your child has
demonstrated Outstanding behaviour during this half term and another letter from Mr
Turner-Wing, and we quote, I am writing to inform you that Beth, has been making

consistently good effort at school during the past term. Staff have been pleased that your child
has demonstrated a really positive attitude towards their learning. Both letters contain a copied
signature from Mr Tuner-Wing. This individuals effort to discredit our children and us as
parents as failed, we have proof of all of these letters signed by Mr Joesph Turner-Wing.

Miss Lisa Smith (Beths Year 2 Teacher)This individual who had been our daughter, Beths teacher before, during and after the time the
referral was made back in 2010. Her behaviour towards our daughter Beth is one we would
prefer to forget as she was complicit in the removal of our child to another location to be probed
and questioned without our knowledge or consent when in fact she should have been teaching
our daughter. Miss Smith also made many allegations surrounding our family that were all
fallacies. Readers remember we highlighted earlier in the book that our children left Charlton
manor primary in 2010. Miss smiths allegations were made in documents which were mainly
undated and formed part of the documents collected from Charlton manor when Ms Victoria
Carrington(social worker) went on her journalistic ventures to Charlton manor in 2012. These
documents were obviously appear to have been recently created in 2012, however it seems these
rogues were trying to give the impression that these documents existed before 2012 hence the
documents not being dated or signed. In any event this brazen attempt at corruption cannot
stand up to any scrutiny. During Court proceedings in October 2012, we had been stunned by
the number of documents written and typed up from key members of staff prior to the
proceedings; we believe these documents had been created not at the time it is alleged the so
called events took place but, two years later namely, 2012. As you have read regarding Mrs

181

Sengupta, when you lie about an event that you are aware is not true you will make mistakes,
hence claiming Mr Plowright had been aggressive to her on a Saturday when the school was
closed!
November 2010- It appeared Miss Smith had been sent to start what she referred to as a
contact book her strategy was to give the book to Beth at the end of the school day and then
we should return the book on a daily basis. The book had not been filled out because we refused
to have these sorts of unnecessary intrusion as we sent our children to school to learn not to be
given contact books! Further this contact book was only introduced after the malicious
referral was made by Mr Baker back in 2010. Miss Smith resorted to having our daughter tell us,
Miss Smith said you have to write in it. Again, we disregarded this and so another book had
been given. Inside this book it records an incorrect entry stating that the school trip to the
Museum had taken place on 16th November 2010. However, this had been intentional as the key
staff involved, have not accepted that a referral had been made on the same day as the school
trip which took place on Monday 15th November 2010. We believe this denial was an attempt to
try an paint us as liars and also to not make these rogues appear to be malicious and vindictive as
to make such a malicious referral on the same day we placed our trust in Mrs Sengupta after
much persuasion on her part and finally allowed our daughter to be taken off school grounds on
a trip to the Florence Nightingale Museum. We could not trust these people on the school
grounds with our children and it was hard for us to even consider trusting them outside the
school grounds with our precious children.
Miss Smith writes, and we quote, Class Trip to Florence Nightingale Museum, Beth came to

school much happier with her boots on she had a great trip and enjoyed being on the train. She
enjoyed the workshop and was chosen to dress up as Florence Nightingale. Arrived back at
school 3:20 and was collected by mum. This was signed by Miss Smith.
On Tuesday 16th November 2010, we had received a phone call from the school, stating that
Beth was feeling unwell. We mentioned to our Family lawyer (professional loser) in October
2012, stating we have evidence which proved to the Court that Charlton Manors concerns
alleging that our children, wore dirty clothing and that their hair was unkempt had been lies.
We have evidence which proves that fact as a photo had been taken during the trip to the
Florence Nightingale Museum, in the photo it contradicts their claims as our daughter Beth
presented in clean neat, age appropriate uniform and her hair neatly done and very tidy. It is no
wonder with our evidence certain staff at Charlton Manor have claimed the school trip had taken
place the day after the 15th November 2010.
We have decided to list some of the alleged allegations made by Miss Smith this long list of
allegations regarding our children is outlined below, there are many mistakes in this document,
however, we have type it as is, it may seem unbelievable to some, it was to us and we believe this
is especially shocking as this individual is supposed to be a teacher! We quote,

Outbursts within the classroom for no apparent reason,

ill-fitting clothes that were either far to large or way too small to the point of painful
Beth. Beth had a particular issues around footwear as her one and only pair of shoes

182

were incredibly small and very worn they would let weather in and on many bad weather
days Beth would come straight into class and remove her shoes.
At playtimes Beth would often sit the classroom door and kick the door crying but not
making any real sound.
During PE sessions it was noticed that Beths underwear was ripped in places and was
also very dirty in colour.
Academically Beth was very low and not making any progress. She had a desire to learn
but work was not being forwarded up at home after several attempts to engage Mr and
Mrs Plowright with the homework activities.

Now, Miss Smith also claimed in writing which is quite difficult to read, not because of the clear
fallacies, but because of the errors, in grammar and punctuation, we were shocked this is a
professional charged with educating children as well as many subjects, English and writing, it is
quite disturbing as she quite clearly demonstrates, and we quote:

Beth was the last child to be collected and both Beth and her younger sister waited in the
classroom. They sat for at least 10 minutes in total silence and I asked them if they wanted to
read a book or play noughts and crosses on a whiteboard. They did not know how to play the
game so I showed them. I asked why they wasnt talking to each other and Beth shrugged. I
asked them what they had played at home and Beth said they had to be very quiet at home
because Daddy liked no noise.
As we have stated previously, we believe it is amazing, to think that Miss Smith is responsible for
teaching children after writing a document of this nature. Now if you have a Doctor who doesnt
even know how to check a patients blood pressure, I would be very concerned, this is no
different. The document written by Miss was dated 6th October 2010, which is another
fabricated document written long afterwards. Moving on to the next document, where by Miss
Smith has claimed that during a meeting with Mrs Sengupta she alleges that we as parents had
been present with our daughter Beth and her brother Daniel, and we quote:

Mum and dad came to a meeting with Mrs Sengupta and Beths brother sat perfectly still on a
chair for a full half an hour of the meeting. He did not move or make a sound. I found this
extremely unusual for such a young child.
There is another account of this story however; it is contradictory as it stated that our son sat
on mums lap and not on the chair, Miss Smith also states with regards to Daniel:

Never moving his eyes from his fathers face.

What is chilling about this fallacy is that Miss Smith is alleging that our son is exhibiting signs of
a child that is fearful of his father, utter fallacy. Sometimes we wonder, how these people can
allow themselves to be used in this manner. And how do these people dream up these things?
However, when a fallacy is written or otherwise stated, there will be conflictions based on that
one account, because these rogues can only recall so much! Throughout this terrible ordeal, there
had been a concerted effort to allege Mr Plowright is aggressive, consider this telling excerpt
from one of the many documents produced by these rogues. Hopefully upon reading this
document it becomes clear what the aim was.

183

We quote: Mrs Sengupta asked her if she wanted to speak but he said my wife will speak to me
and I will speak to you. Upon analysing this, it appears it is trying to imply that there is some
sort of male dominance, which can be perceived as domestic violence/emotional abuse. We have
never accepted these and any documents like this from either, Charlton Manor nor Invicta as
these are fallacies and an attack on us as a family. For these rogue professionals, to assert that
father speaks for mother in the manner stated, it is not only untrue, but a targeting on our
marriage, we are a young couple who have been married for 12 years, we have known each other
since we were teenagers, and to be accused of this kind of behaviour is completely disrespectful.
Instead of being congratulated for being together especially when it is so clear, there is a
concerted effort to destroy the family unit and the sanctity of marriage in the world today, Miss
Smith in her attempt, to demonize Mr Plowright as being something he is not, clearly
demonstrates how these individuals will stop at nothing. Miss Smith also alleges that, and we
quote:

Dad was very confrontational and kept moving towards me in an intimidating manor Mr
Baker was sent for and he resolved the issue due to me feeling unsafe alone with him.
This is Miss Smith written account alleging father is somewhat aggressive, however, yet again
this meeting never took place as the only meeting we had where Miss Smith was present was
when Mrs Sengupta was convincing us to allow Beth to go on a school trip. Miss Smith also
alleged with regards to our daughter, Her socks were grey and her hair unkept. That should
be spelt- unkempt Miss Smith! Well, we did warn you readers about this individuals spelling
and grammar!

Miss Alyssa Bird-(Beths Year 1 Teacher)

Mrs Alyssa White ( Previous known as Miss Alyssa Bird) this individual completely contradicts
Miss Smith and other professionals who have alleged Beth is a very disturbed child and that
she doesnt have any friends.
We were shocked to read that nearly two years after we removed our children from Charlton
Manor Primary and before we attended Court in October 2012, Mrs White had made a
statement dated 19th June 2012. This was not an official statement recorded by a legal expert,
but, a typed letter from Mrs White. So just to reiterate for our readers, our children left Charlton
Manor Primary in 2010 and nearly 2 years later this woman made the below statement and we
quote:

I was Beths year 1 teacher from 11.05.2009 until 20.07.2009. Throughout this time there
were concerns regarding her that were flagged up to our child protection officer (Justine Han)
and the deputy headteacher (Vicky Sengupta). These concerns were as following

When Beth joined the class she did not communicate with me or the other children for
weeks.
She seemed withdrawn and found it hard to listen and follow instructions.
Beth was continuously late for school and was not always collected on time.

184

She would turn up unkempt and in dirty clothing.

Beth would not bring her book bag or homework.
At school Beth would have outburst where she refused to do anything and became
tense and angry. These would result in her being taken out of the class until she calmed
down.

The previous year my other partner (Jenny Newall) taught Avery, in Year 1. On many
occasions we discussed Avery. We both thought she was very behind in her education although
mum had said she was very bright. Again she showed very similar behaviour to Beth with being
very quiet and withdrawn.
If there are any other questions please feel free to contact me at Charlton Manor Primary
School.
Mrs Alyssa White.
This document had been signed by her. Now, there were a couple of things and as you will read
Mrs White completely contradicts herself, she stated that she was Beths teacher from 11.05.2009
until 20.07.2009. This is in fact incorrect as Beths first teacher was a woman called Ms Anna
Snosek who at the time had been Beths Reception Teacher. Mrs White came after.
Hypothetically, let us entertain Mrs Whites account for a moment she alleges these
concerns were flagged up at the time namely 2009, so why is it that there was not a referral
made until 15th November 2010? We as parents would have thought that concerns such as a
child being unkempt, wearing dirty clothing, would be enough to warrant a referral to social
services? Quite bizarre!
Anyway reader, evidence is always better than fantasy; this is Beths school report from
September 2009 to July 2010. You can judge for yourselves, as it is very interesting what Mrs
White has to say about our daughter in the below school report, and we quote:

Beth has settled well in to year 1. She is trying really hard and making some good progress.
Beth, enjoys stories and can retell them to you. Her writing is improving and she can be proud
of this. She works hard in phonics and is growing in confidence. Beth, can be trusted to do the
right thing and is caring towards others. It is a pleasure to have her in 1B. Keep up the hard
work Beth! This was signed, A Bird. She also adds, Beth, behaves responsibly and a good
role model to others. Beth, is beginning to be more independent with tasks and is always
polite when seeking help from adults or peers.
This school report made us as parents so proud that our daughter Beth had been doing so well
at school, when we read the fallacies and contradictions made, by Mrs White nearly two years
later we were bemused as to what she stated regarding our daughter. During the time our
daughters attended Charlton Manor, the school had a system of white, yellow and red slips, now
these are issued when a pupil is not behaving, the white slip is for example and we quote: (name

and two ticks on the board) is issued for behaviour such as: low level defiance, mild rudeness,
disruption of the class, the yellow is issued for more serious behaviour such as: persistent

185

defiance/rudeness, physical aggression, swearing, bullying or abusive language. Red slips are
issued for extreme behaviour.
Now, with all the alleged allegations claiming our daughters behaviour had been a concern,
not once have they been given any of these slips, as is clear in their school reports, where it states
how many slips each pupil is issued. On Beths report it states, No. of white slips 0, No. of
Yellow slips 0, No. of red slips 0. It is absolutely clear that these malicious rogues targeted our
children and us as a family. This vicious attack on our family, in particularly our children is
disgraceful and very sad, to think that these individuals, who call themselves professionals have
behaved in this manner. Mrs Alyssa White is complicit and of no exception to all the other
rogues.

Invicta Primary School

We feel it necessary to elaborate on the members of staff who played a key role in the kidnap
and detention of our children and so we will begin with who we believe is the most devious and
calculating rogue professionals. The behaviour and conduct of these rogue professionals has
caused our family severe distress. The individuals who were complicit in their nefarious actions
are a complete and utter disgrace. These members of staff are from Invicta Primary School,
where the kidnap of our children had taken place on the 29th March 2012.

Mrs Marie Corbett-Headteacher now (Executive Head of school)It has come to our attention that Mrs Corbett is now in the role of Executive Head for two
primary schools within the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Back in 2012 when she falsely
imprisoned and kidnapped our children her position was headteacher, now she is
executive Head of school. The Royal Borough of Greenwich should be absolute
ashamed of itself.
It is clear when the Royal Borough is not busy employing rogue professionals such as
Gilliam palmer fleeing a scandal they are busy rewarding rogue professionals who false
imprison children in school and who is complicit in numerous unlawful acts. We firmly
believe Mrs Corbett should not be around any children and be removed from her current
position for her callous and unprofessional conduct. However, the Royal Borough clearly
thinks Mrs Corbetts behaviour is acceptable and instead of removing her they have
actually now made her responsible for two school. Even while having our children
prisoners in her school she received an outstanding ofsted report. We wonder if she or
the royal borough of Greenwich informed the ofsted inspectors of what she had done
Ask yourselves, what has Executives? Answer: Corporations/Businesses, which begs the
question; Are schools a business? Are our children unpaid employees? Nope, just Agenda 21!
Readers need not worry as we will soon be in the process of typing our book about Agenda 21.
10th June 2011, we were informed of a family bereavement and our girls did not attend school,
this had been their first absence since they started Invicta in February in 2011. Now,

186

understandably we were stunned to hear Mrs Corbett contact father expressing how
concerned she had been because our girls had not attended school, when father explained the
reason for their absence, Mrs Corbett requested that the girls be brought into school after
lunch. This rogue disregarded the fact that there had been bereavement and failed to express
any sympathy/condolences but had been adamant that we send our girls into school after
lunch. We later read the document regarding her being alerted on the 10th June 2011. The below
excerpt from the document is very telling and we quote:

Office alerted me to the girls absence today. Mrs Corbett was concerned about the
absence..
This is the kind of cunning individual Mrs Corbett is, we as parents were unaware at the time
that we as a family were being monitored. Mrs Corbett on the other hand, had known our family
in particularly our girls were on their radar prior to them beginning Invicta. Now, ask yourself
why would a Headteacher need to be concerned for our girls, or have the office alert her to
the fact that our children were absent from school? We find the choice of words very disturbing
and from a school which they have only attended for nearly four months.
On Thursday 3rd November 2011, I Mrs Plowright was informed by my daughters namely,
Avery and Beth about school trip but I could not understand why I had not been given a
permission slip as to give consent and allow me to prepare a packed lunch as I usually do. (For
clarity and Just to remind some readers we would like to highlight we are now covering Invicta
Primary School and it was a new school for our girls and what we considered to be a fresh start
for our children they were allowed on most school trips. Unlike at Charlton Manor Primary
school where we did not consent to school trips.) In any event, I spoke to Mrs Corbett who was
standing at the front gates and I asked her why I had not been made aware of this school trip to
the Fire War Museum and Mrs Corbett replied that there was no need for permission slips as
the Museum is close to the school I could not believe she had given such a response as a
parent I want to know where my children are and consequently, I proceeded to the school office
alone and asked the Secretary to write on a piece of paper (Which I have kept as part of our
evidence files) where Mrs Corbett attempted to take our daughters namely, Avery and Beth
without first obtaining appropriate consent and I quote from what the Secretary wrote:

Invicta Primary School Trip Thursday 3rd November 2011 Year 3 & 4 Visiting: Firepower
War Museum Royal Arsenal SE18 6ST
I also asked for the telephone number which she had provided. Thankfully, when I had asked
about my daughters not having a packed lunch, as I was not informed about the trip, she told me
that years 3 and 4 will be returning back to school for lunch in any event. I found Mrs Corbetts
actions at the time as to not feeling it necessary to gain parental consent very unprofessional,
what if something were to happen to one of my daughters whilst on the trip? Isnt it the parents
right to know where their child was being taken? Further, when I asked another parent that
morning whether they were aware of the school trip and whether they had received a permission
slip they said no. This kind of conduct from a headteacher is wholly unacceptable it cant be any
surprise why she had the audacity to detain our girls the way she did on the day of 29th March
2012. Parents who have their children at any of the schools where she holds the title of

187

Executive head of school, need to be aware of this individual- protect your children, if you
notice the same being done at your school this is not right nor lawful, school staff must obtain
your consent as a parent especially when removing children from the school premises.
28th March 2012- I, Mrs Plowright feel it necessary to outline what occurred on this day. During
the afternoon whilst our girls were at school, I contacted the office after 14:30 or thereabouts,
that we were stuck in traffic and as a result we would be late to collect our girls from school and
so, I suggested that they be sent to after school club and that I would pay for this upon arrival.
When I arrived after 15:55 or thereabouts, I was met by the Secretary who at that time was
heavily pregnant. I paid her the money for the after school club, and stated that I would be
taking my children now; she replied telling me that after school club was not finished yet and
that I should go and have a cup of tea and then come back later. I made it clear to her that I
was here now and that there would be no reason to leave and come back again. She had a
strange look on her face and she repeated; if Im sure I dont want to have a cup of tea and come
back. I reiterated that it would not make any sense to leave as I am already here, however as I
looked down the hallway into the office I could see Mrs Corbett who appeared to be on the
phone pacing up and down. In any event, I didnt think much of it and the secretary got my
daughters from the classroom and we all left.
29th March 2012- This day has become so memorable, there is not a year that has gone by where
we have not forgotten what occurred on this day, the significance it holds; the day our four
children were kidnapped. As a mother it is routine for me to wake up first, especially on a school
day. This morning just felt different, I woke up with a strong feeling to stay in bed, after all it was
a Thursday and the Easter Holiday was fast approaching, we knew and our girls knew they
would be leaving Invicta once and for all after the Easter break. However, I just felt as though I
should not take them to school and although I felt this feeling I put the feeling down to
tiredness, I got up and carried on the same routine, not knowing that day would be the last time
my children would be at home. We dropped them off at school, they were all excited because
they knew I had promised to make them Lasagne for dinner that evening and rent some movies
from the library as we usually do. For the girls they were happy to be given the opportunity to
say goodbye to their friends at school.
At the end of the school day, my husband waited in the car with our son whilst I entered the
school to collect our girls. However, this time it was different instead of meeting them at the
door near their classrooms they were nowhere to be seen. I had seen one of the teachers namely,
Miss Hudson who had previously been absent for some time as she had an operation on her
throat, I told her I was glad to see her return as Avery said she liked her as a teacher and she was
her favourite teacher. As I walked along the hallway I could see Mrs Corbett looking at me as if
she had been expecting my arrival. She asked me to come inside her office, I could not
understand why and so I asked where my children were and Mrs Corbett informed me that she
has had to contact Social Services. I had so many feelings running through me, shock being one
of them and disbelief, as we had always wanted the relationship with Invicta to be transparent
and open. When I asked for my children Mrs Corbett claimed that she could not bring them and
that they were somewhere in the school. Now, imagine going to collect your child from school
and being told by the Headteacher, you cannot collect your child, what would you do? I

188

immediately left to inform my husband, who then brought our son and then upon our return
Mrs Corbett who was accompanied by Mr Maslin who is Deputy Headteacher, (Theyll be more
about Mr Maslin, later). Mrs Marie Corbett behaved in such a cunning and unprofessional
manner we were in a state of disbelief. She behaved in a manner which demonstrated to us that
this rogue appear to believe she could do as she wished by falsely imprisoning our three children
inside the school. To add salt to the wound as many times as we requested from Ms Corbett the
reason why she had contacted social services, she failed to tell us, only stating in a cold and cruel
tone, that social services would be on their way with the Police. We requested our children be
brought to us and she refused, it seems she had been hoping for some sort of outburst or
destructive reaction from us as parents. We remained calm throughout, least we be accused of
threatening behaviour or attacking defenceless staff. In hindsight we were clearly being
ambushed and had we not recorded our encounter on the day via our Dictaphone (recording
device), heaven knows what sorts of other accusations would have been made by these deceitful
rogues regarding our presentation on the day.

The referral- Quoting from the referral Mrs Corbett has filled, there is a section that states:
Referrals will be shared with the family and should not be made without their
knowledge/agreement unless this would jeopardise the child/young persons safety.
Then the form asks to state whether parents informed or not but Ms Corbett failed to
select/check Y for yes or N for no and Mrs Corbetts reason for not informing us as parents was
because of Family history with social services however, the Senior Social Worker Ms R stated,
that she had no concerns back in 2010 and consequently, the case was closed. Further, Mrs
Corbett states her other reason for not informing us was because and we quote; Parents will
prevent further disclosures. This, from senior staff who felt it prudent to detain three children
inside her school without any lawful authority, or parental consent and who might we add,
allowed those same children to leave school and return home with their parents on the previous
day 28 March 2012? How is this possible when the alleged allegation on her referral states dad

punched Avery and Cassie in the face and that they were knocked to the wall.
To satisfy our critical readers who may still believe the actions of these rogues were in some way
justified. Now, let us analyse this and say hypothetically, two pupils were punched in the face

and knocked to the wall,

It is claimed all this occurred on the 24th March 2012, yet the children attended school on
Monday 26th March returned home no reported injury such as bruise which is the very least you
would expect from a punch inflicted on two young children by a grown adult. However, nothing
reported and they returned to school on Tuesday 27th March 2012, again the same occurrence,
nothing reported, no sign of any injuries, children able to go home. Now, on the 28th March it
is claimed the referral was made and yet no injury recorded and the children were yet again, free
to return home. It is not until the 29th March 2012 nearly a week later, these rogues decided to
act?! Still no sign of or report of any injuries whatsoever! We couldnt make it up if we tried!
These rogues were busy in their efforts of trying to fabricate a case against us, information from
Mr Bakers malicious referral of 2010 was strategically added to the same referral that is claimed
to have been made by Mrs Corbett on the 28 march 2012. This was a very cunning move by

189

these rogues especially the fact that the referral document names Mrs Corbett as the person
completing the referral. Mrs Corbett had previously outlined to us when our children started
attending Invicta that she was not aware of the malicious referral made by Mr Baker in 2010,
then how is it information from the malicious referral made by Mr Baker in 2010 was now being
added to and merged with her so-call referral of the 28 March 2012? Well there appears to be a
lot that went on that Mrs Corbett is not being truthful about. In any event it was her as
headteacher who agreed to monitor us at the request of Mr Steve Myles without our knowledge
and subsequently falsely imprisoning our children in her school. The actions of this rogue which
has now come to light and highlights her complicity in what is clearly a cut and paste expedition.
Any way we have highlighted some of the information which was added to Mrs Corbetts 2012
referral courtesy of Mr Bakers malicious referral of 2010. Charlton Manor Namely Mr Baker
Malicious referral states: ongoing concerns of neglect and Parents then withdrew Avery and
her siblings from the school. Which gives the casual reader i.e, the impression that the previous
case in 2010, was not closed and we simply removed our children from the school due to Mr
Bakers referral. If the incompetent social workers such as Marie Morris and all the other rogues
were doing their jobs and not busy siding with and covering-up the vicious acts committed by
these schools then all this would have been clear. If these rogues were so adamant about cutting
and pasting then at the very least, they should have been cutting and pasting from the social
worker who investigated the malicious referral of Mr Baker and found no cause for concern.
However that would not fit with the assault of these rogues against our family and would actually
highlight the utter malice and spiteful actions of Mr Baker and is accomplices.
Now, back to Mrs Corbetts referral of 2012, it clearly appears there was another page added to
her referral at a later date, however it was being claimed to form part of the referral of the 28 th
March 2012. This later page addition was an attempt to bring Beth into the mix of theses rogues
sordid scheming. Also we believe it was an attempt to try and offer some sort of justification for
the kidnap of Beth. We will elaborate on that under Ms Christine OConnor who it is claimed
the alleged allegation was made to. The last part of the referral which we believe to have been
added at a later date, revealed to us exactly how calculating we believe Mrs Corbett is.
Invicta Primary, unlike some schools has a Childrens Centre, now, our son, Daniel was not a
pupil at the school and was just 3 years old at the time and was not due to begin nursery until
September 2012, however this did not prevent Mrs Corbett from constantly ask as to whether I,
Mrs Plowright had taken Daniel to the Childrens Centre. Her constant asking was verging on
harassment. This constant intrusion did not just rest with Mrs Corbett, a woman by the name of
Susan Spinks, who I later found out was a Manager for Invicta Childrens Centre also joined the
pestering. I then became very concerned as I was aware that it was not a mandatory requirement
for children to attend the centre. Ms Susan Spinks would constantly state, whilst I drop my girls
off that I should pop by and leave my son at the children centre, and she continued to suggest a
lot of mothers drop off their children so they can relax. Each and every time I saw this individual
at the school she would repeat the same thing. At one point it got me wondering why they are so
adamant for me to leave my son at this centre? After all that has happened it is clear their
intentions were not genuine. It just so happens that on Mrs Corbetts referral of 28 March it
states: Mum has not engaged with the Childrens Centre. It now appears that the purpose of
the constant pestering by Mrs Corbett and Ms Susan Spinks in their attempts at trying to have

190

me send Daniel to this childrens centre was a way to monitor and create allegations relating to
him. Unknown to most is that it is easier for these rogues to cook up and create allegations
regarding a young child the age of Daniel at the time than it is for much older children. That is
why we believe these rogues hid our children for such a long time after kidnapping them on the
29 March 2012. The tentacles of these rogues could not stretch to our son because he was not a
pupil at the school, hence, the childrens centre.
Again, just like Charlton Manor, the so called allegations against us morphed. As we have
outlined above, we have noticed that the referral from Mrs Corbett, is filled with cut and paste
concerns and a regurgitation of words used by some of the staff at the previous school eg.

Mum did not inform dad of the referral to social services because he was due to go out that
night and she didnt want to upset him. It doesnt end there, Mrs Corbett, also stated as part of
her concerns, that mother had took large bags of fruit and vegetables form the school, what
they really mean to say is that I stole them. These are the sorts of defamatory and slanderous
allegations that were being thrown around by these rogues at the beginning of all this. I have
categorically denied these allegations and requested the CCTV form the school so as to prove
the utter fallacy of these derogatory allegations. Until this day, it is very strange, after numerous
requests for the schools CCTV, which will be evidence to prove I did not steal any item
whatsoever. The levels the rogues will stoop to in an attempt to tarnish innocent parents mind
blowing. These defamatory and slanderous remarks were made after our children were
kidnapped. Why it is no such concerns were raised with parents at any time before our children
were kidnapped. However, after falsely imprisoning our children in the school a whole host of
fallacies start emerging. In any event the CCTV has not surfaced and the Local Authority or
Police even as desperate as they are to tarnish did not rely on that defamatory allegation and
refused to mention that fallacy, hum, we wonder why?! So, you can see how it is common for
these rogues to morph so called allegations, they just keeping adding and adding until it just
doesnt add up!
LAC 25th April 2012-This LAC meeting was held at The Royal Borough of Greenwich offices.
Even on this occasion and after her unlawful, mendacious and criminal actions. Mrs Corbett had
the audacity to very brazenly comment in an eager manner to me, Mrs Plowright clearly stating:
there is a space available for your son to start nursery at Invicta.
This individual had been made aware, that we as parents were adamant from the outset that our
girls not be returned to Invicta and we were not interested in our son attending her childrens
centre. Yet she was still pestering even after all she had already done. On this occasion it revealed
to me Mrs Corbetts cold-heartedness regarding her failure to realise the serious trauma she has
inflicted upon our children by her vile actions and also her utter determination to gain access to
our Daniel.
2nd May 2012- I, Mrs Plowright had been anticipating this day since the kidnap of my children.
This was booked as the day I would have the first contact with the youngest three children since
they were kidnapped on the 29 March 2012. Unbeknownst to me very sinister events had been
taking place in the background. Mrs Corbett was busy placing undue pressure on our children
and opposing to contact which was due to take place nearly two months after my children had
been deprived of seeing me, their mother. This woman should have not been in a position to

191

even have access to our children yet alone be putting pressure on them as to any decision
regarding having contact with their parents. It is recorded that Both Beth, and Cassie, were taken
to the office and it is reported that Mrs Corbett took a piece of paper which she drew a line with
the word Yes, on one end and No, on the other, then Beth, and Cassie, appeared to have been
pressured as to state whether they wanted to see me and to indicate yes or no. Now, this course
of action was not just callous, disgraceful but inconsiderate and cruel. The mere fact that Mrs
Corbett or the rogues from the Royal Borough of Greenwich had not taken into account that
these are only children, our children. Who were maliciously denied seeing their parents for a
considerable period of time and placed with the same people who falsely imprison and were
complicit in their kidnap. Children who it was reported struggled to remember what their mother
looked like. Another word to sum up the actions of these rogues is disgusting! This course of
action is reprehensible and goes straight to the heart of this sordid affair. The children should
have not been left at the school where they were falsely imprison and kidnapped.
29th October 2012 Gee Street Family Proceedings CourtYou can learn a lot from a person when they are put on the spot! When the spot light is shining
brightly on rogues, the light reveals the truth and then the cracks begin to emerge in their
fallacies! As a part of the kangaroo family court hearing Mrs Corbett, when asked stated she was
familiar with the family court and had attended on a separate case previously, she appeared calm,
quite a contrast to the person she had become on the 29th March 2012. Instead of swearing an
oath, she opted for the Bible, firmly clutched between both hands, to tell the truth and nothing
but the truth, that, we learnt later on didnt matter at all, this was not a public court with the
glare of reporters or a twelve person Jury, nope, just the Clandestine Family Courts! During Mrs
Corbetts cross examination quite a lot of things were revealed, she stated that it was in fact
Social Services, Manager, Ms Alinda Benade, who had instructed Mrs Corbett to falsely imprison
our children at the school on the 29th March. This rogue professional, who initially carried out
these nefarious actions against our children, also stated that when we as parents turned up at the
school, on the 29th March 2012, we did not ask for our children, which seemed a completely
ridiculous thing to say, especially from a person, who regard herself as a professional. After the
school day, I have not known any parent to enter a school and simply admire the building, or
perhaps congratulate the cook for showing up at work, so, to state that we as parents did not
ask for our children, is not something even a 5 year old would accept let alone comprehend!
Mrs Corbett ridiculous fantasies did not stop there she further stated that when we spoke to her
after she told us that social services and the police were on their way that we as parents had
joked stating that, its not as if our children have a broken jaw, she further stated that we
laughed.
Above all of the professionals Mrs Corbett has exposed herself as what we would consider to be
a pathological liar and one that is extremely calculating, to state that parents did not ask for
their children is just a plainly ridiculous thing to say about parents who attend school to collect
their children after a school day, however to add the element of a sordid joke about a broken
jaw? Is just totally, inconceivable and reveals the mindset of this woman. It does get worse
readers, Mrs Corbett stated if contact between our selves and our children took place, that it
should be supervised, as she was concerned we would intimidate our children. Further, she
claimed that ever since our children were taken into care, the children seem, excited and

192

happy. When asked in regards to Avery our eldest whilst in care, she stated that and we quote:
weight of the world off her shoulders. No you are not reading the lines from a Blockbuster
Movie, but these are the words from a Headteacher.
Mrs Corbett claims she had not been present when our children were interrogated at the school
on 29th March 2012, however she stated that our eldest daughter was definitely, spoken to
separately, now ask your self why would she say such a thing, after all she claims not to be have
been present. However, this turned out to be a lie as you will see when we get to Ms Webber.
Mrs Corbett, made it known that it was her that alerted the police to the fact that our son Daniel
was not present at the time. The Detectives at the school and the Social worker, Ms Marie
Morris, appeared not to be aware we had a son.
With regards to our daughter being bullied at Invicta, Mrs Corbett denied she had been bullied
and failed to accept that we as parents had spoken to her on several occasions regarding the
matter and she failed to act. There was another headteacher who tried to deny that our daughter
was being bullied, Mr Baker. However we still have the evidence to prove in the form of the
bully letters to this day. If we did not have the evidence then it could be denied by this rogue that
our daughter was ever bullied much like Mrs Corbett was trying to do. A note to parents, always
keep and collate any communication or contact you have with school or otherwise, matters can
quickly turn into your word against theirs sort of situations . You would be surprised how
quickly rogues lie and try to change their recollection of an event. However no one can deny real
hard evidence.
27th February 2013- We were informed by our girls that while at school on 26th February 2013
a man came to Invicta Primary to speak to our children without our knowledge or consent,
regarding what they would experience and what to expect inside the Criminal Court. This was
another instance of manipulative tactics and pressure being applied to our children. We were
troubled; under no circumstances should this have happened. The kidnappers were given free
access to our children and also allowed whomever they choose access to them. It was as though
this man was trying to prepare our girls for the court arena amongst other things. Our girls
described to us that the Judge will wear a wig and how we as parents will stand behind glass. All
this was secretly disclosed to us by our children during contact which is supervised by two
contact workers and because of the overly intrusive contact workers we were unable to delve
more on this occasion. Why on earth did Mrs Corbett or The Royal Borough of Greenwich
allow this to take place?
Who was this man that was being granted access to our children? This was clearly disturbing for
us and what is more troubling is that this information was not disclosed to us by any of these
rogues. Neither the Royal Borough of Greenwich social services nor any of the other countless
rogues thought it fit to inform us of this. It was our girls who secretly disclosed this to us. This
leaves us very worried and concerned as to the countless others these rogues have granted
unrestricted access to our children without us ever knowing and without our knowledge or
consent.
13th March 2013- During this time the malicious criminal prosecution against father brought by
DC Cooper with the help of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), was still in full swing and a

193

reporting restriction (Section 39) was in place. This was to prevent us or anyone talking about or
reporting the case at the time, these are the kind of arcane statutes that are being misused to
offer cover for these rogues and why many people never here about these cases. The family
courts are notorious for using similar statues to gag parents hence the secret nature of the family
courts proceedings.
It is well known to professionals and ought to be particularly well known to Mrs Corbett, it was
her who highlighted to the court that she had been familiar with Family Proceedings and the
Secrecy that comes as part and parcel and the identity of the child/children remaining of utmost
importance. However the actions of these rogues are always what gives away their malign and
spiteful intent. For example, on 13th March just a couple of weeks shy of the anniversary to the
date when our children were kidnapped at Invicta Primary School, Mrs Corbett taken the
conscious step to publicise in a newspaper the identity of our daughter Beth. This was not done
in an effort to highlight her wrong doing or the shameful practices of The Royal Borough of
Greenwich and all those involved in the cruel and unlawful actions they have all committed. No
far more sinister.
The article celebrated Ofsted, which had awarded Invicta in 2013 as an Outstanding school.
Further, from the abundance of pupils to choose from, Mrs Corbett deliberately selected one of
our daughters to be pictured and appear in the local newspaper, (that is delivered to most of the
residents of the Royal Borough of Greenwich and is how our attention was drawn to it). We
believe that this was a spiteful and callous display of arrogance directed at us and other parents.
Some parents became very fearful, believing that if she could so brazenly get away with falsely
imprisoning and kidnapping our children what is to stop it happening to them?
We also further believe she was trying to send a clear message to some parents at the school who
were becoming suspicious of her blatant and overt cold-heartedness that everything was above
board and the schools actions were justified. That course of action ultimately failed and the act
of placing our daughter in the paper violating the court order and against common sense or basic
moral ethics highlights the sort of character she truly is. After becoming aware of the brazen
actions of Mrs Corbett of placing our daughter photo in the newspaper article father immediately
instructed his new defence solicitors to send a letter to address the matter. We have quoted and
excerpt from the letter sent by fathers Defence solicitors which was addressed directly to Mrs
Corbett, reminding her of the Section 39 order in place and outlining to her and we quote: We

would therefore request that you contact the newspaper to ensure the photograph is destroyed
and that the order is not further breached by your school in future.
She faced no consequence for her actions whatsoever; we remember when the matter was
brought to the attention of the judge his comments were along the lines of what do you want
me to do? Now if it was us as parents knowingly violated a court order or had we published a
photo of our children in a newspaper or on the internet at the time, then we would be held in
contempt of court and would most likely be thrown into jail. These so called professionals
should not be exempt especially the fact that they are paid to be professionals and should
know better in the first place. It is vital to remind these rogues that you cant do as you please;
they have become so accustomed to committing unlawful acts and getting away with it that they
have become so arrogant.

194

24th July 2013- Even when all of our children began seeing us, and remained at Invicta against
our will it was incredibly difficult for us as parents and for our children, as they (our children)
appeared to be continuously pressured not to attend contact. On Beths birthday, we had been
informed by the contact supervisor that the school continuously contacted the Foster Carer for
the fostering agency to collect Cassie from school because they claimed she was sick. Some of
the staff at Invicta namely, Mrs Corbett and others were aware of the dates and times that were
booked for us to see our children. If Cassie had been collected by the fostering agency as
requested by the school she would have been unable to attend contact, and therefore would have
affected us all seeing and celebrating the birthday of our daughter as a family. There were many
such spiteful and calculating occurrences, too many to mention in this book. However, on this
occasion the schools attempts to disrupt contact failed miserably as the supervisor informed us
that they had informed the school that our daughter was to remain at school and be collected
with the others as contact is due to take place and the parents are looking forward to it. Our
daughter clearly wasnt sick on this occasion and was very exited to see us as usual, she ate
birthday cake and played bowling.
Humm, we wonder who it was that was persistent in having our daughter not attend contact?
Could it be the individual who stated that we would intimidate our children?

Sexual allegation- Mrs Corbett, as we later found out, had informed the Social Worker that
mother is and we quote:

Ms Corbett (Head Teacher of Invicta Primary) reported that Mr and Mrs Plowright reacted
in an aggressive, hostile and manipulative manner when they arrived at school. They threatened
that they would make allegations about the teaching staff, calling them paedophiles.
When Mrs Corbett was cross examined on whether she had stated that Mrs Plowright is just as
manipulative as Mr Plowright she stated and we quote, Dont remember saying that

manipulative. Dont remember saying those exact words.

Its funny, there were a lot of things Mrs Corbett claimed she couldnt remember, such as
there being two versions of the alleged allegation made to Ms Webber, dont take our word for it
read on under Ms Webber to find out more! Let us make clear as this is simply another one of
Mrs Corbetts lies, however, she had made clear that I, Mrs Plowright had referred to the staff as
paedophiles and then she doesnt stop there and we quote:

Ms Corbett informed that Avery made a disclosure at the school whilst waiting for Childrens
Services and the Police to arrive, stating that they are made to watch saucy movies and that
the films are for Mrs Plowright whilst Mr Plowright watches violent films. When asked what
she meant by saucy, she stated that it was movies with people with no clothes on.

195

We would like to make clear that this is completely disturbing for us that not only has this
individual falsely imprisoned our children but we believe she has demonstrated a sordid, sinister
side to her, to accuse me, a mother of four making my children watch saucy movies with
people with no clothes on. What type of person falsely creates such sick allegations, to accuse
a parent? The false allegation of punching a child or children (according to their false claims) in
the face is one thing but to stoop to this sordid level is just plain disgusting. This clearly
demonstrates that Mrs Corbett as a paedophiles mentality.
Well the thing about lies is that they can be quickly unravelled by the actions of these rogues.
Let me make crystal clear, that during my time at the Police station in Plumstead, London whilst
I was falsely imprisoned on the evening of 29th and 30TH March 2012 or anytime whatsoever
throughout this nightmare did DC Cooper or DC Cullnane interview/interrogate me on any of
these very serious sordid alleged allegations, allegations might I add, as a mother being accused
of watching these sorts of movies with my children! Why didnt Mrs Corbett give a witness
statement regarding her accusations. Especially the fact that lying Mrs Corbett claimed this
disclosure was made to her by our Avery on 29 March 2012. Why wasnt I questioned at the
police station regarding this disclosure on the 29 march 2012 or thereafter. Another question
that is very telling and reveals this cunning lie and manipulation by this vile rogue is this. At what
point on the 29 March 2012 did Avery make such a disclosure to her? When was she alone with
Avery on this day for such a disclosure to be made?
Let me make very clear, any child who is subjected to viewing any form of adult pornography
would require immediate protection, sensitivity and immediate action as any CAIT
detective, would be required to enforce. After all, one would expect any child/children who are
exposed to this sort of obscenity, especially if it is reported by a Headteacher such as Mrs
Corbett, one would expect no delay in interrogating the alleged culprit. The detectives did not
question me because quite frankly Mrs Corbett lied, and clearly created in an attempt to drag
mother into the equation of these rogues sordid web of lies. This attempt to justify their malign
actions also failed and the sordid allegations were quickly withdrawn but the emotional damage
was already done. Mrs Corbett is a disgrace to conjure up these thoughts in regards to childrenwhat sort of person does that?
Further, let me get back to Mrs Corbetts accusation of Mr Plowright watching violent movies
as stated by Mrs Corbett is another manipulative and very calculating attempt to paint father in a
bad light, dont forget father had been accused of punching two of his daughters, namely, Avery
and Cassie, now, to state that Mr Plowright watches these types of movies is an attempt to
corroborate the propensity to become violent to try and support the allegation of punch in the
face. However, why wasnt father interrogated about this during the interview when he was
questioned? We can answer that, there was no allegation made and there fallacies are now there
for all to see.
At first we were confused as to why Mrs Corbett felt it necessary and chose to mention such a
word (paedophile) and then to claim we accused her of being a paedophile we found extremely
troubling, to say the least. However, nothing could have been as disturbing as the allegation she
later conjured up and that was in the nature of alleging our daughter stated that she is made to

196

watch saucy movies, and that those movies belong to mum and that the violent movies belong
to father, however, the lie revealed its self when it was disclosed. Mrs Corbett is overwhelmingly
despicable to conjure up such sordid machinations and will clearly stoop to any level to save
herself. As a man thinketh so his he. In this instance a woman. As Mrs Corbett thinks so is she?
The allegations made by Mrs Corbett were quickly withdrawn by the Royal Borough of
Greenwich. However the damage was already done, at the most traumatic time in our lives Mrs
Corbett made such disgusting false allegations. Mrs Corbett making these vile allegations was
below the belt and discloses the mind-set of this disturbed woman. What she did in conjuring up
such disgusting allegation against mother was not only vindictive but deviously wicked. This has
caused us as a family severe distress. The Royal Borough of Greenwich has a lot to answer for, in
forcing our children to remain at Invicta Primary school amongst these twisted and deviously
wicked people throughout this entire ordeal. Mrs Corbett should not be allowed within a trillion
miles of any child. All parents having children Attending Invicta Primary School should be very
concerned about this woman.
We would like to reiterate that the allegations made by Mrs Corbett regarding mother were
quickly withdrawn by the Royal Borough of Greenwich, and we did not have to mention it in
this book. However we feel the public need to know the level these people will stoop, in an
effort to tarnish and smear innocent parents. For most innocent parents, being falsely accused of
allegations of a sexual nature is the last straw in the fight for their children and more than they
can take. Innocent parents are very fearful of being stigmatised by the very mention that such an
allegation was made against them even if they are withdrawn. We can understand the fear most
innocent parents feel, however we shall not be moved and it is the wrongdoers who should be
fearful and not innocent parents. The sordid actions of these wrongdoers must be highlighted
and if you are a parent who has been wrongly accused in this manner do not be afraid to speak
out. These rogues rely on the silence and fear of innocent parents, this in turn allow them to
carry on causing havoc with impunity against other innocent parents.
Further in the book we will reveal how Mrs Corbett amongst other members of staff were
conspiring to remove our children from us-this is not for the feint hearted, it may shock and
will shed light as to the corruption involved and how we were being targeted from the outset.
This shambles of a case these rogues were trying to concoct went so disastrously wrong and we
caught them out in the process.

Ms Christine OConnor (Teaching Assistant)This individual is another rogue, she was previously, a Teaching Assistant at Invicta, but she has
now acquired a new title: Inclusion Support Manager at Invicta Primary School. We believe this
is ultimately her reward for lying in court and perjuring herself on behalf of the school. Ms
OConnor is complicit in this whole situation as the other rogues, which we will get to shortly.
Now, you may be asking, what role did Ms OConnor play in all of this? This individual has
claimed that on the 28th March 2012 that Beth (not our daughter they claim alleged to have been
punched in the face) reported to Ms OConnor that and we quote:

197

Beth, said her dad makes her face the wall sitting down when she doesnt listen. She said
sometimes dad bangs her face against the door.
Now, remember the original claims made by the school according to their so-called referral on
the 29th March 2012 was that Avery alleged that she and her sister, Cassie had been punched in

the face over the weekend,

So in a nut shell, according to their fabricated document in short there was an allegation made by
one child regarding two children being punched. However, it appears they later realised their
mistake and in an attempt to justify taking all three children there needed to be an allegation
about our second child. How could they possibly over look that on the 29th March 2012 when
they attended the school considering they claimed this is claimed to have been disclosed to the
teacher on 28th March 2012 at 12:45. So why wasnt dad question this so-called allegation on
the 29 March 2012 at the police station? Another small matter these deceitful and corrupt band
of incompetent rogues overlooked in the creation of this document is revealed by the actions of
DC Cooper, DC Cullinane and Marie Morris (social worker) when they attended the school on
the 29March 2012, they claim they were there regarding a disclosure made by Avery (refusing to
say what the disclosure is) We have this on recording. To be clear they claim they were at the
school to investigate a disclosure made by Avery and not any other child, So considering Mrs
OConnors so called allegation was claimed to be made on 28 March 2012, why was father not
question regarding Beth on the 29 March 2012 or the very least a witness statement taken from
Ms OConnor? The rogues were very strategic in refusing to state the disclosure that they were
there to investigate on the 29 March 2012 and that has given them the latitude to make up the
disclosures at a later date and the entire case as they went along. We could go on and on with
perversions like this where these rogues attempted to create allegations after the fact to try and
justify their actions only to later be found out.
The simple fact of the matter is, this document was not overlooked it is clear no such allegation
was made by our daughter and the allegation and the document were created and only came into
existence after the kidnapping of our children. That is outright corruption and perverting the
course of justice. As the saying goes If you think crooked you cant walk straight! These
professionals failed to realise that their corrupt behaviour would one day come to light, hence
this allegation being added at a later date. This is why we believe that during the testimonies of
the Detectives in the Secret Family Court this so-called allegation relating to Beth was not
mention. Again, no injury, nothing to substantiate the alleged allegation, an this allegation
appeared to have been written on a piece of paper, dated 28th March 2012 claiming to have been
written at 12:50pm, the document was revealed to us in mid July 2012 and not filled in Invictas
reporting a concern form, we have enough reason and evidence to believe this and other
documents were created after the fact.
30th March 2012- Although our children are still detained by their kidnappers, they were still
made to attend the same school, where the kidnappers had full control and access to them, while
we were totally restricted. This is the write up from Ms OConnor as she claimed it had been
stated by Beth at 09:40am on 30 March 2012 playing outdoor football activity called speedmark,
and we quote:

198

Coming back up to class from Speedmark, Beth told me she dont have to live with her mum

and dad anymore because they hit her and they punch her. She was pointing to her head she
said this.
Upon reading this months later, we were surprised, not just by the morphing of alleged
allegations, but, the fact that mother had not been questioned by the Detectives for assaulting
her children namely, punch. It was now becoming crystal clear the attempts to bring mother into
the equation were a priority for these wicked rogues. These rogues constantly contradict each
other in their corrupted efforts. This was another failed attempt by Ms OConnor as no such
document or concern existed before and was clearly created after our children were kidnapped
and unlawful detained and forced to attend Invicta Primary. It still remains unanswered as to
why DC Cooper did not interview and then take a statement from Ms Christine OConnor, after
all wouldnt she be considered as a witness? The brazenness of these people! They were actively
taking part in activities with children who were unlawfully in their possession and then to turn
around and have the audacity to be cooking up and writing comments regarding children you
have unlawfully and should not be around or have in your possession in the first place.
8th May 2012- It is alleged that Cassie had drawn a picture of her father with a smiley face and
then it is stated that she changed the smile to an angry face. When we read the document and
saw the drawing attached to this document from Invicta, namely, Ms OConnor, it didnt take us
very long to figure it out. The drawing depicts a face with a smiley face with glasses and then
drawn over with a angry mouth. Then there is a comment written by Ms OConnor and we
quote: No, daddys not smiling, this is what Ms O Connor had claimed she heard our
daughter say. Did we mention our daughters do not refer to their father as Daddy, thats one
of the best things about being a parent, only you know your child, no one knows them like you
do! Our daughter, our children for that matter do not speak in that manner. Cassie, refers to her
father as dad, and our children know their dad does not wear glasses, the drawing illustrates
someone who wears glasses, their dad doesnt wear glasses but guess who does? Ms OConnor.
This is the sort of petty, time wasting, immaturity these rogues are accustomed to. The
dedication these rogues have shown to carry out these nefarious actions is completely,
unbelievable, however just like in our case and many others, it continues to happen! This is a sad
state of affairs and to think a teaching job on a normal day can be a challenge for competent
hard working teaching professionals. To think rogues the likes of Ms OConnor waste valuable
time in an attempt to ruin a family, is completely disgusting and Ms OConnor is by no means an
exception. Taxpayers money is constantly being wasted on rogues like Ms OConnor, when there
are competent teaching professionals who cant find a job.

Mrs Webber, (Learning Mentor)

This is the individual who it claimed that the alleged allegation originated from or was disclosed
to on the 28th March 2012,(we say allege allegation because we are confident that our daughter
made no disclosure whatsoever to this rogue or otherwise.) It is from this incompetent rogue
that countless, fallacies have morphed and Ms Webber has ensured her fake concerns kept
coming!

199

24th February 2012- After the school day and upon Cassie finishing school (she had been in year
1 at the time) we noticed she had a letter which she had given to us to read, we were stunned
with regards to the contents of that letter which stated that and we quote:

This half term Ms Webber will be running some groups and raising confidence of girls in
KS1.. We were surprised as Cassie is very confident and we were continually informed of how
hard she works at school by her teacher Mrs Avani Chokshi and consequently, our daughter
would receive many certificates for working hard and so we couldnt understand why it was
thought necessary to raise confidence , particularly as Ms Webber had not previously worked
with Cassie. However, we would later come to see what had been brewing in the background.
30th March 2012- We as parents need to make clear, that we did not receive the document we are
going to mention at the time. We believe the reason for this is that the document did not exist at
the time and we are now aware that there have been many other such documents created. This is
one of them and it is dated 30th March. It is claimed that Ms Webbers was in a room at the
school with Avery at the time when our children were falsely imprisoned and detained against
their will and deprived from seeing their parents, and we quote:

Avery said she wanted to talk to me because she was frightened of her dad, she said she loved
being with her new carer and wanted to stay there forever. She said that her parents are
weirdos and now she knows what a real family is she never wants to go back. I asked her what
she meant by weirdos and she said they just care about themselves.
Now, it is claimed Avery had said this, bear in mind reader this is an eight year old child, who has
never been away from her parents, or her home and never so much as had a baby sitter. Further,
we know our children; our daughter is a black eight year old with a Jamaican father and black
British mother weirdos is not a term used by our household and further our daughter does not
talk in this manner.
17th April- Reporting a concern is a document that Invicta uses, we have never seen one of
these reporting a concern documents for the entirety of the time our children attended the
school, however after they were kidnapped they were being created almost on a daily basis by
these rogues. Reporting a concern dated 17th April 2012, and we quote:

Avery, had a big smile on her face, You look so happy. Avery, said thats because I am not
with my mum and dad.
This is as believable as a two legged unicorn! Thats as much as we will say about that.
18th April 2012- Unknown to us the then, incompetent social worker Ms Alison Mc Donald,
attended the school to discuss our children with staff from Invicta, namely, Mrs Corbett, Mr
Ken Maslin, Ms Webber, Ms Cuff, Mr Rae, Ms Avani Chokshi to name but a few. Ms Webber
had a lot to say at this meeting, which might we add had taken place without lawful authority for
our children in place from the Court or otherwise, without parental consent or knowledge. It is
claimed at this meeting Ms Webber stated: Avery, sometimes mentioned being left home

alone. And no emotional connection to parents.

200

With all the mendacity and attempts to justify the manner in which our children were taken, a
sort of reoccurring mantra starts to emerge, it appears these rogues in utter delusion believe they
could make it seems as though our children in some way wanted to be saved from horrible
parents. These sort of disgraceful attempts failed miserably as the actions of these rogues reveal
their malign intents. Ms Webber also alleged, Mr Plowright had banged her, however, no
report or not even the famous reporting a concern form was completed by Ms Webber regarding
the matter. The sad thing is, there are countless parents up and down the country who have
experienced the same sort of deceit, lies and collusion at the hands of rogues only to be later
assessed (labelled) and the entire matter concealed by the secret family courts.

11TH May 2012, Inner London Family Proceedings Court, Wells Street
On this day, we as parents were not prepared for what we would face. We arrived early and
waited for hours in the court waiting area along with our lawyers. The social workers and their
lawyers were waiting in the area as well. It was only as we were about to enter the court that they
(The Local Authority lawyers and social workers) chose to inform us that an allegation of a
sexual nature had been disclosed to them by Ms Webber. We were to later find out that this socalled disclosure was known to them way in advance (two weeks before), we were disturbed and
shocked. We were keen to know what they were claiming now. I, Mrs Plowright am quoting
from my notes taken on this day, when this disgusting, disturbing and sordid allegation was
made by no other than Ms Webber. For clarity reader this sordid allegation was made by Ms
Webber long after our children were kidnapped. At the time I and Mr Plowright were separately
represented and our then lawyers, had to take us separately to one side alone, prior to entering
the court room. Please be advised to read with caution as what you are about to read is very
distressing and I quote:
Attended court and waited a long time until 12.00, when were informed privately about

another allegation, Mrs Webber claiming the girls masturbate on themselves and on each
other before they go to sleep. Local authority knew 2 weeks ago but was not disclosed until
today.
We were able to clearly see that Invicta, namely Ms Webber could steep to a new low, this one
was simply below the belt, inconceivable and any loving parents worst nightmare.
The Local Authority are disgraceful in their attempts to try and capitalise off Ms Webbers sordid
machinations in the timing of when they chose to inform us (Just before as we were going into
court room.) We were all waiting in court for hours and they claim they had known two weeks in
advance. Why didnt they reveal it then? These are the types of disgusting characters we were and
still are faced with. What do they gain from treating innocent parents in this manner?
We as parents were left feeling sickened, at the lengths Ms Webber had gone and not only that
the extent of such a sinister, sordid and disgusting lies. We are their parents, the lies told in
regards to masturbation are disgusting. These are children we are talking about! This was a
very hurtful thing to accuse our children of.
What is going on inside Ms Webbers head, to have thought it acceptable to create such a
sinister lie? This is a woman, a mother who works with children, to make up such a callous

201

allegation on our children who have attended Invicta at the time for well over a year is seriously
concerning and we would urge parents who have children in contact with this type of what we
consider to be an evil, twisted, wicked, poor excuse of a woman- parents be very careful, she
needs to be removed from working with children. These are children all under 10 at the time, we
think it is valid to state what could be going through a person such as Ms Webbers head to
concoct such a vile allegation about children? Children who are innocent, unknowing of these
sorts of things; Further, to reveal how vile, idiotic and clearly demonic she appears to be, Ms
Webber failed to measure the time with which our children had been attending Invicta and the
likelihood of her being exposed for telling such lies. In other words and for example: It is very
suspicious that there was no concern regarding sexualised behaviour or any reports etc of
sexualised behaviour to corroborate these sordid allegation for the entire time our children
attended the school? However after they were kidnapped in the most despicable manner all these
sordid and baseless allegations were being created. (Hence the removal of all sexual allegations
made against us as parents) whatever appears to be going on inside Ms Webbers head? We
sometimes wonder if she is on some sort of medication. These sorts of vile accusations by
rogues against innocent parts are far too common in these secret Family courts and are one of
the many reasons a lot of innocent parents walk away or are silenced about the injustice they
experience at the hands of these rogues. We would like to reiterate that these sordid allegations
were withdrawn by these rogues for the obvious reasons that they were fallacies; however we
have chosen to put it in this book to reveal and expose the wicked and cruel attacks innocent
parents face when they fight back against corrupted and incompetent rogues. We firmly believe
these allegations were made in an effort to weaken and throw us off our fight for our children.
We would like to alert innocent parents to these sorts of callous and spiteful tactics used by
rogues.
The fact that our children were left at the school by the local authority and left in the company
of Ms Webber is completely, unforgivable. Of all the lies made against us as parents, this by far is
the worst, even typing this we are filled with extreme disgust and shock and reminded about that
dreadful day. Ms Webber clearly went along with the fallacy of physical abuse namely; punch
against father but to turn around and then create an allegation of a sexual nature is unspeakablewe will not forget this. Let us elaborate as to why we believe Ms Webber made up this allegation.
Any form of sexual allegation made about children would corroborate some form of sexual
abuse perpetrated by the parents, so you see? Ms Webber made an effort to ignite the situation
by claiming that our children were victims of sexual abuse, which is completely calculating
because, as parents we still had no contact with our children on 11th may 2012, remember our
children were kidnapped on 29th March 2012 and we still had not seen them. We believe this was
a desperate last ditch attempt to prevent any contact from taking place as on this day Ms
Carrington attempted to obtain a No Contact Order. Ms Webbers aim appeared clear to us,
based on her sordid disclosure, she was attempting to portray us not as loving parents but as
perpetrators who abuse their children and should be kept away from them. Further, the fact that
this sexual allegation as stated by the Social Worker in Court to have been made by Ms Webber
two weeks ago actually coincides with the date of 2nd May 2012 when I, Mrs Plowright had
arrangements made by the local authority to see my children, however, this contact was
cancelled by Ms Carrington as she had stated the children dont want to see you.

202

It was only until late July 2012, we were able to see this alleged sexual allegation on paper. Ms
Webber filled in a reporting a concern form, well we think it best to type this word for word,
and we quote:

Beth, was crying and Miss Webber said that she seemed tired. Beth said I do this when I go to
sleep and it helps me sleep. (She laid forward over the chair and moved her bottom up and
down) She said she gets all sweaty and it feels good. Miss Webber asked where she had seen
that move before. Beth said she had seen it on a video. She said mum and dad had left it in the
machine when they took the bins out (whenever any of the girls talk about their parents not
being there, they say they are taking the bins out). Beth said the video was in another language
and they were having Barnai (?) I said what does that mean and Beth said sex. She said that
she lays on top of Avery and practices it. Beth said that she also tries to get milk from Averys
boobies, as they are big. Miss Webber asked how does she try? She said with her mouth. Miss
Webber explained that I would have to tell Mrs Corbett. Beth said Dont tell her or I will get
into trouble. Miss Webber said that she would not be told off. Miss Webber did say that the
video was for grown-ups and that children didnt do those things. Beth said that she would
stop.
Now this document was dated 30th March 2012 at 14:00 claimed to have been said during,
Lunch Time Art in Miss Webbers Room. We would like to clarify, and although this is very
difficult to discuss, we as parents need to make these points very clear;
1. Our daughters have been attending Invicta Primary School for over a year, and no member of
staff flagged up any concerns of a sexual nature involving our children.
As I mother I had been accused of watching pornography with my children by Mrs Corbett. Ms
Webber is a callous individual, and this sort of sordid allegation clearly demonstrated what goes
on inside that a sick mind, no child should be in the presence of this person, so take this as a
warning all parents whose child is known to encounter this woman. To be falsely accused of
physical abuse on your child, is beyond hurtful, however, to be accused of watching pornography
with your children, children we love, always aim to protect and care for, this is wrong, disgusting
and extremely troubling, it takes a certain character to think up such a thing, Ms Webber has
demonstrated to us as parents the kind of individual she has always been. When our children
were first kidnapped, we protested against them being returned back to Invicta and even when
their actions were clearly unlawful, our children were returned back to Invicta and back in the
presence of Ms Webber. We were then hit with another sexual disclosure which stated that
one of our daughters had asked another girl if she wanted to see her private parts. We were also
shocked to see the document dated 13th June 2011! As we will reiterate all of these documents
were created.
28th June 2012- Even on this date there was clear desperation to try and label us as some sort of
problem family with issues. The professionals had failed in all other attempts and were still up to
their tricks only this time they applied a different tactic. Records reveal that Ms Webber had
taken Beth to the schools office to call the Social Worker namely, Ms Victoria Carrington.

203

It is alleged that our daughter, had asked if mother was okay and that mother should leave
father. When we hear this we were very upset that all these people had failed to remove our
children from the school and now our children were being used as pawns by the very people
who kidnapped them. Further, we found the timing quite strategic because we were due to
attend court the very next day; (29th June 2012) there had been a concerted effort from Ms
Webber and Social Worker, namely, Ms Victoria Carrington to introduce an element of
Domestic Violence. This again, sadly for them, didnt work!
18th July 2012- I, Mrs Plowright, had contact with my children and the pressure being applied on
Avery from some of the staff at Invicta namely Ms Webber had been apparent. My eldest
daughter Avery informed me that Ms Webber had told her that father had said and we quote:
He has done nothing wrong, I was taken a back because as a key witness Ms Webber should
under no circumstances be discussing anything to do with the malicious criminal case with my
daughter. It was inconceivable to comprehend our children were being left five days a week at
school with the person the Police refer to as a witness. The effects of that are immense, the
constant probing, /coercing rehearsing, interrogation, and biased of the fact that the prosecutors
would be relying on not only our children who are very impressionable/suggestive and easily
used for the gain of these disgraceful adults.
It was only until late July 2012, that we had discovered not one but two reporting a concern
forms filled out dated 28th March 2012 giving two different accounts of what Ms Alison Webber
had said. One stated and we quote:

She said she wanted one because her dad hits her and that he was allowed to do this
because he was the king of the house. At this point Alison said that parents are not allowed to
hit their children too hard.
AND
She said she wanted one because her dad hits her and that he was allowed to do this
because he was the king of the house.
It appears someone was uncomfortable with parents are not allowed to hit their children too
hard. Why? Why would you need to have two copies of the same document but remove a
sentence? If you are telling the truth, there would be no need for two, but will get to that later.
11th October 2012- We were troubled to hear from Beth that she had been sent on a school trip
without a packed lunch and it was none other than Ms Webber from Invicta school (the one
who claimed to have been told about the alleged allegation of punch) who had given our
daughter some of her lunch. The anguish was unbearable, these people were brazen in their
utter disregard for the manner in which they were conducting themselves. On top of all the
unethical, unlawful and immoral acts committed by this bunch of rogues they added salt to the
wound by allowing these people continued access to our children. They had this disturbed
woman who was party to the kidnap of our children sharing her lunch with her. We were
disgusted to hear such a thing, for a Foster Carer who is paid to ensure our children are looked
after, how did she managed to send her to school without lunch?

204

On 19th October 2012- The day we had sent an email to the Social Worker (Ms AmprakoAppiah), concerned as to the fact Beth had informed us that whilst on a school trip the Fostering
Agency provides a driver and a means of transport for our children, well we were completely
shocked to find out that Ms Webber, without our consent had managed to ride in the same
vehicle with our daughter? After the packed lunch situation, we were not expecting yet another
violation. We ask ourselves, if our daughter had not informed us then, we would have never
found out and just to think this happened at a time when we were having contact with our
children, what must have been taking place throughout the months when our children were
kidnapped and us as parents deprived of seeing them? The Fostering agencies is complicit in the
reprehensible conduct of these rogues and were in fact also complicit in the unlawful detention
of our children by having children in their possession without lawful authority( Court Order or
parental consent). Then to go further and allow Ms Webber using their services in respect of our
children is scandalous. This should never have happened.

Testimony of Ms Alison Webber, 26th October 2012 Gee Street Family

Proceedings Court
Unknown to us at the time, it was confirmed by Ms Alison Webber that it was indeed Mr Maslin
who had delivered our children to her whilst they were detained (29th March 2012). We will get
to Mr Maslin shortly. We learned so much regarding events which took place at Invicta Primary
on 29 March 2012 during the time Ms Webber had spoken on the stand in the Secret Family
Court. She had revealed that she had been with our children all the way, on the afternoon of
29th March 2012, which contradicted testimony from, DC Brett Cooper, DC Cunninane, Ms
Marie Morris and Mrs Corbett, who all claimed our eldest daughter Avery had been spoken to
separately, however, Ms Webber shed light on what really took place by stating all of our three
children were spoken to as a group in the presence of the Social Worker and the Detectives.
Ms Webber claimed that our Avery had been unhappy in our care and that ever since she has
been in care she is happy. Also, claiming not to be aware of Charlton Manors concerns.
Regarding her involvement/interaction with the Detectives, Ms Webber stated her statement
had been sent to her to sign. Now, this was very alarming, the fact that Ms Webber, simply
signed the already prepared statement, demonstrates something desperately wrong. Remember,
we asked the question earlier with regards to their being two reporting a concern documents
both giving different version of events and asked you the reader, the question; why would you
need to have two copies of the same document but remove a sentence? If what Ms Webber was
alleging is the truth?
Well, on Ms Webbers statement to the Police which she stated had been sent to her to sign.
There was the same sort of shenanigans going on. Well, the same sentence in question was also
deleted in her police statement. Readers, this is very serious as a Police statement should never
be prepared and then sent to you to sign weeks later with editing being done, further, do you
remember readers there are two versions made by the school on the 28th March 2012? Well, Ms
Webbers police statement which was sent to her has the same sentence omitted from it. This is
very serious as this so-called allegation made by this woman is claimed to be the basis for these
rogues kidnapping our children and committing all these atrocious acts. Ms Webber works at

205

Invicta Primary school as Learning mentor at the time and we are quite certain she could
complete a witness statement herself, further the police should have questioned her on the day
regarding her so-called disclosure, however the deceitful detectives (DC Cooper/DC Cullinane)
failed to do their job on the day and instead of doing their job were busy being deceitful and
dismissive to us as parents.
Ms Webber police statement which outlines the date the alleged disclosure was made to her by
Avery is dated 29th March 2012. Did you get that? If you didnt, dont worry, we will explain.
Remember Invicta, namely, Ms Webber claimed an allegation had been made by our eldest
daughter Avery of being punched in the face along with her sister Cassie, and that this had been
disclosed to her (Ms Webber) on the 28th March 2012? So why is the police statement signed
by Ms Webber dated the 29th March 2012? This statement was to be relied on in the malicious
criminal prosecution of father and a very serious matter. So how is it the date of the claim
disclosure are different and elements of the statement being deleted.
The lie is evident and has been one of the reasons why a Social Worker namely, Ms Marie
Morris, from the initial stage should speak with the child ALONE to ascertain facts and conduct
an unbiased investigation. This would have highlighted the fact that these allegations were
malicious and fabricated. Ms Marie Morris chose to abandon her duties and behaved as
contemptible as the other rogues in this sordid affair. Is it any wonder then that she has failed to
produce a statement in this entire repugnant matter? The fact Ms Webber had been present
would have caused a lot of pressure on our children. We did not give any consent for this
woman to be in possession of our children on that day or anytime after that. The Royal Borough
of Greenwich has a lot to answer for in allowing these people access to our children. The law is
the law and no one is above it neither judge nor pauper. The entire situation and the manner
these incompetent rogues carried on in absolute arrogance, is as though they are a law unto
themselves. Ms Webber should have not been present with our children. Ask your self, if you
were telling the truth as a member of staff why would you have two versions of the same event?
And why would you sign a document that contains an incorrect date to the one which states the
alleged disclosure had first taken place? Some may say, It could just be a mistake! During her
testimony, Ms Webber stated that she remembered saying, parents shouldnt hit too hard and
that she could not explain why the other document did not contain this or why it did not appear
on her statement made to the Police. Well, we have something, that is definitely not a mistake,
and you the reader, will judge for yourselves, and decide whether the events of 28th March 2012,
really had taken place.
Also during Ms Webber testimony she revealed that on the 29th March 2012, whilst our children
were detained, she stated that they (children) waited a long time getting peckish Ms Webber
then continued it was an hour or more. We were horrified not only at the fact that our
children were falsely imprisoned with Ms Webber, but, that they had not eaten after a long
school day. During this time Ms Webber stated she had another concern claiming the children
had told her and this was that they were not read any bedtime stories and that this was a cause
for concern. Ms Webber stated on the 29th March 2012, she had left our children late it was
late 6 or 7 in the evening more than 3 hours after the end of school. By that time we as parents
would have been at the Police Station either being processed or in the cells and unknown to us

206

these kidnappers had our children until the evening at the school. Just to make you, the reader
aware, the Local Authority representative, namely Ms Cleo Perry had all of the alleged sexual
allegations against us as parents removed and therefore we were unable to discuss it. However,
when we instructed our representative, namely Mr Mark Towmey to ask Ms Webber whether she
had told our daughter, sex is okay and normal, she stated, Yes, I said this to her, to which
Ms Cleo Perry stated that was unfair, that he Mr Mark Towmey had ask such a question. In
any event, we received an answer. Remember this was said to our daughter Avery, who it was
alleged by Mrs Corbett had watched porn, now wouldnt you think it beyond inappropriate to
state this (sex is okay and normal) to child of that age? Now if our daughter had not informed us
previously, we would not have been made aware that Ms Webber was indeed having
inappropriate discussions with our daughters. Yet, we found out that Ms Webber had been
teaching Avery, who had just turned nine, sex education, without our consent or knowledge.
These are the sorts of things that would annoy any parent and tip them over the edge. At the
time these people were continually committing these sorts of distasteful acts and seemed really
adamant to provoke some sort of reaction from us.
Bullying- As you are aware our eldest daughter was bullied at Invicta School, when Ms Webber
had been questioned on that matter she became defensive, as though it was an attack on the
school. Ms Webber stated, Wasnt a child that was bullied, she continued to state that bullying
is a broad word and well, difficult to say what bullying is, You see she was being very vague,
very simply put if you choose not to acknowledge a child is being bullied then, it doesnt exist!
She clearly denied that our daughter was bullied. However, state that she would usually deal with
children who were referred from the fair access panel. (The same fair access panel Mr Baker
managed to initiate through Mr Ken Palmer and Mr Steve Myles from the Borough). Ms Webber
in reference to our daughter Avery, who was bullied, stated Avery would and we quote:

wouldnt cry she moaned.

However in a reporting a concern which was dated 27th February 2012, we quote:

Avery, came to me crying saying that she missed her mum and dad and she wanted to go
home,
When questioned Ms Webber claimed this was the only time our daughter had cried however,
she had just stated that Avery never cried just moaned. Ms Webber in her capacity as a
learning mentor a job she is paid to do when a parent informs you of their child being bullied,
one would expect the matter to be addressed. As you can see from above she was being vague
and claimed Wasnt a child that was bullied, in other words she was claiming no child was
bullied at Invicta. That was just a ridiculous statement to make in a desperate attempt to paint
the school in a good light. However it highlights her character and shows this woman will say
anything no matter how implausible in support of her rogue colleagues at the school and to the
detriment of the children. In any event we now know why we had so many problems in
addressing the issues with the school and the fact that they do not believe any child is being
bullied at Invicta Primary School then such a delusion as clearly lead to Ms Webber Ms Cuff and
Mrs Corbett failure to address the matter.

207

When an individual such as Ms Webber with her numerous fallacies, during her testimony, we
were not surprised to witness how nervous she had become, her face turning red, stating, Im
50, and going through menopause. We guess, trying to keep up with so many lies would have
anyone nervous!
23 October- During the family proceedings, there had been another reporting a concern,
made by Ms Webber alleging our daughter Beth said this on a school trip to the Museum, Dad

hit us until it made his hand bleed so I dont think I want to live with them. In response it is
recorded that Ms Webber said, Its good to tell everyone how you feel. Now to have this
disclosed to us during the court process demonstrated Ms Webbers callous behaviour and
calculation because during the proceedings the Judge would need to determine whether our
children would return home and the fact that such a document had been typed up stating the
child does not think I want to live with them, is completely well thought out.
30th May 2013- We were told by our children that Ms Webber had seen Avery alone at the
Foster Carers House and went to the prospective School our daughter was due to begin in
September once leaving Invicta. We could not make it up if we tried. The brazen audacity of all
these so-called professionals. The schools, what we couldnt understand, why was it felt
necessary for Ms Webber to 1. See where our children were living, when we as parents still do
not know and have never visited where they lived. 2. Why Ms Webber attended Averys, new
school?
June 2013- We were told by our children at contact that Ms Webber had visited them at the
foster placement (place children were living) we couldnt understand why this was necessary. We
as parents still do not know where our children live, why Ms Webber was able to see our
children at their placement revealed far too much involvement. Our children made a comment
to us about Ms Webber revealing that they believed Ms Webber was Spying on them. It was
evident that our children felt as though Ms Webber had been in a sense suffocating them, as
though she was always there.
Contact report 2013-We were later told by Avery that Ms Webber had gone with her to view
her new school prior to her leaving Invicta. When we asked the then, Social Worker Mrs Teresa
Amprako-Appiah, she claimed she was not told Ms Webber would be attending the new school
with our daughter. Who appears to be in control Social Services or the staff at Invicta? Readers,
you know the answer!

Mr Ken Maslin, (Deputy Headteacher)

This rogue had been complicit in the kidnap of our children. It was confirmed by Ms Webber
that on the 29th March 2012, he had taken our children to Ms Webber to detain, aware that we
as parents have parental responsibility and the school, namely, Mrs Corbett and Ms Webber had
no right in law to falsely imprison our children.
During Autumn 2011 an upcoming trip to Wrotham, Kent from 17th-19th October 2012, (total of
three days). The pupils in Averys class were expected to sleep over, however, we did not trust

208

the staff in the school and as a result pressure had been applied to allow Avery, to sleep over. Mr
Maslin and Mrs Corbett became forceful stating, if we do not let Avery, sleep over she will be
left out. When we suggest she could go and we would set up arrangements for our daughter to
be collected each and every afternoon from Wrotham by her father, Mr Maslin and Mrs Corbett
were against the idea, stating that our daughter needs to experience new things and allowing her
to sleep over would give her some independence. We stood firm as parents and stuck to the
arrangement and it so happened that another pupil along with our daughter too did not sleep
over. Had we allowed our daughter to sleep over knowing what we know now about the
planning that had been going on in the background, this would be a totally different book!
Further how could we trust them with our child when they failed to address the bullying?
Mr Maslin did not attend court during October 2012, however, this did not prevent him from
filling in a reporting a concern dated 1st December 2011, which had been one of the many
documents created in any event this is the contents of what was typed; Avery, and Cassie, were

waiting for mum (who was late) at the end of the day. There were a number of other children
also waiting and I started to joke with the children about having to sleep at school. The children
(including the Plowright sisters) were laughing about this. I then said something along the lines
of Wait a minute, you dont have any pyjamas, to which Cassie said we dont wear pyjamas in
bed. I then said Maybe you wear something else when you go to bed, may be a nightie or tshirt. Avery, then said We wear the same clothes in bed that we wear in the day. Right, let us
dismantle this, this individual is alleging that our children do not change before they go to bed
and sleep in their school uniform, hence wear the same clothes in the day, Ridiculous, coming
from what appears to be another calculating individual, who typed up two versions of the so
called disclosure made for Ms Webber allegedly on 28th March 2012, now, to be in his position
as senior staff such as himself and responsible for typing these documents, why on earth would
you require two different versions of the truth? We dont believe we need to elaborate anymore.

Ms Vicki Cuff, (Inclusion Leader) now Head of School

Where do we being with this callous individual? Well, it has come to our attention that she has
been promoted to Head of School, and after what she has done should never have been the case!
However, this does not excuse, to distract from what she has done in an effort to destroy our
family, further she is also complicit in the kidnap of our children, well according to Ms Cuff our
children were already in care! In this explosive document which we will dismantle very shortlyHold on tight, this one might just blow you away!
1st July 2011- At this time we had no clue as to the continuous monitoring of our girls, this
document which came to our attention over a year later (July 2012) during court proceedings
and we quote. Avery, got very upset by a fly in the classroom she got angry when I spoke to

her and left the classroom. Talked to Avery, just before lunch to check she was ok. She seemed
upset but wanted to go to lunch and did not want to talk. This was signed by the then Trainee
Teacher Ms Barj and signed also by Ms Cuff. Now, at the bottom of this reporting a concern
document, Ms Cuff has written; HT/DT discussed with AW. Monitor situation. If you have
lost us, its okay, because we were quite amazed too upon reading this concern too. Just to be

209

clear, HT stands for Headteacher, DT for, Deputy headteacher and AW, for none other than
Alison Webber. The fact that a child reacts to a fly in the classroom, was something they deemed
necessary to monitor, if this practice had been adapted in all schools then every school would
have rooms filled to the roof with paperwork! What we wonder as parents is, where do these
professionals find the time? In any event, these and other concerns innocent to a child who
is not under the schools radar would seem perfectly normal, however for us as a family, our
children were monitored for every single thing. Just to think, Mrs Corbett, Mr Maslin, Ms Cuff
and Ms Webber with their busy schedules, find the time to discuss a fly and our daughtergoodness gracious!
8th March 2012, this is the date of a meeting and demonstrated Ms Cuff deliberate attempt to
avoid recording what Beth, had told her. In the events leading up to the kidnap of our children,
Ms Cuff had been instrumental, she claimed that Beths behaviour was a concern and
consequently, a meeting had taken place with father, Beth, Ms Cuff and Mr Christopher Rae
Beths teacher. At the meeting it had been reported, that and we quote, Worries that Beth is

extremely nervous about work. This is causing her to avoid/refused to take part in activities. It
is also causing her to underachieve. Today, knowing dad has been coming into school, Beth
has had an excellent day. During the meeting father asked both Ms Cuff and Mr Rae, what has
changed to cause this? Then Ms Cuff revealed, there has recently been a change within the
routine during class time. Beth, confidently with father by her side, expressed in the presence of
Ms Cuff and Mr Rae, Im not happy at school. When Ms Cuff heard this she wrote, Beth, is
unhappy in school some of the time often in lessons. Father, witnessed Ms Cuff very blatantly
dismissed what Beth had said, and father immediately corrected Ms Cuff stating that Beth very
clearly said she is unhappy at school. However, Ms Cuff pushed on, stating that a contact book,
which had been the same strategy used by the previous school Charlton Manor in an effort to
record what was going on at school as well as home. This much like the one Ms Lisa Smith,
Beths teacher at Charlton Manor had implemented back in 2010. It was very evident to us after
the meeting that Charlton Manor and Invicta schools must be in communication, however, due
to the fact that we were intending on leaving we continued to be vigilant. As Ms Cuff did not
want to record what had been said accurately, father refused to sign the document.
Friday 23rd March 2012-This is a not to you, the reader, we as parents would like to make
known that we stand by our belief that the kidnapping of our children and the continuous
monitoring of our family namely, our children has been planned and x from the very beginning
namely, Charlton Manor and what we also believe is that Invicta have continued to carry the
baton. We say all of this to highlight a very disturbing document we have discovered in 2012.
Dear Reader,-Keep these dates in mind and try to follow us as we explain. The alleged
allegation is claimed to have been made to Ms Webber on 28th March 2012 claiming two of our
daughters being punched in the face on Saturday 24th March 2012. Also, it was on the 29th
March 2012 CAIT Police and a Social Worker, arrived at the school. Here is a reporting a
concern, document which we will quote:

Avery, was helping tidy away the soft play equipment then she spotted her parents car parked
outside the school. Avery, said Thats my Daddys car, I wonder if theyre in school? We
stayed with carers because Daddy keeps smacking us as long as I have my sisters and brother,

210

Ill be happy. I told the appropriate staff- Mrs Corbett, Mrs Cuff who asked me to complete a
concern form. It further states Staff in charge Mrs Erol, staff present Mrs Erol, Emily, Mrs
Hunter. It shows that the concern had been
Reported by Ms Emily Williams which is signed and dated by her also. Then it states the
concern Reported by Emily Williams, to Mrs Corbett; Mrs Cuff. Towards the bottom of this
document it is signed by Ms Cuff and dated twice by her also. At the top left hand side of this
document, is a printed date. The Time 1:15 and Location; Foundation Garden, Activity;

Tidying up
What is the date? We can hear you ask, well, the date signed by Ms Emily Williams is 23rd March
2012! The document was created a day before the alleged punch took place, and a week before
they kidnapped our children. How is it possible that these people knew all our children would be
taken into care the following week based on so-called allegations being made against father? It is
clear as is revealed by this document that there is something very sinister happening at Invicta
Primary School. Also our children were never in care or ever been in care prior to the kidnap,
so ask yourself reader, why and how has this happened? Let us decipher this, okay, Ms Emily
Williams as this document makes clear reports a concern had been disclosed to her from
Avery, who as it illustrates, she is in care. Now, I know you could be saying, no the document
stated we stayed with carers which is in the past tense, meaning, it was something that did
happen. Yes, however, how would you answer; Daddy keeps smacking us and as long as I

have my sisters and brother, Ill be happy Thats my Daddys car, I wonder if theyre in
school? Now, that is in the present tense, therefore, suggesting the children are in care because
father keeps smacking them. Now, some of you who are sceptical, may say, Well maybe its a
mistake? The date was meant to be Wednesday 28th March 2012, and not Friday 23rd March
2012. Okay we could accept that in theory and say well, perhaps the individual who typed the
document keyed in the wrong date, which in turn caused Ms Williams to sign the wrong date
too. Right, so the fact that Ms Cuff signed this document twice in pen but, she had very clearly
hesitated with the date and it reveals she had written over with pen, the date underneath shows
the number 3 and then the number 2 written on top of it, appearing to be a mistake. Ms Cuff
appears unsure, however sticks with the date Monday 26th March 2012, but our children were not
in care even on that date and no so-called disclosure had yet been made to Ms Webber. Get
the severity of that document? Ms Cuff has written on this document that it was discussed with
HT/SLT and filed HT stands for Headteacher and SLT means, Senior Leadership Team,
humn? We wonder who forms part of that team? The documents states that a Mrs Marie Erol
and Mrs Hunter had been present, so that in total is number of five separate individuals who are
aware of the document/events that they claim had taken place, we thought about all of them
perhaps having access to a crystal ball, but we didnt think that was likely! Let us give you a quick
scenario:
Heres a lady, her name is Melody shes 19 years old, shes is friends with Adam, hes 20
years old. However, Melody died on the 12th December 2012. Police carry out an
investigation of the circumstances leading up towards her death and upon police
attending Adams home; they discover a document written by Adam stating Melody will

211

die a week before 5th December 2014 wearing a brown leather jacket, when the police
discovered her body she was wearing a brown leather jacket.
Do you think Adam could say it was a mistake? That he is psychic? No, he would be charged
and most likely convicted of conspiring to murder Melody. Now, we hope you understand this
document and these individuals involved, we take very serious. The response we have received
when explaining the contents of this document, have been words such as strange, could it be a
mistake. From some, they asked, how did you get this? Others simply remain silent.
The document created stated that our children are in care because of their father smacking
them. On the referral made to Social Services by Mrs Corbett it states that Avery and Cassie had
been punched in the face by their father. Why not stick with smack as documented on 23rd
March 2012 states? Well, there are a lot of parents who smack their children as a means of
discipline, as consequently this would not be strong enough to remove children from their
parent, however if you allege a punch on not just one, but two children that seems a lot better.
Keep in mind the document states the appropriate staff told were, Mrs Corbett, Miss Webber
and Ms Cuff. It is no surprise our children were kidnapped in that fashion and the so called
disclosure made to Ms Webber who had been told about what allegedly been reported on 23rd
March 2012.
23thJune 2012- This date I, Mrs Plowright will remember because although it had been a day
booked to see my children, I was unable to do so as the motorway was closed due to some road
works, as a result, I was unable to see them on that day. The one thing we were aware of as
parents was that certain individuals namely, Ms Cuff, Ms Webber and Mrs Corbett detested
contact between our children and us as parents, despite the feeling and wishes of our children,
claims that our children did not want to see us and that this resulted in them being distressed.
Now, there is an email sent by Ms Cuff, to the then Social Worker Ms Victoria Carrington, dated
Tuesday 26th June 2012. We were not aware of its existence until July/August 2012 or
thereabouts, and I quote, All 3 girls had an amazing day yesterday best weve had in a long,

long time certainly not what we were expecting. Not sure if theres a connection, but as we
know every behaviour has a reason! Ms Cuffs tone in this email comes across quite pleased at
the fact that my children were unable to see their mother, it sends chills all over to read that an
individual appears glad that three girls (pupils) were unable to see their mother. Ms Carrington
sent me an email stating that my children were distressed and disappointed as they had been
excited to see me, which totally contradicts Ms Cuffs account, but I have come to realise I
cannot expect any better from individuals who claim to be professionals, behaving in such a
manner. I believe Ms Cuff who we believe to be a very callous individual who I believe to have
relished in the kidnap of my four children, and throughout the time they were falsely imprisoned
and the impact this would have caused on them being left at the school, when it is quite clear Ms
Cuffs dismissive behaviour, is completely disturbing.

Ms Cuff Cross Examination on 29th October 2012, Gee Street Family Court
It had been very interesting to hear what Ms Cuff had to say, particularly when she appeared
under pressure! In regards to our eldest daughter being bullied, she stated and we quote,

Perception, Avery, bullied, Avery, used the phrase bullied. Our feeling she was not bullied

212

Also, that we as parents had a perception this was the word she used to describe concerned
parents, who only wanted our children to be happy at school, she gave a very callous reaction
with regards to bullying. This was to be expected from Ms Cuff as Inclusion Leader, it is her
responsibility to address any issues with regards to bulling, and the fact that she had let our
daughter down in her duty to tackle bullying; she chose to dismiss it, much like Ms Webber and
Mrs Corbett. When we referred to Ms Kate ODonnell (she was the Behaviour Support worker,
as a result of the Fair Access Panel.) which records an incident involving our eldest daughter,
back in 2011, unknown to us at the time of Avery, being bullied during a swimming lesson, and
Avery stating she hates her time at Invicta. Ms Cuff stated that Ms ODonnell would have told
her, and when she was asked by our Barrister what did she (Ms Cuff) do? She answering by
stating, Its not how I would see bullying. Ms Cuff non acceptance of our daughter being
bullied is exactly where the issue lies, after all it was clear to us, as we believe she had been there,
like some of the other members of staff to monitor and not address bullying.
During Ms Cuff testimony, when asked if there had been a meeting with Mrs Sengupta of
Charlton Manor and Mr Ken Palmer, she claimed she couldnt remember. The majority of these
incompetents when asked questions that would reveal their complicity in the Kidnap of our
children used a tactic we never knew were relied on so heavily by these unscrupulous characters.
They will claim they cant remember! There is no way of challenging someones memory. It
was clear these rogues were either briefed on how to perform in court or how to avoid
answering questions. However, during Mrs Senguptas testimony she remembered and
confirmed indeed a meeting had taken place, at Invicta Primary school involving Mrs Sengupta,
Ken Palmer and Ms Vikki Cuff to discuss our children. Ms Cuff stated that she had been sent a
fax from Mr Palmer and that she had seen him during, Child Protection training. She also stated,
that either Social services or Mr Palmer had been contacted when our daughters were absent for
one day, due to a family bereavement. Which seemed very alarming to us, as we never knew at
the time and that did explain why Mrs Corbett, had requested our children be sent into school,
even when she had been aware of what had happened. This was no reason to contact Mr Ken
Palmer or Social Services and clearly demonstrated that our beginning at Invicta was the fresh
start we had hoped for, the water was already muddied, thanks to Mr Tim Baker of Charlton
Manor and his cronies Mr Ken Palmer, Mr Steve Myles and the Fair Access Panel.
Reporting a Concern-Remember, the one we mentioned earlier, which had been dated, 23rd
March 2012? When it was put to Ms Cuff how and why this document had contained this date,
Ms Cuff quite confidently stated that this was a mistake and that the detail of the concern is
true. Reader, we will leave you to decide.

Mr Christopher Rae, Beths Teacher9th March 2012- Without our knowledge at the time, Mr Rae filled in reporting a concern
form and we quote, Beth was very upset and anxious during recorders in class. When talking

to her outside about her behaviour said she didnt want to get into trouble at home with mum
and dad, because she is worried what will happen, at home. Mentioned to VC and
completed concern form. VC stands for Vicki Cuff remember her from that meeting the day

213

before 8th March 2012? When she failed to record correctly what Beth had said about not liking
school? Well, on the same form which is signed by Mr Rae and Ms Cuff she writes:

discussed with HT/DHT. Were closely monitoring Beth and her sisters.
It is clear there was a continuous monitoring exercise going on and as a result of the prior days
meeting which Ms Cuff appeared to take personally, as an attack on the school as a whole
denying Beth had any dislikes towards Invicta and some of its staff, so what better then to
deflect and have Mr Rae state that no, in fact the problem is at home, not in school.
Subsequently, after this concern a contact book had been put in place, we as parents had
no idea this had taken place, very craftily, the document written by Mr Rae states that the contact
book was, agreed by dad/Beth.
This is a fallacy, because we as parents did not consent to a contact book being put in place by
Ms Lisa Smith from Charlton Manor back in 2010. Why would we then agree for a contact book
to be put in place? It just doesnt add up!
Upon reading the record of a meeting between the Second Social Worker Ms Alison Mc Donald
on 18th April 2012. Mr Rae had expressed a negative view of our children, particularly Avery, and
our other children. Mr Rae, never reported any concerns, to us as parents, our daughters if
anything and they would receive certificates for doing so well in class and reading the things he
had said was very upsetting. These are the words used to describe Avery of his experience
whilst teaching her; Such an angry child she would growl and stare, then hide under the
table. Ridiculous, and a complete insult, to even conceive that a teacher namely, Mr Rae would
describe our eldest child as if she were referring to an animal! However, when it came to parents
evening, he claimed that our daughter was very shy and a quiet well behaved girl. In
contradiction to how Mr Rae has described Avery, as in her school report for 2011, which is
signed by Mr Rae, and we quote, Since joining Invicta, Avery, has worked to establish

friendships and get used to school life. She is quiet and reserved pupil who has benefited much
from this terms work. Her confidence has grown. Throughout the school report Mr Rae
doesnt suggest any concerning behaviour. Underneath Headteachers comments, Mrs Corbett
states and we quote, Well done- what a good start to your new school Avery! which is signed
by both Mr Rae and Mrs Corbett. It is just amazing just how a rogue can state one thing and
completely contradicts themselves, Mr Rae has described Avery as a problem child who turns
into an animal, and however, Averys school report completely rubbishes, that!

Mrs Marie Erol and Mrs A Dunnett, Cassies Reception class Teachers
You may remember the name Mrs Erol as she had been present during that document dated 23rd
March 2012. Now, Mrs Erol has also filled in a reporting a concern form too. We were not
aware as parents of this concern at the time; it is dated 10th March 2011 at 12:30pm during
reading. Before we being to express our views on this we will just quote the document; C,

brought her book back from home and said to me my mummy didnt like this book I
answered why? C flicked through the book and showed me a picture of 2 penguins kissing.
Yes reader, this is what Mrs Erol has considered a concern. At the bottom of this form it is
dated and signed by none other than Ms Cuff! Who states, Monitor, discuss with parent if

214

further concern. Ms Cuff during the time our children were monitored appeared to have taken
this quite seriously, enough to intend on discussing it with us as parents if further concern.
They really have demonstrated how just they have taken this, mission to monitor; it would be
enough to make even the MI5 blush! It was however, enough for Mrs Erol to Discussed with
SENCO and noted for future reference. We wonder if any of you readers, (the parents) who
have asked your child/children after school what they have learned and when you are surprised
when the reply you receive is a very long pause complete with a confused look. Instead of
teaching, a lot of these rogues appear to be spending the majority of their time monitoring
selected children. Throughout this traumatic experience all we have heard from some of the staff
at Invicta is how our children, either refuse to work, Withdrawn have tantrums No selfconfidence it has also been stated that the girls always play with each other, finding it difficult
to make friends. Anyone who read the slanderous comments made by these rogues about our
children, without first meeting them, would assume, that they are nightmare children. However,
the school reports always seem to contradict just that. These quotes are taken from Cassies
school report, whilst in reception; Cassie has settled very well into reception, quickly making

friends. She is confident to join in and is keen to share her experiences. She is polite and
helpful and thinks about others. I am very pleased with Cassies progress and wish her all the
best in year one. Under Headteachers comments; What a fantastic report, well done! Signed
by Mrs Erol, Mrs Dunnett and Mrs Corbett. Again nothing about lacking in confidence, being
withdrawn an all the other fallacies that have been claimed.
Mrs Avani Chokshi- Cassies Year 1 TeacherThis individual, demonstrated the escalating fallacies those involved in the morphing alleged
allegations about our children. This concern involved our youngest daughter Cassie. It was
claimed by Mrs Chokshi that C arrived at school with no skirt on, just tights and a t-shirt. We
were astonished to read this, however, it was not reported as a concern, just mentioned in a
discussion with the social worker, namely, Alison Mc Donald on 18 th April 2012. It is amazing
the things some so called professionals will say about a pupil, no matter how unrealistic it may
seem. Us as parents, sending our daughter to school with only a t-shirt and tights!- Ludicrous!

215

The Fostering agencies

The key question in our case regarding the fostering agencies that these criminals
place our children with is this. What documentation or Court Order did these
agencies see or receive from the Royal Borough of Greenwich to accommodate
our children from the initial stages till now?
The fostering agencies involved in our case that we are aware of are namely, Home finding and
fostering and Orange Grove. We have to make clear, that we as parents do not know where
our children were when they were first kidnapped and therefore, it is unknown which other
agencies or individuals had our children. What is very clear is the utter overzealous behaviour of
these two agencies (Orange Grove & Home finding and Fostering) as both of these agencies are
guilty of taking children without first requesting any form or court order from the local
authority or Police Protection authorisation Record and as a result are complicit in the
kidnap of our children.
Every fostering agency must comply with the fostering regulations, statues and Law that govern
there industry. The fostering agencies namely Home-finding/ Fostering and Orange grove
clearly have no regard for the Law. What do we mean? Well, under Section 22 (1) Fostering
services (England) Regulations 2011 schedule 2 states and we quote:
Records to be kept by Fostering Service Providers
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)

A record of the date of his placement;

The name and address of the foster parent;
The date on which he ceased to be placed there;
His address prior to placement;
His address on leaving placement;
His responsible authority (if it is not the fostering provider);

The statutory provision under which he is placed with foster parents.

h) Under the above statue and regulation, both fostering agencies, namely, Home finding /
fostering and Orange grove have failed to obtain any evidence of the lawfulness or
legitimacy concerning the children they were accommodating. They are required by law
as outlined by (point g) above to validate the statutory provision under which the child is
placed. The statutory provision under which he is placed with foster parents.
Thats very important as it protects children from being held unlawfully or
trafficked. The law is there for a reason or so we are told. The fact that the Royal
Borough of Greenwich had no lawful authority to accommodate our children i.e.
no court order or otherwise what statutory provision did these fostering agencies
accommodate our children under. The answer is none.
No such agreements or court order was in place so therefore on what lawful basis did
these greedy fostering agencies accommodate our children. Simply taking four children

216

they had no business taking, however, it is evident money is priority over what is right
and that is the horrible truth that money was their main focus, they saw four children
they could make money from, and took them without any regard for the laws in place
to avoid from things of this nature.
Some of you reading may say, Well, its better that the fostering agencies took them then to
leave the children out on the street you would be wrong. The children should have never been
taken and at the very least should have gone home with their mother!
Actions like the once taken, by these rogue agencies are cause for great concern, if for example
there is a Social worker who wants to get back at her ex-boyfriend by removing his children she
would easily be able to take the children to any of these agencies, because frankly it doesnt
appear they have no regard as they (fostering agencies) will accept children without any lawful
authority, all that matters is the money! Greed comes to mind when thinking of these agencies
involved, they didnt see four young children, but four tempting pound signs, and after all,
they were paid by the Royal Borough of Greenwich for taking our children. We dont believe this
is an isolated incident, we believe these agencies have taken many children without first seeing a
court order and sadly these are the types of agencies who claim to protect children having their
best interests at the forefront.

Contact
We have never been comfortable with the term (contact) as it is not a term we can ever get used
to in relation to seeing our children. The term Contact sounds like some kind of alien
encounter between aliens and humans, however, it is a term used by the LA social services in
regards to parents/family visiting or seeing their children.
When we were prevented from seeing our children, all we just wanted to see them to find out if
they were well and safe. However, when arrangements were reluctantly made by the Local
Authority for us as parents to see our children, we were stunned that the word being used was
contact.

What is Contact like?

When I, Mrs Plowright first saw my youngest three children namely, Beth, Cassie and Daniel, I
was shocked to see that I was being observed not only by the Guardian, namely, Ms Marlyn
Samuels but the Contact Supervisor namely, Mr G. Now, everything I did with my children I was
being followed, everything I had said to my children had been written down and screened.
However, the then Social Worker namely, Ms Victoria Carrington didnt fail to tell me during
contact you cannot ask the children where they are living, you cannot take photos The one
that I found most disturbing, was that I couldnt take m own children to the toilet! Yes reader
you read that right me, their parent cannot take my children to the toilet! I couldnt believe what
I was hearing, these are MY children, I gave birth to all of them, I went through all the morning
and at times evening sickness, heart burn, swollen ankles, the back pain during hours of labour,
the sleepless nights and to have some stranger tell me that I cannot be a parent was disgustingmy children should never have been kidnapped in the first place!!!

217

Back to contacts they (contact supervisors) make you feel less than a parent, as you cant take
them to the toilet alone, your authority as a parent is severely undermined and instead of your
children asking you mum or dad can you take me to the toilet? The contact supervisor will take
them. It is heart wrenching, there were many occasions our son Daniel would demand his dad
take him to the toilet and when the contact supervisor prepared to take him, he refused to use
the toilet making clear he wanted his dad to take him. The impact on our children brought about
by this situation and contact has caused severe distress and confusion for our children.

What is a contact venue?

Well, I, Mrs Plowright can speak about the first ever contact that was due to take place on the
beginning of May 2012 but had been cancelled due to a decision taken my Mrs Corbett, Ms Cuff
of Invicta Primary School and as a result finalised by Social Worker no. 3 namely, Ms Victoria
Carrington. This contact was due to take place in a house on a residential street, well let me put it
this was the smell, the outdated dcor and the state of this place, if I owned a pet dog, that house
would be unacceptable! The condition of the house with toys simply thrown in the corner of the
room, purely demonstrates what they think of the parents and children who attend. As I waited I
was told to go upstairs so another contact could take place. I thought the house couldnt get any
worse, but I was wrong, I felt sickened by the stench in that room one word to describe itdisgusting! I felt sickened and the fact that this LA had the audacity to kidnap my children and
expect me to see them in such a place, when they should be at home!
Back to Venues this can take place in a house which can be run by the LA or privately, some are
owned by the fostering Agencies. However, the owners be in an individual, LA or otherwise as
we have found out upon our research do make a lot of money! Whereas some contacts can take
place in the community, for example, in Parks, Restaurants etc. Oh, before we forget that house
mentioned above, the one that was not fit for a dog, well it sold recently- no question it must
have sold for good money!
Another point I, Mrs Plowright must make clear as a mother, I have experienced prior to contact
with my children that the Social workers would claim they didnt want to see either or us and
then they claimed that my three youngest only wanted to see me-which was a blatant lie. As I
have been told by numerous mothers I have met in the same situation that once contact had
been set up, that the Social Worker had stated that their children only want to see their mother.
Reader, how can several mothers with partners, tell me in their own separate situation that the
Social Worker claims their children only want to see mother? Well, it appears this is a strategy to
cause conflict between the couple, as it undermines the father, remember these rogues love to
destroy families and if they can use the mother and children against the father then they have
won! Why do you think one of the reasons couples split up during this traumatic process? Did
you know sadly the rogues use the mother to accept that she is no longer with father in an effort
to get their children back? How? Well, mother can agree via signed agreement not to see father,
however either a Social Worker or one of these professionals states they had spotted mother
with father and consequently, the agreement is void because mother did not stick to the terms
and the children are not returned, but if mother had known the nature of rogues- they never
keep their promises! Remember these rogues always use your children against you and the false
hope of having them returned always works!!!

218

On the end of May 2012

The first time father had seen Daniel during contact he (Daniel) was so happy during the time
we had seen him. It was as though he came across as if this nightmare would be over. However,
when it was time to leave our son immediately walked to our car instead of the contact
supervisors but when he realised he would not be going home with us as parents, he cried, the
look in his eyes, we as parents will never forget, he looked at us like we should have the power to
take him home, after all we are his parents. He was so distressed and crying with such anger and
frustration, remember he was only 3 at the time. He couldnt understand why he was being taken
back to the stranger known as the foster carer namely, Ms Ann Blackman.
Contact is deliberately designed to make parents feel helpless and even weakens them up to a
point that even as a parent, you are unable to remove them from the situation they are in. (Well,
we have heard of cases where parents have attempted to take their children after/during contact
and are caught up in a struggle with the contact supervisor, and then Police are called and if the
parents and children are caught that could mean a reduced contact in a secure venue or no
contact at all! Which is so sad for the child because, they after all, are being punished for a parent
that is so desperate to remove their child from the clutches of these rogues, it is truly a sad state
of affairs. Is it any wonder in our case riddled with corruption, unlawful actions that we had not
one but two contact supervisors? Yes, because with the Local Authority and CAIT Police
absolute disregard for the Law, we would have been well within our rights to simply take our
children because they NEVER should have taken our four children in the first place hence, No
Contact for months! It appeared the LA feared without any Court Order in place, namely,
Emergency Protection Order (EPO), Interim Care Order (ICO) and no Section 20 was signed by
us. Had we been able to have contact at the time we as parents would have been well within our
rights to simply take our children, we are their parents, the LA had No Authority over our four
children, we have parental responsibility, we could have taken them and there would have been
nothing they could have done about it!!! The actions of the LA and CAIT were deliberate to
deprive us from seeing our children as to rob us of the opportunity to get our children back at
the time, but instead of thinking or should we say, having the childs best interests at heart
they (LA/CAIT Police) simply, did as the wished showing no regard for our four young
innocent children- simply, no regard at all!
Okay, back to the whole contact situation, everything you do during contact is being monitored,
think of it as a prisoner having a visit with a loved one and the Prison Guard is watching
everything, so just like for instance the Prisoner attempts to whisper in the ear of their visitor,
the are told to stop, because the Prison Guard cannot hear them. Now, during contact it is
exactly the same if not worse! Let us give you an example, the first time our eldest namely,
Avery, during the first occasion father had seen her in nearly 4 months, on the 12 th July 2012
during contact Avery attempted to whisper in her dads ear but very quickly the contact
supervisor said no, no whispering allowed. The look on Averys face was of complete
disappointment, she really wanted to say something to father. You see how dangerous this is?
Reader, if the child in care genuinely has concerns about something that is happening to them or
perhaps the way the Foster Carer may be treating them or even something that happened at
school, a child cannot reveal these to the parent as they cannot whisper, therefore making the

219

child feel isolated, their cry for help from the one person in their life who should be protecting
them is unable to- this is a recipe for serious trauma and could cause the child dependant on
their age to want to commit suicide, after all the so called professionals in our case did not listen
to our childrens repeated cries of wanting to come home and be removed from Invicta Primary
School. We were later informed by the contact supervisor that he also supervises contacts in
Prisons.

Annoying and deliberate situations caused by rogue contact

supervisors
We as parents respect that everyone has a job to do and Contact Supervisors are no different,
however, the one thing we would find so disrespectful and annoying would be when we are
talking to our children and they (contact supervisors) would interject as if we were having a
conversation with them. Now you may say, oh but maybe you were discussing something that
the contact supervisor didnt find appropriate? Nope, nothing of the sort, we would simply be
discussing things like, the way our children look, how theyve grown, that we miss them, you
know those sorts of things and they would always try and undermine us as parents, because we
knew they were responsible for driving our children back to the Foster Carers home and having
access to our children without us been present, we didnt want to cause any friction, just in case
when we are not present our children got the brunt of their spiteful behaviour, going through
this you learn to bite your lip- very hard for the sake of your children!!!
In conclusion, the worst part of these contacts is saying bye to your children. Now, this is always
the most emotional part, its incredible how fast the time goes during these contact sessions! Our
children clearly never wanted to leave, as they would always tell us their want to return home.
There was a routine to it as we were told by the supervisor, they would say, you can belt them in.
We would belt our children in their seats and a lot of the time our son would prove extremely
distressed, always needing to be persuaded to sit in the car seat, sometimes it would take ten
minutes or more to persuade him to sit down, but Daniel was very clear he did not want to go.
Even a shocking and distressing situation had occurred; we have always told our children how
smart they are. Now, at contact we told our son how smart he is, he shouted No Im not! we
said to him you are smart, he them became upset stating he is not smart! Reader, we couldnt
understand why as he had never responded to us in this manner. As we would tell our children
how smart they are and they would reply stating, I know!
We asked Daniel who told you that? He became quiet then we asked again, and then the contact
supervisor interjected and said perhaps he heard it at Nursery. We ignored him and asked Daniel,
who told you that? He then said Ann we were horrified, our son said Ann, the so called Foster
Carer calls him stupid. The one person paid to look after him and care for him in all aspects
is calling our son stupid? Our young son, an impressionable boy, stupid! Had we called him this
we would be charged with Emotional Abuse!!! It is a disgrace this so called Foster Carer namely,
Ann Blackman calling our son stupid! We never use the language stupid in our home; we
encourage our children telling them they can be whatever they want to be! Then to have this
idiotic nasty woman refer to our child as stupid! He has been through enough, kidnapped,
deprived of seeing us, placed with strangers, too young to understand what is going on in his life
and to top it all off called stupid by this rogue and emotionally abusive Foster Carer! We will

220

never forgive, words said to children stick with them into adult hood, and Ann Blackman is a
poor excuse of a carer!!! Never should our son let alone our children have been laced in such a
position. Even Avery became fearful that Daniel had told us the truth of what was happening
that she had said fearfully that Ann didnt say it. Further, to our son telling us this neither Cassie
not Beth denied Ann had called him stupid. This leads us to ask what sort of upbringing did Ann
have?
To call our son stupid. Had she been abused? In that case she shouldnt be within 5000 miles
of children!!!
Note to parents: always write/type your own contact notes. Even though you should receive the
contact notes from the LA they are known not to forward all of them hence us as parents not
receiving the contact report when our son told us Ann called him stupid and the contact when
Avery whispered in her dads ear, amongst others!
Your right- As a parent you can take photographs of your child although not digital you can use
a disposable camera and it wasnt the Social Worker it was the Contact Supervisor. When we
asked why no digital photos he said it was because it made it easier to upload the photos online
(which is prohibited) however he did state that the same could be done with photos taken by a
disposable camera!
Donts- They (LA/Contact Supervisors) state during contact your mobile phones must be
switched off, no digital photos, no actual photographs of parents/family members/friends are to
be given to your children to keep- That appears to be in aid of your child forgetting you, but
that wont work, well not in our case as the saying goes; Absence makes the heart grow
fonder!!!

Keep things normal: What we mean is try to maintain some familiarity with your
child/children. If you pray before you eat as a family continue to do this. If you sing or read to
your children remain consistent. Just because the circumstances have changed, it doesnt mean
you should as a parent!
Cook: Your children will miss your home cooking, as a mother when my children were at home
I would make dishes such as chicken stew with basmati rice, with a side of shredded lettuce, or
pounded yam with assorted meat stew, corned beef fried rice, chicken pie, Sheppards pie and
their favourites, Cornmeal Porridge with hard dough bread or what we call cock soup (a
Jamaican chicken soup with noodle pieces) with yam, dumpling and potato seasoned to taste
with scotch bonnet and thyme. I would make lasagne, making my own white and red sauce with
garlic bread and a side of coleslaw. (Sorry readers, if Im making you hungry!) My kids never
forget to tell me, Mum youre the best cooker!
Our eldest much like her mother absolutely loves hot chocolate and Avery would complain to us
that she missed the hot drinks she would have at home, so it was simple, we brought a flask
when we would see them, equipped with hot chocolate of course and a selection of tea or lemon
and ginger tea which they missed when they were at home. Although the contact centre had a
kettle, cups etc. We as parents were not comfortable and so would bring our own cups and
spoons!

221

Try to prepare food before you go to see them, even if you may not be able to cook you can
always prepare something, a sandwich etc. When we had to attend Court and go to contact on
the same day, there wouldnt be time to cook and so we simply brought our Panini toaster and
made Paninis there in front of them and they loved it, as they also helped make Paninis! It is so
simple, get some Panini bread, some sliced turkey, ham, pepperoni, sundried tomatoes, cheddar
cheese- you are good to go! For vegetarians just minus the meat and substitute for something
else, perhaps olives, sweet corn, pickles! It is so important to do things like this because you are
their parent, no matter who cooks for your child, the Foster Carer, it could even be the best
Chef in the world, they will never cook as good as you, do you want to know why? Well, because
they will always be missing one key ingredient and thats your LOVE!

Parents Agony
We need to put this part in this book, well because it is important. Reader, we hope you never be
put in this position, as we have stated earlier, having or children snatched has placed us in a
continuous state of mourning. Even typing this book, we dont know where our children are
right now. We have not met the Foster Carers our tree youngest are with. Although we have met
the Foster Carer that our eldest daughter is with, we dont know her.
We must say this; although our situation is hard we have read some that would destroy even the
strongest of parents. Now, this is a true story and not for the feint hearted and exposes these
rogues in the truest sense. We will begin this story at the end and go back to the beginning: A
child was taken into care and the Local Authority contacted the father to obtain his consent to
take his child to the dentist, he consented. Readers, I hope you got that part of the story, but
what if we were to tell you that the LA had no intention of taking the child to the dentist? What
if that child had no need to attend the dentist, because the child is dead? Yes, these demons did
exactly that. The poor innocent child died whilst being driven inside the Social Workers car, the
Social Worker also died. Now why would they do such a thing? Since reading this story we as
parents are really aware of how these rogues operate and that they do not have any regard for the
parents. We believe in Almighty and we put everything in his hands, we pray for our children and
for all children, and this story has demonstrated to us that if anything were to happen- Almighty
God forbid, we as parents would not be told. Just remember in this book Ms Mc Donald, the
second social worker had informed both schools of the unlawful Achieving Best Evidence
interviews (ABE) (police interrogation of our children) and failed to tell us, their parents. The
death of any child is any parents worst nightmare, but it is something parents in our position
contemplate every day, until our children are returned to us, where they belong.
Now back to the circumstances which led to the child being taken into care. It all started upon
return of the child and the family from holiday. At school the child it had been said told another
pupil that they had seen something on the Television (a beheading) and a member of staff told
and the Social Services contacted, which led to the child being placed into care and consequently,
losing their life.
Some would say, well, a beheading, no child should see that on television, or which parent in
their right mind would allow their child to watch such a thing? We would say, hold your horses!

222

First, nothing was said regarding the child being allowed to watch this, further ask yourself the
child could have glimpsed this on the front of a newspaper or perhaps as we as parents know the
story could have been misinterpreted. The fact is a child is now dead because they were taken
into care, driven in the Social Workers car which crashed into a tree and now parents have lost
their child! Which fuels us with such anger, why couldnt the Head of the school dealt with the
manner appropriately and instead of overzealously contacting Social Services instead have
spoken to the parents to ascertain the facts surrounding what really happened? This like other
cases we find completely disturbing to say the least, as in our case the second social worker
namely, Ms Alison Mc Donald without our knowledge or consent had taken our three daughters
in her car to not one but two ABEs and just like that Social Worker who crashed, who is to say
the same could have happened in our case? This behaviour needs to stop and these rogue Judges
need to stop allowing these rogue Social Workers and Local Authorities, to merely do as they
want! Children are paying the ultimate price- with their lives!!! Which is why we consistently pray
for our four children and that they remain protected in Almightys name.

Nicknames
As parents we had nicknames for our children, and they would refer to each other not by their
birth name but by their nickname. However, we were horrified and troubled when we first saw
our children they had stopped referring to each other in their nickname. We would always ask
ourselves why and how has this been possible? When we saw the ABE video even during the
interrogation they had been referring to each other with their nicknames and when the rogue
police would ask who is such and such, our children would then use their birth name.
Remember, how would it look if this so called ABE was to be used inside the criminal courts in
the presence of Jurors? The case would land on its head, why? Well, if our children used
nicknames that would complicate the case the Jurors wouldnt know who they are referring to
hence causing confusion. The use of nicknames in our family demonstrates the close bond we
have its kind of like our secret code! Outsiders never understood. There is good news though,
because they have now seen these rogues for what they are, they now refer to each other in
their nicknames.

Racism
This book would not be completed without this chapter. Racism, prejudice and discrimination as
experienced is very hard to put on paper. It is our firm belief that this entire dreadful situation
stems directly from racial prejudice and hatred. The entire investigation of this matter was

223

seriously flawed and deserving of severe criticism. The underlying causes of the failure are more
troublesome and potentially more sinister. The impact of incompetence, racism and corruption
on the investigation and subsequent malicious prosecution is evident.
We are a black family with four black children all a result of consummation between both of us.
We have been married for 12 years now and were 10 years married at the time our children were
kidnapped. The incompetence, malpractice and racism involved in our case is of monumental
proportions and responsible for the injustice we as a family have experienced. When it comes to
racism we could write a thousand books regarding the matter, like most black people we have
never written a complaint to any public or government body regarding the matter, until now.
The simple fact of the matter is that many of those responsible for writing the policies and
investigating complaints of racism are themselves racist or completely out of touch regarding the
matter. Take Lord Scarman who was relied upon in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Lord
Scarman was an educated white man who held a senior position in British society, what does he
know about experiencing racism. These are the type of people constantly relied upon by society
to write reports, investigate and make deliberations regarding matters of racism. Hence nothing
ever really changes and many black people continue to suffer in silence at the hands of racist
bigots on a daily basis. The simple fact is there is good and bad people wherever you go. Things
have changed a lot since the old days we hear but if its so bad now we do not want to
contemplate what it was like then. It would be unfair to tarnish the entire British population of
being racist as that would be ridiculous. We have experienced both good and bad like everywhere
else. We find the institutions and public bodies that exist to be far more involved in the business
of adhering to policies which are discriminatory and racist. Simply put, we are not in a position at
this time to write this chapter and give it the justification it deserves therefore we believe it
suffice to say:
We believe the professionals involved in an attempt to cover themselves or offer a possible
response to the charge of racism tried to use one black worker at the start namely Marie Morris.
However their actions ultimately uncover what was and still is acts of overt, indirect and direct
discrimination and racism. When we raised the fact that we experienced racism and there is
racism in this case, the social worker namely Teresa Amprako-Appiah told us not to mention it.
When we pointed it out to Mr Mark Towmey(Family Lawyer) he claimed you cant prove
racism. Ms Marlyn Samuels (Guardian) said we should not mention the R word. Miss
Hudson (Family barrister for guardian) said it was a bit late in the day for us to mention
racism, when we have been outlining it all along. These are the types of responses we received
from the people who have taken oaths to uphold the LAW. As we pointed out earlier we have
never made a single complaint about the countless racism we have encountered and the only
time we attempt to make a complaint no on listened. Who feels it knows.
Mr Bakers actions of covertly making negative recommendations to a clandestine fair access
panel and the fair access panel accepting such recommendations without any enquiry into the
matter, and even disregarding the initial social worker of 2010 who is also a black lady highlights
the prejudiced mind-set that exists amongst those professionals. The negative information and
stereotype of black men is no secret. Without ever meeting Mr Plowright Mr Bakers negative
perceptions were readily accepted by this clandestine fair access panel. How does a black man
describe racism to white or Anglo-Saxon majority. There is a lot of misconception mainly by

224

white people about what racism and prejudice is. Some people believe that black people claim
racism on a whim to avoid certain situations or to use as some sort of excuse. Well for those
people who think that you are thoroughly misinformed. I even start hearing some people use the
term race card. I wonder who came up with that term, there is no such thing as a race card and
just another reprehensible ideology that is probably fostered by hateful people.
On another issue not because a white person has black friends does not mean that they are not
racist or prejudice. This is not a game. I have seen cases where some white people even have
children from a partner who is black and still harbour racist tendencies and in some cases are
outright racist. Another trend that appears to be in full swing is for companies to employ just
one black person to meet the requirements of legislation the equality act and other such
legislation or give the outward appearance of not being a company that is prejudiced towards
black people. In reverse that shows the depths of their malign thinking. In their defence they
always cite the same old lame excuse of there are not enough applicants from ethic minority
backgrounds who are suitable for the positions. I Mr Plowright am from Jamaican and came to
England in 1999. I had a pep in my step and the wind at my back. I have since experienced many
occasions of racism and prejudice. I have never once complained and always say to myself no
one asked me to come to this country I came of my own accord and free will. There have been
so many instances of racism that I cant even count. I have been stopped on so many occasions
by police who have been overtly racist than I care to remember. There are however two
situations that stand out in my mind. I was driving through Catford south east London one day
and was pulled over by two officers. They drove passes me going the opposite way and then
turned around and started following my car. I was pulled over and questioned and subsequently
arrested. On route to the police station I was sitting in the back of the police car when to my
surprise the two white officers were sitting in front of me discussing if they should plant some
crack cocaine on this nigga. I was shocked. They were discussing the matter as if I was not there.
I made it clear to these two racist crooked cops that if you try and plant anything on me I would
not be taking it lying down. Ultimately, we arrived at the station and no crack cocaine was
planted on me but it left me wondering, were they serious? Have they done this before? What of
the other black men who were not as strong will as I am. Another situation which is entirely
different relates to when I was looking for a new job and made numerous applications to many
companies. I was studying AAT Accounting at the time and already had other accounting
qualifications. After much searching I spotted a job advert which matched my qualifications and
experience. So I sent off my CV and shortly afterwards was invited for an interview. I went out
and purchased a new suit and brand new shoes got a fresh hair cut on the day, the whole works.
I was prepared as ever. The day before the interview I even called the offices of the company to
confirm the interview date and time. On the day of the interview I turned up early for the
interview as you do. On entering the reception area of the company, thats when I started getting
unpleasant the stares, the type of stares racist white people give you. Anyway I ignored that and
proceeded to the receptionist and informed her I was there for the interview. At first she claimed
that I must be mistaken as there was no record of any interview to be held with me and she cant
find my name on the system. Her attitude was very dismissive and she was even claiming i must
have the wrong address. I then proceeded to my folder and presented the letter that was sent to
me inviting me to the interview which clearly displayed the company logo; she took the letter and
disappeared round the back for a while. I could smell something was not right based upon her

225

overt dismissive display and derogatory tone. She later returned and told me that there was no
interview taking place. I was very disappointed and hurt because I knew that I was being told a
lie because the colour of my skin. I spun around and looked to the left where through a glass
door I could see what appeared to me at the time to be 5 candidates waiting to be interviewed. I
had to be sure so I immediately went over to open the door and said; anyone here waiting for
the Accounting Technician interview? All five sitting in the room responded with a resounding
yes. All the candidates were white. So while I was being turned away without even the chance
of an interview, there were still white candidates waiting to be interviewed for the same position.
My wife and I have experienced many situations of racism over the years and as a result we are
very protective of our children and have become very suspicious of some white people. In this
entire situation racism and prejudice is rife. If we were innocent white people without any
criminal convictions or any history of violence these rogues would have a hard time committing
the wicked acts they have committed against us. In fact this situation would not even arise in the
first place However due to the fact we are black people and based on our previous experiences
the notion is you are guilty of whatever you are accused of on the basis of the colour of your
skin.. At Charlton manor there was a white parent who was visible drunk on countless occasions
and even came to the school to drop her child in barefoot, yet her child was not cause for
concern. At Invicta we have seen with our own eyes Mrs Corbett struggling to restrain white
children, Yet those children are not cause for concern or kidnapped.
We do not want the serious issues raised in this book to be side-lined by the racism and prejudice
we have experienced, because the simple fact of the matter is that the secret family courts and
child protection system is constantly taking children from parents regardless of race. Therefore
we have decided to make this chapter brief. So let us get back to the racism and discrimination in
this case.
The deceitful detectives DC Cooper and DC Cullinane were racist, prejudice and discriminated
against us in the manner in which they carried out their duties and by
(1)their oppressive and discriminatory use of unlawful bail conditions to restrict us from seeing
our children and our children from seeing us.
(2) False arrest, false imprisonment and unlawful detention or Mrs Plowright and Mr Plowright
(3) By allowing the bail conditions to remain even after protest and considerable efforts made by
us to remove the bail conditions.
(4) Unlawfully carrying out Not one but Two Achieving best evidence interviews (ABE) on our
children, while they were unlawfully in the possession of the Royal Borough of Greenwich and
The Metropolitan Police
Deliberately abusing the use of section of section 47 to give the illusion of authority
Deliberately abusing the use of police protection powers
Racism has always been readily denied by the police and those who are accused of such practices,
however they are then left unable to justify the obvious. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry

226

highlights the attitudes towards racism by some or should I say many a decision makers.
However, these people have no idea what it truly feels like to experience racism first hand. At
points 6.22-6.23 we believe it summarises very well some of what we are trying to convey:

THE STEPHEN LAWRENCE INQUIRY:

6.22 What may be termed collective organisational failure of this kind has come to be

labelled by academics and others as institutional racism. This is by no means a new

term or concept. In 1967 two black activists, Stokely Carmichael and Charles V
Hamilton stated that institutional racism "originates in the operation of established
and respected forces in the society. It relies on the active and pervasive operation of
anti-black attitudes and practices. A sense of superior group position prevails: whites
are 'better' than blacks and therefore blacks should be subordinated to whites. This is
a racist attitude and it permeates society on both the individual and institutional level,
covertly or overtly". (Black Power: the Politics of Liberation in America, Penguin
Books, 1967, pp 20-21).

6.23 Reference to a concept described in a different national and social context over
30 years ago has its dangers; but that concept has been continuously debated and
revised since 1968. History shows that "covert" insidious racism is more difficult to
detect. Institutions such as Police Services can operate in a racist way without at once
recognising their racism

The Royal Borough of Greenwich and all the other rogues named in this book are also complicit
in the racism prejudice and discrimination that we experienced. As said above, we do not want
the issues in the book to be side-lined or to alienate anyone who have suffered injustice at the
hands of this system. This book is not about race, however the racism, prejudice and

227

discrimination forms part of the injustice we have experienced. We as parents are against all
forms of racism prejudice discrimination and hate. Let us not be misinterpreted, this is about
four innocent children who were kidnapped by the metropolitan police and The Royal borough
of Greenwich Social Services. The purpose of this book is to continue the fight for the return of
our children and hopefully put an end to innocent children and families being persecuted in this
manner by the Secret Family Courts, which in our opinion is not fit for purpose!

228

Intentionally blank

229

Intentionally blank

230

Chapter 8
Police (CAIT)
Kidnap by Police

Artwork by Albina Kumirova

"A good police force is one that catches more crooks than it
employs"

Sir Robert Mark (Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police 1972-1977)

The conduct of the police throughout this entire ordeal has been disgraceful to say the least.
Now before we start outlining their deplorable and callous conduct, we believe we should point
out that we are in no way anti-police or anything of the sort. Simply put we have been treated
horribly by the police and thats us been as modest as we possibly can be. The incompetence of
the officers and their superiors in our situation is scandalous and just beggars belief. It is clear by
our experience and their actions that there is a failure of monumental proportions to hold rogue
officers accountable and on the contrary ever possible efforts appears to be readily deployed to
cover rogue officers wrongdoing.
When it comes to wrongdoing committed by officers against adults thats one thing, however
when it comes to rogues committing wrongdoing against innocent families and particularly
children thats another matter which should not be tolerated. The senior officers in this matter
are just as complicit if not more in the wrong doings committed against our family and our
children.

231

Below we will explain what we are talking about regarding the police absolute failure to hold
officers accountable for wrongdoing and the extent they will go in their efforts of trying to evade
taking responsibility. One thing is for sure they talk a good talk about taking action against
corruption and wrongdoing. But thats just it, talk! We could not make it up even if we tried.
Case in point! After the wrongs committed by the deceitful and rogue officers DC Cooper and
Dc Culliane regarding our family. We lodged three complaints against them on the 28 march
2013.

1. Complaint by Mrs Plowright against DC Cooper and Dc Cullianae

2. Complaint by Mr Plowright against DC Cooper and Dc Cullinae
3. Complaint by Mr Plowright regarding unreturned property.
Now the above complaints are regarding the long list of issues and unlawful actions
committed by these officers against our family. We also included questions about the actions
of their superior officers at the time DI Armstrong and DS Fisher. What then occurred is
the stuff of fiction novels and should be subject to its own book. It highlights police
incompetence and attempts at a cover-up on a scale we were not expecting. There are three
limbs to the issue:
1. The length of time it has taken to investigate the matter and offer an outcome to us.
2. Further deceit and mismanagement of the complaint
3. The dragging out of the issue without any regard for the impact on our children or us as
a family.

The length of time it has taken to investigate the matter and offer an outcome to us.
The complaint was made on the 28 march 2013 and until this day 2 December 2014 we have not
got so much as an outcome or any definitive date for any such outcome. Lets put this into
perspective. This is 1 year and 8 months since the lodging of the 3 complaints and 2 years 8
months since the original incident that is being complained of. There has been complex enquires
completed in less time. Case in point we read the judgement handed down in the Judicial Review
of Mark Duggan dated 14/10/2014, the man shot by Police in Tottenham. We are not getting
into the case of Mr Mark Duggan and could have used any other case; we are just highlighting
and putting into perspective for you the reader the despicable length of time it has taken the
police to deal with our complaint. Now according to the judgement the original inquest lasted
for less than 4 months with 93 witnesses with statements of a further 21 non-contentious
witnesses being read.

THE RT HON SIR BRIAN LEVESON in THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF
PAMELA DUGGAN) [2014] EWHC 3343 (Admin) outlines at para 6:
.The inquest lasted between 16 September 2013 and 9 January 2014, taking evidence
from 93 witnesses with statements of a further 21 non-contentious witnesses being

232

read.
The above mentioned inquest had to deal with significant volumes of information to which
our case cannot be compared, yet it lasted less than 4 months. Who are the Metropolitan
Police (MET) trying to fool here? When their officers come at you they are very quick at
proceeding matters to court without any hesitation. On the 29 March 2012 when Dc Cooper
and DC Cullinane came to Invicta primary school to kidnap our children they were hasty in
their wrong doing and deceitful acts. We asked them on the day what is the rush. They were
about to kidnap children from all that they have ever known and throw them into a horrible
system without any reason for doing so. Yet when it comes to addressing the wrong doing
committed by these incompetent deceitful rogues the MET has disgracefully dragged this
complaint out for what is now almost 2 years!!!
The Met is not a momma and poppa outfit, so ask yourself why it has taken the
Metropolitan police Service, over 1 year and 8 months to even offer a formal outcome or
definitive date when an outcome will be fourth coming to our 3 complaints? Their actions
in delaying responding to our complaints are horrendous and contemptible to put it nicely.
It appears to be another of the endless tactics we have become accustom to. We have
recently been informed that the limitation act 1980 places restrictions on when certain
actions can be brought in regards to certain cases, and that we should be mindful of the
constant delays by the police in regards to handling our complaints.

Further deceit and mismanagement of our complaints

After submitting our complaints, the first thing the MET tried to do is dismiss them with the out
of time excuse. We proved we handed the complaints within the statutory 12 month period and
was then contacted by a PI Etheridge from the directorate of professional standards. This started
a chain of events of further deceit and mismanagement with the complaints being passed all over
the MET from DCI TO DCI without so much as an outcome in sight. Then over 1 year later PI
Etheridge asked us to have a meeting with one of the senior officer named in our complaint DI
Armstrong. This was clearly against the police reform act 2002 amongst other statutes and
procedures, however did these officers care about breaking the law, in their effort to contain the
matter and cover up their wrongdoing, it appears nothing is off limits. There are too much
wrong doing regarding the handling of the complaints to list, without going off into a whole
different chapter. Anyway, to add insult to injury we have been harassed and detain by police on
two further occasions since the lodging of our complaints, this has caused us great distress and
anguish. It appears Met officers were now in a campaign to try an discredit me and my wife. This
is very serious because had we not been filming the incident we believe it would have taken a
different complexion. We had a meeting booked with DI Armstrong on the 3/04/13 regarding
our complaints. However on the night of the 02/04/13 we were pulled over by two officers,
within close proximity of our home. We believe these officers were not random and believe they
were sent. The officers pulled us over and claimed he smelt marijuana, they then proceeded to
detain us under the misuse of drugs act 1971. They detained us, searched our car and both of us.
No marijuana was found! Now to cut a long story short, this is very serious, the attitude of the
officers that night was unspeakable but more importantly, if we were not recording and based on
our experience of the deceit and the lying nature of some officers we believe we would be in for

233

a different outcome. What are we getting at here? So by this time we know how corrupt some
officers can be and the simple fact is who would have believed our version of events had we not
been filming. No one believed us when we said our children were not abused and was very
happy at home and the entire dreadful situation including the so called allegations were created
by the schools. We could have been arrested for whatever reason and case dragged out for over a
year with marijuana magically appearing. You see even at the point of writing this section of the
book 02 December 2014 we have no criminal conviction, no drug issues, no mental health or
any issue whatsoever to offer the MET or any of the rogues justification for the catalogue of
unlawful actions committed against our family and we believe, in fact we are confident the action
of the officers in stopping and detaining us on the two occasions after our complaints were
submitted was an effort to try an tarnish us. Then the MET and others could have a record of
bad character and conviction against us. This is utterly despicable, it is not enough that the MET
had already kidnapped our children, maliciously persecuted our family, lied and deceived us
causing our children and our family untold distress in the process; it appears they were still
searching for a way to utterly discredit us. This level of intense cruelty is beyond comprehension.
To think some people go through their entire lives in England without ever being stopped or
encountering police, yet without any criminal records or history of criminal activity our family
has had more dealings with the police than a lot of career criminals and for what? We believe
the colour of our skin holds the answer. If not what else is it?

234

29th March 2012

The Police who attended Invicta Primary school on the day of 29th March 2012 were not your
usual uniformed officers these two are supposed to be specialist Detectives of the Child Abuse
Investigation Team (CAIT). Now, some would say, but there must have been a reason why a
specialist child abuse team were called to the school? Dont worry we will soon decipher that and
explain the true reason as to why these officers became involved. Some Police Officers have
been known for doing a lot of horrible things, such as lying, planting evidence, abusing position,
stealing even being known paedophiles however, the UK police are not known for kidnapping
children. Until now! Our case; the kidnap of children is the charge thats usually made regarding
Social Services by some parents. However on this occasion the Police are the ones who have
actually committed the offence of kidnap.
I, Mrs Plowright had been the first to encounter the professionals at the school; the two
detectives in question are DC Brett Cooper and DC Carla Cullinane. Instead of communicating
in a polite manner both officers were very rude and forceful, stating that they were able to speak
with my children without parental consent, he (DC Cooper) kept touting Section 47, however
Section 47 investigations do not apply to Police. I objected stating that I wanted to read this
Section 47 however; he replied that I should look it up on the internet! I was very
concerned about the behaviour of the two Detectives, and felt that they were not there to carry
out an impartial investigation. In any event, Mrs Corbett came into the room and DC Cooper,
DC Cullinane and Ms Marie Morris (Social Worker) followed her. My husband arrived shortly
afterwards and we had been waiting for some time, I followed some distance behind my husband
which lead to an outdoor cabin type building, upon entering I could see DC Cooper, DC
Cullinane and Ms Marie Morris all sitting around a table, we sat down. Thank fully my husband
had a recording device which he had placed on the table and as he put it on he obtained their
consent to record, we will quote some of the very important parts of the audio which clearly
prove that DC Cullinane, DC Cooper and Ms Marie Morris were all deceitful, dishonest rogues.
We will quote below;

DC Cooper- Erm, right OK. Were here today to see Avery. Shes made a disclosure to a
school teacher which Im investigating.
Right, reader, do you see here DC Cooper has stated that the alleged allegation concerns one
child he claims he will be required to speak with Avery. Now lets move on as to what follows.
Just to be clear father stated that he wished for someone independent to be present also
requesting a copy of Section 47.

DC Cooper-There is somebody independent. If Avery wanted somebody to sit with her I am

happy, you are quite welcome to have somebody to sit with her, somebody independent. If she
wants a school teacher, Im quite hoppy for a school teacher to sit with her. We made clear to
DC Cooper and the others that was not a decision for a child to make.

235

DC Cooper- Under the childrens Act I can speak to your daughter without you present as an
allegations been made. And thats what Ive done, OK.
Ms Marie Morris and DC Cullinane replies, when asked if they had spoken to Avery, and we
quote:

DC Cullinane-Yes.
Marie Morris- Yes, we have spoken to her.
Now readers, this deceitful, detective along with DC Cullinane and Ms Marie Morris, there was
clearly no reason for these individuals who claim to be professionals to lie about something they
had already done. However, as is now clear these rogues intentions were sinister. Their
belligerent behaviour appeared to also have been an attempt to gain a negative reaction, but
once again they failed in doing that. Further, Section 47 does not allow anyone to speak to your
child without parental consent; DC Cooper also lied about this too. This detective namely, DC
Brett Cooper failed to inform us of what the alleged allegation was and he arrested father as soon
as the recording device stopped recording.
Reader, have you noticed something? DC Cooper, explicitly stated he needed to speak to Avery,
who is our eldest daughter, now ask yourself, why speak to just one after all wasnt another
alleged allegation of abuse made? Ms Christine OConnor the then teaching Assistant claimed a
disclosure of abuse had been made by Beth about father on 28th March 2012, alleging and we
quote; She said sometimes dad bangs her face against the door This allegation was recorded in
the same referral Ms Corbett had made a day before CAIT arrived at the school, ask yourselves
why DC Cooper only stated he wanted to speak with Avery and not Beth? Further, it is alleged
that as well as Avery had been punched as well as Cassie, so why didnt DC Cooper state that he
had concerns for all three of our daughters? Well, as we have always stated there was never an
allegation made by any of our children, it was simply a reason to kidnap them and when you read
further into this chapter, you will find out why. As a Detective who specialises in a particular
field, you would expect a Detective to know their job and the procedures to be followed, like the
back of their hand, clearly, DC Cooper and DC Cullinane appear to be amateurs, it is very
surprising how they even managed to be CAIT detectives in the first place? Both Detectives
claimed to have our children subject of Police Protection Powers; however, this had been prior
to seeing the children which is not possible as the child/children MUST first be seen. Further,
how can a so called Detective attend an investigation without so much as a note book? Yes, you
read it right, during the court hearing in October 2012, DC Cooper admitted to not having his
note book. Ask yourselves how were they able to record what the child/children said? The line
of questions asked to the children, none of this was written, they just came to kidnap them and
then simply create everything after the fact. It was an ambush! We as parents, along with our
children were all unaware of what had been planned against us. During DC Coopers testimony at
Court he accepted fact that on 29th March 2012, he had called for backup prior to father even
attending the school, which is very suspicious, as though he had been expecting some kind of
reaction from father, as a result of this ambush however, DC Cooper failed, yet again to gain a
desired response and instead we have him deceiving us on record!

236

Another very strange occurrence is that DC Cooper and DC Cullinane violated and disregarded
the London Safeguarding Board Guidelines, which clearly states, under Initial
Assessment an Allegation of physical assault with no visible or only minor injury (other
than to a pre-or non-mobile child). The London Safeguarding Board is very clear and states
that an allegation of assault without injury on a mobile child does not require a joint investigation
namely CAIT, and consequently, the Police should never have been called to the school on 29th
March 2012. The referral made by Mrs Corbett would have only required a Social Worker to
attend to carry out an Initial Assessment. Every CAIT detective should be aware of the London
Safeguarding Board guidelines and during DC Coopers testimony on 30th October 2012. We
strongly believe the events that had taken place were planned and the aim was to ambush us
hence Mrs Corbetts actions, Ms Marie Morris and the two Detectives, which demonstrates they
clearly were sent to kidnap our four children.
My arrest, I, Mrs Plowright had been arrested outside of Invicta School by DC Cullinane who
had arrested me for alleged obstruction as she claimed that my 3 year old son Daniel was subject
to Police Protection, which is ludicrous, as she had not even seen my son. A detective/police
must see the child first, as you cannot place a child in police protection without first looking at
the child. My arrest was unlawful and so was my false imprisonment. My children should have
come home with their mother as no allegation had been made against mother; there was no
reason why my four children couldnt go home with me! To this day we as parents cannot
believe our children are still in care (now for over two and a half years!) because of these callous
detectives, who we firmly believe discriminated against us our children and us as a family have
suffered untold distress. The bail conditions imposed on me, (mother) are as follows:

Not to approach, communicate or interfere with prosecution witness, either directly or

indirectly, namely Avery, Beth, Cassie, Daniel PLOWRIGHT. To prevent the commission
of further offences and prevent any interference with witnesses. This condition will apply until
directed otherwise by Officer in case or Greenwich Social Services.
The fact that bail conditions were put in place which prevented me from getting my children
back, for a so-called obstruction that I was NEVER interviewed or questioned about is
completely, scandalous; however, it does demonstrate the complete cavalier attitude of both DC
Cooper and DC Cullinane and complete disregard for four young children. DC Cooper
deliberately and meticulously calculating had the bail conditions against me (mother) changed to
allow for supervised access on the 30th April 2012 which is a day after Averys 9th birthday, DC
Cooper ignored the requests to have them removed and as a result the bail conditions remained
until 1st June 2012 nearly three months for an alleged obstruction, which I had not
committed!
There used to be a time when bail conditions had been applied by a Court, however, now the
Police are given the power, this needs to stop as to prevent cases like this one, where the bail
conditions were deliberately placed to strip me of my parental rights, which should never happen
again. Fathers bail conditions were as follows:

Not to approach, communicate or interfere with prosecution witness, either directly or

indirectly, namely Avery, Beth, Cassie, Daniel PLOWRIGHT. To prevent the commission

237

of further offences and prevent any interference with witnesses. Not to go within 500 metres of
Invicta Primary School, Invicta road, SE3
When the police arrest someone and take them to the police station its usually to gather further
information in the form of further questioning, now below is an outline giving you the reader an
example of the usual steps that are taken when someone is arrested and taken to a police station.
Step 1. Caution-Arrest- Interrogation (Interview)
Please note: Not everyone is interviewed, as they may be held in custody (police station) for a

few hours or less and then released without further action being taken.
Then step 2. This does vary, depending on whether the Police require further investigation, or
whether the situation requires no more action, for example:

Caution (If accepted and signed by person) or

Release without charge= (NFA) No Further Action
(PND) Penalty Notice for Disorder which the individual agrees to pay at some point.
Release with Conditional bail, or
Release with Unconditional bail,
Charge and released (with or without Bail)
Charge and remanded into custody.

In mothers case, I was cautioned then arrested on (29th March 2012) and then detained/falsely
imprisoned unlawfully and held WITHOUT being interviewed and then released the
following evening (30th March 2012) after refusing to accept a caution, even though I was not
even interviewed. On (30th March 2012) I was released with conditional bail conditions, not to
interfere with prosecution witness, directly or indirectly As a result of DC Coopers malicious
actions, I was prevented and deprived of seeing my four children without any reason. Further
the entire process was malign and filled with malice and hate. What do we mean? You cant
arrest someone take them to the police station, fail to question that person for the reason you
arrested them however turn around and try to discharge the matter with a caution which was
re4fused then placed bail conditions on the person for the matter you did not question them
about in the first place. To clarify for some of our readers, Remember no allegations regarding
the children were made against mother and of such she was not questioned regarding the
children while she was at the police station or anytime their after by the police. She was neither
questioned for the matter of the so-called obstruction which is the excuse used to arrest her in
the first place. So ask yourself reader, how then did she have bail conditions imposed
restricting her from seeing her children when it is clear she did not form part of the
investigation? If she had formed part of the investigations then she would have been questioned
at the police station regarding the matter. So you see the Bail conditions were used as a wicked
means of denying mother access to her children. This was a cruel and inhumane act against
her and our entire families human rights and countless other legislations.
As outlined proper police procedures were not followed and instead these deceitful rogues
opted for a heavy handed and unlawful approach consequently causing severe distress to our

238

four children. This we believe is also one of the reasons our outcome to the police complaints
we have made is not forth coming. These rogues appear to rather this book being made public
before they act, so as to see if there is anything available in this book they could use as a spin.

We as parents already know that Police Protection in our case does not exist and it is clear
kidnap of four children by DC Cooper and DC Cullinane. When a child is taken into Police
Protection there is a mandatory form which needs to be filled out, this form forms part of the
police database which means once it had been filled out on to the system there will be a record,
the date time etc. In this form which is known as a Police Protection Authorisation Record. The
first part of the form which is in bold black ink states under section 2, No child should be

taken into police protection without first being seen, save in exceptional circumstances. Under
section 3 and 4 of the form it asks where police protection was taken out and the date and time
this occurred and where the child had been found. Section 8 states, Reason for believing child
was at risk of immediate significant harm (brief details only, full details to be entered in section
19). Section 17 asks for the comments and wishes of the child. The Detective will need to
record why the child has been placed into police protection, record any injuries, state where the
child was found, oh, and a separate form needs to be filled out for each child. In our case after
numerous requests, there has been no evidence of this form, why? Because DC Cooper or DC
Cullinane cant answer the questions contained in the form, and remain unable to state why it
was thought necessary to remove four children from their parents especially as no allegation
had been made against mother.
When a child under Police Protection, which has an upper limit of 72 hours, there needs to be
what is called a Child Protection Medical, which is mandatory as any injuries can be
examined and photographed which would form part of any evidence for any possible criminal
prosecution. In our case nothing of the sort happened, as there were no injuries on any of
our four children because, no abuse had taken place. The next procedure and what is expected
when a child is under Police Protection should be a Achieved Best Evidence Interview (ABE),
this is a video recorded interview of a child who has alleged some form of abuse, it is good
practice to carry out this interview within 72 hours. However, once again, in our case no ABE
had taken place within this time.
Reader, we believe it is important to state the serious decision making when it is thought
necessary to place a child under Emergency, Police Protection, which is made clear in, The

Duties and Powers of the Police under the children act Home Office Circular 017/2008 we
quote, paragraph 15 states; Police is an emergency power and should only be used when
necessary, the principle being that wherever possible the decision to remove a child/children
from a parent or carer should be made by a court. Paragraph 17 states; Save in exceptional
circumstances (e.g. where there is an imminent threat to the child/childrens welfare), no child
is to be taken into police protection until the initiating officer has seen the child and assessed
his/ her circumstances. In all cases the designated officer will ensure that the child has been
seen and assessed at the earliest opportunity by a police officer. So, you can now read here
where it states that Police Protection is a very, very serious action to take and that there needs to
be a threat of imminent risk to the child/children, where was the imminent risk been

239

established for each of our children in our case? As you read further you will gain a clearer
picture of why we have labelled DC Cooper and DC Cullinane as malicious and callous.
Just to be clear 72 hour Police Protection is an upper limit (Maximum limit) If the Police
are no longer concerned the child may return home, however whilst the child in under police
protection section 9 of the form states, Any issues/conditions about contact during term of
PPO (i.e. designated officers decisions made re visits by parents). Even if a child in under
Police Protection the parents can still have contact with their child unless there is good reason
why that is not possible. In our case we were unable to see our children. Section 10 of the form
requests the date and time of the expiry of Police Protection and right next to it there is a box
for the officer to sign. We stand firm in our case there is no police protection. When a child in
under police protection lets say hypothetically, a child is placed for the maximum time of 72
hours, however police still have concerns, or perhaps for some reason they were unable to
carryout a CP Medical or the ABE well the police can go to Court and apply for an Emergency
Protection Order (EPO), which lasts for 8 days. In our case DC Cooper nor DC Cullinane
or their superiors namely DS Sara Fisher or DI Justin Armstrong even bothered to apply to
the courts for this being aware that no ABE or CP medical had taken place and as a result
handed our children over to the Royal Borough of Greenwich Social Services Department, when
in law our children should have been given back to us parents, because no court order was put in
place, our children should have returned to us. However theres the situation of these inhumane
bail conditions placed on both of us by DC Cooper and DC Cullinane, which we believe had
been a devious, callous and calculating strategy to ensure our children could not be returned to
us. Further, to that adding salt to an already open wound DC Coopr and DC Cullinane had
made no attempt to remove the bail conditions even when we had made numerous attempts to
contact them at Marlowe House, Sidcup and after making numerous trips to Plumstead Police
Station to have officers email both detectives, even on 2nd April 2012 I, Mrs Plowright wrote a
letter stating that need for the bail conditions be removed as this was preventing me from seeing
my four children, I had managed to get the officer at Plumpstead police station to stamp the
letter as proof. We as parents also emailed, hand delivered and sent via post letters in the form of
a Notice dated 12th April 2012, requesting the bail conditions be removed to allow for contact
with our children. However, instead of both detectives stopping to consider the impact this
would be having on our children, DC Cooper and DC Cullinane failed to answer or acknowledge
this.

What role did DS Sara Fisher and DI Justin Armstrong play?

In our case it has been alleged that a Strategy Discussion had taken place on the 29 th March 2012,
however we believe it is possible it had taken place on 28th March. Now during a strategy
discussion this can involve Police (CAIT), the local authority and anyone else concerning the
children/child. At this discussion it is decided whether a joint agency will be required or not,
when we say joint we mean between the Social Services (LA) and Police (CAIT). In our case it
was revealed later on that a Detective Sergeant namely DS Fisher had been present at the
strategy discussion, it is ultimately the Detectives Sergeants decision whether the matter should
be a joint investigation. DC Cooper claimed that he had been unaware why he would need to
attend the school on the day of 29th March 2012 and that DS Fisher would know as she had been

240

present at this discussion which he claimed he was not a party to. Now, DC Cooper also claimed
that it would have been DS Fishers decision as to whether CP Medicals on the children should
take place. As for Detective Inspector Justin Armstrong, DC Cooper claimed that it is DI
Armstrong decision whether to apply to the court for an EPO. My (mothers) then, family
Solicitor, namely Ms Dzifa Gan, sent a strong letter to DC Cooper which was ccd to DS Sara
Fisher, demanding the bail conditions against me removed as there was no allegation made
against me, also raising concerns with regards to my Article 6 and 8 human rights, dated the
17th April. However, DC Cooper, nor DS Fisher failed to respond and the bail conditions
remained without any thought or consideration for our children. The fact that DC Cooper and
DC Cullinane clearly show no respect for the law, it is no surprise because the manner with
which the two senior staff have conducted themselves, is a clear disgrace and to think these
individuals are charged with protecting the most vulnerable children, their job is a very serious
one and not for the feint hearted, which is why you would expect the utmost professional
conduct, but instead all we have experienced is utter incompetence, malicious behaviour
unprofessionalism and deceit! How could DS Fisher and DI Armstrong have messed this up so
badly?
13/04/12- I, Mrs Plowright received a telephone call from DC Cooper, stating his intentions to
carry out an ABE interview on my children, I immediately objected to such a thing and
demanded to removal of my bail conditions and the return of my children, I had also stated that
the so called Police Protection had expired. DC Cooper claimed that when the ABEs are
carried out he would amend my bail conditions to allow Supervised access I objected further.
Then on 16/04/12- Unknown to us as parents at the time and without no lawful authority, our
children had been taken to another ABE interview, this one had taken place the same day our
girls had been returned to Invicta Primary school after the Easter Holidays, regardless of our
clear objections not to have them returned to the same school where the kidnap and false,
created allegations were born. Further, prior to both ABEs which we have evidence, there is
clear contamination due to Ms Mc Donald constant questioning and probing, coursing and
putting words into our childrens mouths hence, the alleged allegations morphing from punch to
slap with belt, hit with remote even abuse from mother! The ABEs should have never taken
place; it was not fit for purpose as the actions taken were contrary to the ABE Guidelines.
In 2013, long after firing the family lawyers in our case, Mr Plowright had found evidence of an
ABE dated 13th April 2012, on a document titled, Interviewing Witness in accordance with
Achieving Best Evidence, which indicated Ms Alison Mc Donald (Second Social Worker) had
been present at 12:30 at Marlowe House, the same document has been dated electronically and
hand written as 13/04/12. We were shocked by this as a comment made by Avery, where it
recorded her asking a question and we quote, Will I be going home after this? All the time
throughout the entire time our children were held against their will, and continually told by Ms
Mc Donald and other professionals that our children do not want to come home, the
comment made by Avery on 13th April 2012, completely contradicts these assertions as she is
asking if she will be going home. This clearly demonstrates to us as parents a child that is
desperate to go home and we believe, it is a question that is asked indicating there appears to
have been some kind of deal/promise that if she (Avery) complies with the ABE then she will be
able to go home. Oh and it gets worse! Just recently we have come across another two

241

documents, with regards to Averys ABE interviews, one clearly states that the duration of the
interview dated 16th April 2012, commenced at 14:20 and concluded at 14:50 which is a total
of 30 minutes, the other interview with no date commenced at 15:10 concluding at 16:05
which is 55 minutes!!! Now, this is no mistake, this is proof that it was thought necessary to
interview our children not once but twice, ask yourselves why? Why would DC Cooper a
detective feel the need to interview a child without lawful authority nearly three weeks after
being kidnapped? DC Cooper is what we firmly believe to be a very callous individual with no
regard for the law, he has taken his role of CAIT detective and a member of the Metropolitan
Police for granted, it is a complete abuse of powers, he abused his position, completely set on
prosecuting Mr Plowright, when it is evident that no abuse had even taken place. Readers, ask
yourselves, why would a serving Police Officer need to interview a child more than once? What
was wrong with the first interview? Why did the other interview take close to an hour? The
pressure applied to our children to lie and repeat what these rogues had told them whilst being
falsely imprisoned is completely disturbing and the one individual who was charged with the
responsibility to listen to the wishes and feelings of the children (social worker) failed. The
ABEs show further evidence of being coursed as in one ABE it states that Avery could not
show where she had been punched, however on the other ABE it states that she had been
punched on the xxx side of her face after DC Cooper suggests cheek, the interview we had
watched, was incredibly bad and grossly misleading.
15/10/12- We had been given information from a very reliable source that links DC Cooper and
Mr Ken Palmer, how? Well they are ex colleagues; Mr Ken Palmer was a former CAIT detective.
That news highlighted a lot to us and revealed why DC Cooper and DC Cullinane conducted
themselves in such a belligerent and dismissive manner on the day of 29th March 2012. Let us
remind you the reader, Mr Ken Palmer, he is the individual who had been contacted by Mr
Baker, headteacher of Charlton Manor back in 2011 after our children had been removed from
the school by us. Now, Mr Baker managed to instruct Mr Palmer to get a Fair Access Panel
opened and had a discussion between to Mr Steve Myles (who was Ms Rs Manager) and
concluded that Mr Plowright was paranoid consequently, Mr Myles had Ms Rs re-open the
case against us even when there were no concerns. To cut a long story short due to Mr Ken
Palmers influence and his key role as Safeguarding Co-ordinator in the Royal Borough of
Greenwich, he was in part responsible for instructing Invicta to monitor our family. Now,
readers you can see why DC Cooper and DC Cullinane conducted themselves the way they had,
also, it is not surprise why the bail conditions we left on us as parents, so you see? Mr Ken
Palmer used to be part of the CAIT team, need we say anymore?
17TH October- DC Coopers statement, well readers when we were sent this to read via email by
our then Solicitor, namely, Ms Stella Sweetman, we were taken aback! Keep in mind we as
parents were hit by alleged allegations that our home was in a state and our children
neglected copious amounts of adult pornography, however, DC Cooper did not fail to
contradict everything that had been said in regards to the condition of our family home. We
must make clear, based on the fact that he did not bother to use a note book, this statement was
based on memory and we quote, Upstairs there were 2 bedrooms and a bathroom, the
bedroom to the front of the house.. Now readers, this is completely incorrect, we live in a 3
bedroom Maisonette, this is why it is so important to take notes! I walked out into the kitchen

242

which was off the hallway, the kitchen was clean and tidy, on the wall there were pictures that
the children had drawn and other paper relating to the children. He continues to state, At
the time of going to the address there were no concerns about the state of the house and
therefore no notes were made on the condition or any photographs taken. We as parents
know as part of any Child Protection, one that includes CAIT and taking a child/children into
Police Protection it is known practice to take photos and notes recording the condition of the
home with which the children reside, we believe there was no existence of any Police Protection,
further if he had taken photographs it would completely rubbish everything the local authority,
namely Ms Mc Donald and some of the staff at Invicta, namely, what they had been alleging
about the conditions our children sleep. Do you know how disturbing and distressing it was for
us as parents to be accused of exposing our children to adult pornography? and that these had
been found in our home and then upon a Detective searching our home no evidence of this
had been recorded, all they serve to do is to destroy families and cause severe trauma!
30th October 2012, Gee street Family Court, testimony of DC Cooper
So much had been revealed by DC Cooper whilst he was being cross examined which is
something he should be used to particularly as a CAIT detective as part of their job involves
attending Court and giving evidence. Now, DC Cooper proved just as incompetent in his role of
an officer and proved to be worse at being able to tell the truth! When questioned by the
Barrister for the LA, namely, Ms Cleo Perry, DC Cooper is caught out lying and we quote, we

went to speak to Avery, she was in a separate pert of the school. I think Beth was with the
teacher, we spoke to all girls first. I dont recall the length of time it took to speak to kids.
Then Ms Perry asks DC Cooper to, Take a look at H27 she is referring to a document, and
upon realising DC Cooper replies, Sorry the children could not be spoken to as a group-sorry.
We were taken to another room. I did not speak to them together or separately. Readers,
because the Family Courts are held in Secret as you know, these things always happen Ms Perry
clearly leads DC Cooper into changing his initial answer, then upon her request to refer to a
document (H27) Dc Cooper changes what he first said.
During the questioning from our Barrister, Mr Towmey, it has been put to DC Cooper why he
had deceived us as parents? When he had stated he had not spoken to the children then revealing
that he had, however DC Coopers reply, I cant recall. Well, we know it cant be easy being
caught out in a lie, especially when you are the one claiming to be a professional. DC Cooper had
stated that this had been his first experience witnessing parents using a recording device.
Readers, our advice to combat these rogues, record them, via audio, or video, even both! We
know and we can see it all over the internet there are some very callous Police Officers out there!
If we had not had that recording device, well, you readers could guess the lies they would have
told. When DC Cooper had been questioned with regards to the day he attended the school on
29th March 2012 and had spoken to our children without consent, did you know that this was in
fact an interview? Not an ABE, because he had claimed to be investigating that means you
would have to carry out an interview from the alleged victim and witnesses. This interview had
taken place against our will and without consent; the interview involved Ms Marie Morris, Ms
Webber, DC Cullinane, DC Cooper and our three girls. With regards to the London
Safeguarding Board, and due to the so called referral, the matter was not and did not require a

243

Section 47 investigation. DC Coopers response, If it was an interview- it wasnt. At no time did

I know what was said to Carla. We know why he has and continues to be deceitful because
there was no reason or basis for why four children were taken from their parents. When it was
put to DC Cooper why he had not conducted the ABE over the weekend within the 72 hour
time frame, DC Cooper replied, Pressure from work and holiday DC Cooper had been on
holiday and claimed the pressures of work had been the reason why the ABE was not carried out
at the time, however, how can pressures from work affect a holiday? DC Cooper was also asked
why he had departed from the guidelines and put all our children into care? DC Cooper
answered, I cant be one hundred percent sure. We sat there shocked and sickened at the
same time, for a Detective to rip away four young children all under the age of ten and to merely
state, I cant be sure! Disgusting, but we as parents believe they have all planned this together,
they meant for our children to be kidnapped on the day of 29th March 2012, DC Cooper is
complicit along with his ex-colleague Mr Ken Palmer. He had also been questioned with regards
to his constant leading questions with regards to the ABE, now reader; the initial alleged
allegation of punch is a complete fallacy. When DC Cooper had asked Avery if she had cried
after being punched, she answers no. DC Cooper instead of asking why, DC Cooper replied,
I didnt ask, dont remember. He simply moves on to the next line of questioning.
DC Cooper when asked stated that he is aware of the London Safeguarding Board and when
it was put to him that the referral did not warrant a Section 47 investigation, he was asked by
Mr Towmey, Why section 47? No physical injuries, child is mobile? DC Cooper sat there
completely silent, then said Sorry I cant answer that. Many of DC Coopers answers were
given responses of I cant recall or I cant remember you know the rogues manoeuvres,
when they are uncomfortable about answering a specific question in court, its nothing new! Dc
Cooper had been asked if he carries a pocket note book, he stated On that day I did not use it
on that day at school. Readers, this is an officer of the Police Force, so incompetent he didnt
even use a note book? Astonishing! One thing us as parents could not understand is why DC
Cooper stated that he had arrested mother for the alleged obstruction and claimed that DC
Cullinane had arrested father for the alleged assault? This is a lie as DC Cullinane arrested
mother and DC Cooper had arrested father without cautioning him! Now, we still do not know
why DC Cooper had lied about who arrested who and we know as parents and having
experienced rogues and dishonest professionals that they are always telling fallacies for a
reason. Readers, if you can think as to why this is so, would you let us know? DC Cooper also
stated the reason why mother was not interview had been because uniformed officers were
supposed to do it. He also stated that in regards to the bail conditions, it was the Sergeant who
could deal with that. DC Cooper when asked about why the Police namely, DI Armstrong who
was the Designated Officer why he did not apply to the court for an EPO? DC Cooper said he

cant answer for DI Armstrong.

2014- What we found very bizarre with regards to DC Coopers investigation is that he failed
to interview the alleged witnesses namely, Ms Webber and Ms OConnor, why? Ms Webber
already accepted that she did not give her account of what had happen in front of Police, but
that her statement was merely, sent to her to sign! That is exactly why on Ms Webbers
statement states the alleged allegation of punch had been made to her on 29th March and not
the 28th of March 2012 as she had stated, in the referral. We believe DC Cooper intentionally

244

sent Ms Webber this statement, because he intended to deceive the Criminal Court because
essentially this it was submitted into evidence as a witness statement and as to not cause the Jury
any doubt and gain a conviction against father, he simply made it seem as though the alleged
allegation had been made on the same day as the Police and Social Services were called to
the school. This is evidence of deception and the fact that Ms Webber had been willing to go
along with it proves how corrupt, callous and calculating these individuals really are!
ABE- In our case, under no circumstances should this have taken place and without any
court order, parental consent is required! What DC Cooper had done by carrying out not one
but two ABEs is deviously wicked and subversive. On the document, in relation to the ABE it
states and we quote, Use this section to note any issues relating to the question of consent: (e.g.
any conflict between witness and parent/guardian) This part of the document had deliberately
been left blank as DC Cooper had been aware that issues were present but in any event he
proved himself to be the rogue we believe him to be and proceeded to conduct the ABEs
without lawful authority and above all parental consent. Did you know readers, based on the
ABE Guidelines, no interview should take place when the child is unwilling or distressed?
Yes, the fact that our children had not seen us, and were not told what had happened to us and
given no information as to when they would be seeing us, the interviews should never have
happened, as not even the then Social Worker Ms Mc Donald who had been present at both
ABEs could have consented to our children taking part in such a thing. We feel it vital to
demonstrate and prove to you readers exactly how callous these professionals in our case who
call themselves CAIT detectives really are and no better way than the ABE interviews
themselves, first, we will begin with Averys ABE. We will make it known that although we will
be quoting from these documents, we do not accept these unlawful ABEs it is merely to
demonstrate the nature of rogues and just to make you aware, just in case you, or your family
come into contact with them-God forbid!
No child can be interrogated without parental consent, if detectives or anyone needs to
question a child without parental consent must obtain a court order. Now, the obvious reason
for this is so that adequate checks and balances exist and to avoid injustices such as the likes we
have experienced. By going to court to obtain an order they would have to fill out the forms
stating the reasons they intend to obtain and validate the intrusion in the familys life and exactly
what they hope to achieve by questioning someones child. Children are very vulnerable and can
be coerced. Officers are not allowed to question children without appropriate safeguards.
The law is the law and they exist for a reason. Parents and members of the public have rights
enshrined in law. These officers or rogue professional would not tolerate anyone interrogating
their children without consent. Even the family procedure rules makes clear that no one
may caused a child to be assessed without leave of the court as outlined below:
Expert evidenceexamination of child
4.18 (1) No person may, without the leave of the court, cause the child to be medically
or psychiatrically examined, or otherwise assessed, for the purpose of the preparation of
expert evidence for use in the proceedings.
(2) An application for leave under paragraph (1) shall, unless the court otherwise
directs, be served on all parties to the proceedings and on the guardian ad litem.

245

(3) Where the leave of the court has not been given under paragraph (1), no evidence
arising out of an examination or assessment to which that paragraph applies may be
adduced without the leave of the court.

DC Coper and is band of incompetents disregarded the above and countless other statues and
proceeded to torture and place our daughters in a horrendous situation. After kidnapping our
children and falsely imprisoning 29th March 2012, they decided to conduct unlawful ABES on
13th and the 16th April 2012. They had no lawful authority to conduct the first ABE, yet they
proceeded to conduct another. We see that as a deliberate attempt at coercing our children. Any
true child protection expert or human rights Lawyer knows that this is scandalous. What we
want to highlight is that from the moment they kidnapped our children at the school on the 29 th
March 2012 we never saw them until months later, and it is during this time when they denied
our children from see us that they conducted these unlawful interrogation. You wouldnt treat an
animal in the manner they treated our children. To deny them of seeing their parents, and then
thought it prudent to interrogate them. The entire time has been torturous for us we cant find
the words to even explain what it must be like for our children. As parents we feel it necessary to
state that although our daughters ABEs were an interrogation on three young children all
under the age of 10, we would like to make known that Averys ABE one of which for nearly 1
hour is absolute mental torture inflicted on a child, that being said, not even most adults can
handle being interrogated by the Police for two minutes let alone an hour! DC Cooper is what
we believe to be not only a deceitful but also a callous individual. We believe he is a wicked
human being to pressure a child not an adult, a child with two ABEs.
This is against even the basic moral and ethical standards that exist and is also
completely unlawful and against countless statutes and regulations.
The type of undue stress and emotional harm he has caused is possibly irreversible, and one
which no child should endure. Avery, you are so strong, we are proud of you and the same
goes for Beth and Cassie and Daniel.
Averys unlawfully conducted ABE with DC Cooper
Just to make you aware, this is the 30minute ABE.
DC Cooper- Now Ive come to see you, didnt I at school and we sat down with my
colleague? Can you remember? And we spoke to you about what had been happening at
home.
Then our daughter states our home address as, 20, 7th floor The Gardens and then in response
to being questioned about the alleged incident and when this had occurred Avery states, that she
couldnt remember what time it was and states, after being punched on the right side, with fist
and hand together, then her alleged reaction to being punched, No I didnt cry. DC Cooper
fails to ask why. However, we are aware that there was never an allegation to begin with and
as a result DC Cooper appears to be aware hence, proceeding regardless. Also, it had been
alleged at Invicta on 29th March 2012 by Mrs Corbett, stated that Avery is made to watch saucy
movies why was Avery not questioned about this during the ABE? Why have I, Mrs Plowright

246

been interrogated about this? Why didnt DC Cooper get a statement from Mrs Corbett? After
all wouldnt she have been a witness Again the fallacies, lies and slanderous accusations, keep
on coming!
The other interview dated 13/04/12, below, which was carried out for a total of 55 minutes
states and we quote:
When DC Cooper asks for Avery to confirm her address she states: 27 Falmer Gardens which
is different to the one above. However, when we had watched the ABE (without date stamp)
with our criminal lawyers, A failed to indication of where she had been punched and could not
show how a hand would appear.

Beths unlawfully conducted ABE with Officer Tory

This interview was dated 16/04/12 commenced 15:10 and the time concluded was left
blank and the duration 41 minutes.
PO Tory- Its all very cryptic this isnt it? Youve got to describe it in as fine detail as you
possibly can. As really, really, as good as you can yeah? Here PO Tory, is beginning in a certain
tone implying to the child that something sinister had occurred, further how is a child to know
what she means by cryptic?
During the interview Beth states when asked where she is living, that she is currently living at
home with mum and dad this is very clear that or daughter is trying to cope, stating that she is
at home with her parents is what she has known all her life prior to the kidnap. Beth states she is
living at home even three weeks after being kidnapped, perhaps in a state of shock.
With regards to the use of implements it becomes more confusing to Beth as she is aware as with
Avery and Cassie that she has been told to lie this is demonstrated below.
B- Um, my back, um and he has a wire and then he smacks it on my hand like a cane. I
dont know if he does that or not. Clearly, Beth is very confused, having to give false accounts
of events that did not occur and to be encouraged by rouges intent on using these as evidence
against our family in an attempt to destroy and consequently imprison father for abuse. The fact
that Beth used the word cane, when she is not aware of what it is as it appears to be a term used
back in old England is completely absurd.
When Beth is clearly uncomfortable, whilst being interrogated aware she needs to tell these
professionals what they want to ear, she says choke and then she continues; No, no no he
didnt choke us. It further confirmed that during the three weeks prior to the ABEs taking
place the social worker namely, Ms Alison Mc Donald, had interrogated in an inappropriate
manner on more than six occasions with our children without being trained, without lawful
authority, hence the so called allegations morphing as a result hearing the word choke is
actually no surprise being born from a rogue and an incompetent social worker who should not
be anywhere near children-period!

247

During the interview PO Tory leaves Beth inside the room to find out if theres any questions
she has missed. Readers just to let you know during the interview PO Troy made clear that Ms
Alison Mc Donald had been listening and watch in the room next door. Just read below what
question PO Tory asks Beth when she comes back and bear in mind it was Ms Mc Donald who
had claimed that we as parents have pornography and in her statement stated our home did not
appear child friendly-she has never been to our home!
PO Tory- Do mummy and daddy have any toys?
B- No.
PO Tory- Do you ever play with any of their things?
B- No.
PO Tory- What films do mummy and daddy watch?
Let us remind you what Ms Mc Donald had accused us parents of in her statement dated
19/04/12 and we quote: ..copious amounts of pornographic material: toys and films.
This above accusation is a machination of what goes on in the mind of social worker Ms Alison
Mc Donald. How do we know this? Ms Mc Donald has never set foot in our home but that
didnt stop her from having our 7 year old daughter being interrogated about something she
knew nothing about and for a child of that age to be asked such a thing is absolutely disgusting.

Cassies unlawfully conducted ABE with PO Keeley

This document is dated 16/04/12 and lasts for 35 minutes and does not indicate when
the interview commenced or concluded.
PO Keeley- The date is 16th April?
C- Er no. Readers, here our daughter clearly states that 16th April is the incorrect date, but lets
move on.
PO Keeley- Now before we went into this room today me and you had a chat, didnt we
outside?
C- Yeah
PO Keeley- And you talked about your mum and dad to me and you said that your mum
and dad make you face the wall.
C- No
PO Keeley- No, you said that you and your sister look after them but they dont look after
you?
C- I didnt said that.

248

This ABE continues with an array of leading questions at one point Officer Keeley manages to
have the room already prepared, as there is a pen and paper on the table for Cassie to draw a
belt, which was an implement alleged to have formed part of the abuse Officer Keeley also
asks Cassie to sign her name on this drawing ready to use as evidence. Further, when officer
Keeley asks when Cassie was last hit with a belt by father, Cassie states last week however, that
date would have been 9th April 2012 whilst they were falsely imprisoned by the LA and could
never have happened, however, officer Keeley continues.
There are signs and things children say to know a lot of probing and coercing has taking place
here is an example, from Cassie, Yes but we actually um sometimes Beth squabbles.. This is
not a word our children use, they will say argue or state that its not fair but never have they used
the term squabbles?
PO Keeley- Right and have you ever told mum that dad hits you with the belt?
The answer which we believe had been repeated to Cassie is completely disgusting and we quote:
Because dad sais, if you tell mum you hit me with the if- you I hit you with the belt
youre going to be in big trouble.
This, we found incredibly, chilling making it appear as though father had threatened his own
children, further readers have you noticed Cassie appears confused, as though she is struggling to
remember what had been told to her to repeat, then she is trying to manage to regurgitate what
was told to her.
What is very interesting is when officer Keeley asks Cassie if father had done something bad
to Avery? Then Cassie gives a very interesting answer, stating that father makes her do spellings
and homework nothing about any punch or physical abuse. Further, during the interview officer
Keeley leaves the room to go next door where DC Cooper is listening and watching, so ask
yourselves why DC Cooper didnt ask Officer Keeley to question Cassie regarding the abuse in
the form of punch?
The second unlawfully conducted ABE states commencement at 14:50 and concluded
15:25 lasting 38 minutes, whereas the other stated 35 minutes!
PO Keeley- What was it like living at home, when you were living there with mum and dad?
C- Boring. We dont do anything at all, just reading and writing. Reader, what happened to
this alleged physical abuse? No allegation of being punched or a witness to Avery being punched.
When reading the ABE and other documents it appears very clear as though someone intention
has been for us as parents to be aware of what and who is at work, now here is an example and
try to figure out who had previously said this in relation to father.
C- We said dad is not a very nice man. Now, readers did you guess? Well lets clear this up for
you, wasnt it a telephone conversation between Mr Steve Myles and Mr Ken Palmer who
suggested that Mr Plowright was not a very nice man an assumption made about father
without first, knowing who he is.

249

So, you can see the constant probing and the repetitive, forceful nature of these rogues, even
when a child answers no, they persist hopefully gaining the right response, and they will stop at
nothing. As you can read, all of these ABE interviews are grossly misleading and clearly
demonstrate no regard for the children, taking advantage of them and callously using that
vulnerability and innocence for their own ends.
5/03/13- During the time where fathers criminal Solicitor, namely, Ms Mercuris- Taylor, we had
been informed that DC Cooper brought it upon himself to personally deliver the ABE videos,
now we found this very strange as the ABEs could have been delivered or even couriered to Mr
Plowrights Solicitor. However, a corrupt case requires corrupt actions!

DC Cullinane
Now, this individual is also complicit in the kidnap of our children, she worked with DC Cooper
on the day of 29th March 2012. On that day she presented as belligerent, callous and very
dismissive, again, like DC Cooper, she did not follow procedure or followed the London
Safeguarding Board. DC Cullinane has also demonstrated her complete disregard to the
practice of placing a child into Police Protection, she has also misused Section 47, with all the
above mentioned, DC Culinane is absolutely incompetent.
DC Cullinane statement dated 2/10/12, now this had been a very strange document as we will
explain more. DC Cullinane stated that; Averys teacher took me, DC Cooper and the social

worker to see the children. I spoke to Avery who informed me that her father had hit her.
DC Cullinane contradicts herself in her own statement stating, DC Cooper was in an adjacent
room making a phone call. What we are wondering is whether DC Cooper has another
profession, that being a magician? Because only they can magically appear in two places at once!
Further, DC Cullinane has stated that she went to see the children, not Avery, but all three girls.
DC Cullinane states, I informed DC Cooper of the disclosure and it was decided that the
children needed to be taken into police protection. Then another contradiction follows and
another reason as to why our children need to be placed into police protection and we quote;

When Mr Plowright arrived he was very agitated and argumentative. He had an audio
recorder and recorded the whole conversation. Due to his behaviour, his children were going
to be taken into police protection and he was going to be arrested Right, so which one is it
DC Cullinane? You have previously stated that the children needed to be placed into police
protection because of the disclosure however, DC Cullinane has also stated it is because or
Mr Plowrights behaviour. Our children should have never been taken into police protection
based on fallacies and the fact that we had a recording device proved that Mr Plowright was in
no way aggressive and agitated as DC Cullinane had stated. DC Cullinane had made the
same effort or should we say assumption as DC Cooper by calling for backup and we quote, I

decided to call up for a uniform unit to be on standby and assist should the situation become
out of control. However, DC Cooper had already called for backup prior to father attending the
school, this is evidenced by the fact that these two detectives were anticipating Mr Plowright to

250

become violent, but this was all a waste of time and resources. DC Cullinane comcludes her
statement by alleging that she had arrested Mr Plowright for common assult, when in fact she
had arrested, mother for the alleged obstruction. We do not comprehend as to why it has been
thought necessary to lie regarding which detective had arrested which parent.

30th October 2012 Cross examination at Gee Street Family Court

As was expected as with DC Cooper she had stated in response to certain questions that she
cant remember very convenient as she too had failed to record notes of what questions our
children had been asked at the school. DC Cullinane had attended the hearing, claiming to have
been asked for the notes she is alleged to have taken a day before the hearing, namely, and we
quote, Last night at 20:45. DC Cullinane presented scrappy pieces of paper she alleged were
hand written notes of what had taken place on 29th March 2012 but these were far from notes
and merely hand scribbles and doodling as if she were bored, it was actually quite amateur and
unprofessional ( tantamount to just a piece of paper with nothing of significance on it).
DC Cullinane stated, It was ripped out of my note book. Its inappropriate to use a note book.

I dont date stamp my note book.

Readers, why is it inappropriate for a detective to use a note book? Yes because as we have
stated again and again there was nothing to write, no allegation made, hence no need for notes,
further there is no record of the questions asked to our children and no record of the answers,
this is not only haphazard but deliberate and the fact that she had stated that notes are not date
stamped- who is she fooling? Police carry note books for a particular reason, dates and times are
required!
When DC Cullinane had been questioned with regards to the London Safeguarding Board, she
replied:

It was section 47. Not aware of London Safeguarding Board...

How is this even possible, a child abuse detective is not aware of the basics, then how can you
conflict by stating that it was a section 47 investigation? Thats like a Mechanic removing the
engine from a car and then attempting to drive it! It wont work!!! A CAIT detective cannot
initiate a section 47 investigation and be unaware of the guidelines, utter and complete madness.
It gets worse! During DC Cullinanes testimony, she revealed that we, the Plowrights were her
first case, perhaps a quote from what is an incompetent rogue will suffice, I just started child
protection I was only on case 29th March 2012. On the day we worked together she also
stipulated that DC Cooper had taken the lead during the investigation. This revealed a lot
for us and confirmed why she had no clue as to what she had been doing; were not too sure
what DC Coopers excuse is. Also, DC Cullinane had made clear that she had previously worked
in Domestic Violence. When asked who arrested dad? DC Cullinane couldnt remember what
response dad may have given after being cautioned and also even though she claims not to have
arrested mother, states after Mrs Plowright, was cautioned that I had reacted by being quiet.
Further, if we were to go with DC Cullinanes claim (theoretically, speaking) that she had arrested

251

father for the alleged assault, why then, did she then not arrest father for obstruction? DC
Cullinanes reply will probably shock you, Hed already been arrested. Did you get that
readers, DC Cullinane, a detective has stated her reason for not arresting father for obstruction
is because he had already been arrested now, lets pause for a moment, there are countless
people out there who have been arrested by police for more than one offence, hence the reason
why people can be charge for multiple even several offences. The fact that DC Cullinane had
said this in court is not only an disgrace to her profession but clearly exposes the secret family
court for what it is, these rogues can say anything an it is all accepted. How can a detective say
such a thing? Right, so if a Doctor said, has a patient and that person suddenly goes into cardiac
arrest (heart attack), and the Doctor doesnt attempt to resuscitate because the patient had a
cardiac arrest and had been resuscitated just a week before, is that reason enough to leave him to
die? Complete and utter nonsense! The other concerning part of the testimony was DC
Cullinanes reply as to why our children could not go home with mother and whether she had
given any thought as to police protection powers? She responded, No, not when she said dad
keeps punching in the face. This was a ridiculous answer, and demonstrates why such
disregard as to the childrens wishes and feelings were so evident. When she had been questioned
with regards to seeing no evidence corroborating from a punch such as a bruise, DC Cullinane
merely blames it on, Mothers demeanour. Reader, it is absurd to take not one but three
children into police protection from school because of mothers demeanour. When it was
asked whether there had been any discussion with the social worker to take the children into
Police Protection, DC Cullinane replied, Yes. It was the decision to take kids into Police
Protection. To put it into perspective, there was a clear motive to take our children, simply put
there was an order and DC Cullinane and her colleague we fulfilling that demand.
What we found very strange is the fact that DC Cullinane had mentioned Charlton Manor,
which was the previous school where our familys problems began. DC Cullinane stated:

I recollect, school used to go to where some of the things happened.

Now, this appeared to be intentional, why? Well, what this alleges is that the alleged abuse is not
only current but is historic hence Charlton Manor and further, it is a way of bringing Ms R
(Social worker for malicious referral in 2010) into question, it attempts to raise doubts that she
(Ms R) had done a proper/adequate investigation, in the form of an initial assessment and that
she had eroded in closing the case because Invicta have the same concerns. DC Cullinane
continues to perjury herself during her testimony by stating that only Avery had been spoken to
alone and that after mother was arrested for the alleged obstruction that only then were the other
children spoken to. This is a lie as stated in Ms Webbers testimony all of the children were
spoken to as a group with her present. DC Cullinanes conduct during the kidnap of our children
is inexcusable, haphazard, amateur and above all callous and she had undermined the severity of
the role taken by a CAIT detective, this should never, ever happen again. We are sorry, the day
our family had the misfortune of encountering such rogues, who present a faade of protecting
children when it is clear they had been sent on a path of destruction, heartache and depriving
four children of their parents.

252

Intentionally blank

253

Chapter 9
Lawyers
Luke 11:46-Woe unto you also, ye Lawyers! For ye laden men with burdens
grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your
fingers.

Artwork by Albina Kumirova

Whenever we explain our case to anyone, most will ask the question did you have a Lawyer in
your case? When we respond with a yes, they all seem surprised. Some look puzzled, however
some ask the next obvious question which is, so how did they (the social workers, teachers and
all the other professionals) get away with all this unlawful and hideous acts? Well, just as we
explain to them, we will now explain to you.

254

To emphasize how ridiculous the situation is in the Secret Family Courts, we believe there is
nothing better than to use one of their own, the peculiar case of Ms MICHELLE FREEDMAN.
Ms Freedman is a Family Barrister of over 10 years, who found herself in the same position as
many innocent parents. However, instead of staying and fighting her corner, during proceedings
there had been a break, when the Local Authority was applying for a Care Order for her children
she (Ms Freedman) quickly packed and took her children to Isreal. It is reported that by the time
the plane landed in Israel, the Family Court had made an order made. The real question you
must ask yourself is? If a Family Barrister, not a Lawyer, has to pack up and run, what chance
does Mr Average Joe have? We will just copy an early day motion that John Hemming MP
sponsored in parliament regarding her case.

MICHELLE FREEDMAN AND THE LONDON BOROUGH OF

BARNET

Session: 2012-13
Date tabled: 16.04.2013
Primary sponsor: Hemming, John
Sponsors:

That this House notes the withdrawal of care proceedings against Michelle Freedman by
Barnet Council; further notes that Barnet Council has caused psychological harm to Michelle's
elder daughter; further notes that had she not left UK jurisdiction both her daughters would
have suffered further psychological harm; further notes that Ms Freedman is a family court
barrister with over 10 years' experience and she left the jurisdiction because she was aware
through her experience of similar cases that any local authority in this situation would be likely
to invent allegations against her in order to win the case had she remained; further notes that
legal proceedings were initiated because Ms Freedman had made a complaint against a social
worker; further notes that Barnet's case included a criticism of Ms Freedman that she had done
what she had been asked to do by Barnet Council which it then claimed put her daughter at
risk and that the rules of estoppel should normally have prevented this being used against Ms
Freedman; further notes that the Government intends to reduce the access of parents to truly
independent assessments which will make it easier for local councils to win cases by making
things up; recognises that if a barrister has so little confidence in the system that she leaves the
jurisdiction to avoid being subjected to false allegations by a local authority there are serious
difficulties in the system; and calls for parliamentary committees and the Government to review
this issue.

We were following the case of Ms Freedman who has left her children in Israel, however, she
has returned to the UK to continue her practice as a Family Barrister. Is a sign of confidence in
the industry that she works? You are willing to cook the food but you will not eat it. Ms
Freedman makes no bones about what she thinks of the family just-trick system. We were
listening to a radio interview where Ms Freedman was a guest, when the presenter asked her
would you return your children to the UK? She responded along the lines of No she will not
when pressed as to why she responded by saying that they are her children and she gave the
clear impression that she will not return her children to a Country where they can be taken and
allegations created to justify the actions of social workers. In the interview it was clear that she

255

did not trust the family just-trick system that she earns her living to provide any form of justice.
Now, that says everything about the Family Lawyers that practise in the Family Courts. They
have earned the name professional losers it was not handed to them on a plate!
I, Mrs Plowright a mother, must add that I am appalled by this case. The audacity of this
individual, who appears to be aware of the corruption of the Secret Family Courts, however that
did not stop her from earning a living for over 10 years but it seemed when the chickens came
home to roost, she couldnt take the pressure! The fact that Ms Freedman is still working within
these Courts in my opinion demonstrates clearly how complicit she had been and the fact that
many children and babies have not been as fortunate as her children. Even though her children
are now safe in Israel from the tentacles of the Family Court and of such the family court order
that was made has now been cancelled she still refuses to return her children back to the UK.
What kind of Barrister is she? How could she possibly defend any parent from the Family justtrick system, and Local Authority, Social Workers, when she herself had to run from them? After
all she couldnt even defend herself! This case highlights the state of affairs, of the Family
Lawyers aka Professional Losers that operate in these Secret Family Courts of the UK.
We cant speak about the entire profession of Family Lawyers however; we can speak about the
ones we directly experienced. The entire profession is tarnished with the label of being
professional losers and our experience affirms that. The family lawyers we experienced are
very smooth talkers but nothing else. Family Lawyers are for the most part, we found them to be
condescending and overwhelmingly incompetent, to be fair to Family Lawyers though, they are
very good at covering the wrongdoing of Local Authorities.
The secrecy in Family Courts allows all sorts of injustice to flourish. When all is said and done
we were in all honesty failed by the Lawyers who represent us. The secrecy of the family courts
has caused a lurid complacency amongst family lawyers. Anyone can be falsely accused of
anything by anyone it does not mean they are guilty, and when an individual as been falsely
accused the professionals they rely on to defend them and present their innocence is their lawyer
or Barrister. We think we need to clarify a few points so you the reader can gain a fuller
understanding; the difference between a lawyer and a barrister.
Barrister: Barristers provide specialist legal advice and represent their clients in court and
through written legal advice. Barristers specialise in advocacy and therefore spend most of their
time appearing before judges (in courts) or Chairmen (in Employment Tribunals) to represent
one of the parties in the proceedings. Barristers must be instructed to act by a solicitor (not the
client directly). A Barrister advocates the case on the basis of the instructions and papers which
have been prepared for them by the instructing solicitor.
Lawyer: Offer skilled day-to-day advice to clients on a comprehensive range of legal matters
from defending criminal charges to buying or selling property and from taking over a company
to making employees redundant and much more.
Now Family Lawyers are a different breed of lawyers. Why do we say that?
A misconception that most people who have never encountered this brand of Lawyers have is
that they are similar to the type of Lawyers that practice in the Criminal Courts or other areas of
Law. No, they are not! Now we are not saying all Criminal Lawyers are above board, far from it

256

people still get stitched up on occasions, however rogue Criminal Lawyers are filled with envy at
how easy Family Lawyers have it!

It is appropriate to point out at this point to our readers that even lawyers who practice in totally
different areas of law are baffled by the abhorrent practices taking place in the Family Courts.
Some of these lawyers are innocently nave as to what goes on in these Secret Family Courts and
believe that the Lawyers and Judges that operate in the Secret Family Courts have to abide by
similar rules to them. Due to the fact that even though they are qualified Lawyers there expertise
are in a different area for example; banking. They have absolutely no clue as to the rules that
govern family proceedings and are often shocked when they hear of what is taking place in the
family courts. What most fail to understand is that the Family Courts are one of the only
courts, in the Civil Jurisdiction, that enjoys the privilege of having Secret Proceedings. The
majority of the other courts in the Civil Jurisdiction are held in public.
Unlike Criminal law, Family Lawyers play both sides of the fence. What do we mean by that?
Well Criminal Lawyers can be broken down into two categories; Defence Lawyers on one side
and Prosecutors on the next. Defence Lawyers usually work for Private Practice, while
Prosecutors work for the state, CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) and represent the Crown.
Now, Defence Lawyers stick to defending people charged with crime and Prosecutors stick to
prosecuting. In Family cases, the situation is very different. What do we mean? Due to the
nature of family proceedings (Therapeutic Jurisprudence) Family Courts dont have trials they
have hearings and Family Lawyers are allowed to represent Local Authorities and private
clients at the same time. For example: A Family Lawyer named Phillip can act for the Royal
Borough of Greenwich at a hearing that takes place 10:00am, in the morning, making a an
application for an order to remove a child from family A.
At 12:00 pm on the same day, in the same Court, the Family Lawyer Phillip can be acting for a
new family B on this occasion claiming to resist the Royal Borough of Greenwich attempts
to remove the child from family B. So, in a nutshell unlike Defence Lawyers who either stick to
defending or prosecutors who stick to prosecuting, Family Lawyers both prosecute and defend
for the same client on the same day in the same Court. If thats not conflict of interest then we
dont know what is. Its an abdominal situation and one that should not exist. The secrecy of the
Family Courts allows this outdated and ill-conceived practice to flourish. How, would you like to
be charged with a crime and your defence lawyer also works for your accuser? Who by the way is
your Defence Lawyers biggest client. Family Lawyers get constant work from Local Authorities,
they meet parents as a one off case, however Local Authorities are always trying to remove
someones child and repeat business is good for any business! As is evident by our case these
professional losers are not going to let such trivial matters as truth, Law and justice get in the
way of their business ties with local authorities. Why would they kill the golden Goose?

257

Parents be careful when dealing with these wheeler dealers. Based on our experience, the interest
of your child or children nor the attack upon your family by the local authority is not paramount.
No, as is clear with our case ignoring the injustice as if it never happens is much better for
business! We are not the first to experience this sort of injustice at the hands of the Family
Courts and these Lawyers that operate in them. However, our case is right up there with the
worst of them. Parents if you are going through public Law Proceedings our advice (although
you do not have to take it); is ditch your professional losers, they dont work for you they work
for the other side, you dont pay as well as the other side does. Just remember that!
Well Family Law is a completely different area of Law and has completely different rules which
govern proceedings. Family Courts are part of the High Courts which come under Civil
Jurisdiction. While there are other Courts that come under the Civil Jurisdiction and are
governed by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Family courts are unique, they are governed by
what is known as Family Procedure Rules (FPR). Most other Courts in the Civil Jurisdiction have
public hearings, meaning anyone can attend. However, the Family Courts are held in Secret
(Family Lawyers and some Family Court Judges dont like the words Secret Courts and would
much rather the words; Private Proceedings. In any event, it was Lord Justice Munbys ruling
that we find most telling regarding Family Lawyers.
MR JUSTICE MUNBY
(now LORD JUSTICE MUNBY):
A v Ward [2010] EWHC 16 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 1497 para [133]: The family lawyer's
reaction to complaints of 'secret justice' tends to be that the charge is unfair, that it confuses
a system which is private with one which is secret. This semantic point is, I fear, more
attractive to lawyers than to others. It has signally failed to gain acceptance in what Holmes J
famously referred to as the "competition of the market": Abrams v United States (1919) 250 US
616, 630. The remedy, even if it is probably doomed to only partial success, is it must be
more transparency; putting it bluntly, letting the glare of publicity into the family courts. As I
went on to say:
" where the lack of public confidence is caused even if only in part by
misunderstanding or, on occasions, the peddling of falsehoods, then there is
surely a resonance, even for the family justice system, in what Brandeis J said so
many years ago. I have in mind, of course, not merely what he said in Whitney v
California (1927) 274 US 357 at 77:
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and
fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be
applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
I have in mind also his extra-judicial observation that, and I paraphrase, the
remedy for such ills is not the enforced silence of judicially conferred anonymity
but rather the disinfectant power of exposure to forensic sunlight."

As outlined by the first paragraph above family lawyers are in defence of the secrecy of the
family courts. Now ask yourself, why are family Lawyers who outwardly present a veneer of
credibility and professionalism and are the first to claim they are acting in their clients best

258

interest, the takers of oaths to uphold the law, so afraid of what is described above as the
disinfectant power of exposure to forensic sunlight? Let us illuminate you as to why based on
our experience.
In our case, that went before the family Courts one of the worst mistakes we ever made was to
have used the services of Family Lawyers. Please find the name of the Family Lawyers below
who claimed to have acted on our behalf however, as we were to find out they were just plain
acting! Their conduct highlights everything that is wrong with the profession of Family Lawyers
and the Family Justice System as a whole. It is well known by many, that Family Lawyers are
commonly called Professional Losers. We never believed it at first, however as the saying goes
Who feels it knows!
It is important to note the Law Society Code of Conduct for all Lawyers:

Code of conduct
Solicitors must uphold the principles set out by the solicitors Regulation Authority . These
principles embody the key ethical requirements on firms and individuals who are involved in the
provision of Legal Services.
Solicitors must:

uphold the rule of Law and the proper Administration of Justice

Act with integrity
not allow their independence to be compromised
Act in the best interests of each client
Provide a proper standard of service to clients
behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in them and in the provision of legal
services
Comply with legal and regulatory obligations and deal with regulators and ombudsmen in an
open, timely and co-operative manner
run their business or carry out their role in the business effectively and in accordance with
proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles
run their business or carry out their role in the business in a way that encourages equality of
opportunity and respect for diversity
Protect client money and assets.
You can be reassured that your Solicitor will treat you fairly and professionally, in order to
uphold their obligations to this code of conduct.
We like the positive assumption that is made by the last sentence above. If only it were true! The
lawyers that were involved in our case did far worse than not abiding to their Codes of Conduct;
they committed injury to the Law and dishonoured their oaths.
We will attempt to briefly highlight each Family Lawyer that was involved in our case and then
move on to the Criminal Lawyers that were involved. We say attempt, because with the size of

259

the book already we may have to leave out some. It is very important for us to point out again,
their complicity in the injustice inflicted upon our family! There is quite a long list because we
had to dispose of so many of them as they were all the same. Sometimes we hear some people
say, but they cant all be the same, well we are sad to say that they mainly are. The family circuit
is not that big in London and they tend to all know or are acquainted with each other in one way
or the other. Just remember Ms Freedman above. Experience teaches wisdom.
Please find below the names of the unprofessional incompetents in no particular order:
Ms Kate Claxton
Ms Dzifa Gan
Ms Bridget Thomspon
Mr Mark Towmey
Ms Stella Sweetman
Ms Adeyemi Aderibgbe

Ms Kate Claxton (1st Solicitor for Father)

While in police custody, I, Mr Plowright asked for my phone call so that I could contact my
solicitor. I was told that I would be getting no such call. I informed the station attendant that it is
my right to have a phone call, the station attendant informed me that it is no longer a right it is
a mere entitlement, his response took me by utter surprise. Anyway, I was told that they the
police had contacted a duty Solicitor. Now, the Duty Solicitor that came to deal with the matter
of informed me that he carries out freelance work for MK Law; it had been a man by the name
of Mr Gavin Kendall who referred me to their newly created Family Law department. In
hindsight, it was a wrong decision to allow them to represent me. Anyway, shortly after being
released from police custody, I phoned MK Law Family Department and made an appointment
to see Ms Kate Claxton their Family Lawyer. We (me and my wife) went to see Ms Kate Claxton,
who was at the time working for MK Law Solicitors. We explained to her what had happened
regarding the unlawful arrest and kidnapping of our four children. Ms Claxton informed us that
she is not a Criminal Lawyer and can only address Family Law matters. Mk Law Criminal
Department was also now representing me for the allegations of alleged assault of my daughters
namely Avery and Cassie.
The Local authority was by this time pushing for us to Sign a Section 20 agreement. At the time
we knew not what a Section 20 agreement was, and asked Ms Kate Claxton; what should we do
about the Local Authority requests for us to sign documents we did not understand? Especially
considering that they had just kidnapped our four children. Now reader, at this time in question,
we did not know where our children were and the situation was highly stressful. We were in
shock and this is when, they come in for the kill. So we asked Ms Claxton all sorts of questions
and asked for her professional opinion regarding what should we do to get our children back?
She looked at us straight in the face and said and we quote; sign anything the Local Authority
give you. We looked at her in utter amazement. We believe the Code of Conduct stipulates
Solicitors must act in the best interest of their client. At that stage we knew she was not my
Solicitor and was acting more like the Solicitor for the Royal Borough of Greenwich. We were
very stressed but not stupid, that sounded like bad advice to us. What kind of advice is that to
give to any client? That statement is so loaded its tantamount to malpractice. However, it later
transpired and became clear that Mk Law Solicitors namely, Ms Manisha Knights who is in fact

260

one of the Directors of the firm MK Law Solicitors attempted to undermined my (Mr Plowright)
Defence in the Criminal Courts by presenting false and misleading information to the Court
which she knew not to be true. It goes a long way in explaining to us why Ms Claxton offered
such ill-conceived advice. So, there you have it Ms Kate Claxton advice is representative of the
advice that is given to many parents up and down the Country in the most distressing and
stressful time of their lives. Oh, by the way it is needless to say, we did not take her advice.
However, parents be warned, whatever advice is given to you by your Lawyers and you act upon
it, whether that be against you, it will be your responsibility. Some of these Lawyers are slick and
will be the first to point out that you had a choice to disregard any advice that was given to you
by them. The above sort of advice is one of the reasons why the majority of cases that go to
Family Courts are via a Section 20 agreement. A common condition of most Section 20
agreements is that if parents ask for their children to be returned by the Local Authority before
the expiry of the section 20 agreement, then the LA may and in most cases will initiate Court
Proceedings. What we have come to realise is that Section 20 agreements are used as a delay and
coercive tactic by LAs who cant go to Court because of lack of any information therefore to
legitimise their unlawful accommodation of children a Section 20 will be offered until enough
information is gathered or created for Court.

Ms Dzifa Gan (Mothers 1st Solicitor)

Inside the police station my wife and I were seen separately and when we were released we
wanted to be represented by one Solicitor for all the family matters. After all, we are a family.
Well we were in for a shocker! After the debacle with Ms Claxton we tried to obtain a Family
Lawyer of our own choosing. At the time we were virgins to the kind of shenanigans that Family
Lawyers get up to. To put it bluntly, we were virgins to this entire process. So after checking
around, we contacted this firm of Solicitors called Osborne solicitors. It appeared to be a big
outfit. At the time we thought if we got an experienced Family Lawyer then they could see the
wrongs taking place and put an end to the obvious unlawful actions of the Local Authority. Yep,
we were wrong again on this one. We have come to realise that the more experienced some of
these Family lawyers are, the worse it will be for the client. Why? Well, the Family Circuit in
London is not very big and due to the fact that Family Lawyers play both side of the fence, they
are well known and in most cases undertaken work and acted for most Local Authorities in
removing children from their parents. This creates extreme bias. The Family Lawyers will be
quick to outline that there is no conflict of interest in that sort of arrangement. Well, that is just
patently untrue, for those of you who are in the habit of asking, What evidence do you have
that such an arrangement creates bias? We are the evidence!
Any way, we made an appointment to see Ms Dzifa Gan and asked her to be both of our
Lawyers; she said she can only represent one of us. We were confused as to why and her reasons
were obscure and did not make sense. She claimed that because no allegation was made by any
of the children against mother, it would be prudent that we be represented separately. Her
explanation did nothing to change our minds or make the matter any clearer we were still
confused as to why she couldnt act for both of us. For us the matter was simple, we are a family
and our children were kidnapped by some deceitful people, why couldnt she represent both of
us to bring our children home? What we never knew then, is that this sort of practices by Family
Lawyers to try and separate husband and wife is not uncommon. They will cite various reasons
for failure to represent parents as a couple even if they are a married such as us. However,
ultimately the game plan is to create friction between couples and tear them apart. Dont believe
us? Well, we hope you are not unfortunate enough to put it to the test. For the facts and figures
junkies reading this part sorry to disappoint, we have nothing from an official source of

261

information on how many couples the Secret Family Courts tear apart. However, weve got some
unofficial banter that might interest you; 90% of couples or the majority of couples that are
subject of Public Law Proceedings (Proceedings initiated by the Local Authority to remove a
child) break up in the first six months of such proceedings. In other words couples dont last for
six months after proceedings are commenced!
To be fair to Ms Gan, she actually did more than all the other Family Lawyers (Professional
Losers) put together, and in our case that wasnt a lot. She wrote one letter to the Police
regarding the lifting of the bail conditions on mother which prevented our children from seeing
her children. However, that was basically it. However, she was the only Lawyer who actually
made any genuine attempt to lift the inhumane bail conditions. Personally, she appears to be a
nice person, however, professionally she is just as complicit as the rest of the unprofessional
Lawyers in our case.
Ms Gan failed to follow instructions given by Mrs Plowright who instructed her at the time to
commence proceedings for a Judicial Review. There was and still is a plethora of unlawful
actions committed by the Police, the Royal Borough of Greenwich and the Schools. We were
still within the 3 month time limit to commence Judicial Review proceedings. There was no
reason not to take Mrs Plowright instructions and commence proceedings; however there was
every reason to. Ms Gan failed to follow her instructions.
Judicial Review exists to ensure that the actions and decision making of Public bodies,
Government and Local Authorities are lawful. Now, with all the unlawful actions committed in
our case, a Judicial Review would have highlighted and put a stop to all the unlawful and
immoral acts at a very early stage. Ms Gan did a great disservice to us as a family, by her failure
to take instructions to initiate Judicial Review proceedings. Ms Gans excuse at the time for not
initiating Judicial Review was that it was too costly. We later found out that the cost to submit
the application for Judicial Review was a measly 80!
There was an incident involving DC Cooper phoning Ms Gan to obtain information which was
none of his business, she disclosed the information without my wifes consent. However we
considered that to be an honest mistake on her part, because she was the one who informed us
of the call between herself and DC Bret Cooper. What that disclosure revealed to us was what
we believe to be the cunning and sly nature of DC Cooper.
There is a lot more that we could write about Ms Gan, however we believe it suffice to outline
that she failed to act in accordance with her code of conduct. She failed to act in accordance with
her oath of office, she failed to raise the alarm like all the other professionals who were involved
and is just as culpable as the others in the compounding this travesty against our family. This has
caused immense suffering for our four children and our family as a whole. Further, Ms Gan is
complicit in the inhumane and degrading treatment of our children and we sincerely believe she
is a discredit to her profession.

Ms Bridget Thompson (Mothers 2nd Solicitor)

Ms Thompson was just as complicit as all the others in her failure to act. We firmly believe she
took on the attitude reminiscent of all the other professional losers we encountered. The
attitude we speak of can be described as we are here now! In reality, what that communicated
to us is; Forget that your children were kidnapped for no reason, forget the suffering your
children endured at the hands of these crooked and deceitful government workers, forget about
the unlawfulness of the entire situation, forget about the torturous nights and days your children

262

spent away from you not knowing whats happening to them or where their parents are, forget
about the fact that you both were arrested and dragged to the police station for no reason, forget
about the fact that your home has been ransacked and invaded by corrupt and deceitful officers,
forget all the lies fabricated against you and your family. It has always and still is an utter
disgrace, the actions of these people. Ms Bridget Thompson, like all the others was responsible
and duty bound by their oaths of office and the code of conduct as outlined above. She did not
once challenge none of the Procedural irregularities or unlawful conduct of the Local Authority.
She did not ensure that the immoral and unlawful actions of the LA were brought to the
attention of the Court or any government body. Ms Thompson of Osborne Solicitors is a
disgrace to her profession. Family Lawyers such as all those involved in our case do nothing but
give their profession a very bad reputation. Ms Thompson by her inactions condones the
suffering of our children and us as a family, while presenting the outward veneer of
respectability. This sort of cunning immoral behaviour distorts the public views and perception
regarding the suffering endured by innocent parents such as us. Because, when parents are asked
by members of the unaware public who in most cases have limited understanding of Public Law
Proceedings; didnt you have a lawyer? and the parents responds yes, the unaware public
immediately assumes that something must be wrong with the parents account of events. In most
cases the parents are then viewed with ultimate suspicion and distrust.
The unaware public in most cases wrongly assumes that most of these professional losers are
doing just and honourable work, and parents are just disgruntled and presenting a disgruntled
version of events. Nothing could be further from the truth. Innocent parents are up against a
multi-billion pound industry and these rogues are a part of a well-oiled machine filled with
experts at discrediting and smearing innocent parents to protect their profits.
When I, Mrs Plowright had instructed Ms Thompson to email my LAC disapproval letter in July
or thereabouts, she refused and it was after that time I had decided to change representation as I
was confused as to why my defence would go against me wanting an email stating my concerns
about the LAC, after all if you have a concern shouldnt you raise it? Silence is consent!

Mr Mark Towmey (Mothers Barrister afterwards represented both parents)

Let us introduce you to Mr Towmey he was mothers Barrister then, later on in proceedings he
represented both of us as parents, before being fired by us.
Now where do we start with this rogue? Mark is a very eloquent Barrister, if only he used is
talent and skill to do good? He would have been a World class Barrister to be feared! However,
Mr Towmey is a family Barrister and as such, he appears to be caught up in the wrongdoing that
is prevalent in the Family Courts.
At the initial hearing Mr Towmey was busy consenting to all sorts on behalf of Mrs Plowright
without asking her any questions. For example, the Local Authority had nothing whatsoever to
present to the Court to warrant the making of an Interim Care Order. We are not exaggerating,
when we say they had nothing, they literally had nothing to present. Their unlawful Interpol and
other agency checks conducted while they had our children unlawfully did not provide any
information for them to use against us and the LA had nothing to rely on but the fanciful and
perjurous statement of Ms Alison Mc Donald (first social worker) who had never set foot in our
home and a chronology created by the same incompetent Ms MC Donald. Mr Towmey, was
informed of Mrs Plowrights strenuous objections to any order being made, yet did he object to

263

an order being made? No, he did not! He just went along with whatever Mr Matthew Pearson
(LA Barrister) said. And we now know Mr Matthew Pearson is as incompetent as they come! Mr
Towmey is well aware of the unlawful acts and the injustice that has occurred in our case, yet it
appeared, he more than others played the slight of hand tactics that is so common amongst
Family Lawyers. For example, on the matter of the two unlawful ABES Mr Towmey appeared
to be aware that the Police had conducted two unlawful ABES. This was possible because
during the fact-finding he had the case files and we had not been provided with any. Now,
instead of questioning DC Cooper regarding why two unlawful ABES were carried out, Mr
Towmey instead attempted to alert DC Cooper to the fact that the documents evidencing the
two unlawful ABE had escaped in the file, by asking DC Cooper and we quote, H81 why 13th

April or is it 16TH April?

We can go on forever on the failings and complicity of Mr Towmey and the wrongs he
committed against us.
Mr Towmey a Barrister of Law, practising in the Family Courts response to us when all the
unlawful acts of the Police and the Courts were highlighted to him by us claimed in no uncertain
term that the Judge wont care about the unlawful acts and the wrongs committed! I must say
if all else he was spot on with that statement. The secret Family Courts do not care about
unlawful acts committed by rogue incompetent professionals who are given full run of the
courts.
October- which was the first day of the Fact-Finding and as we did not accept them to be
lawful, as they were conducted without our consent or authority of the Court or othwise. And
while these rogues had our children god knows where. The stress and pain these rogues coause
our children is unthinkable. None of which concerned Mr Tomney.
Lawyers: Mark Towemey, Ms Stella Sweetman, as parents we feel so let down by our Family
Lawyers(Professional Losers) during the family hearing in October 2012, we were not given
files during the hearing. However, at that time we were not aware of the two ABEs however,
Mr Mark Towmey, our Barrister specifically asks DC Cooper, . 13th April or is it 16th April?
Here you can clearly see, Mr Towmey appears to be aware of the existence of two ABEs and
instead of asking DC Cooper why there are two in existence, he clearly asks DC Cooper to
decide between the 13th April and the 16,th you see, these individuals are professional losers!
This is also why as we have proof and will quote, Mr Towmey as was given to us by Ms
Sweetman at the time when we decided to appeal (the Judgement) it is revealed in an email that it
was indeed Mr Towmeny who had decided not to contest the medicals and we quote, I do
not believe calling the Doctor could have made any difference. What is more revealing is Mr
Towmeys view of the Judge namely District Judge Aldersons judgement which he states, You

will see that the part of the grounds of appeal will relate to the Judge wrongly, in my opinion
assessing the doctors report as corroboration for the childrens allegations. As they were of
non-specific cause the findings could not amount, as a matter of law, to corroborative
evidence. But in the case of a mobile child, subject to physical bullying, it could not be said to
prove anything. DJ Alderson did not condsider the fact that Ms Mc Donald accepted that
Avery had been punched and kicked by a bully at the school, failing to inform the Paediatrician
and then the countless inappropriate questioning of Ms Mc Donald. In particular, we had the

notes of the social workers interviews of the children on the very morning they were examined.
They asked dreadful, leading questions. They were highly inappropriate. This is Mr Towmey
clearly accepting that the manner in which our children were interrogated by the social workers
namely Ms Mc Donald and Ms Victoria Carrington to be unacceptable, in his words, highly

264

inappropriate. Again, DJ Alderson failed to consider this and instead accepted the flawed,
unlawful, ABEs as evidence. Avery then, on examination, points to the mark on her collor
bone on the opposite side to that which she had previously alleged. Again the Judge does not
consider this. Indeed, the Judge really didnt consider these arguments at all, certainly not in
sufficient detail. (Alison agrees with me that the judgement is wholly defective.) Now, before
you jump and assume its Alison the rogue Social Worker, Mr Towmey is referring to Lead
Counsel, who he stated would be required on such a case, for our appeal and as it states Alison,
Lead Counsel agrees that the Judgement of District Judge Alderson is wholly defective!

Ms Stella Sweetman (Mr Plowrights 3rd Solicitor then, Mr & Mrs Plowrights
Solicitor)
Well, Ms Sweetman, turned out not to be so sweet!
As our Solicitor she had failed to raise concerns regarding the unlawful actions in our case. Just
before the Fact Finding Ms Stella went on holiday from 11th October to the 19th October and
stated upon her return that it was difficult to address the statement because the local authority
have not adhered to Court Orders and the statements from DC Cooper, Mrs Corbett, Mrs
Sengupta and Ms Morris were still outstanding and with ABE transcripts we had no time to
address. You see even with the missing information from the local authority, Ms Sweetman
failed to raise these. Also, after the fact finding, we as parents began to have an appeal written up
and once it was submitted, Ms Sweetman behind our backs, had sent via email to Ms Holland
(Guardians Solicitor) we had noticed this on the 23/01/13 after firing Ms Sweetman, this made
us wonder whether it had been common practice to email other parties information without us
knowing, our appeal should have not been sent to Ms Holland and Ms Sweetman would be
aware that should never have happened but again, this is the Family Courts and parents are
usually assessed!

Ms Adeyemi Aderibgbe (Fathers 2nd Solicitor)

When I, Mr Plowright, got rid of Ms Kate Claxton I went out and found a new family Solicitor
called Ms Adeyemi Aderibgbe. Ms Adeyemi Aderibgbe was different from the others, because
even though legal aid was guaranteed in public Law cases where the LA was the respondent, I
was paying privately for Ms Adeyemi Aderibgbe. We thought if we were paying instead of getting
legal aid then, we would get a better service and hopefully put an end to the travesty. We were
wrong! The fact that we were paying out of our own pockets did not make any difference. When
Ms Adeyemi Aderibgbe received the case files from the Local Authority, she could not believe all
the unlawful acts that had taken place and advised us to immediately seek Judicial Review. The
Judicial Review never happened. It appears that somewhere between Ms Adeyemi Aderibgbe
talking to Ms Horsford and the Police, Ms Adeyemi Aderibgbe appeared to change her tune. She
was no longer talking judicial review, but was now talking Section 20; we couldnt believe it, what
was said to this woman to take the wind out of her. We then instructed my wifes Solicitor at the
time, to go for Judicial Review, Ms Dzaifa Gan. Ms Gans response was that Judicial Review was

too costly and a long process, just sign the section 20.
The simple fact of the matter is that judicial review would have put an early end to the injustice.
However, there would have been serious consequences for the wrongdoers, as their unlawful
acts would have been highlighted. Remember, the clandestine arrangement Mrs Justice Pauffley
highlighted above, it appears it was in full swing. Ms Adeyemi Aderibgbe and Ms Gan refused to
take our instructions to go for judicial review.

265

Criminal Lawyers
We have no respect or regard for the Family Lawyers (Professional Losers) that were involved
in our case, as is evident they have shown no respect for the law and the actions taken against
our children. However, we reserve a special disdain and contempt for the Criminal Lawyers that
got involved. Why? Well the simple fact of the matter is I, Mr Plowright could have been
convicted and sent to prison for something I am totally innocent of. That would have resulted in
further devastation and compounded the injustice for my four children and my wife. It takes a
different kind of wickedness to do what my so-called defence Solicitors in this case had done.
Look, when someone is accused, it is the Defence Lawyers job to defend and prove their clients
innocence. Now, what happened to me were the people charged with proving my innocence and
defending me were the ones undermining my case and trying to send me to prison. The
prosecution had a very easy job in this case.
In reality, I was not only fighting the Police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Royal
Borough of Greenwich Social Services, The Family Courts, Family Lawyers and others, I was
also defending myself from my own Defence Lawyers. All this, while dealing with the stress and
trauma of having my four children kidnapped and having no clue where they are. I cant put into
words the enormity of the stress and heartache caused by these rogues.
The Criminal Lawyers who were involved in the malicious prosecution against me; Mr Davion
Plowright. These Lawyers are an insult and disgrace to the legal profession and only serve to
undermine the hardworking and dedicated Criminal Lawyers who give 110 percent to their
clients. There are some who are not mentioned below because their involvement was indirect
and residual. For example: Ms Manisha Knights was the principal Defence Lawyer on my case,
however, on many occasions she would send someone in her place at hearings. At the first
hearing of the malicious prosecution at Bexley Magistrates Court on 28 th August 2012, I was
expecting Ms Manisha Knights to attend because I had instructed her to ask for a dismissal of
the case against me; I had also wanted to inform the Court of the blatant abuse of process and
unlawful actions being committed against me. I was very surprised when a lady by the name of
Ms Helen Churchill turned up and claimed she was filling in for Ms Knights today, because
Ms Knights had a trial to attend to. I was so disappointed. This lady who represented me that
day, was not up to date with the facts of what had taken place, or my instructions and when I
informed her of the fact that I wanted to ask for the case to be dismissed and to inform the
Court of whats happening and to make applications to amend the bail conditions restricting me
from seeing my children. I was informed that she could not do that because it was not her case,
She continued, you have to take that up with Manisha as it was her case and she was just filling in
for her and could not take such instructions. So, there you have it, there were countless
situations such as the one I have just mentioned and it would take up and entire book to list
them all and name all the culprits. However, I have named those ultimately responsible. At the
time with all the stress and the trauma, it never dawned on us that theses may be actual
manoeuvres by my own Defence Lawyer acting against me! However, things are much clearer
now.
Just thinking of Ms Manisha Knights brings great distress. This is no easy feat. When I imagine
that if it was up to this deceitful and corrupt rogue, I could have been convicted of these baseless
and false allegations. My four children would have further suffered a compounded injustice. This
is extremely serious, because most people especially those who work in the justice system dont
care if you are wrongly convicted. Once you are convicted of any offence wrongly or otherwise
you are branded as a criminal. I would not be here typing this book if I was wrongly convicted,
because, I would most likely still be in prison to this day. After which time I would have to go

266

through the arduous process of appealing the wrongful conviction, and, for those who do not
know, appeals are not easy to come by. So if I was wrongly convicted, it would not be
guaranteed that I would be granted an appeal as one Judge puts it A defendant has the right to
make an appeal application, however he does not have a right to be granted an appeal. That is
very telling, that even if I was wrongly convicted I would not have been guaranteed an appeal. So
it could have been years if ever before I would be able to quash any conviction, before I would
be able to challenge the wrongly obtained Family Court orders. If I was wrongly convicted, then
my children would have no one to fight for them and my wife would be left without her husband
to offer support at the hardest time. Based upon the corruption we have experienced, I have no
doubt that they would have made the prison experience one to remember. A conviction would
have also offered cover and justification for all the rogues named in this book. This we believe
was the main reason so much effort was made to try an obtain a conviction of Mr Plowright by
all these rogues. We had to fight with everything we have to avert the above nightmare scenario.
My defence lawyers were pushing full steam ahead to the destination called wrongly convicted.
The most blatant being, me being told by Ms Manisha Knights that I do not need to attend
court as it was Lawyers only. I disregarded what she said, an turned up to Court only to find
Ms Knights had sent a Barrister, namely, Mr Derick Barry, to submit a defence case statement on
my behalf. A defence case statement outlines your defence or response to whatever charges or
accusations that are made by the Police or Crown Prosecution Service. Its a very important
document which must be completed by or with the input of the defendant. The DEFENCE
case statement Ms Knight was attempting to submit was filled with inaccuracies and contained
inaccurate information which Ms Knights knew to be inaccurate. Thats called perverting the
course of justice. In what manner did she deliberately tried to mislead the court? She claimed in
the defence case statement that the Local Authority had an Emergency Protection Order (EPO).
That was giving the false impression that the Local Authority and the Police acted lawfully. Ms
Knights was aware there was no EPO and the LA and the police to include the school namely
Invcta, Mrs Corbett, had acted unlawfully; we had a meeting with her where it was confirmed
that these rogues acted unlawful. This was a devious move to try and submit this defence case
statement giving a false representation. We believe this was clearly done to hide the unlawful
state of affairs, from the Criminal Courts, which are held in public. This act of gross deceit
would not be possible with us attending, hence telling me its Lawyers only. We dont know
who exactly Ms Knights was defending but it was certainly not Mr Davion Plowright. I have
highlighted, how dangerous and deviously wicked the actions of Ms Manisha Knights were in
her failure to offer adequate defence and her conduct of deliberately attempting to undermine
my defence. The entire Solicitors Code of Conduct manual can be quoted in regards to Ms
Manisha Knights and all the other incompetent rogues, in the malicious Criminal prosecution
that was brought against me. With Defence Lawyers like these, the Prosecution and Police can
get away with sending innocent people to prison. Thank goodness I had the Almighty God on
my side, amongst some very good friends, because I would not be here typing this book.
So, in utter desperation I drafted a letter to the Court because my instructions were being
completely ignored and the case should have been thrown out from the first hearing however,
everything possible was being done by my defence to facilitate a guilty verdict. I have included
below an excerpt from the letter I sent to the court on the 18th July 2013, regarding the conduct
of MK Law Namely Ms Manisha Knights in handling of my case.

267

Woolwich Crown Court

2 Belmarsh Road
London
SE28 0EY
Court No: T20120923
URN:01RA0198512
17/07/13

For the attention of His Honourable Judge in the Case of R v Davion Plowright

Dear His Honourable Judge,

placed my trust in the hands of criminal solicitors MK LAW (Namely Ms Manisha Knights) who I
previously held in high regards. I became very suspicious as to the integrity of their actions when on
January 24 2013. MK LAW solicitors informed me via telephone that a hearing was booked to take
place on date 25TH January 2013, however I did not need to attend as it was lawyers only. I could not
see how that was possible and attended court anyway. Upon arrival at court I was shocked to discover
that the barrister who was sent that day to represent me was intending on submitting a defence case
statement on my behalf without my knowledge. I took it upon myself to do some research into the rules
governing criminal court cases which led me to discover the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 and also
the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and i am shocked as to what I have discovered in
regards to what my defence should have done but didnt do. I also discovered that having inadequate or
incompetent defence solicitors is not a valid grounds for appeal. So in light of the above I would like to
bring these matter to the courts attention before its too late and I am wrongly convicted.

268

Defence Solicitors: Mk Law solicitors by their actions have deliberately undermined my defence by
their failure to provide adequate defence and failing to adhere to CPR 2012 1.1.(1)(2) and Criminal
Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
MK Law wilfully attempted to deceive the court and the defendant in their attempts at submitting a
defence case statement known to contain factual inaccuracies in an attempt to mislead the court.
Your Honour Like all professionals, Defence representatives have special knowledge and experience
that many others do not possess (for example what may or may not constitute an offence). Defence
counsels should not take unfair advantage of the inequality that arises from a defendant being illequipped to make an informed judgement about a matter in respect of which he or she does not have
the special knowledge of the defence counsel. This has been central to the misconduct and negligence
that I have experienced from my defence. Due to the fact that issues werent correctly raised in my
defence case statement the necessary disclosure of documents that would aid my defence were not
requested from the CPS in line with section 8 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
Further this serious misconduct has affected the court in its compliance with the overriding objective as
outlined in CPR 2012 1.3(a)(b)(c).
Therefore I write this letter in line with CPR 2012 1.2 .(1) (a) (b)(C).(2) regarding The duty of the
participants in a criminal case.
My case involved parallel proceedings that were taking place in the family courts. I refute the allegations
that are put forth in their entirety and informed my defence solicitors of my innocence and the matters I
take issue with the CPS case. I made clear to my defence solicitors that the police officers in the case
particularly DC Bret Cooper was using the court system to cause untold distress for my family. I
instructed my solicitors to highlight to the court the numerous failings, abuses, illegalities and unlawful
actions and the issues I took with the CPS case against me. In my case there was and still exist a failure
to adhere to the overriding objective laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty as it relates to
criminal Proceedings in the crown courts as are clearly outlined in the CPR 2012 1.1.(1) (2) and
should be known to all practising Legal representatives and court officers.
There was and still is no case to answer and my solicitors were well aware of this fact. They failed in
their duty as outlined in CPR 2012 1.1. (a) (b) (c) (e). (g) (i) (iii). to adhere to the overriding objective
in my case.
The issues I took with the CPS case should have been highlighted to the court in my defence case
statement in line with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 Section 6A. However
(1) Mk Law Solicitors deliberately acted contrary to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act
1996:
6A Contents of defence statement.

(1)For the purposes of this Part a defence statement is a written statement .

(a) Setting out the nature of the accuseds defence, including any particular defences on
which he intends to rely, .

269

(b) Indicating the matters of fact on which he takes issue with the prosecution,

(c) setting out, in the case of each such matter, why he takes issue with t he prosecution,
and .

(d )indicating any point of law (including any point as to the admissibility of evidence or
an abuse of process) which he wishes to take, and any authority on which he intends to
rely for that purpose.

(2) My instructions were repeatedly and completely ignored. Your Honour the fact speaks for
itself. I respectfully draw the courts attention to the chronology of court attendance. My first
appearance was on 28th August 2012 and after attending numerous hearings 5 months later on
25 January 2013 my defence solicitor (MK Law)attempted to submit a defence case statement
to the court without my knowledge. Further I was not party to the preparation of this document,
I was not even sent a copy of this document to review before the hearing and it was highly
inappropriate they were attempting to submit it to the court without my knowledge. The
document contained factual inaccuracies and failed to raise many issues which I have with the
CPS case against me. It also failed to mention many matters which I wanted to make known to
the court. I would like to further draw the courts attention to the chronology of Court
Appearance attached to this letter. I was arrested on 29 th march 2012 then charged on 07th
August 2012 and my Defence case statement was not submitted until 25th January 2013.
Due to the fact there were parallel family proceedings taking place in the family court and MK law
solicitors was also was also representing me in those matters they were fully aware of the failings in my
case and the unlawful and deceitful actions of the officers involved. Mk Law solicitors were fully aware
of the issues I take with the prosecution case from the outset and at every meeting with Mk Solicitors
Namely Manisha Knights the few which I had made clear my instructions. I was desperate to contest the
medical report the prosecution was relying on from the outset. At our last meeting Ms Knight told us
that the prosecution had taken out the medical evidence and will no longer be relying on it.
It was only after I change representation I discovered through my new solicitors that the medical was not
taken out and was still being relied on by the prosecution. I immediately instructed my new solicitors
MTC&CO Solicitors of my intentions to contest the medical and they obtained the necessary leave
from the court to have the medicals contested. Ms Manisha Knights deception has left me very
distressed and confused as to why she would behave in this manner.
The actions of my defence by failing to raise matters in dispute in my defence case statement and the
prosecution by failing to adhere to court orders and directions given are wholly unacceptable and goes
against the very foundations of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 as laid before Parliament by
Command of Her Majesty the Queen. These professionals by their actions have attempted to directly
undermined the Integrity and duty of the court as outline in Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 Para. 3.2

270

The duty of the court

3.2.(1) The court must further the overriding objective by actively managing the case.
(2) Active case management includes
(a) the early identification of the real issues; .
(b)the early identification of the needs of witnesses; .
(c)achieving certainty as to what must be done, by whom, and when, in particular by the early setting of a
timetable for the progress of the case; .
(d) monitoring the progress of the case and compliance with directions; .
(e) Ensuring that evidence, whether disputed or not, is presented in the shortest and clearest way; .
(f) Discouraging delay, dealing with as many aspects of the case as possible on the same occasion, and
avoiding unnecessary hearings; .
(g) Encouraging the participants to co-operate in the progression of the case; and .
(h) Making use of technology. .
(3) The court must actively manage the case by giving any direction appropriate to the needs of that case
as early as possible.
MK Law and the CPS have Failure to adhere to CPR 2012 1.1.(1) (2), 1.2.(1) (a) (b) (c), 3.3. (a) (b),
3.10 (a (vii) (viii). which has undermine the court in effectively fulfilling its legal duty and moral
obligations in the interest of justice it is highly unacceptable when members of the legal profession act
contrary to the rules as laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty the Queen.

The above letter, like this book was written by me at a time of complete distress and desperation.
Even thinking about it this very moment over a year since I was found not guilty, my children
have still not been returned to us. These rogues are void of any moral integrity. Thats why this
book had to be written. They should not be allowed to get away with what they have done in
secret with these sorts of acts, to be free to perpetrate further acts of wickedness on innocent
children and families. Ms Manisha Knights, you are an outright disgrace to the legal profession.

271

Ms Manisha Knights-MK Law Solicitors

A. She failed to take my instructions
B. A defence case statement was not submitted until January 2013
C. She stated to us at meeting 08/01/13 that Detective DC Cooper is not relying on the
medicals. We later found out after transferring from her to another Solicitor that was a
lie that they had never been taken out.
D. Failed uphold the rule of Law and the proper Administration of Justice
E. Failed to Act with integrity
F. Failed to Act in the best interests of each client
G. Failed to behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in them and in the
provision of legal services
H. Failed to Comply with legal and regulatory obligations
I. Failed to Provide a proper standard of service to clients
J. Failure to act fairly and professionally, in order to uphold her obligations to the
solicitors code of conduct.

272

Criminal Trial (Parallel Proceedings)

This was nothing more than an outright malicious prosecution, a blatant attempt by the rogues
to cover their wrongdoing and offer justification for their unlawful, horrendous and immoral
acts. Further we firmly believe it was an attempt at using the criminal courts as a means of
oppression against us. Imagine having your children kidnapped and then the perpetrators
instigate a further attack by trying to have you sent to prison. Some people commit suicide for
far less. Many a people commit suicides after being arrested and placed on bail conditions, these
rogues are fully aware of the hurt they were causing us as a family and we firmly believe their
actions especially to instigate malicious criminal proceedings were very calculating and
meticulously executed to cause us as a family intense trauma and suffering. DC Cooper was very
instrumental in instigating this malicious prosecution. When I was being charged DC Cooper
was asked a telling question by the Sergeant in no uncertain terms, who it appears was
responsible for recording the charging decision. The sergeant said whose decision is it to charge
Mr Plowright? DC Cooper responded by saying it was the CPS decision.
I was to later find out that no CPS prosecutor wanted to touch the case with a barge pole!
Anyway, on the 7th August I was charged with 3 counts of Cruelty to a person under 16 years,
contrary to section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

The particulars of the offence are that Davion Plowright between 23 rd March 2011 and 26th day
of March 2012 being a person who had attained the age of 16 and having the responsibility for
Avery Plowright, a child under that age, wilfully assaulted or ill-treated the said Avery Plowright
in a manner likely to cause the said Avery Plowright unnecessary suffering or injury to health.
The maximum sentence for the above offence can be anywhere up to Ten years imprisonment.
The manner in which our children were kidnapped and all the brazen unlawful acts committed
has put considerable strain on us as a family. The case was riddled is riddled with corruption and
unlawful acts committed by all these so-called professionals, who have kidnapped our children in
the process. No right minded prosecutor wanted anything to do with the case. Throughout the
entirety of the one year and five months before the trial date, no prosecutor was allocated. It was
on the 13th July or thereabouts that a prosecutor called Ms Husbands was assigned to the case
and her only appearance at Court was to offer no evidence in the matter and not guilty verdict
was entered on the record in Court. This entire process caused extreme and serious distress.
Throughout the entire process, it was clear to all, that the case was riddled with corruption and

273

yet they dragged it out for over a year to the detriment of our family and our children. DC
Cooper and others used the Court system to oppress and cause untold misery for our family. He
was not acting alone, my defence solicitor MK Law namely Manisha Knights was also complicit
in allowing this travesty to occur. She even went a step further and as it appears very clear she
attempted to deceive the Court and undermine my defence. How did she do this?
The not guilty verdict that was reached in Court was not arrived at because of my defence.
Contrary, we had to fight all the way because the rogues involved knew that if I was found not
guilty or unassessed, that they would someday have to answer for the wrongs they committed, so
every possible tactic was deployed they were pushing full steam ahead, with their malicious
prosecution and disregarding my instructions. The situation was getting ridiculous, so I wrote
two letters to the Criminal Court
1. A letter outlining all the failure of the prosecution and also the failings of my defence to
follow court rule and inappropriate attempts by my defence to deceive the Court and
their deliberate attempts at undermining my defence.
2. A chronology outlining further failures. From the initial stages of the malicious
prosecution I have been instructing Ms Manisha Knights to highlight to the Court what
was taking place in my case she failed to take my instructions. It was not until I got rid of
her and got new representative that my new representative and I drafted an abuse of
process argument, which was submitted to the Court shortly before trial. A little birdie
told me that all the rogues had a meeting at Pimlico and they could not answer or
respond to the abuse argument. Soon afterwards the Prosecution offered no evidence in
the matter. However, they tried to put in once last jab, to try an attempt to save face.
They claim its because our children dont want to testify against their father. The audacity
of these rogues! The level they will stoop to never fail to shock.
Other defence lawyers involved:
3. Mr Derek Barry- Mk Law Solicitors
4. Mr Shaun Wallace
5. Ms Lauren Mercurius-Taylor

274

Key Point

Note to Parents -It is also your right to instruct your defence, particularly when you have bail
conditions imposed restricting you from seeing your child/children and to instruct your defence
to go to Court to MAKE AN APPLICATION to vary or remove the bail conditions
unfortunately, we had incompetent Solicitors who were complicit in the unlawful actions
committed against us. As a result, were not told this could have been done and therefore were
unlawfully restricted from seeing our children for a considerable period of time (Months)
contrary to art 8 and a plethora of other legislation that prohibits these sorts of abominable
situations from occurring.

Davidaire Horsford- (Royal Borough of Greenwich Solicitor)

Ms Davidaire Horsford is just as complicit and a rogue as all the others named in this book. She
is just as culpable as all the others.
It appears Ms Horsford has been the Royal Borough of Greenwich solicitor on this corrupted
case from the outset. She has no plausible deniability in regards to what has occurred. She is just
as culpable as Ms Manisha Knights. Every solicitor is duty bound and have taken a oath of office
to uphold the law of the Land. They enjoy the privileges an prestige that comes with their
profession and should equally take responsibility for upholding the rules and principles that
govern their profession. The Royal Borough of Greenwich is a Public authority for the purposes
of current, relevant equality and other legislations which include the Principles of the European
Convention on Human Rights, in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, solicitors are
also bound by the duties set out in numerous pieces of legislation at each stage of a case. .
Sometimes we wonder what planet some of these rogues live on, and Ms Horsford is what
passes for a solicitor that represents The Royal Borough of Greenwich, a person who is and has
actively committed numerous criminal and civil violations.
Ms Horsford could have simply returned our children as The Royal Borough of Greenwich have
no legal authority or no basis to have our children- no Emergency Protection Order (EPO), no
Court Order and we had already sent her a letter on 12 April 2014 demanding the release of our
children, However it is The Royal Borough of Greenwich does not care about violating the
rights of children and innocent parent, because it is seems they are above the law.
On 19th April 2012, this individual contacted our Solicitors to ask whether we as parents would
Sign a dated Section 20 voluntary agreement, this time however, claiming it would be a dated
agreement from 19/04/12-26/04/12 and the condition of this agreement was that we as parents
would allow the then Social Worker namely, Ms Mc Donald in to our home. What their actions
were actually saying to us is, we as the incompetents we are have kidnapped your children, and
because we had no reason to do so, we need to come to your house so as to carry out the work

275

we should have done before we kidnapped your children. In effect they were using our children
as a ransom against us.

We outright declined her requests, she was by this time in possession of kidnapped children for
almost three weeks violating a whole catalogue of Laws and legislations yet she was making
demands Ms Horsford was complicit in the action or should we say inaction of Childrens
Services, she was aware of the unlawful actions and the fact that our children should not have
been prevented from seeing us and most of all, that the LA should have refrained from the
continued false imprisonment of our four children.

Mr Matthew Persson -(Local Authority Barrister)

Mr Persson acted for the Local Authority despite being aware of the unlawful actions taken by
the Royal Borough of Greenwich. The document Threshold Criteria under i) Physical Abuse
a). When she made these allegations on 29 th March 2012. Even at that point they (Local
Authority) attempted to mislead the Court by stating that the alleged allegation had been made
on the 29th March 2012 when it should have been the 28th March 2012. Then under and I quote;

ii Neglect a) The children, or girls at least, were forced to share a mattress with a single sheet
on it, as a bed. This is complete fallacy and has not been proven. b) The adults had an
abundance of designer clothes and shoes whilst the children went without. Again, this was
what the local authority accused us as parents of, when this was not proven and no Social
Worker even attended our home. The most distressing and disturbing accusation was and we
quote; Exposure to adult Pornography a)When the Police searched the parents home,
copious quantities of pornographic material was found. No such thing was found in our
home, this completely contradicts the statement of DC Cooper which stated no such thing was
found in our home, and so how was Mr Persson able to conclude such a fallacy? You see
readers, this is known in the Secret Family Courts, as parents who are usually assessed, nothing
they say is believed, so, what would it matter? After all, theyll soon be assessed!

276

Guardians
Ms Marlyn Samuels
Ms Samuels is a Guardian at Litum, meaning she is there to represent the children,
unfortunately, she failed in that regard. Ms Samuel, to our shock after reading her position
statement which had been withheld from us until we fired our Family Lawyers. It was after firing
our incompetent lawyers that we got a lot of documents we were not privy to, and it was not
until 17/01/13 we had realised a statement from Ms Samuels dated 10th May 2012 and we quote;

The Guardian supports the making of an Interim Care Order to the Local Authority on 11
May. It is submitted that based on the evidence filed to date there is reasonable cause to believe
that the children are at risk of suffering significant harm in the care of their parents and their
safety does require continuing removal from their parents. She presented a entirely false
pretence to us when she visited our home, she had not disclosed that she had drafted such a
document supporting the wrongful acts of the Royal Borough of Greenwich , She would not
have set foot in our home if we had known, hence the withholding of this document which
should have been forwared to us by our Lawyers. However such is the case in these courts
where a lot of information is deliberately withhold from parents, it was her job and duty to
question the actions of the Royal Borough of Greenwich and she did not. This made us feel
deceived by Ms Samuels as we had opened our home to her as she was the only Professional
we had allowed to attend our home. We later find out through other parents and our research
that Cafcass Guardians by default support the actions of Local Authorities in childcare cases in
most cases no matter how dubious an implausible the local Authorities assertions are against
parents. Ms Samuels failed to take into account the impact the kidnapping of our children had on
them and most of all the deprivation of our children seeing us. Ms Samuels did not object to any
of the Royal Borough of Greenwich or Police egregious and utterly unlawful actions!

Ms Claire Holland (Guardian Solicitor)

Court Records reveal that Ms Claire Holland was appointed on the 19th April 2012. We dont
even know how that even possible, as the first hearing took place on 20th April 2012. This is very
serious, as the document outlines a case number and outlines her appointment as Solicitor for
the children by the Court. We believe this is another lapse in the numerous slight of hand tactics
we have become accustom to. Anyway, we firmly believe, Ms Claire Holland is just as despicable
and a rogue as all the others named in this book, she is just as culpable as all the others, we like
to call her the woman who likes to use the words we are here now!
However, lets highlight how seemingly dangerously malign, she appears to be, after we fired our
Family Lawyers for being the incompetents they are and stop attending the family proceedings in
protest at what was and still is clear injustice. The rogues were so desperate to cover their tracks
and all the wrongs committed, and the most easiest and trusted way to do this in the Family
Courts is via a Psychiatric Assessment.
However, the rogues were faced with a few problems in getting this assessment completed:
1. They needed our consent for any such assessment.

277

2. Normally when parents are represented by Family Lawyers (Professional Losers)

consent can be manufactured.
The fact that we would not consent and the fact that we had fired the rogue professional
losers did not deter Ms Holland from trying to illicit a Psychiatric assessment! Now, we must
stress the point that Ms Holland is not or has ever been our Lawyer. She was appointed in
what we can only describe as a dubious manner. Anyway, back to what she tried to do, the
fact she was not our lawyer and any regard for her professional ethics did not restrict her
from deliberately making misleading statements, tantamount to committing fraud by false
representation. We gave Ms Holland no consent or authority to instruct anyone
whatsoever on our behalf, she was not our Lawyer and quite frankly, was exposed to us as
a disgrace to her profession and a rogue from early out. In any event, Ms Holland in what
appeared to be her utter desperation to have us labelled, tried to illicit a Psychiatric
Assessment of us by sending a Letter of Instruction to a fellow called Doctor Bashir, she
even had the audacity to claim we as parents consented to such an assessment.
We quote from Ms Holland letter of instruction to Dr. Bashir received by us on the 22 nd Jan
2013 which states; You are jointly instructed by the Local Authority, the mother, the father

and the children through their Childrens Guardian. I am the lead solicitor in that instruction.
Ms Holland went on further in her letter of instruction to state: Unless you have been specifically

instructed to do so you should please avoid expressing your view with regard to any factual
disputes as this is of course the province of the Court at a final hearing. Therefore, where
appropriate it would be of assistance if you were able to express your opinion on the basis of
alternate findings regarding any disputed area of fact. In this case, the Judge has made findings
against the parents and you are to base your opinion upon those findings.
We were very disturbed by Ms Holland attempts at instructing a Psychiatrist on our behalf
claiming, however, going further to state in her letter of instruction that the Psychiatrist was
jointly instructed by us as parents is outright scandalous. This is the type of trickery and deceit is
what most parents find themselves up against in these family courts. Ms Holland never stopped
there, no no! As is clear above she was also at the same time telling this Psychiatrist to avoid any
factual disputes, What factual disputes? I hear you ask. Well the great inconsistencies and clear
evidence that made the entire situation very suspect, by even the slightest enquiry. Things such
as the unlawful acts committed our children and family, The inhumane use of bail conditions,
The trauma the children suffered as a result of the actions of the Royal Borough of Greenwich,
The schools and the Police, the conducting of two unlawful achieving best evidence interviews
(ABE) by the police on children who have been denied from seeing their parents. The lack of
any evidence to support the claims or findings made amongst a host of other misgivings. In
laymans term Ms Holland was effectively telling Dr.Bashir forget all the wrongs and unlawful
acts committed, much like the judge did and just turn a blind eye. Simply focus on what we want
you to focus on, because our Judge (the Judge) has made findings and dont go highlighting
anything that would jeopardise those findings. No matter how patently unjust the entire situation
is.

278

Upon receiving Ms Hollands Letter of instruction, we immediately responded with a letter

outlining our displeasure with her ill-conceived and unprofessional conduct.
We quote from our letter of response sent to Ms Holland on the 23 Jan 2013 where we
outlined:

We do not consent to any assessments of ourselves or our children and everyone concerned
is well aware of our objection to such assessments including the Guardian, in an attempt to get
an assessment of us and our children you have dispatched a letter of instruction without our
knowledge and consent while being fully aware of our objection.
In the future please refrain from taking such actions using our personal details and
information without our explicit written consent.
We would like to make clear that we do not require the services of Lawrence Davies & Co.
Solicitors, 90 Lillie Road, Fulham, London SW6 7SR or any of its employees associates or
affiliates and would ask that you refrain from trying to make decisions on our behalf.
Also we request an urgent cancellation of your letter of instruction sent to Dr Bashir regarding
us and our children as there was no consent or permission given or obtained from us.
It is well known by all parties of our non-acceptance of DJ Aldersons judgement of the
2/11/2012 and 27/11/2012
It is also wrongly stated that Dr Bashir is jointly instructed by us as parents, when we are clearly
opposed to is involvement with us and our children based on findings and judgments which we
clearly do not accept and reject. We wish to make clear to all that you have no permission or
authority to communicate or share our information either directly or indirectly, or allow such
information to be shared with Dr Bashir and no services from Dr Bashir are required in
regards to us as parents or our children and are indeed unwelcomed.
We reserve all our Rights enshrined in law and do not consent to any third party acting for us
or on our behalf whether directly or indirectly, including the sharing of our personal
information or otherwise without our explicit written consent.
It is unacceptable for so-called 'independent' experts to be instructed in the way Ms Claire
Holland and Ms Marlyn Samuels attempted Without the consent of us as parents. To conduct
such an assessment in preparation for a hearing, which was to have such wide ranging
consequences for our children. Do we believe this was an isolated case? We are sure you the
reader can answer that. What Ms Holland did is just the tip of the ice-berg!
It is important for innocent parents to be proactive when these people try these sorts of
trickeries. Why would Ms Holland be so desperate as to try and instruct a psychiatric assessment
in such an unethical and unprofessional manner? Well, the simple answer based upon our
research and speaking to other parents and a few real professionals is that once a parent is
labelled by a psychiatric with any sort of mental disorder, parents are then deemed to lack
capacity as defined by the Metal Health Act 2005. This can have severe repercussions for a
parents ability to fight any form of injustice experience at the hands of the rogues. It also affects
innocent parents ability to conduct litigation or instruct a Lawyer in any proceedings. We

279

refused to undergo any assessments Psychiatric or otherwise, we have been innocent from the
outset of the malicious claims made against us and in an effort to cover their actions these
rogues, were now trying to elicit a psychiatric assessment to cover their wrongdoing so why
should we subject ourselves to assessments? Quite frankly its these deceitful rogues who need a
psychiatric assessment and not us. Shame on you, Ms Claire Holland you are and absolute
discredit to the legal profession and did a great disservice to our four children. What we have
highlighted here regarding Ms Holland is just the tip of the iceberg regarding her complicated in
the wrongs committed by her in this entire sordid ordeal.
We urge innocent parents to not fall for these sorts of trickery or tactics by these rogues, through
desperation and fear. It is common place for innocent parents to tricked into these sort of
Assessments through desperation and fear of losing their children only to find that it is the worst
decision they have ever made, because once assessed the rogues act with impunity and if parents
think it was bad before they got assessed, they soon find out how vile these rogues can really are
and in a lot of cases have parents have been sectioned and placed in mental institutions. For
some the claims we are making may appear outlandish or far fetched, however we would like to
highlight that the situation is actually worst than we can possibly outline in this book. We have
expended more on this in the chapter From Parents to Patients.

280

Intentionally blank

281

Medicals
It is important that we point out that the medicals we are about to mention were conducted on
the 25th April 2012. Our children were kidnapped on the 29th March 2012. It is claimed the
disclosure regarding the so-called punch was made on the 28th March 2012. Think about the
dates for a minute. For those who still have not got it yet, these corrupt rogues claim they
kidnapped children for alleged abuse a punch in the face on 29th March 2012 yet did no medical
for over 3 weeks later. Talk about preserving evidence! Most people will immediately see the
problem with this situation. We have spoken to a few experts who were gob smacked at the
blatant corruption that is evident.
Like the majority of erroneous documents created, the so-called medicals were no different.
These incompetents took children they claimed were punched in the face, yet a medical was not
claimed to be done until 3 weeks later. Even then in their hasty planning no one thought to
examine the children faces. There was no child protection medicals carried out, these medicals
were hastily carried out or invented weeks later. Another key feature of this so-called medical is
that there were no photos taken of any of the bruises they claim exist. It is claimed that so called
Dr Neciunskaite conducted medicals on two of our children while a Dr F Mirza-Rizwan
conducted medicals on the other two. None of these incompetents examined the faces of any of
the children. The professional loser we had at the time Mr Mark Towmey, made it clear to us
that, he cannot challenge these so-called medicals because of the lack of photos and the
significant time that passed before they were conducted, he further made clear that the medicals
do not serve to substantiate any of the claims made by the Royal Borough of Greenwich/Invicta.
In lay mans terms: he was saying that the medicals do not support any of the allegations that
were being made, so it would make no sense to challenge them. We were not questioned
regarding the medicals; they were not mentioned by anyone. In actual fact we were the ones who
were adamant to talk about them and as said above, Mr Mark Towmy made the decision not to
even challenge them as stated above. The Local Authority Barrester Ms Cleo Perry didnt
mention nothing to do with any medicals.
These incompetents were looking for anything, or any reason to justify their actions, that if a fly
had claimed we squashed it we would have been done for assault and it would be brought into
the proceedings! These people made all sorts of outlandish claims which were later withdrawn.
An after all that they didnt even mention what is supposed to be their evidence in chief, the
medical. Reader ask yourself this? They alleged our two daughters were punched in their faces
yet they did not mention the medicals in the Secret Family Courts. Truth is stranger than

282

fiction!!! One thing we can tell you for certain, if they had medicals even slightly suggesting
evidence of any punch or any bruises then we would both be in prison right now.

So, you can imagine our surprise when the corrupt Family Court Judge DJ Alderson was
mentioning these medicals in his Judgement (which we have never accepted) as though they
formed part of any evidence that was discussed in Court. DJ Alderson should be ashamed of
himself, to even mention those medicals. The medicals werent mentioned in any family Court
proceedings involving us at any point throughout the entire sham family proceedings, we as
parents were not questioned on these so called medicals by the Local Authority Barrister Ms
Cleo Perry.
The thing is, you have to give DJ Alderson credit for practising what appears to be his slight of
hand tactic, what are we talking about? Well, by DJ Alderson mentioning medicals in his
judgement, it gives the casual reader of his judgement the illusion that these incompetents carried
out a medical and this medical was presented as some sort of solid proof that a punch or some
sort of abuse did occur. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sad thing for these
incompetents and part of the reason we have been hounded so much is that we have the
evidence of these clandestine medicals. Most parents in these Secret Family Courts dont get
copies of their files and it is always their words against these incompetents. Well, we made sure
we got our files. It was a painstaking and costly process but we have the medicals. As said before,
these so called medicals are not medicals which are carried out in the traditional sense of Child
Protection medicals (appear to be cooked up documents). We would also like to point out these
medicals were not done as Child Protection Medicals. Ms Manisha Knight, who was Mr
Plowrights Defence Lawyer at the time, even claimed the medicals were not being relied on by
the Prosecution, thats telling, in hindsight it appears she was trying to do what Mr Mark Towmy
did, not challenge the medicals which would later be mentioned after any wrongly obtained
conviction. What many in the public may not be aware of is that in Court cases, if you fail to
bring matters to the attention of the Court, it is as though they dont exist. A defendants defence
Lawyer can advise the Court that the defendant accepts that there were injuries on a victim even
when there was no such injuries. After which there will be no need to contest a medical which
claims there were injuries if a defendant accepts it, which is why we believe many innocent
parents are in prison right now!
How could a corrupt Defence Lawyer pull off such a stunt even when the defendant protests
that no such injuries exist? Easy, if a parent is involved in parallel Criminal and Family
proceedings who then gets assessed as part of family proceedings he or she can and in most
cases be deemed to lack capacity.
All decision making will be done by his defence Counsel. All a the corrupt defence Counsel has
to do after that is claim his client who lacks capacity has accepted the existence of injuries and
thats it, in the summing up the Judge is free to claim the defendant caused horrific injuries. All
the incompetents in our case especially my Defence Lawyer namely, Ms Manisha Knights,
appeared to have been waiting on us to be assessed, then the party would have really started! The
Criminal trial would not even be needed because it could have been claimed that I plead guilty.

283

We have gone off point a little, but these are the sort of tricks that are used on many parents. Do
not take our word for it check it out yourself.
We ultimately made contact with a Professor David who is a well-known Professor in
Paediatrics, who outlines the correct way medicals involving children should be conducted.
Professor David is a very busy man and was trying to see if he could fit me (Mr Plowright) into
his busy schedule. He could not confirm at the time if he would be able to travel to London for
the trial. We had contacted him at short notice, but he was willing to look at the case and then
confirm if he could make it for the trial based on is schedule. However, it was important we get
the files to him as soon as possible. We gave our Defence Lawyers at the time Lauren
Mercurius-Taylor the Professors contact details. Professor David was waiting on the files to be
forwarded by my Defence Solicitor who stalled and stalled, then did the well known trick of
claiming she is going on holiday. Ever since our incompetent Defence Lawyers contacted
professor David we have no idea what occurred, in any event, the case was thrown out and we
did not get an opportunity to contest the so called medicals in the Criminal Courts either. We
have no idea what transpired in the communication between Professor David and our Defence
Lawyers, but all we know is that our Lawyers obstructed us contesting the so-called medicals.
Professor David has written a striking article regarding medicals. We have quoted directly from
this article below. It reveals to us the reasons why all the incompetents in our case did everything
possible to prevent us contesting these haphazardly conducted so-called medicals. It is not even
right to call what they did a medical. They did not avoid the pitfalls mentioned in Professor
Davids article these incompetents went over the cliff. Every pitfall mentioned in his article was
not avoided by the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Based upon the clear erroneous nature of the
documents in this case we are not certain if a Dr Neciunskaite or Dr F Mirza-Rizwan really
put their names to these medicals, however if they did, then they will shortly be answering a lot
of questions regarding their fitness to practice. It is as though Professor David wrote the article
for them. We quoted a few sections of his article below however his entire article can be found
on the internet.

Professor David : Avoidable pitfalls when writing medical reports for court
proceedings in cases of suspected child abuse

Dr Neciunskaite or Dr F Mirza-Rizwan were clearly selectively biased in the manner in which

their medical report was written. It was written much like how Ms Alison Mc Donald (2 nd social
worker) writes her documents.

Bias
Selective extraction of negative information is one of the most common faults in medical
reports. Vigilance and a strong sense of fair play are needed to avoid this trap. There are few
human beings for whom one can find nothing positive to say.
A doctor who is involved in new research should be conscious of the natural tendency to
promote his or her own findings, and should make every attempt to avoid becoming

284

subjectively biased. It is essential that an expert considers and mentions in a report all relevant
material, including that which tends to throw some doubt on the expert's conclusion [11].

Dr Neciunskaite or Dr F Mirza-Rizwan, failed in every aspect regarding their

duties.

Duties of an expert witness

Experts should act independently of the parties and the exigencies of the court process

Experts must express only opinions which they genuinely hold and which are not
biased in favour of one particular party

Experts should not mislead by omissions. They should consider all the material facts in
reaching their conclusions, and they must not omit to consider the material facts which
could detract from their concluded opinion

Experts should state the facts or assumptions on which their opinion is based

If experts look for and report on factors which tend to support a particular proposition
or case, their report should still:

- provide a straightforward, not a misleading opinion

- be objective and not omit factors which do not support their opinion
- be properly researched

If the expert's opinion is not properly researched because insufficient data are available,
that must be recorded and the opinion offered as only a provisional one

Experts must express only opinions which they genuinely hold and which are not
biased in favour of one particular party

A misleading opinion from an expert may well inhibit a proper assessment of a

particular case by the non-medical professional advisers, and may also lead parties, and
in particular parents, to false views and hopes

A misleading opinion from an expert is likely to increase costs by requiring competing

evidence to be called at the hearing on issues which should in fact be non-contentious

An expert should not assume the role of an advocate. Experts have a duty to be
objective, and not to mislead. The welfare of the child may be at stake, and an absence
of objectivity may result in a child being wrongly placed and thereby unnecessarily put
at risk

285

An expert who is involved in new research should be conscious of the natural tendency
to promote his or her own findings, and should make every attempt to avoid becoming
subjectively biased

Experts should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside their area
of expertise

Experts should have sufficient practical experience in the area on which they are
commenting

If the medical evidence points overwhelmingly to non-accidental injury, an expert who

advises that the injury has an alternative and innocent causation has a heavy duty to
ensure that he has considered carefully all the available material and is, moreover,
expressing an opinion which takes that material fully into account and which can be
objectively justified

There were no photographs to accompany the medicals conducted by Dr Neciunskaite

or Dr F Mirza-Rizwan. They were requested on many occasions to no avail. It was made
clear to us that none was taken.

Clinical photographs
It is worth remembering that photographs, particularly those of very extensive injuries,
have the potential to be highly prejudicial, which is why in many abuse cases
photographs of the dead and injured child may well be withheld from the jury.
Paediatricians are only human, and require considerable self-discipline to stand back
and try to make an objective analysis of photographic evidence.
Photographs or video recordings of the home, the scene, and any domestic items
should be viewed if they are available. They may be helpful in determining, for
example, whether or not a particular fall was from a low level.
It is important to bear in mind that for a variety of reasons, photographs of suspected
injuries can be misleading. Photographs may fail to show lesions that were undoubtedly
present, either because the quality of the image is poor or because the lesion was
particularly difficult to photograph. In some situations photographs can suggest the
presence of lesions or injuries that do not exist, and in a recent case no less than five
experts were seriously misled into incorrectly diagnosing abuse because twodimensional colour photographs failed to accurately reflect a three-dimensional normal
variant appearance [18].

286

Lawyers failure to represent us and contest the so-called medicals unlawfully carried out
on our children over 3 weeks after they were kidnapped.
These people conducted medicals over 3 weeks later for two children they kidnapped
alleging two of our daughters had been punched in the face. Does that even make sense?
Oh, by the way until this day, none of the geniuses involved have not examined the
childrens faces for evidence of the alleged punch or at the very least, a brain scan to
check for internal injuries. Their entire claims are ludicrous and contracting which is
borne out by clear evidence that no such punch occurred.
When a child is taken into Police Protection or under an Emergency Protection Order, it is
imperative that a Child Protection Medical is carried out; these examinations can include the
parents although this depends upon the alleged allegation and whether having a parent or parents
present will cause the child distress.
This chapter/subsection is about the Medicals carried out on our four children, these
examinations were carried out in the most haphazard and incompetent manner by Medical
professionals who have clearly raised no questions as to conducting a medical based on an
alleged assault, without any photographs and without examining the faces of the two
children who it is claimed were punched in the face. It is also questionable as to why
these two professionals failed to ascertain as to why almost a month later why this is the first
official medical and why a Child Protection Medical had not already taken place. The medicals
including Avery and Cassie were carried out by Dr R Neciunskaite and the examination for Beth
and Daniel had been carried out by Dr F Mirza-Rizwan.
Upon reading the reports with regards to Dr R Neciunskaite who had been responsible for
examining Avery and Cassie, it is very clear that incorrect information had been transmitted by
Ms Alison Mc Donald as to the circumstances which lead to our four children being in care and
we quote, 29.03.12 informing that Avery and Beth made an allegation of physical abuse by

their father Mr Plowright. Duty Social Worker and CAIT went to speak to the children at the
school on the same day. This is clearly incorrect and deliberately misleading as Ms Mc Donald
(Second Social Worker) has attempted to allege to the Doctor the severity of the situation,
making it appear the referral had been made and on the same day the Social Worker and CAIT
arrived at the school. Dr R Neciunskaite doesnt appear in this document to state any concerns
or raise any questions as to why the parents did not attend the examination as is outlined under
the heading, History given by parents and it states and we quote, Parents were not present

during the medical examination. According to the Social Worker Alison Mc Donald, parents
neither deny nor admit to the allegations. This part of the document clearly sets out any
reasons or explanations given by parents, who we were prevented from taking part due to the
bail conditions and as result, no information had been considered from us as parents. Why is it
important to have a parent present? Well, it avoids things like this happening, where the word of
the Social Worker is accepted and a negative inference taken by the Doctor. Parents, know their
child and can explain any findings on the childs body, for example a parent would know
whether their child has had an allergic reaction, which has caused scars, chicken pocks, eczema

287

or Dr R Neciunskaite failed to ascertain, why it had taken so long to examine the children.
Reader, it is very important a parent is present at an examination, as there was a case where a
child had marks on the back of their legs, it just so happened that these marks had been caused
by the childs wellington boots, what if the father was not present? Then it can be assumed that
he had used some sort of implement to cause those scars consequently, he could be looking at a
lengthily prison sentence. In our case, a one sided view had been given and accepted, this should
never happen.
Dr R Neciunskaite appeared to be unaware of the fact that our children had been kidnapped and
deprived from seeing us, what Ms Mc Donald also failed to mention was her continuous
inappropriate interrogation, suggestions and constant coercion and probing, she had repeated
this more than six times resulting in the morphed alleged allegations, incorporating, wire, belt,
remote etc. Further, this Doctor continued the malpractice of having Cassie present and so each
time Avery had been asked during the examination by Dr R Neciunskaite, what happened
here? a response is given of slapped with belt also when this Doctor asks Avery in the
presence of Cassie, does anyone else slap you? the response is, my mum shouts at me
pinches me. Dr R Neciunskaite continues, Avery and her sister Cassie were examined

together in the same clinic room and during my conversation with Cassie Avery joined in and
told me about her father saying he kicks us and pushed us to the wall, This is utterly
inappropriate, to have this kind of conversation with the children, and with a Social Worker
who is present and has been complicit in the kidnap and responsible for inappropriately
interviewing our children contrary to the ABE guidelines, should never have been there during a
Medical. As a Social Worker and the only other professional present at Avery and Cassies
medical she failed to inform the Doctor that a previous medical (unlawfully, without consent)
namely 16th April 2012, had been carried out further, she failed to inform Dr Neciunskaite, that
Avery had been forcibly returned back to Invicta, against her wishes even though she was
experiencing being bullied consequently, being kicked and punched by a pupil in the school,
which was not told to the Doctor carrying out the medical.
Any opportunity of our children to inform the Doctor of what has happened with regards to
wanting to come home, being deprived of seeing parents, Avery being bullied at Invicta primary
School and other behaviours committed by these rogues would have been potentially lost, as Ms
Mc Donald was present and which we believe would have caused our children to become
hesitant to report any wrongdoing or ask for help. It is clear our children have been told to
continue to repeat these lies repeated to them by these rogues and therefore the fact that Dr R
Neciunskaite, appears unaware of the three weeks with which our children were falsely
imprisoned without Court Order and were inhumanely restricted from seeing us, being tossed
into a unknown world by corrupt and vile rogues plus the effects of being subjected to coercion
by by Ms Mc Donald, CAIT detectives, staff at Invicta not forgetting that our children were left
to remain at Invicta and heavens only knows who else. All these would have attributed to the
alleged allegations made during the medical. It is no surprise that prior to the examination Avery
and we quote, In the clinic room Avery was initially quiet and refused to be examined.
Meaning Avery did not wish to be examined, however because she did not have her parents
there to protect or comfort her she was forced to take part in this medical after a month after
they were kidnapped.

288

In conclusion to Dr R Neciunskaites examination, there has been skin findings this means
that it is alleged to have detected some scars we will quote as to give a picture, it just
unfortunate this medical professional failed to take any (photos). Skin findings Nos. 1,3,4,

and 5 are old scars in the protected areas of the chest, left shoulder and the back. They are
consistent with Averys history of being hit with a belt. However their appearance is nonspecific and it is difficult to say if they are of accidental or non accidental origin. Skin finding
no. 6 is an old linear scar on the left lower arm in relatively protected area of arms inner aspect.
It could be consistent with Averys history of being hit with a belt, but it is difficult to say from
its non specific appearance whether it is of accidental or non accidental origin and what else
may have caused it especially in the absence of any other explanations provided by the child or
anyone else. This report is not reliable and with the absence of any photographs and no
examination of the face it is completely, clear that this Doctor has accepted the view of the
Social Worker and without any evidence to prove such claims and we quote, Also the social

worker informed me that the police found pornographic material in the familys home.. It is
no surprise Dr R Neciunskaite as part of the recommendations states, 1. Social Care and
Police should safeguard A and her siblings.
During Cassies examination with Avery present and listening to what each other had been told
to say with regards to belt etc. The findings were as follows, There were no skin findings
associated with the allegations of physical abuse. Out of all our children, Cassie has had
eczema, we as parents were able to treat it, by caring for her, ensuring that Cassies skin is not
left dry and regularly moisturised, we had a ritual that she would drink herbal teas in the form of
pure garlic and ginger, drink only bottled water, and the list goes on but weve made our point.
Due to the fact that we were prevented from attending the medical, we were deprived of our
chance to make this known. Now, since she (Cassie) has been in care her skin is the worse we
have ever seen, during summertime we have noticed she itches in an agitated manner, it is
disturbingly heart breaking to see and this is a result of the lack of care given to her. Her skin

was dry, particularly on the buttocks and backs of arms and Cassie said that it does get itchy.
She also appears to have mild eczema. Mild, since being in care we would not classify it as
mild.
Moving on to the examination of Beth and Daniel, carried out by Dr F Mirza-Rizwan, the Foster
Carer, observed the medical. When reading this document we were concerned as to our son and
the effects being deprived from seeing us would have, we are aware that he has and still is
distressed by this situation and cannot understand why he is not living with us. Children his age
(3 years at the time) would have displayed serious trauma hence, He had noisy breathing which
demonstrates to us that he has been crying or caught a cold as a result or crying continuously and
lack of care given with regards to keeping him warm. The only mention with regards to his
examination had been, Daniel had chicken pox marks on his body. I am not able to reach a
conclusion as there is no history for the scars on Daniels body. Again, poor practice, why are
there no photos?
During Beths examination, She had post chicken pox scars all over the body. ..girl who has

reportedly alleged physical abuse (pinching, slapping and beaten with fists) by her father. There
are scattered unexplained small skin findings had non specific appearance and there was no

289

obvious pattern involved. Therefore it was not possible to confirm whether these were caused
by accidents or not. Dr F Mirza-Rizwans Medical opinion, There was no obvious medical
evidence of non-accidental injury. However, this Doctor too failed to take any photos.
We as parents are clearly, disgusted by these reports and the fact that they have been
conducted against ever possible moral, ethical and legal justification. Even animals are treated
better.
Further, we were shocked to read a statement from Dr Rasa Naciunskaite, dated 17/10/12,
prepared for the criminal case against father. The fact that this medical had no photographs and
appeared to be heavily influenced by Ms Mc Donalds views made the report come across as
completely biased and as though it had been the views of an individual who believed us parents
were a risk to our children, without meeting us or ascertaining the facts. As a result it was not
surprising to read that Dr Rasa Naciunskaite had repeated the same fallacies Ms Mc Donald had
relayed. Further, it was stated that, The family has been known to Social Care since November
2010 as Charlton Manor School raised concerns about the children being neglected. You see,
Charlton Manor rearing its head yet again! Also, no indication as to the case being closed and the
Social Worker namely, Ms R having no concerns, and so any Jury reading this statement would
accept there were concerns, perhaps thinking, It must be true, a Doctor is saying it. Well, let us
tell you about this, Doctor, well, we dont need to as its in the statement and we quote,I am Dr

Rasa Neciunskaite and I am an Associate Specialist working in Greenwich Community

Paediatrics. I have been working in the area of Paediatrics for 15 years and I have been working
in the area of Community Paediatrics for 5 years. Very impressive! Right and whats the
excuse for not taking any photos? This is all so very strange, this Doctor is clearly experienced, it
just does not make any sense, why you would carry out an examination, especially, as you have
stated that a child is consistent with the allegation of being hit with a belt, and yet not record
any evidence to corroborate that, totally and utterly bizarre.
In the same statement Dr Rasa Naciunskaite, which is made up of According to the social
worker or Social worker Alison Mc Donald told me. based on my medical experience these
scars are consistent with being slapped with a belt, and here are the photos to prove. No, just
hearsay, after unreliable hearsay from a Social Worker who failed to inform that the Royal
Borough of Greenwich, Social Services department failed to obtain parental consent or Court
Order. Further, Dr Rasa Naciunskaite, appears to have believed the Social Worker with regards
to the LA obtained and ICO because we (parents) failed to consent to medicals.
The medicals were so haphazard, the family Court did not rely on it, we were not questioned
with regards to the so called medicals however DJ Alderson, had made clear we should have
contested the medicals, very difficult without photos! In any event, to the reader, one would have
reason to presume the medical had formed part of the fact finding case, when in actual fact it did
not.

290

Intentionally Blank

291

292

Chapter 10
Family Court Judges
It is important to state that we as parents have no respect for any Judge, who fails to have any
regard for the Law of the land. As our saying goes- You cant have respect for a Judge, who
has no respect for the Law! No one, especially any government body should be able to
commit any unlawful, inhumane or illegal acts and seek refuge within the Courts.
You cant break the Law and seek refuge in it!

293

Artwork by Albina Kumirova

Judges are not infallible or immune from corruption as some may think. Take the recent case of
the Kids for Cash across the pond in America. Two Judges namely, Judge Mark Ciavarella and
Judge Michael Conahan, were given lengthy prison sentences for their part in sending youngsters
to private juvenile detention facilities. In Kids for Cash , scandal the investigative reporter Mr
William Ecenbarger tells the story behind a corruption scandal so brazen and cruel it defies
imagination. Between 2003 and 2008, two Pennsylvania Judges accepted Millions of dollars in
kickbacks from a private juvenile detention facility in exchange for sending children girls
and boys, some as young as 11 to jail.
In a festival of injustice, prosecutors, Public defenders, Teachers and Court employees saw it
all and did nothing. At Judge Ciavarellas direction, juvenile probation officers talked kids out of
exercising their right to counsel.
On August 11, 2011, Judge Ciavarella was sentenced to 28 years in federal prison as a result of
his conviction.
Not all Judges are corrupt however, the ones who sat in our case we believe to be corrupt. To
see the blatant injustice and all the malicious acts being perpetrated against an innocent family
especially four young children and did nothing to bring it to a halt is unconscionable.

The judges involved in our case:

Justice of the peace: Rosemary Baker, R. James, E. Walker
District Judge Crichton (CBE),
District Judge Alderson,
Her Honour Judge Hughes,
His Honour Judge Altman.
We approach this chapter with extreme caution and considerable unwillingness; because how do
you write about men and women who are supposed to be the guardians of Justice? The learned
men and women of this, Great Britain of the United Kingdom. We do not know how to begin
and certainly not qualified to do so. After all is said and done, we will be going back to Court to
get the wrongly obtained Care Orders quashed and the case will undoubtedly go before one of
these learned men or women. In any event, we are compelled to write this story and it would be

294

unfair to the entire purpose of this book and the public interest if we failed to name the Judges
that were involved in our case and their complicity in compounding a unlawful and dreadful
situation which is not only a travesty but a great injustice to our family.
There are different types and category of Judges. The more experienced or should we say learned
Judges are referred to as His Honour and Her Honour, while the less experienced are referred to
as District Judges followed by Justices of the peace. Justices of the Peace, normally sit in threes
due to the lack of experience, and are technically not really Judges. They lack the necessary legal
experience and training that Judges would normally receive. Our case clearly exhibits why
monumental decisions of the kind that Family Courts are invited to make at initial hearings
should not be heard by inexperienced or incompetent individuals. On the 20 th April 2012 when
the Royal Borough of Greenwich decided to initiate family proceedings after having our four
children for over 3 weeks unlawfully violating countless statues and human rights legislation, not
to mention, causing our children untold distress by their actions. The hearing was conducted by
three Justices of the Peace namely, Rosmary Baker, R. James, E.Walker. These justices failed in
every regard. At the first hearing the Royal Borough of Greenwich had nothing whatsoever to
present to the Court that would have allowed the Court to make a decision with regard to the
serious decision of, has the Threshold Criteria for the making of an order been crossed? In other
words, there was literally nothing presented to the Court to warrant an Interim Care Order being
made. Why do we say that? Well, on the 20th April 2012, there was no Initial Assessment or
Core Assessment carried out. The initial Social Worker in the case namely, Ms Marie Morris had
not prepared a statement highlighting any concerns regarding her attendance at Invicta primary
school on 29th March 2012. There was no statement from the Police. There was no explanation
given for the unlawful actions of the local authority or the overwhelming failures and
procedural irregularities that had occurred, nothing of the sort, even discussed or mentioned.
All that was presented to the Court was a statement from Ms Mc Donald and a Chronology. Ms
Mc Donalds statement was riddled with all sorts of speculative assumptions and inaccuracies;
she made spurious claims, and outright lied in her statement. For example, her statement began
by stating that on the 29th March 2012 was the date of the so called allegations and the referral
was made on the 29th March. She outlined that our home was not child friendly when Ms Mc
Donald has never as much as set foot in our home. Her chronology in no way mentioned the
unlawful acts committed by her and the Royal Borough of Greenwich and failed to highlight the
fact that two unlawful ABES were conducted and no medicals were done even 3 weeks
after the children were kidnapped for alleged physical abuse, also, it failed to mention that
the LA had failed to obtain an Emergency Protection Order and had our children unlawfully. In
any event, a Social Worker statement and chronology of events does not in anyway cross the
required threshold that exists in family proceedings, for the making of such an order. If the
three Justices had taken just 2 minutes to enquire into the matter, then they would realise that
something was terribly wrong in this case. However, they appeared to us to be too busy
rubberstamping the order. Before entering the Court room which is not like the Court rooms
you see on TV or when you attend the Criminal Courts. The Family proceedings Court room in
Wells Street is more like a meeting room and not a Court room, and the manner in which these
professionals address the Justices is informal as though they are having chit chat. The Local
Authority representative at the time, Mr Matthew Persson appeared to behave as though he was
Judge Jury and everything else! We believe the arrogance of this incompetent is outright

295

repugnant. Mr Persson who was now on a roll at the first hearing, due to the fact it appeared he
had full run of the Court, at one point during the charade that passes for a Court hearing, blurted
out, we do not know nothing about these parents when he was telling the Justices that the LA
do not think it is a good idea to return our children. That sums it up! The fact that Mr Persson
claimed they know nothing about us, is very revealing. Mother was born and raised in the Royal
Borough of Greenwich and our children and us as a family have lived in the Borough for many
years, They (our children) have been attending school, in the Borough and school places were
obtained through the Council admissions process, who requested birth certificates and all sorts
of information as part of the school application process, yet what appeared to us to be the LAs
incompetent Barrister Mr Persson was blurting out they know nothing about us, to claim
nothing is known about us as parents, at the first hearing being conducted 3 weeks after our
children were kidnapped goes to the heart of the case. So on what basis were our children taken
if they knew nothing about us?
Everytime we see an article regarding the family courts in the news, the judges are always wearing
a wig, such as they do in the criminal courts, this is very misleading in giving the public the
impression that Family court judges wear wigs such as those judges in the criminal courts, who
most in the public are more familiar with. This further creates the impression in many a laymen
and women that jutice is being dispensed in the family court much the same as it is as the
criminal courts. Most member of the public will not have any experience of the family courts
unless or until they are subject to or party to proceedings; this is due to the secret nature of
proceedings. All the family court hearing we went to none of the judges wore a wig. They all
wore suit and tie and the courts are nothing like the criminal courts. Court hearings are held in
small rooms with the judges wearing suit and tie and thats not the impression being given to the
public. So when an innocent parent attempts to highlight the injustice suffered most in the
public can be forgivn for wrongly assuming that parents had a hearing similar to those seen on
TV or in the criminal courts. The Diagram below highlights some of the differences between the
Criminal Courts and the Family Courts.

The table below displays some of the major differences that exist between
Criminal Courts and Family courts.
Criminal courts:
Criminal courts have Trials
Criminal Courts have a Jury
Criminal courts have A public Gallery
The public and media can attend
Criminal Court verdict Beyond a
reasonable doubt

Family courts have hearings:

Family Courts Have Hearings
Family Courts Dont have Juries
Family courts Dont have Public
Galleries
Family courts are held in secret
Family court on the balance of
probabilities

Unlike the criminal courts which have the long established history of having public trial by jury
and verdicts are reached beyond a reasonable doubt. Family Courts have a system of finding
facts on what is known as the balance of probabilities in private (secret). There have been many

296

debates regarding the civil standard of prove referred to as the balance of probabilities compared
to the criminal standard beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil standard of proof is much lower
than the criminal standard and the balance of probabilities are based mainly on the likely hood of
an event occurring. The burdens of proof in the civil courts are also very low compared to the
Criminal courts where they are very high. The balance of probabilities concept and to us it is just
that, a concept is being abused in these family courts. The concept is not a bad concept; however
it should be practiced in an open manner due to the low threshold criteria required to make
findings. There is a plethora of legislation, case law and guidelines to support how family courts
should conduct hearings, however all the legislation or case law in the world cannot insulate
against professionals who are bent on abusing their positions. You have judges such as in our
case accepting improbable and speculative assumptions being presented by social workers
without a shred of evidence to support these claims, then making findings based on the balance
of probabilities that the speculative assumptions of rogues did occurred. These judges in the
family courts never had it so good; every piece of legislation to govern their conduct and prevent
malpractice can be disregarded in these secret hearings. It is quite telling that the family courts
are the subject of so much controversy and not any other court in the civil division. It is time for
the practices of the family courts to be exposed in their entirety. We firmly believe most of these
family court judges are just sitting their warming benches; the issues they are ask to decide are
some of the most important issues that will go before any judge in any court. The well being of
children and families. These issues are too important to be decided in the manner they currently
are. Its not enough for family court judges to constantly blame parents and others of not
understanding the process. If the family court was a company it would have closed down as not
fit for purpose a long-time ago. We have never encountered a parent who was happy or even
mildly pleased with their experience of the family court. The complaints of parents are all the
same, the judges are corrupt, the social workers are corrupt, the experts collude, the Lawyers are
corrupt and the judge was on the side of the Local Authority. We can tell you one thing for
certain; the biggest losers of the malpractice which is currently rampant in the family courts are
the children. The biggest beneficiaries are the Local Authorities, Lawyers, experts, social workers
and the fostering industry. If the Justice Minister Chris Grayling is serious about cutting cost in
the justice system he should close the family courts and relocate family court judges to Local
Authority Social Services Departments up and down the country. Based on our experience the
family courts already operate as a department of Social services. Parents are at the mercy of these
judges who use the most eloquent terms and judges lingo to present the most well written
judgements which ultimately hide their failings. A lot of these judgements are void of the true
substance of the issues raised in these secret proceedings. Parents versions of events are in most
cases not mentioned in these well-polished judgements. We have read countless judgements and
while they sometimes make very good points in law parents version of events or even evidence is
not mentioned. On the other hand in most cases the Local Authorities and so-called experts
evidence is often not only mention but quoted. We have experience this family Just-Trick system
and we can tell you first hand, as a parent you are made to feel horrible. You are disregarded and
everything is blamed on you from the get go. If they could blame you for the cold weather you
can be sure they would. If you refuse to submit to ridiculous demands then you are accused of
not engaging. There is a million things wrong with these family courts. We are fully aware no
systems is perfect, but the current state of the family courts need serious reform, not the current
sort of piecemeal and knee jerk changes we see taking place because of the pressure being placed

297

on the courts because of parents highlighting how bad the situation is in these courts. There
needs to be serious change, the first step would be for parliament to repeal section 12 of the
administration of justice act and section 97 of the children Act 1989. That would start the
process of opening up the family courts. If the family courts were opened tomorrow you would
see how many of these rogues up and left their profession. They could not get away with the
scandalous acts that are being committed against parents in secret. If you ask us the Family
Court Judges are the main problem facing the credibility of the family courts, for far too long
they have allowed incompetent social workers and other rogue professionals to run riot in their
court rooms. No one seems able to call it as it is, people get afraid when it comes to judges. Well
these judges can say what they want about us when this book is published. If the family court
judges who sat in our case were not so busy sucking up to the Royal Borough of Greenwich and
trying to cover-up the wrong doing of these rogues then they would probably have time to do
their jobs and we would not be here writing this book. These judges should stop the practices of
penalising and disregarding innocent parents. The law is the law and does not require any help.
It is repeated countless times in many judgement the seriousness of the decisions family judges
are invited to make, yet as our case displayed no matter how immoral, unlawful and treacherous
the acts of these rogue professionals are against children and families court orders are
rubberstamped without any consideration for the implications of such an order on the children
or the family as a whole. The real question for us is what would it take for the family court not to
make an order ?because our case is as worst as they come in terms of corruption and yet, with
the obvious and overt corruption in our case they still plod along without a care in the world. An
tried to manipulate the system to their own ends to the detriment of children.
When it comes to Police officers, most judges appear to be in fear of the Police. They constantly
allow them to get away with all sorts. There will be many who say, you are talking nonsense, pure
fantasy. All I have to say to them is who feels it knows.

298

Justice of the peace: Rosemary Baker, R. James, E. Walker

At the first hearing on the 20 April at inner London Family proceedings court, we sat in front of
Justice of the peace: Rosemary Baker, R. James, E. Walker. These three justices epitomise
everything that is currently with the family courts. They did no enquiry into the circumstances of
our children. They simply rubberstamped the Royal Borough of Greenwich requests for an
order. No threshold criteria were crossed. They gave no regard to the malpractice and unlawful
acts committed against our children and our family. How do you go from Kidnap to denying
children seeing their parents for such a long time without questioning the actions of all the
rogues involved. These three justices are an serious disgrace to their profession. There needs to
be a review of our case and the actions of these tree incompetent Justices. They have no regard
for the rule of law and more importantly the wellbeing of our children. They are just as complicit
as every single rogue named in this book. They are even more culpable, because they had the
serious job of highlighting the fact that something was inherently wrong with this case. No initial
assessment, No core assessment, no Child Protection conference, no section 20, no epo
application, 3 weeks unlawfully. With all of that the countless unlawful acts and failings these
three incompetents justices rubberstamp and order. They should have known that this case was
too corrupted to rubberstamp. These three incompetent Justices set into motion the dreadful
chain of events that we find ourselves in today. These three justices are a utter disgrace to their
profession and a discredit to the Justice System. Because of your neglectful actions our children
have been through a most horrendous and completely avoidable situation had these three
justices not rubberstamped the order on the 20 April 2012. There was absolutely nothing
presented to the court to substantiate a order being made. This is borne out by the fact that on
the 20 April there was the only thing presented to the court was a statement from MsAlison Mc
Donalds, a chronology an a care plan. By any standards that is not enough to substantiate the
making of an order or goes to the issue of threshold criteria. Ms Alison Mc Donalds statement,
chronology and so-called care Plan was riddled with inaccuracies and speculative assumptions.
The fact that the Royal Borough of Greenwich had not even conducted an initial assessment or a
core assessment and had acted in what can only be described as a deplorably egregious and
unlawful manner also tainted the matter the entire matter. For , readers who are not familiar
with the threshold criteria in family courts, in plain English what actual happened is that nothing
whatsoever was presented to the court that could warrant a order being made. The order was
simply rubberstamped. The recent ruling of His Honour Judge Hamilton highlights how family
courts should come to the decision when making and order and even though this ruling was
made in 2014, the exact same principles applied in 2012 when the Royal borough of Greenwich
in their brazen temerity got their rubberstamped order. The legal framework:

299

HIS HONOUR JUDGE IAIN HAMILTON in ( JG-and-MAA) 13/08 /2014

Legal Framework
1. A care order or supervision order may only be made on the application of a local
authority if the Court is satisfied that the "threshold criteria" under Section 31(2)
Children Act 1989 are established. Section 31(2) provides that:

"A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied (a)
that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm; and
(b) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the
child or likely to be given him if the order were not made, not being what it
would be reasonable to expect a parent to give him; .."
2. Section 31(9) defines "harm" as meaning ill-treatment or the impairment of health or
development and "development" as meaning physical, intellectual, emotional, social or
behavioural development and "health" includes both physical and mental health.
3. The burden of proof rests on the local authority to establish the factual matters that
support its assertion that the threshold criteria are met. The standard of proof is the
civil standard of proof, a simple balance of probabilities. Re B (Care Proceedings:
Standard of Proof) [2008] 2 FLR 141.
4. If the threshold is established, the court then has to pass on to the ' welfare' stage with a
view to considering what, if any, order is to be made. Consideration of this requires me
to have regard to section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and to treat the child's welfare as
paramount and to apply the 'welfare checklist' or relevant parts of it in arriving at my
decision.
5. The "welfare checklist" is set out in section 1(3) of the Act and requires the court to
particular regard to:
(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in
the light of his age and understanding);
(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;
(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;
(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court
considers relevant;
(e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;
(f) how capable are each of his parents, and any other person or relation to
whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;
(g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings
in question."

6. An order should only be made if I consider that making an order is better for the child
than making no order at all. If the court considers that an order is necessary it should
go on to consider the range of options available to it, which include where appropriate
private law orders under section 8, Special Guardianship Orders under section 14A as
well as supervision or care orders under section 31. Before making a care order the

300

court has to consider the local authority's proposals for contact with the child and has to
have considered the local authority's care plan for the child. The court should only

make such order as the facts require, and only then in compliance with the principles of
necessity and proportionality set out in Article 8 (2) of The European Convention on
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.
7. Given the issues as to the 'threshold criteria' which arise in this case and the submissions
made by the local authority, I make these further observations in relation to the law
which must be applied. Firstly, in order to establish that a child is likely to suffer
significant harm, the court must be satisfied on the balance of possibilities, that the facts

upon which that prediction is based did actually occur; it is not enough that they may
have done or that there was a real possibility that they did. Re S-B (Children)[2009]
UKSC 17, [2010] 1 FLR 1161
8. The applicant must satisfy the court that that there is a risk that the child is likely to
suffer significant harm in the future. In this sense "likely" means a real possibility, a
possibility that cannot be sensibly ignored having regard to the nature and gravity of the
feared harm in the particular case. Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of

Proof) [1996] AC 563

9. The relevant date for determining whether a child is 'likely to suffer' significant harm is
the date upon which the local authority initiated arrangements to protect the child,
provided such arrangements have been continuously in place until the court's decision
on the 'threshold criteria'. Re M (A Minor)(Care Order: Threshold Conditions) [1994]
2 FLR 577
10. The Supreme Court has recently visited issues in relation to the 'threshold criteria' in
the cases of In the matter of J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9 and In the matter of B (A
child) (FC) [2013] UKSC 33 and provided helpful guidance in the task that judges are
required to undertake. At paragraph 192 of In the matter of B (A child) Lady Hale sets
out the following

".where the threshold is in dispute, courts might find it helpful to bear the
following in mind:
[1] The court's task is not to improve on nature or even to secure that
every child has a happy and fulfilled life, but to be satisfied that the
statutory threshold has been crossed.
[2] When deciding whether the threshold is crossed the court should
identify, as precisely as possible, the nature of the harm which the child
is suffering or is likely to suffer. This is particularly important where the
child has not yet suffered any, or any significant, harm and where the
harm which is feared is the impairment of intellectual, emotional, social
or behavioural development.
[3] Significant harm is harm which is "considerable, noteworthy or
important". The court should identify why and in what respects the harm
is significant. Again, this may be particularly important where the harm
in question is the impairment of intellectual, emotional, social or
behavioural development which has not yet happened.
[4] The harm has to be attributable to a lack, or likely lack, of
reasonable parental care, not simply to the characters and personalities
of both the child and her parents. So once again, the court should
identify the respects in which parental care is falling, or is likely to fall,
short of what it would be reasonable to expect.

301

[5] Finally, where harm has not yet been suffered, the court must

consider the degree of likelihood that it will be suffered in the future.

This will entail considering the degree of likelihood that the parents'
future behaviour will amount to a lack of reasonable parental care. It will
also entail considering the relationship between the significance of the
harmed feared and the likelihood that it will occur. Simply to state that
there is a "risk" is not enough. The court has to be satisfied, by relevant
and sufficient evidence, that the harm is likely: see In re J [2013] 2 WLR
649.
11. In the matter of J (Children) at paragraph 44 Lady Hale reminds judges and others that

"Time and again, the cases have stressed that the threshold conditions are
there to protect both the child and his family from unwarranted interference by
the state. There must be a clearly established objective basis for such
interference. Without it, there would be no "pressing social need" for the state to
interfere in the family life enjoyed by the child and his parents which is
protected by article 8 of the ECHR. Reasonable suspicion is a sufficient basis
for the authorities to investigate and even to take interim protective measures,
but it cannot be a sufficient basis for the long term intervention, frequently
involving permanent placement outside the family, which is entailed in a care
order."
12. Pertinent to the issues under consideration are some of the observations made by Black
LJ in Re P (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 963 at paragraph 112 where she said

"Care cases involve "professional evaluation, assessment, analysis and opinion"

(ibid) brought to bear on facts. As the President said, we need to distinguish
clearly between what is fact and what falls into the other category which, for the
sake of argument, we might loosely call the processing of the facts. The
assessment and opinions of social workers and those of other professionals will
only hold water if the facts upon which they proceed are properly identified and
turn out actually to be facts."
And paragraph 115

"Where a parent does not accept what is asserted in the threshold statement, or
only accepts it in part, as here, it will be necessary for the parties to consider
what to do about this. Allegations which are denied are not facts. If the local
authority need to rely upon them as part of their case, they will have to produce
the evidence to establish them."

As the above excerpt from HHJ Hamilton highlights there is a plethora of case law that goes to
the issue of threshold. None of those case laws was given any regard in our case. As stated
above.

302

The assessment and opinions of social workers and those of other professionals will only hold
water if the facts upon which they proceed are properly identified and turn out actually to be
facts."
In our case the opinions of all the social workers was not backed up by any facts to establish
them and none was produced.

On a side issue we always find the manner in which these judgements are written
with a positive assumption on the basis that certain actions will and will not be
done before an order is made.

For example: A care order or supervision order may only be made on the
application of a local authority if the Court is satisfied that the "threshold
criteria" under Section 31(2) Children Act 1989 are established.
To the casual reader or many members of the public when they read a
statement such as the above it gives the illusion that the threshold
criteria was crossed or the court would not have made an order in
your case, and that is not true. Our case highlights that no
consideration was given to the threshold criteria. A further example is
a statement such as:
A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied (a)
that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant
harm; and (b) that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the
care given to the child or likely to be given him if the order were not
made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give
him; .."
The above sort of statement is again a positive assumption that an order will not be made unless
the court is satisfied, this gives the illusion to many in the public that something of substance in
the form of evidence or otherwise was presented to the court to satisfy the threshold criteria and
warrant an order being made. That is not always the case and as our case highlights that was far
from the case. These sorts of statements have a corrosive effect on parents who experience
miscarriages of justice in the family courts, because on one hand the public cannot attend and
validate the matters for themselves and on the other these sorts of statements create the illusion
that the court will not make an order unless the threshold criteria was crossed. This creates a
situation where its innocent parents words against that of judges and countless so-called
professionals and who is the public likely to believe? Rogues are always the first to regurgitate
these sort of statements with emphasis being placed on the point that the court was satisfied that

303

an order needed to be made to protect the child. Theses rogues are fully aware of the extent of
the rampant rubberstamping practices taking place in the family courts and that countless orders
are being rubberstamped without any threshold criteria being crossed. As in our case the family
courts are rubberstamping and handing out care orders like candy to Local Authorities up and
down the country and it is full time this despicable practice is brought to a halt.
Parliament is responsible for the creation and wording of statues and the courts are responsible
for the interpretation of such statues. In any event that does not detract from the fact that the
wording of family court statues can be very misleading in offering an illusion to the public
regarding the state of affairs that do not exist.
Its all well and good to complain however sometimes we like to suggest how these practices can
be eradicated. In conjunction with Repealing section 12 of the AJA and section 97 of the
childrens Act 1989, the current practice of inexperienced District Judges and Justices of the
peace deciding threshold matters at initial hearings should be halted and threshold matters
should be decided by Senior Judges. Threshold criteria being crossed is a very serious issue ,
because when threshold is not correctly decided and orders are wrongly obtained this set into
motion a most dreadful an torturous chain of events for children and families. Once and a
interim care order or any order for that matter is wrongly granted and the conveyor belt of
injustice starts moving its virtually impossible to bring to a halt. The rogues take full advantage
of this knowledge and will often hide behind the wrongly obtained order as a means to justify
their actions. The rogues are always the first to inform anyone who challenges there incompetent
conduct, that it was the court that made the order and not them. All the rogues are fully aware
that family proceedings are secret and that the extent of their misconduct is shielded from public
view by that fact, the family courts offer a cover better that the space suit the astronauts wear in
space and are confident that with such a cover their actions will be safely hidden from public
scrutiny. These rogues are often brazen and blatant in their arrogance of the fact that their
wrongdoing is shielded by the family court, are always ready to defend their profession and
often suggest to whoever challenges them that you are only privy to one side of the story,

(the disgruntled parents) version of events and that does not paint a complete picture of
the entire nature of events they then add the cherry on top to seal the deal there was a
court hearing and the Judge was privy to all the evidence in the case and decided to
make an order in the best interest of the child If you look closely enough you can actually
see the smirk on these rogues faces. Now thats what you call real slight of hand tactics at play,
using the very cause of the problem as the shield. For this I blame the incompetent judges in
the family courts. They offer a lifeline and a cover for these rogues, to deceive the Public and
make innocent children and parents suffer at the hands of the Family Just-Trick System.

304

DJ Crichton (CBE)
The first hearing in front of DJ Crichton took place on the 11th May 2012 (after two hearings
with the Three Justices). DJ Crichton at the time was one of the most long serving judges in the
FPC. The case was allocated to him and it appeared he had no idea what to do. Due to the fact
that there was nothing whatsoever for us as parents to contest, DJ Crichton made an order for
rolling consent. At the time we were adamant to contest the order, however there was literally
nothing to contest. The Local authority had not submitted anything to contest. So instead of
striking out the case and returning our children DJ Crichton ordered the Local Authority to go
an help the school with their evidence. We were flabbergasted to her such a comment. In our
eyes what DJ Crichton was effectively instructing the LA to do was go and help them prepare
the evidence. This led to social worker Victoria Carrrigton attending Charlton Manor to
interview Mrs Sengupta and writing her statement. After the comments from DJ Crichton a
whole plethora of reporting a concern records magically appeared, it seems they were being
produced by the schools at an alarming rate after our children were kidnapped, everyone got in
on the action. Unsigned and undated statements became the order of the day. We contend that
all this so called evidence appears to have been created from scratch. One minute there was
nothing to present to the court, the next there was all sorts of badly written and unsigned,
undated documents produced. Even on the slightest inspection anyone can see that these
documents are highly questionable and appears to be clear fabrications. We are still going
through this ordeal at the time of writing this book and there are still countless matter of
inconsistencies and wrong doing we have missed and not spotted. What are we really saying?
Our case is actually worse than we can put into words at this time and requires true
independence of someone not involved to highlight the true extent of wrongdoing. So to sum
this part up, the school or the LA had nothing whatsoever to submit to the court and as it
appears went about creating the documents. Do we have any evidence of that fact? Yes, the case
files themselves are filled with evidence that highlight clearly the creation of documents in an
effort to try and substantiate the actions an assumption of these rogues. Where did all these
documents appear from, these people have a lot of questions to answer? There was no initial
assessment so these rogues put the 2010 report of the positive outcome as the initial assessment
for March 29 2012. They even tried to fabricate and create documents to suggest that they
conducted a core assessment. Unlike most parents who have gone through this horrible process
whose lawyers hold on to the files, we were fortunate to retain ours because we fired the
incompetent lawyers they had no choice but to give us our files, they were heavily redacted but
we got enough information in them to highlight the scandal which is our case.. The Royal
Borough of Greenwich social worker Alison Macdonald would have collected it when she went
to her gossip session at the school on the 18 April 2012. Failing that the royal Borough of
Greenwich would have collected it from the school long before 11 may 2012. The question you
should ask yourself is what was present to the court in the first place so as to warrant the
granting of an order. Reader even on the 12 June 2012, these people still had no evidence to
present to the court by this time it was looking ridiculous, DJ Crichton transferred the matter to
the Principal Registry. Citing reasons of complexity, depends on how you look at it the matter
did become complex or could have been easily remedied. DJ Crichton had the opportunity t do
the honourable thing and he did not. What incentive was there DJ Crichton to remedy the
matter? None. The suffering of our children at the hands of rogue professionals was clearly not

305

on his priority list. Also what did he have to lose, family court judges are normally not held
accountable for any wrong doing. There is no repercussion for family court judges who do
immoral and unjust acts. The fact that the three Justices and The Royal Borough of Greenwich
and the other rogues had already dragged the family court into this sordid affair, there was no
way out, without causing a scandal.
Now as stated under the chapter schools namely, Ms Webber and based on the notes I had
taken that day, DJ Crichton with regards to the alleged sexual allegation, DJ Crichton had stated
and I quote; The Judge said he knew this was hard for us and said this is a bizarre, strange and
uncommon case! Further, sealing that belief with the fact that after the allegation was made
known to DJ Crichton, immediately he had asked the Local Authority, namely Mr Matthew
Persson who had then asked Ms Victoria Carrington how long ago they had known about this,
to which she replied 2 weeks ago, DJ Crichton simply shook his head. However, that being said
DJ Crichton failed to raise any concerns and deal with this case adequately and as an honourable
Judge should. Also the fact that the LA failed to submit the evidence from the schools, had
been clearly unacceptable.
District Judge Crichton (CBE), yes, he has received a Knighthood, however, at the time he sat in
our case he was without a CBE. After experiencing what appeared to us based upon their lack of
judgement and experience and appear to us to be what we call them (the three stooges), who
wrongly granted the LA an ICO. Well, we were hopeful our case was being seen by a Judge, and
so we believed the right thing would be done, however, we were let down! DJ Crichton (CBE)
instead of denying the Local Authority an ICO which should be renewed every couple of weeks.
However, the LA failed to present any evidence to solidify the alleged allegations, as a result DJ
Crichton (CBE) instead of allowing us as parents to contest the LAs claims, we were prevented
from doing so and as a result and against our will, he granted LA an ICO on more than one
occasion with what he called rolling consent he stated that we as parents had nothing to
contest because the LA failed to present their evidence. We were left furious, we never gave
our consent for the ICO and however, it appears a Judge can consent for you! We never
accepted that whatsoever!
It gets worse! DJ Crichton (CBE) aware of what he called a bizarre case resorted to pushing
the case to the Principal Registry of the Family Division (PRFD). We believe the reason why the
Judge moved the case up was because he didnt want to deal with a corrupt case and it so
happens one would not want such a case to effect whether one gets a knighthood or CBE!

306

District Judge Alderson,

After DJ Crichton one of the most senior judges on the family circuit transferred our case to the
Principal registry of the family division Principal Registry of the Family Division (PRFD) citing
complexities his reasons (More like I do not want anything to do with this case, I will shortly be
receiving my OBE and want nothing to jeopardise that). We were surprised the case was then
allocated to a less experience judge in the Gee Street out post of the PRFD. How is that
possible, a more experience Judge transferred the case and a less experience judge was now
dealing with it. It just does not make sense to us. All the parties displayed a noticeable uneasy
when the case was transferred to PRFD. So naturally, we are until this day utterly confused as to
how the case was allocated to DJ Alderson.
When taken as a whole the judgment of DJ Alderson are based on the speculative assumptions,
perjurious testimony, clear deceit and unlawful acts committed by all the incompetent rogues
who got involved in this charade. DJ Alderson like all the others was primarily concerned with
insulating the incompetents from the wrongs committed against our children and family as a
whole. It is apparent from his lack of analysis and consideration of the longer term effects on the
children of their separation from their parents when they were kidnapped from Invicta Primary
School and denied seeing us for such a considerable period of time. DJ Aldersons judgement is
not only scant and inadequate; it lacks the reasoned analysis of a true Judge. We have our
suspicions that the Royal Borough of Greenwich Barrister Cleo Perry and others were
instrumental in the drafting of that document. We outright did not accept DJ Aldersons illconceived and unreasoned judgement and in fact we have rejected it.

DJ Alderson failed to mention the effects of the unlawful and illegal actions against our
children
He prevented us as parents from bringing a key witness
He failed to mention the clear evidence of bullying (regarding Avery) presented to the
Court.
However, made mention of medical evidence which was unlawfully carried out 3
weeks after our four children were kidnapped and which parents were unable to
challenge due to the fact, that the medicals had no photo to substantiate or validate any
of the frivolous and false claims that were being made by the rogues regarding injuries or
bruises.
Failed to ask DC Cooper any question as to the so called Police Protection and unlawful
use of bail conditions and the impact this had caused on our four children, which was a
clear breach of our children and us as a family Article 3 and Article 8 rights amongst
other statutory violations. What Dc Cooper did by kidnapping our children was an act of
clear wickedness, coupled with blatant racisms and clear discrimination. His actions by
using bail conditions reveals is lack of moral integrity and DJ Alderson not and lacks an
sense of moral
DJ Alderson failed to mention the Social Worker namely, Ms Marie Morris failure to
submit a statement to the Court. Ms Marie Morris in the presence of this Judge gave

307

unreliable testimony and lied under oath. His only comment against this incompetent
social worker is that she misrepresented section 47 and that she is deceitful and deceived
us as parents. Misrepresented sounds much better than deliberately and wilfully lied in
the process of kidnapping four children.
He failed to mention the countless lies by these rogues witnesses under oath
committing clear perjury. He instead claims they were credible.
He made no mention in is judgement of the fact that the Achieving best evidence (ABE)
interrogation of our children were conducting unlawfully
He made no mention in is Judgement that there were two such unlawfully conducted
ABE
He made no mention that the so called medical evidence was not discussed in court
He made no that our children were not party to proceedings
He made no mention of the fact that countless laws were broken in the 3 weeks
detention of our children by the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Invicta Primary School
and the Police
He made no mention of the impact of The Royal Borough of Greenwich, Invicta
Primary School and the Police on our children
He made no mention of the Social Worker who closed the case in 2010, and in fact
denied us from bringing her to court as a witness.
He made did not enquire as to where our children was placed within the initial 3 weeks
they were detained
He made no mention of the countless contact reports
He made no enquire as to why there was no initial assessment, no core assessment, no
child protection conference
He was very sympathetic to the corrosive and unlawful actions committed against our
children and us. Even going as far as claiming the school was put in a difficult position
on 29 March 2012.
DJ Alderson claimed the case was a legal shambles, yet failed to mention that fact in
his judgement.
DJ Alderson made findings not based on evidence placed before the court. There was no
evidence placed before the court to suggest any abuse. Until this day no one has examine
any of our children faces regarding any allege punch.
He failed to mention the great inconsistencies and the unsigned documents being
presented to the court.
He failed to mention in is judgement the fact that the Royal Borough of Greenwich
failed to apply for an EPO and had no lawful authority to have children in their care.
He failed to mention in his Judgement the countless obvious violation of ECHR Article
3,6 and 8 committed by these rogues against our children and us as a family.

DJ Alderson is an utter disgrace to the rule of Law and is profession as a whole, out of all the
other incompetent judges that sat on the case before him, he is the most culpable. He heard
with is own two hears the blatant inconsistencies, lies and obvious inaccuracies of all these

308

rogues, added to the entire unlawful state of affairs, procedural and other irregularities, gross
misconduct on the part of the rogues he himself made clear that the case was a legal
shambles and without any credible evidence whatsoever presented to the court to
substantiate the claims made by the rogues, and the obvious emotional trauma caused to our
children by the actions of these rogues he then had the audacity and arrogance to make
findings in such a case in an attempt to cover-up the wrongdoing of these despicable rogues
is utter beggars belief.
We firmly believe DJ Alderson is as deviously wicked, incompetent and is more of a rogue
than all the others named in this book. It was is job to act as a true judge and put and end to
this travesty, however as is seemly clear he dishonoured himself and his profession by his
failure to act according to his oath of office or moral obligation and have effectively
compounded a despicably dreadful situation.

Our case did get worse at the hands of this incompetent Judge DJ Alderson as you the reader
will find out:
Some of the supporters of the rogues that operate in the Family Just-Trick System are always
quick to point out that rigorous enquires are carried out before parents consent is disregarded
and children placed for adoption. They will cite the well-rehearsed line that ever thing possible
would have been done to keep children with birth families and only after all other options have
been explored and only when nothing there is no other option left open to the court, then the
court will place a child for adoption. Oh, and the last statement to seal the deal will most
definitely be The interest of the child is the courts paramount concern. Then, how would
those mantra repeaters account for the fact that in a case so corrupted and riddled with hideous
and unlawful acts committed by rogue professionals, where our children were kidnapped, our
son was placed for adoption, without any regard for the laws or procedures relating to child
protection as highlighted in this book.
This letter below had been sent to us, and an agreed order to give the LA permission to have our
only son adopted. Our four children were kidnapped, countless laws, guidelines and statutes
violated, yet our son was put up for adoption? Oh, DJ Alderson also done away dispensed
with our consent, meaning the adoption was to take place whether we like it or not! This is
happening, and continues to happen in these Secret Family Courts! Many members when told
via the media that parents have had their child/children adopted, the assumption is that; they
must have done something wrong! No, as you can see in our case the parents do not have to do
anything, a child can be put up for adoption just like that! Did you know they can even be
advertised online as if a product is up for sale? This is the reality that of, many children have
been placed for adoption, due to the actions of devious, callous rogue individuals- absolutely
disgusting and unforgivable! What we ask ourselves is what if the local authority had found
adoptive parents? We would have lost our only son, and for what? A case riddled with abuses of
Laws, Protocols, Human Rights Violations, breeches of PACE false imprisonment, false arrest;
the list is endless! To think they attempted to adopt our son after what can only be described as
an outright and patently corrupted case is testament to the corrosively wicked practices of the

309

Family Just-Trick System. Is it any wonder? The family courts needs to be open to the public and
actions like these put to an end and stop innocent families losing innocent children who have
been forcibly adopted.

Below is a letter from the Interim Head of Social Care, who prior to DJ Alderson granting the
Order for the LA for our son to be adopted sent this and we quote:

15th May 2013

Dear Mr and Mrs Plowright, I am writing to confirm due to consideration of the departmental
plan and the relevant reports from various experts involved with the case. I have decided that
Adoption is the appropriate decision of Daniel. The Childrens social worker will be writing to
you with more information, as a result of this decision.
Yours Sincerely,
Nicky Pace
Interim Head of Social Care
We would like to make clear this letter had been sent prior to DJ Alderson granting the
Adoption order for our son. Just goes to demonstrate that the actions of the local authority,
namely, Nicky Pace, was an attempt to cause severe distress and trauma, to parents whose
children should never have been taken in the first place, but again this is common practice.
We made clear we were not going to take part in any form of assessments and so as usual the
local authority pulls a tantrum. However, DJ Alder should never have made an Adoption
order see below
To make clear, DJ Alderson, on the 11th June, DJ Alderson had made an order for our
only son Daniel, to be and we quote; 2. That consent of the parents to the making of a

placement order is dispensed with pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Adoption and Children
Act 2002.
3. The child. shall be placed for adoption by the Local Authority.
DJ Alderson as a Judge, failed to take into account the effects this would have on our son and
his sisters. No regard given as to the events which led to our four children being kidnapped in
the first instance. Further, no regard as to our son and his wishes and feelings and what impact
this so called adoption would have on him. The clear fallacies and no evidence to state any abuse
had taken place. We even typed and sent a letter on 10th June 2013, stating the corruption in our
case to DJ Aldersons clerk, prior to the hearing. Then on 11th June 2013, we sent two letters,
stating our non-consent to the placement order. We were ignored, as always. The question we
need to ask and a matter which should be under investigation is how many adoptions have DJ
Alderson authorised unnecessarily? We know we will be shocked at the answer.
Readers, before you begin thinking our son has been adopted, he hasnt : ) as the Adoption order
period had expired, as the local authority had failed to find adoptive parents within their 6

310

month time limit. As we as parents know, although it does happen, this was a tactic used to
cause fear, anxiety, distress consequently leading to total compliance to do everything and
anything the local authority and the Secret Courts demand of you i.e. Assessments. We remained
resolute, standing firm, we as parents will not be bullied or threatened by authorities who
have clearly committed unlawful acts and we will get Justice for our children.
DJ Alderson, during the fact finding heard countless contradictions during various individuals
testimonies; however, it was us as parents who were made to feel like the wrong doers. This is
why we have never accepted DJ Aldersons Judgement and so there is no need to even
comment on the contents of that document. DJ Alderson had the opportunity to ask the
detectives involved in the case for a copy of the Police Protection; however, at the end of the
case, he stated that he did not know when Police Protection began, or when it ceased. Which,
you would think is very strange, as he is the Judge, he can ask anything he demands to know, but
just remember this is the clandestine Family Courts- anything goes!

The united kingdom of Great Britain has one of the most envied and respected legal systems in
the World. This magnificent system of justice is being undermined by a small branch of the
overall Justice System by some of the Judges and Justices who operate in the Family Justice
System. If there was ever a case to highlight the state of the Family Courts and the injustice that
can result from unaccountability it is ours. When Judges or Justices rubberstamp and approve
unlawful actions committed by professionals, it sends a clear message that anything goes and
undermines the credibility of the Courts. We believe that rogues come in all shapes and sizes and
Judges are not immune from having rogues amongst their ranks. Since the kidnap of our four
children we have invested heavily in trying to understand what made these professionals, so
brazen and audacious in their actions and we have come to see why. No Accountability! To
kidnap four young children, then detain then for an entire 3 weeks without any court order or
legal basis, not allowing them or their parents to see each other, then to have the temerity to
present yourself to a Court, not to explain your wrongdoing but to seek an order to justify your
actions is plainly ridiculous. However, to actually succeed in getting an Interim Care Order is
beggars belief! The rubberstamping of Care Orders by some Family Court Judges has now past
the point of being grossly unacceptable and now verging on insane. Why these judges dont just
move their offices into Local Authority buildings and save parents a journey all the way to their
court rooms?!

311

At this point I think it prudent to inform you and point out that there is no excuse for the
injustice we have suffered. There is a plethora of rules and regulations in place that govern family
proceedings and Family Court Judges in the execution of their duties, that if followed minimise
the risk of injustice to anyone. What is clear in our case is that the Rules and Laws that govern
Family Proceedings were blatantly disregarded.

While conducting research to write this book we have read countless Family court judgements
and what appears to be overwhelmingly incessant is that senior judges time and time again
have made clear in their judgements their disapproval of the nefarious practices of many judges
and professionals who operate in the junior courts. However it appears these judgements and
their recommendations are not being filtered down to the judges in these courts. Because time
and time again the same situation keeps re-occurring and rearing its head even when clear
emphasis is made at the highest level of the Judiciary. Some of these recommendations are
elementary and should be known to all members of the judiciary; however failure to follow
these recommendations can cause serious injustice of the nature we have experienced. When
we read the judgments and the laws as they stand anyone with even the most basic
understanding could see that what happened to us is a travesty.

1. Please find below a few excerpts from a few judgements that highlight the above point
and if were adhered to by these rogues, then the injustice we have suffered would have
been averted.

MS JUSTICE RUSSELL in Re T (Application to Revoke a Placement Order:

Change in Circumstances) [2014] EWCA Civ 1369
22. The often quoted words of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1
FLR at 2063 [50] resonate;
" Basically it is the tradition of the UK, recognised in law, that children are best
brought up within natural families. Lord Templeman, in Re KD (A Minor
Ward) (Termination of Access) [1988] AC 806, [1988] 2 FLR 139. at 812 and
141 respectively, said this:
'The best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not
whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate,
provided the child's moral and physical health are not in danger. Public
authorities cannot improve on nature.'
There are those who may regard that last sentence as controversial but it
undoubtedly represents the present state of the law in determining the starting
point. It follows inexorably from that, that society must be willing to tolerate
very diverse standards of parenting and very unequal circumstances flowing
from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm,
while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability.
These are consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance
of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In
any event it could not be done.

Add the rest of the judgements on the USB to inform innocent parents!

312

Some of the main rules that govern Judges in family courts and how cases progress through the
Family courts are:
A. The Judicial Code of conduct
B. The Family Procedure rules,
C. Children Act 1989

The Judicial Code of conduct

The judicial code of conduct provides guidance and outlines pertinent information concerning
how judicial office holders must conduct themselves. It would do a lot of the Family Court
Judges well, to go back and read this document. Its astonishing to note that, its not the lack of
rules or even resources that caused the injustice that occurred in our case, or for countless
families in the Family Just-Trick System. No no, its the lack of moral strength and integrity by
many of the Family Court Judges to exercise simple fairness and balance. The Family Court
Judges have effectively eroded the publics faith and caused considerable lack of faith by many in
the overall Justice system, dont these Family Court Judges and rogues realise that we are now
living in the age of the Internet, and it is not so easy to hide corruption or wrongdoing. The
other branches of the Judiciary also need to get off the side-lines and take decisive actions
regarding the scandal which is the Family Courts before its too late. The public at large, do not
differentiate when it comes to judges, the public sees a Judge as a Judge. Without basic legal
training many wrongly assume that Family Courts are similar to Criminal Courts. Judges have a
great responsibility and the publics faith in Law and order is essential to the function of the
Justice System.
The judicial code of conduct at point 1.2 Mr Justice Thomas outlines the importance of honesty
and confidence by citizens in judicial office holders, which is vital for the continuity of the
system of law as we know it.
1.2 Having posed the question whether judicial ethics exist as such, Mr Justice Thomas stated:
We form a particular group in the community. We comprise a select part of an

honourable profession. We are entrusted, day after day, with the exercise of considerable
power. Its exercise has dramatic effects upon the lives and fortunes of those who come
before us. Citizens cannot be sure that they or their fortunes will not some day depend
upon our judgment. They will not wish such power to be reposed in anyone whose
honesty, ability or personal standards are questionable. It is necessary for the continuity
of the system of law as we know it, that there be standards of conduct, both in and out of
court, which are designed to maintain confidence in those expectations. (2nd ed. (1997)
p9).

313

1.3 On a wider stage, what have become known as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial
Conduct were initiated in 2001. The Bangalore principles arose from a United Nations
initiative with the participation of Dato Param Cumaraswamy, UN Special Rapporteur on the
Independence of Judges and Lawyers. A draft code of judicial conduct was prepared by a
group comprising senior judges from Commonwealth countries. This was discussed at several
conferences attended by judges of both common law and civil law systems and has also been
considered by the Consultative Council of European Judges. Revised principles were prepared
in November 2002 following a round-table meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace,
The Hague and were endorsed at the 59th session of the United Nations Human Rights
Commission at Geneva in April 2003.
1.4 The principles are succinctly stated as six values and their stated intention is: To
establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. They are designed to provide guidance to
judges and to afford the judiciary a framework for regulating judicial conduct. They are also
intended to assist members of the Executive and Legislature, and lawyers and the public in
general, to better understand and support the judiciary. The principles are:
(i) Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of
a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its
individual and institutional aspects.
(ii) Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only
to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
(iii) Integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.

(iv) Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all of
the activities of the judge.
(v) Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due
performance of the judicial office.
(vi) Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.
None of the above six values were adhered to by any of the Judges sitting in our case. The
Family Court is rife with clandestine arrangements between the Local Authorities and the
Courts. This was fundamental in the Royal Borough of Greenwich obtaining an Interim order at
the first hearing on 20th April 2012. The Royal Borough of Greenwich was acting unlawfully for
3 weeks by this time without any lawful authority. They had no EPO, NO COURT ORDER,
did no assessment, carried out unlawful Interpol and other agency checks and in the mean time
had denied the children and us as parents from seeing each other without justification. Then
after committing all the above turn up to court with absolutely nothing to show or account for
their actions and obtained an interim care order. That is clear evidence of a clandestine
arrangement if their ever was one. The Local Authority was audacious to bring such a case to the
Courts in the first place! The LA by their temerity and the Justices who sat at the first hearing
brought the Family Courts into disrepute. No Real Judge acting under oath, under the obligation
of Law and adhering to statues could have granted an order! The case was so tainted by a
plethora of unlawful acts and human rights abuses committed, without any justification by the

314

date of the first hearing that it is an affront to justice, and then for an Interim Order to be
granted is scandalous!!! All this, in an effort to legalise the position of the Royal Borough of
Greenwich and others, in an effort to insulate them from accountability. The clandestine
arrangement that exist and infest the Secret Family Courts has caused us a great injustice. Some
may be of the opinion that we as parents are merely disgruntled and are not presenting a balance
view of the situation; it was refreshing when the clandestine arrangements that exist in the
Courts were highlighted by a Senior Judge. Now, we would love to ask those nay Sayers is this
Lady Justice also a disgruntled parent? The clandestine arrangement she speaks of is rife in the
Family Courts and goes to the heart of what we experienced ourselves. We refer you to the
reasoned judgement of Justice Pauffley:
MRS JUSTICE PAUFFLEY Re NL (A child) (Appeal: Interim Care Order: Facts and
Reasons[2014] EWHC 270 (Fam):
65. Whilst I might be able to understand why such methods may have been developed,

I am profoundly alarmed by their existence. Informal inquiries reveal, anecdotally, that

the practices I have described are not confined to this area but are widespread across the
country.
66.The first matter for emphasis is that every parent is entitled, pursuant to Article 6
of the European Convention on Human Rights to a fair trial.
Article 6.1 reads as follows "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded
from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security
in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the
private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion
of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of
justice."
67.Seemingly, there were process failures in this case which significantly interfered with
the most basic requirements for openness and transparency. There was, apparently, an
established but largely clandestine arrangement between the local authority and the
court which, to my mind, has considerable repercussions for justice and, equally
importantly, the perception that justice will be done. It is fundamental that nothing is sent
to the judge by one party unless it is copied simultaneously to every other party.
68.Equally and just as importantly, it is difficult to view the Justices as having been
independent and impartial if, as happened here, they simply adopted the local
authority's analysis of what their Findings and Reasons might comprise. The Court of
Appeal has recently made clear that the wholesale incorporation of such a draft is
impermissible: see Crinion and anor v IG Markets Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 587. As
Sir Stephen Sedley observed,
"Unequivocal acceptance of one party's case has always posed a problem for
judges. To simply adopt that party's submissions, however cogent they are, is to
overlook what is arguably the principal function of a reasoned judgment, which
is to explain to the unsuccessful party why they have lost. (T)he possibility of

315

something approaching electronic plagiarism is new, and it needs to be said and

understood that it is unacceptable. Even if it reflects no more than the judge's
true thinking, it reflects poorly on the administration of justice: for
appearances matter."
69. Just because there may be tacit acceptance on the part of many professionals
within the family justice system that the practice which operated here exists, that does
not mean it is right. It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again.

Our experience of the family court will live with us forever. Even though we as parents have
had a thousand and one negative experiences, since this entire dreadful situation began
sometimes there are some that just stand out in your mind like this one: On the first day of court
on the 20th April 2012, my wife and I was sitting in the hearing in front of the three Justices of
the Peace. We were absolute virgins to Family Proceedings at the time and thought that our
children would be coming back to us that day. We were very anxious for the hearing to come so
that we could have our children home; we were really nave at that point. The situation was very
tense for us and we had not seen our children for over 3 weeks, naturally we were worried and
anxious, we were prevented from seeing our children not by a Court Order but by unlawful bail
conditions put in place by DC Cooper. Anyway, in this hearing, right in front of us the Justices
were congratulating the Local Authority for the wonderful job they had done, by keeping our
four children together. My wife and I could have fainted. We were told at Court that the

unlawful bail conditions prevented us from seeing our children and the Court cant returned
our children to us as a result of the unlawful bail conditions, further the Court had to make
an order to end the continued illegal position of the Royal Borough of Greenwich.
Yes! As unbelievable as it may seem to most, thats what we were told. Ask yourself reader,
where was the complex task of inquiring into the circumstances of the child? or The interest
of the child is paramount? Our children were kidnapped from school and denied from seeing us
for 3 weeks by the time we got to Court for the first hearing. None of these professionals
considered the trauma that would inflict on our four children. Even animals are treated with
more dignity!
It is very hard for parents to compete with the polished eloquence of some Family Court Judges
who in most cases are quick to highlight that their jobs involve the very strenuous task of
conducting a balancing exercise of the parents rights coupled with the safety and welfare of the
child, undoubtedly the issues will be described as complex and relate to the harm or future risk
of harm and the parents ability to provide for the needs emotional or otherwise of the child or
children. I could go on and on with that sort of mumbo jumbo language. The truth of the matter
based on our personal experience is nothing is further from the truth. There is a plethora of
guidelines, protocols, statues and case law that exist which govern and guide Judges and Justices
in the proper execution of their duties. If all that fails then their Judicial and oaths should guide

316

their actions to remain impartial and just in their office as Members of Her Majesty judiciary. For
some members of the judiciary to simply disregard in their entirety their oath to the crown, their
duty as Judge or Justice of the peace, and the Law as it stands is not only and affront to justice
but a blatant act tantamount to treason. The fundamental principle that Justice must not only be
done but must be seen to done has eluded some of these Family Court Judges.

The Judge has made an order in your case.

If we had a penny for each time one of these rogue professionals have said the judge has made
an order in your case we would be trillionares!
These rogues appear to be of the opinion that constant repetition will dismiss all the wrongs they
have committed including the judges who sat in our case. These rogues behave as though we are
not happy with the outcome of a hearing that was conducted with the utmost integrity and
impartiality. As if the complicity of the Judges has somehow eluded us. The hearings from the
beginning were an outright affront to justice and the rule of law. All the Judges involved in our
case should be investigated for gross misconduct in office and be removed. Will that happen?
We sincerely doubt that will happen. John Hemming MP said a British Judge has not been
recused in over 300 years. Well ,We live in the real World and what is more likely to happen is
that we may be locked up for writing about the injustice we have suffered at the hands of
incompetent professionals and the complicity of members of the Judiciary in the entire matter.
These rogues hide behind the Family Courts. They are fully aware that most in the public have a
limited understanding of what goes on in these Courts. Most in the public make assumptions as
to what takes place and often times may believe family courts are like criminal courts. They are
not!
Another point we would love to highlight to the public is the reliance by many a rogues on the
secrecy of the family courts and the unawareness of many to hide their nefarious acts. What are
we really saying here? Well whenever these rogues are confronted, they quickly blurt out that the
judge as made an order that has vindicated, whatever ever the police or whichever professional
from wrongdoing. Well as in our case a lot of misinformation has been given to a lot of people.
These rogues know how to twist words and have no limits to the depths they will sink to deceive
and cover their actions. Parents are in most cases ill-equipped to deal with the barge of attacks
and Word of Art, manipulation and trickery of these rogues. Members of the public are
sometimes more prone to believe these rogues especially when they claim a judge as made an
order in the case. Let us break the deception down regarding the comment THE JUDGE AS
MADE AN ORDER! Firstly, family court judges are not responsible for holding rogue
professionals accountable, they will be the first to let you know that fact. The jurisdiction of
family courts does not deal with wrong doing committed by rogues or related issues. Family
courts deal predominantly with matter relating to the Children Act 1989 and The Family Law
Act 1996 and only has jurisdiction to deal with those and other family related issues. For
example, Criminal courts deal with Criminal statues such as the theft act 1968 and other criminal
statues and does not have jurisdiction to hear trade disputes, which are often heard in the other
courts. Similarly if you want to hold professionals accountable, you will have to start a civil claim
against them for negligence, malfeasance in public office, abuse of position or whatever actions
you intend to take in another court. Actions against rogue professionals are usually brought in

317

the Administrative courts, most member of the public without legal training are not aware that
there are different types of courts for different actions and different judges have different
jurisdictions to hear different issues. Most member of the public believes a judge is a judge and if
some unlawful acts was committed by professionals no matter which court a case was brought in
the judge would rectify the matter. Sadly thats not the case. The same goes for the criminal
courts, there has been countless cases where police wrongdoing is highlighted in the criminal
courts and criminal court judges make it absolutely clear that the criminal courts are not the
venue to hold Police accountable. In any event it appears the aim of the rogues in claiming the
judge as made an order when challenged is to give the impression that all was above board and if
there was wrong doing or unlawful actions committed in the case as we as parents have made
clear, then the judge would not have made an order. Nothing is further from the truth! and when
one of these rogues utter the words the judge as made an order, most in the public who are
unaware of the fact that unlawful acts, negligence or misconduct is not the remit of family court
judges, unaware members of the public normally assume that if there was misconduct in a
parents case the judge would have dealt with it. That assumption would be wrong especially in
the family courts, and if our case is anything to go by the family court judges we have experience
gives rubberstamping more priority than . An has we have highlighted above the Family court
judges are well aware that they are not there to the decide the lawfulness of a social worker or
other professionals actions and will readily disregard any attempts by parents to raise issues of
human rights abuses and wrongdoing committed by rogues. Judges are duty bound to raise
issues of unlawfulness and human rights abuses, the correct approach in our case was for the
case to be transferred to the administrative court for a judicial review, the deal with the unlawful
acts and severe procedural and other irregularities of The Royal Borough of Greenwich, The
Police and Invicta Primary School. This would have highlighted the wrongdoing in the case from
the outset and averted this tragedy. We instructed our Family Lawyers early out to go for judicial
review; however our instructions were disregarded. In hindsight matters have now become much
clearer to us. These professional losers have an unethical allegiance to each other and even in the
face of blatant wrong doing an unlawful acts being perpetrated against an innocent family
especially children, these rogues did nothing. They are duty bound to act however as in so many
cases of injustice, rogue professionals always fail to act and do the right thing. However they
never fail to amaze I their brazenness when caught to talk about missed opportunities. We are
also very suspicious of the fact that during the period when our children were kidnapped
Greenwich was in the process of getting Royal Borough Status, we believe that played a serious
part in the act of many of these rogues, to lend an helping hand in an effort to cover-up there
scandalous actions. Ms Gillian Palmer Royal Borough of Greenwich Director of Children
services surely could not take another scandal at the time especially with her past, of being the
Director The director of childrens services in Barnet at the time of Sean Dentons death. We
have written briefly about Ms Gillian Palmer on Page xxx of this book.
We have had many people ask us questions as to why or how this could happen in a British
Court. We have listed some of the questions and answers below:
Q=Question
A=Answer

318

Q: So what did the Judge say about all the wrongs and unlawful acts committed in your case?
A: District Judge Alderson dismissively stated the case was a legal shambles when attempts
were made to outline the unlawful acts committed.
Q: Didnt the Judge consider the traumatic impact of the actions of the police and local authority
on the children?
A: No, the three Justices of the Peace at the first hearing commended the Local Authority for
keeping the children together.
Q: How do they get away with what they have done in the Family Courts?
A: The Local Authorities are in clandestine arrangement with the Family Courts as outlined
above by Justice Pauffley further, the fact that family proceedings are held in private (Secret
Courts) and parents are restricted from discussing ongoing proceedings and can be held in
contempt, most remain quiet. This creates an environment where injustice and wrong doing
infects the fabric of fairness and justice. By the time proceedings are concluded, most parents are
assessed and labelled with a mental disorder or worst some commit suicide. Those who have
survived are too exhausted and overwhelmed to ever speak out, and finally, parents who have
managed to survive the process without being assessed or labelled(very rare) and are determined
and are able to fight on are quickly accused of being disgruntled or vexatious. We are fortunate
to have survived this process, without being labelled. The labelling of parents by these rogues is
the final nail in the coffin for most parents. They are then subject to further abuses and if they
dont comply and submit to demands they can quickly find themselves sectioned under the
Mental Health Act. We will expand more on this in the chapter below, from parent to Patient.
Question: Did you have a Lawyer and what did he/she do about this?
A: Most people are unaware of the fact that Family Lawyers actually support the secrecy of the
Family Courts. At first we believed that the Family Lawyers in our case were just merely
incompetent, however, on further observation we realise that they were complicit in the
wrongdoing against us. They were withholding countless important documents and failing to
follow our instructions which undermined us from the very start. It was only after firing our
Lawyers that we became aware of a lot of documents that we never knew existed. Further, the
files that were passed to us by our Lawyers in the end were heavily redacted and much smaller in
size and comparison to the Local Authorities.

319

Article 8-Right to private and family life

Pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to a private
and family Life.
The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (Art.8). This is a
qualified right which may be interfered with where it is in the interests of national security, public
safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Our right to family life was completely violated from the initial outset by the schools and then by
the Family Court Justices who compounded the matter. The Courts are duty bound to uphold
the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. In our case the three Justices of
the Peace failed to uphold the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. They
gave no regard to the serious and significant irregularities, procedural failures, Unlawful Bail
conditions and the catalogue of other failures and the effects of such failings impacted on the
Courts ability to conduct a fair hearing. This in turn further violated our children as well as our
Art.8 human rights.

The hearing on 20th April 2012

The local authority threshold document which was before the Court for consideration at the first
hearing on 20 April 2012 at Wells Street Family Proceedings Court (FPC) was scant, inadequate
and filled with inaccuracies. There was no reason for an Interim Care Order to be granted if the
Justices were fulfilling their duty and putting the interest of our children first and not focusing on
legalising the actions of the Local Authority. The threshold Criteria that exists in Public Law
child care cases normally referred to as Part IV proceedings that are brought in line with the
Children act 1989 were not Met in our case.
The application for an Interim Care Order went before the justices on 20 th April 2012 at Wells
street. This was after 3 weeks of the royal borough of Greenwich having our children without an
EPO or any legal or other justification for doing so. The Justices failed to conduct an entirely
proper balancing exercise, considered all the factors of relevance and nor met 'the test' for
interim removal. The decision of the Justices was wrong and unjust due to the catalogue of
unlawful actions, serious procedural and other irregularities. Us as parents and our children were
unfairly treated from the outset, there was no evidence or reason justifying the separation of our
children from us as parents and the decision to compound the situation and grant an Interim

320

Care Order was flawed; the Justices' decision to further separate was wrong because it was clear
by this time that our children were kidnapped and our children safety could have been secured
by returning them to their mother at home, where they should be. If they had concerns regarding
father; and that, accordingly, the Interim Care Order further tainted the matter and made the
Court complicit in the continued unlawful separations of our children from us as parents.

We will close this chapter with a potent quote from the telling judgement of Lord Munby:
SIR JAMES MUNBY PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION in

Re J (A Child)

[2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam) at Para:28 States:

I have said this many times in the past but it must never be forgotten
that, with the state's abandonment of the right to impose capital
sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are typically invited to
make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any
judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make. When a family
judge makes a placement order or an adoption order in relation to a
twenty-year old mother's baby, the mother will have to live with the
consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70
years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years. We
must be vigilant to guard against the risks.

321

Intentionally blank

322

Chapter 11
Assessments From parent to patient

Patient: A person who is deemed incapable of handling his/her own affairs by

reason of mental incapacity and who is under Jurisdiction of the court.

Hope and Fear

When attacked by the rogues in the family Just- Trick system, there are many weapons and
trickeries that are used on parents, however two of the most potent weapons in the arsenal of
these rogues are, HOPE and FEAR. Parents are faced with the debilitating effects of two of the
most notorious psychological weapons that can be used on any human being. Parents are often
coerced to comply with demands at the risk of losing their children, and anyone would agree that
can be a powerful bargaining tool, if there ever was one.
The hope of having their children returned ( if they are already taken) or the fear of losing them
can make parents or anyone for that matter, comply and go a long with even the most draconian
and arcane request of Social Workers or other professionals. These sorts of request will in
most case ultimately place the parent in an adverse position later down the line, for example; a
request for the parent to take part in a Psychiatric Assessment.
Part 15B
This practice direction supplements Family Procedure Rules (FPR) Part 15
This section was added to the FPR in 2013 and based upon our experience of how whats said
on paper is worlds away from what happens in practice! Part 15 is open to serious abuse
by rogue professionals. There were serious attempts made to have us assessed to offer
cover for the rogues in our case. Having a parent assessed and labelled is such an
effective tool at covering up wrongdoing in the Secret Family Courts. Even on the first
day of the hearing at the Family Court on the 20th April at Wells Street the Royal
Borough of Greenwich without having any basis for doing so, tried to illicit an
assessment. We outright rejected their offer. The utter temerity of these rogues, after
kidnapping our children and denying us our children for the considerable period of time,
for no reason whatsoever, they then turned around without any reason for requesting an
assessment, but to attempt to hide their wrong doing.
We hear some unaware members of the public saying how can an assessment be any
harm? Lets illuminate you. Once a parent is assessed by a friendly psychiatrist, then a
label will be manufactured. Now, once labelled, you are deemed as lacking capacity by
the Courts. A person who is deemed as lacking capacity cannot conduct is/her own legal

323

affairs. Another point to note is that once labelled, the label is not, or should we say
cannot be removed. You are deemed to have an illness, and require treatment. Every
label comes with a prescription and the condition can either get worst or better, but
impossible to go away. Once assessed, if a parent gets any bright ideas and refuse to
comply with treatment (medication) then they may be sectioned for non-compliance
with treatment. The Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)
Part V15.81 non- Compliance with treatment Is also referred to in the DSM as a
mental disorder.
With a little creative manipulation of reports, a person can easily be sectioned for noncompliance with treatment. Unknown to many parents and members of the public, noncompliance with treatment is also a Mental Disorder according to the (DSM) for which
one can be Sectioned. The rogues that operate in the Just-trick System, know all about
the above, therefore they attempt to get the assessment of parents done from the get go.
Many parents are often unaware of the implications of these so called psychiatric
assessments and through sheer desperation submit themselves to these assessments in
the hope of having their children returned; trying to prove their innocence or showing
they have nothing to hide. Only to find themselves labelled with a mental disorder and
medicated. If they protest then they are conveniently accused of not complying with
treatment. Even when parents who are assessed try to highlight the injustice they are
suffering, the rogue professional will be the first to highlight to the public that the
parent suffers from a mental disorder in an attempt to discredit them. We are so
fortunate we did not fall for the assessment scam!
Therefore, when we saw the introduction of Part 15 we were very concerned for unsuspecting
parents.
Now, because of part 15B it will be much easier to assess parents, because even their Lawyer can
raise the issue of capacity. If a parent chooses to represent themselves the Local
Authority can at any time raise the issue of capacity. That is dangerous and one of the
main reason we have not returned to the Family Court to apply to discharge the
wrongfully obtained Care Orders made in respect of our children. We are competent and
capable and were planning on representing ourselves because of the incompetence of the
Family Lawyers (Professional Losers) we experienced in the past, however, in these
Secret proceedings, based upon our experience anything goes! With part 15b now in full
force, it would be stupid walking into these Secret Courts without letting the world
know, THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ASSESSED AND ARE CAPABLE AND
COMPETENT, because we would be walking into a more dangerous situation than
before the implementation of part15b.
Lets outline how perverse this part 15b is:

Fluctuation in a partys capacity to conduct litigation

4.1 A partys capacity to conduct the litigation may fluctuate over the course of the proceedings. Litigation
capacity may be lost or regained during the proceedings as a result of deterioration or
improvement in the impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the partys mind or brain. The necessity for

324

expert Evidence or evidence of a treating clinician as to a partys capacity can therefore arise at any time during the
proceedings.
Did you see that? Litigation capacity may be lost or regained during the proceedings.
Now ask yourself, who will be in charge of highlighting a partys fluctuation in capacity? It
certainly in most cases wont be the party themselves. If only they could have said that about us,
when they were dragging us through proceedings, then we would not be here typing this book!

This whole child protection process has innocent parents at their most desperate and vulnerable,
which is interpreted as weakness. During this torturous process, we have continually asked; what
is there to gain from removing children from innocent families? As parents, we would keep
repeating the same obvious responses, like; money and the more sinister reasons which we wont
go into. However, when we sat down to watch the movie named Prisoners we received the
answer, and it was disturbingly true. These rogues, Social Workers, Guardians, CAIT, the
clandestine Courts, all use parents desperation against them. As loving parents we would do
anything for our children, much like any loving, caring parent out there, even you reading this
would agree. But and this is a big but, what if the thing you thought about doing in order to get
your child back actually pushed you further away from your child/children? Would you still do
it? We as parents did not do it. What are we talking about? The Assessments, therell be more
about assessments in a moment.
Back to the film Prisoners very briefly; a father played by Hugh Jackman, his daughter goes
missing, now as any concerned loving parent, he continually searched for his daughter, in the
hope that he would eventually find her. To cut a long story short, as the film is over two hours!
Father, finds himself faced with the kidnapper, but she is not what most would expect a
kidnapper to look like; shes old, friendly looking, like she couldnt hurt a fly. What this woman
said will stay with us, because it is so very true, and if your child/children have ever been
kidnapped you will understand straight away, the feeling of anxiety, fear, guilt- for not preventing
it from happening. The old woman (kidnapper) asks father if he wants to see his daughter, he
responds, eager to see her, thats the problem, the old woman (kidnapper) knows he will do
anything and so she begins setting out her demands, the now handcuffed father willingly
complies. At the point she has him where she wants him, she states at 2hrs and 8minutes into
the movie and we quote; Making Children disappear, is the war we wage with God. It makes
people lose their faith, it turns them into Demons, like you! As the father continuously looked
for his daughter, he became angry, bitter and vengeful, hence the old woman calling him and
other parents alike, Demons. It is better for parents to put up a fight, while the handcuffs are
off, which is more than we can say for the father who was handcuffed and left inside a dark hole!
He never got to see his daughter, the kidnapper lied, but then again, thats nothing new. You see,
this situation has been a real test of our own faith, although we do not align with any religion, we
do believe in a Creator. Having our four children kidnapped, has been a traumatic experience,
but we still remain faithful, in the Almighty creator! We believe that because of the faith we have
in the Almighty, he ultimately is the reason we are here today!

325

Things have happened which have indicated there are other elements at play, however, we know
the ultimate power rests within the Creator. Just remember, and before we say this, we are not
preaching, but there is a war going on, we are not talking about Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan or the
war against ISIS. We are talking about the continuous war for our souls and sadly, there are a lot
of people who are not aware this war is even taking place!
If you are a parents going through this, be strong, we know it is extremely hard, but these
demons attach themselves to negative energy, think about it, you begin thinking about
something negative, somehow you seem to get more of that! Too often have we heard of cases
where parents, commit suicide, curse others and even becoming terminally ill! The question is
always the same why?
We have become aware that Cancer is a disease very common in the Family Just-Trick System,
even some Justices, Family Court Judges and parents have suffered from this illness. During this
process we have been asked, How do you do it? We let people know, that during this
torturous time we remain mindful, we take note of our thoughts, we try our best not to focus
on, what our children are doing every second, because that for the time being is something you
cannot control, while our children are where they are. Parents, who do that, are putting
themselves through mental torture consequently, killing themselves slowly. We know it is
extremely hard, but you have to do the things that you like and enjoy, we are talking about things
like trying to exercise, watching movies, perhaps eating something you like! We have ditched the
car and taking up walking. We are now avid walkers; the experience is calming and gives us time
to clear our minds.
As parents during the time our children were kidnapped, we have written three books. This has
been the most torturous to write. It is a pain and pleasure experience and in some sense at times
can be very therapeutic.
When we find the time, we go to a relaxation spa, this includes, Jacuzzis, steam rooms, saunas
and two plunge pools! Which is not as pricey as it might sound- prices range from 15.0027.00 per couple or 8.00- 12.00 per person and thats for over ten hours stay! We remember
we used to go to the relaxation spar every time we attended Court as the steam does wonders for
your skin! We understand when going through this traumatic time that finances can be a strain,
but when it comes to the spa, even if you are able to go once every few months that is better
than nothing. Its funny, because we as a couple have made a deal to go to the spar after we
complete this book- as a treat! Its nice when you have something to look forward to.
We believe it is vital to take care of your own well-being, that is extremely important not just for
yourself but for your children. The one thing that struck us as parents was how most parents
going through this horrible process become victims in every sense of the word and it shows in
their demeanour, there is no differentiation between most of the parents who appear, drained
and almost lifeless, to the rogue Social Workers and Lawyers! As the saying goes; Be careful of
your enemies because you are bound to become them! We are well aware of this saying, we try
to keep each other in check, when it comes to this situation, we try to keep each other happy and
this is reflected every time our children see us, we remain consistent, we give thanks as a family
before eating, just like we did at home. Our children know we have not changed as parents, it is

326

just the circumstances, but one thing that remains consistent is that our children know they will
be returning back to the same parents they know, which is more than we can say for other
parents who allow anger to blind them which results in the child being returned to a parent they
cannot recognise, consequently, coming back to a home filled with negative energy, sickness and
sadness. By the same token we are not blaming innocent parents for becoming overwhelmed by
the rogues and their attacks. Far from it, what we are trying to get across to innocent parents is
that please dont let these people ruin you, like they have done to so many other innocent
families. We of all people know how hard it is to be under the constant strain of this vile system.
Just know everything will work out, and he will NEVER win! We are not acting like we are
immune, although we have not questioned the actions of the most high; we know these entities
have a tendency to work through people. We had one friend, who seemed so nice, however,
unbeknownst to us, she had ulterior motives, and that was to destroy our marriage! She made
many attempts to cause friction, but she failed to achieve her goal as she took off the mask she
had been wearing all along and exposed a very ugly face! She was angry, argumentative and
above all tormented; she revealed she had severe issues sleeping. She began saying things that we
found strange, as no reasonable person would speak in this manner. We were in shock when
she stated that she had cursed items belonging to us, we found this extremely sinister and
disturbing as this way of talking. In any event, we eradicated her from our lifes, as doing that has
helped us because we need to focus on our children and could no longer deal with her constant
distraction. In summary, just be careful who you keep around you because some individuals just
serve to drain and distract, consequently veering you off course.
Now, From Parent to Patient, we know youre probably wondering, how does a parent become
a patient? Well, this chapter is about Assessments. These assessments are Psychological and
Psychiatry. Further; it is usually the Secret Family Courts that order assessments to be
carried out on children and parents however, an assessment carried out without order of
the Court is invalid (see Family Procedure Rules 2010.) Remember, you do not have to do
an assessment as it is not mandatory, and even if a Local Authority LA claim you have no
decision on whether your child/children are subject to an assessment, you should still object
preferably in writing, just a brief letter stating your non consent to such an assessment. Local
authorities, well, were talking about rogue individuals who work within the LAs, who seem to
use these assessments to blame parents for everything! For example there is a label for
everything and when we say everything we mean everything! For example if a parent has been
assessed and your child is somewhat quiet well they (Professionals) may blame it on your
condition and not the fact that the child may be quiet because he/she has been removed from
their parents and everything that is familiar to them. Below is the meaning of the word Patient.
Patient: A person who is deemed incapable of handling his/her own affairs by reason of
mental incapacity and who is under Jurisdiction of the court.
Lost in Medication!
This is very serious! Being assessed and as a result the patient is prescribed medication for the
condition, why do we say this? Well, like any sort of medication they all come with side
effects. If youre thinking, well, those who have been assessed and told to take medication to

327

better their condition, can simply not take the medication? Well, you would be wrong. As
we have discovered by a woman we will call Frankie, she was assessed, because she didnt want
to lose her child, so she is continually taking medication and has been for over five years now. In
her case she stopped taking the pills, however, when she had what the Doctor called a random
test, she had to provide blood samples to check whether she had been taking the medication
and you guessed it, because she feared for her child she is ultra compliant and continues to
take her medication. We had called to check up on her, and it wasnt until the following evening
that she had stated to us she had fallen into a deep sleep as she had taken what she now calls
her meds. She continued stating she had not heard her mobile ringing and that it wasnt the
first time it had happened, she said it was as if the pills had knock her out. We found this
disturbing however; her child is now all grown up, just turned eighteen but Frankie is still on the
medication. The moral of the story is once a person is labelled, it is quite tricky to simply stop
taking medication, as this can cause the patient to be Sectioned or labelled with another diagnosis
of Non compliance with treatment.
When a parent is assessed and labelled with a condition this paves the way for parents
capacity to come under question which usually results in the form of an Official Solicitor. We
previously warned about those rogues; Family Lawyers, also known as Professional Losers but
if you thought they were something else, these rogue Solicitors are a whole different case! Every
decision, that a parent had once taken for granted, is now decided by the Official Solicitor by
which they make the decisions for you, usually the decisions are pro the local authorities
demands. Also with Court Hearings, what is known as ex parte, which means they can attend
Court without you.

16th December, we went to Costa coffee shop to continue typing this book and hours passed
and many cups of tea later we were still at work however we noticed this old bearded white man
sitting beside us but not close enough for him to see what we were typing, anyway, he sat there
as if he was waiting. Then this middle aged white woman came in and she told this man that she
would have to be quick as she needed to collect her prescription from the 999 club. She then
ordered a toasted sandwich. Once she was seated facing this man he began the line of
questioning, with his pen and pad of paper at the ready. He was talking to her in such a
condescending manner, but she couldnt see it, why? She was absolutely desperate. It then hit us
that he must have been a reviewing officer or social worker of some sort. He asked her if she
was keeping her appointments to see the doctor, if she was taking her medication. Then she
would answer every question with desperation a willingness to please and to prove she was
compliant. Then she came out with it, how are my children? Have they grown? Is Es hair
still blonde? The last time I saw them, they said they loved me, her desperation and eagerness
to prove herself to this Professional was extremely heart-breaking and his response to what
she said was a simply nothing, just a cold stare back at her. She then said to him that she is not
on probation, had split from her boyfriend, and that her mother who has one of her children
that it appears she is taking care of and so this woman went into a discussion about the
Christmas present she has bought her child. He then asked her to tell him more about the
present and she did with such enthusiasm and excitement telling him, I know hell love the
present! Then her mobile rang and it was none other than the 999 club asking if she will be

328

attending to collect her prescription. Then she was in a state of panic asking this man if he could
drop her to the 999 club. He as could be predicted said that would not be possible as he was
going the other way. When they left we could see her rushing, to make this appointment.
In summary, it was a dreadful sight, and there was no doubt that these people have assessed her.
That was the result, this woman, a mother now reduced to a desperate professional pleasing,
shadow of her former self. We will never forget that experience and to think, this is what they
had wanted us to become, oh and dont forget their intentions of attempting to convict father!
This is what assessments can do and because we refused to do it because we have done nothing
wrong, we are able to write this book and free to make our own decisions, which is more than
we can saw for the woman in the coffee shop. What has her life become? She seems to be in a
never ending cycle which if she is not careful will lead to more severe problems, an accurate
assumption would probably be that she may already have her own social worker and after all of
these appointments she has to take all these pills- is that living? The worst part no one told her
that no matter how she tries to please these so-called professionals that will do nothing to help
her get her children back, problem is she has demonstrated that if she complies then her children
must come back to her and that is the element of false hope- The hope and fear!!!

329

Intentionally blank

330

Chapter 12
Looked After Child (LAC) Reviews

The Independent reviewing officers involved in our case are namely, Mr Gary
Slinn and Mr Jon Fayle.

Reader, this chapter is about Independent reviewing officers who conduct what is referred to
as LAC Reviews in regards to Looked After Children. Before explaining what a lac review is, we
must highlight that the word independent does not carry the same meaning by the rogues as
most in the public have come to understand the word to mean. Independent: free from
outside control; not subject to another's authority . Secondly, until this day we reject the
assertion that our children are or were in the category to be classified as looked after
children. The Royal Borough of Greenwich did not even conduct the basic requirements
of a child protection investigation (an initial assessment or even a core assessment),
these incompetents attempts at labelling children unlawfully in their care from the
outset has not and will be accepted by us or any competent professional who looks at
this case. How can you intrude in a familys life? Kidnap children from parents? violating
countless laws, eroding the basic fabric of moral decency, treat the children and parents
in the most inhumane manner imaginable then turn around with in what can only be
described as brazen arrogance and try to claim or classify our children as looked after
children. The Royal Borough of Greenwich and the list of incompetents named in this
book have a lot to answer for.
Independent reviewing officers (IRO) are by no means independent of the actions of
Local Authority social services departments and of such are void of any objective
scrutiny to review social care cases or highlight wrongdoing committed by rogue social
workers or other rogue professionals. Dont believe us; well lets bring you up to speed
with the not so independent reviewing officers. IROs are employed by Local
Authorities, so where there goes the independence, they fail to challenge wrong doing
committed by their employers.
Independent reviewing officers are at the mercy of social workers and effectively have no
power to affect the actions of rogue social workers. At present their roles are presently
seen by many as an administrative inconvenience to social workers rather than the
Independent scrutiny that they are supposed to be. We believe the only reason this
ineffective bunch have survived for so long is because it looks good to councils to have
someone with a superficial title of independence regarding children services. It appears
most IRO are like furniture in social services departments, they just serve a superficial
purpose. Parents who have any dealings with social services where an Independent

331

reviewing officer is assigned will soon find out as we did in our case that the money paid
to these IROS is an utter waste of resources. Well you have to give it to the councils, in
this regards. Look at it this way, if you were paying the person who was responsible for
scrutinizing and highlighting your wrongdoing and failings, would you employ someone
who is sharp and effective at unearthing and reporting your failings or would you employ
the most incompetent and ineffective individuals you can find. There you have it,
councils like any other government body does not like being held ac countable for wrong
doing. That can be a very expensive and damaging process. We hope we have made the
point regarding these so called independent reviewing officers. There were two of these
incompetents involved in our case one Mr Gary Slinn and the other Mr John Fayle. We
believe Mr Jon Fayle has the most telling of all last names. Anyway, we will be expanding
more on IROs and especially the two involved in our case.
Now youre probably wondering, What is a LAC? This had been the question on our lips
when we had been informed to attend A LAC by the then Social Worker, Ms Alison Mc Donald,
who had first informed us that a LAC would be taking place and had only given us a days
notice. A Looked After Child Review (LAC) is a meeting which concerns only, child or
children who are looked after hence the term LAC, now, in order for a child to be referred to
as looked after, the child/children would need to be subject to some kind of Court Order or
voluntary agreement i.e. Section 20.
Just to make clear, the two LAC Ms Alison Mc Donald, held were unlawful, namely, (3rd
April and 10th April 2012,) our children were not looked after and no Court Order nor,
voluntary agreement had been in place.

Every LAC has, what is known as an Independent reviewing officer (IRO). Upon carrying out
some research, we have come to realise, that many IROs, were previously Social Workers. After
every LAC, you as parents are to be sent (via post/email) from the IRO, the minutes of the
meeting, the minutes are simply a write up of what had taken place i.e. what was discussed,
during the LAC. However, we would also advise you, to record your own notes. We as parents
have learned how important it is to bring a pen, make it 2 and a writing pad during any
meeting, including the LAC with you and when you, the reader have finished reading this
chapter, you will understand why this is so important.
Our childrens IRO was a man namely, Mr Gary Slinn, father could not attend the LAC and so I,
Mrs Plowright, had attended on 25th April 2012, complete with a pen and a spare one just in case,
equipped with writing pad. Upon meeting Ms Alison Mc Donald, Social Worker and informing
her father could not attend, with me I also had a copy of the letter from father, to state this, Ms
Mc Donald, looked somewhat disappointed. I noticed as we walked through the double doors,
she had left me standing there, as she spoke to the Security Guard, perhaps in our opinion, to
warn against and to be on the lookout for, aggressive Mr Plowright. In any event, upon
entering the room I was shocked to see Mrs Corbett headteacher, from Invicta and Ms Cuff,
Inclusion Leader, also from Invicta Primary School. I immediately turned to Ms Alison Mc
Donald, informing her that I would like to speak with her in private and so I asked her, why I

332

had not been informed the two members of staff from Invicta would be present? To which she
replied, that I could sit somewhere else, she had stated that as part of LAC this was normal. As I
sat inside the room and the meeting began, I had spotted my son Daniel, who looked so tall, as if
he had grown so much since the kidnap. I witnessed a black woman walking with him and as she
saw me through the glass staring at my son in shock, she then swiftly placed her hand at the side
of my sons face which blocked his view to ensure he could not see me, his mother. I felt a deep
sense of disgust, at what I believe to be a callous behaviour of these so called professionals who
were complicit in the kidnap and deprivation of me seeing my children and now an unknown
woman who I witnessed, deliberately, blocking my 3 year old son form looking at his mother! A
mother, he himself, had not seen for a considerable length of time! My heart sank, to watch him
walking away prevented from seeing me and oblivious, to the fact that his mother had been so
close, and yet so far. I wanted to rush out of the room and rip Daniel away from that woman
and from the whole situation but least, I be accused of being, aggressive and obstructive and in
violation of the unlawful bail conditions. I have never felt so helpless, so tormented, hurt, feeling
as though someone had ripped out my heart, I felt less of a mother because of that. It was
sickening, to think that I was being treated as some sort of child killer, who didnt have the right
to see her children! Correction, even a convicted murderer is still able to see his/her child during
prison visits! The events that took place had been so traumatising, we (me and my husband)
couldnt sleep that night. Mr Slinn (reviewing officer) had stated, that due to the bail
conditions, I was unable to see my children, and he continued that once the conditions were
amended or removed, to allow for contact, I would be able to see them. It seemed strange, to
see Mr Slinn, had not expressed any concern for the children being unable to see their parents
for a considerable length of time, yet failing to understand the impact this would have caused to
them.
When we received the LAC minutes in the post, we were shocked at what we had read the
introduction which stated; Avery, made an allegation of physical abuse against her parents at

school on the 29th March 2012. On visiting the home and speaking with the other children it
was deemed necessary for the police to take out Police Protection Order. During the S47
investigation concerns were such that it was thought prudent to progress the case through the
courts and on the 20th April 2012 Interim Care Orders were granted and further assessments
and investigations will need to take place to inform the Local Authorities long term care plan.
Now, lets break it down, this introduction presents a view, that the Police had spoken to
Avery by herself, at the school and then it further continues to state, that the other children
were spoken to at our home address and that this visit made it necessary to take out police
protection. Also, did you notice the date? 29th March 2012? Making it seem as though Avery, had
made an alleged allegation about her parents (making it seem that mother and father are
involved in the alleged allegation.) Which has claiming to have been reported by our eldest
daughter, at school and as a result, on the same day (29th March 2012) the Police were contacted.
When we read what appeared to us to be a very calculated document, as it makes it appear as
though, there had been a home visit conducted, and that the children were spoken to separately,
and an assessment had been carried out, of the home environment. I, Mrs Plowright,
immediately typed up a letter of complained, which I titled disapproval letter of the minutes of
25th April 2012.

333

Mr Slinn, as a Professional failed to ascertain and consider the views of our children as under
the heading, Participation, Wishes & Feelings of child Mr Slinn failed to do such a thing
claiming and I quote, Speaking to the older 3 girls prior to the meeting was somewhat chaotic

no straight answers were forthcoming as all appeared to want to talk about different issues and
how the TV worked? Instead of Mr Slinn, prioritising the view of the children by using his
initiative and speaking to each child separately, he did not and accepted the view and opinion of
the Social Worker and I quote, In speaking with the Social Worker who had the opportunity to

speak individually, they reported that none of the children wish to return home and when
contact is discussed they are hesitant to agree to it. Mr Slinn accepted this account, even though
he had not witnessed our children say it. This is not the behaviour or conduct of an IRO.
During the LAC I (Mother) was surprised to see a woman enter with another woman, I had been
told that she was the Current Foster Carer along with her Social Worker. When Mr Slinn asked
Ms Mc Donald whether she had introduced both me and the Foster Carer, she responded, no.
Readers, just a note; parents are to meet the Foster Carer, prior to any LAC, however, it
appeared that malicious, Ms Alison Mc Donald failed to do this. Further, I had noticed during
the meeting a woman seated next to Ms Mc Donald, Mr Slinn immediately asked Ms Mc Donald
whether she had gained my consent for this individual to be present to which Ms Mc Donald
stated, no. The woman namely, Elenor Tur who was a trainee Social Worker appeared confused,
in any event I stated that it was okay for her to be present. Unfortunately, as it appeared Ms
Alison Mc Donald had been the lead for Ms Elenor Tur and it appeared to have indeed been a
case of, the blind leading the blind! We believe, Ms Mc Donald has already proven herself to be
highly unprofessional, incompetent and completely callous, I hate to think how effective Ms Tur
will become as a Social Worker, since it appears she had been taking the lead from Ms Mc
Donald.
The LAC minutes for 25th April 2012 states and we quote, CP medical is to take place on
25/04/12, readers, Child Protection Medicals, are usually carried out whilst a child/children
are in Police Protection or subject to an Emergency Protection Order (EPO). Now, both
indicate that the child is in some kind of need- the need to be protected hence, the requirement
to carry out a Child Protection Medical, at the earliest instance. Now, why is it that in our case
the first official medical was due to take place nearly, a month after my children were first
kidnapped? Mr Slinn simply shook his head after asking Ms Mc Donald when the CP Medical
had been done, to which she replied, No CP Medical could take place because parents did
not consent. As a professional Mr Slinn should have known that parental consent need not be
sort to carry out a Child Protection Medical especially, when a child is under Police Protection or
EPO. The LAC minutes were signed by Mr Gary Slinn.

6th July 2012 Second LAC

We both attended the LAC together as parents, we were struck by what appeared to be Mr
Slinns unprofessional, behaviour, then Social Worker, Ms Victoria Carrington as we witnessed
and believe she had behaved in an aggressive manner stating the minutes of the first LAC were
correct. When I, Mrs Plowright told Ms Victoria Carrinton that her behaviour was aggressive

334

and unprofessional, Mr Slinn then accused me of being aggressive, we were stunned as parents,
to witness Mr Slinn defend Ms Carrington even though it had been clear she was being
aggressive towards us as parents. We felt let down by Mr Slinn, because he had failed to correct
the previous LAC minutes. We also brought up the matter of not being sent letters via the
school regarding our children, at the first LAC Mr Slinn agreed these would be posted to us as
parents, however, he changed his mind siding with Ms Victoria Carrington who objected to this
happening, (contrary to the ICO which means shared responsibility for the child/children) no
reason had been given, only that our Solicitors would be sent a letter- (We have never received
this letter.) Mr Slinn had stated that we should discuss the previous LAC minutes once the
meeting concludes. Mr Slinn revealed that he had been given the information included in the
LAC minutes from the Social Worker; we were baffled, especially as to the fact that he was an
Independent Reviewing Officer, who should have ascertained the facts from the initial stage
and include this as part of his LAC minutes. Mr Slinn agreed to amend the LAC minutes, we
asked him where to send the correct information, Mr Slinn said this address, meaning,
Wellington street, the Woolwich Centre, which is the same address as the Local Authority. This
led us to ask whether he is on the (LA) payroll, to which he replied, yes. That is not
independence, to be paid by the same local authority? Just bear in mind, readers, most of the
rogues can and will admit things like this and more, why? Because we are of the opinion that
they simply dont care. Why? Because You will soon be assessed! Therefore, the fact that Mr
Slinn revealed to us that he is on the Local Authorities Payroll, quite simply, wont be believed,
because youll be assessed and who believes a person with a label?
The LAC minutes of 6th July 2012, to our dismay, remain unchanged and still contain the same
incorrect information as the last so called LAC minutes. Mr Slinn appeared to show no regard to
us as parents or for the truth. Under the heading Wishes & Feelings of the Child, Mr Slinn
even with our objections and concerns raised, regarding our children still remaining at Invita
Primary School, just appeared to continue to ignore the wishes and feelings of our children and I
quote, She mentioned throughout her report she did not like school and the journey was too
long and requested to move to a local school. Now, just so that you as the reader is aware, we
as parents were told by our children during contacts continuously of how tired they were, when
we would ask, further they stated they had to wake up very early to travel to school and the fact
that Avery continued to endure what we now know to be bullying on a physical level. Although
they have now moved from that Foster Carer, we now know they had been living somewhere in
Kent. Mr Slinn being an IRO, and with children who were quite clear in their views of wanting
to move from Invicta it seems very disturbing as to why Mr Slinn, ignored the children going
against that decision and leaving them to remain at Invicta? We resorted to asking one of the
contact supervisors how long the journey took to school, to which we were told 1hour, even
more in traffic! This worried us considerably, as it is understood that many children travel to
school and it can take more than an hour, in our childrens case we only lived 15 minutes away
from Invicta and that is on foot! By bus would be considerably faster as we would get there in
less than 10 minutes depending on traffic, so you see our children were never used to travelling
to school for over an hour and the fact that they were put in that unnecessary position by selfish,
nasty rogues is completely disgusting!

335

Under the heading Assessment it states, Full Core Assessment has been completed, reader,
let us explain how ludicrous this is, a Social Worker/ Local Authority cannot carry out a Core
Assessment, without first carrying out an Initial Assessment! Let us give you an example, it
is like making macaroni & cheese, without the cheese, or chicken pie without the chicken, it cant
work! Mr Slinn failed to look into this. Under the heading; IROs Views Mr Slinn states, This

case has moved into the court arena very quickly as the concerns were such that it was thought
not safe or appropriate for the children to live with the parents until further assessments by the
local authority and investigation by the Police. It is very clear that Mr Slinn either, 1) Does not
understand our case, or 2) He is incapable of adequately carrying out a case such as this one. To
correct Mr Slinn, he has stated that, This case has moved into the court arena very quickly as
the concerns were such, we are confused by this statement, as it had taken Social Services a
total of 3 weeks to go to Court. Further, Mr Slinn appeared to not consider the unlawful actions
committed by the LA and the Police, namely, CAIT. It appears Mr Slinn, had been ill prepared
and unsuitable for a case such as ours, particularly as he had views such as the one mentioned
above and consequently, it is that view which led him to make such flawed decisions in our
case.
13th December 2012, third LAC- On this occasion we were unable to attend and sent a letter to
that effect. We would also like to make clear that this LAC had been after the Fact Finding in
October 2012. Some time later, when we received the LAC minutes, the incorrect minutes
remained the same and Mr Slinn failed once again to correct it.
30th May 2013 LAC minutes, this is the last LAC minutes we as parents have received. We were
uninvited as parents because and we quote, Unable to attend as at placement A month prior
to this LAC the Family Judge namely, District Judge Alderson, had made Care Orders in respect
of our three daughters, namely, Avery, Beth, Cassie and Daniel. During LAC, it is common to
have children present as to ascertain their views etc. However, we have never had a LAC with
our children present, why? We believe it has to do with fear, when our children are with us
they become confident, as they are in our presence and feel safe a sense of comfort and they are
not afraid to speak the truth i.e. wanting to return home, because they know as parents we will
always defend them. Is it any wonder Mrs Corbett hid our children inside of the school on 29 th
March 2012, preventing us as parents from seeing our children?
However, the benefits of preventing/restricting/excluding our children from attending LAC, is
easier to simply claim the children do not wish to return home, without any objection from
our children who would state that is something they did not say and that they do want to come
home. Now, Mr Slinn provided no reason, even when the bail conditions were amended for
father and mothers bail conditions removed and all of the children were seeing both parents, it
remained unclear as to why our children could not be present at the LAC. He appeared to have
manoeuvred this on a few occasions, by holding the LAC at the Foster placement, (Foster
Carers home) which we were not aware of the location of our children, hence being uninvited.
Under the heading, Permanence Plan with regards to our son, Mr Slinn states, It is unclear

how the decision was made in respect of Daniel, being placed for adoption. It is thought
necessary that a Together or Apart assessment is undertaken to evidence the decision making
in respect of the longer term plans for Daniel. It was reported by Teresa that his adoption did

336

not come to fruition then consideration will be given to placing Daniel with his 2 older sisters.
Just so that you are aware Ms Tereasa Amprako Appiah was the 4th Social Worker who and
what you need to ask yourself is how? How is it possible to have such a case riddled with
corruption, unlawful actions and all manner of breeches committed, that a Judge namely DJ
Alderson, see fit to have your son put up for adoption? Answer, its the Secret Family Courts,
where anything goes! Also perhaps Mr Slinn should have asked DJ Alderson how he came to
reach that decision. The fact remains is, that in June 2012 our Daniel had been put up for
adoption with a 6 month time span, meaning if he is no found adoptive parents within that
period then he will be subject to a care order as like his three sisters. We found that just as
disturbing as some of you reading. Now, you can understand how and why children and babies
are easily adopted especially in cases where the parents have done nothing wrong. Let us put it
this way, if you get a tattoo, then decide you dont like it anymore at least there is laser treatment
to get it removed, however, unlike adoption once the child/baby has been adopted this can
never be reversed! The parent will have to pray and hope their child decides contact their birth
parent, when they reach the age of eighteen! This adoption process for innocent parents is
nothing more than torture and the fact that there was a case of a 19 year old girl who had found
out her baby had been adopted and consequently, killed herself! We as parents would like to
send our condolences to her family; we believe she was innocent, because the fact that her baby
has been adopted and she couldnt deal with the pain and heartache, she killed herself and
remember it is a very serious decision for a human being to take their own life! For those of you
who say; Oh well she was guilty, thats why she killed herself! Our response to you would be
you simply do not have a clue! We know you wouldnt know how it feels to be put in that
position and the next thing, we would ask is, are you a rogue Social Worker, Guardian, Police
or Reviewing Officer? Cases like that of the 19 year old girl make us feel so sad of the state of
affairs that is now the United Kingdom Secret Family Courts.
Under the heading, Family &Social relationships, we were surprised to read the same thing
said by Ms Webber (Learning Mantor, Invicta) Mr Slinn had claimed that our daughter Beth had
stated, and we quote: Contact arrangements have now progressed and Beth sees her parents.

It is reported she really enjoys seeing her parents and worries about them in between contacts,
however at the meeting that I had with her she stated that her father was not happy as he has
been previously and spends a lot of time moaning about the situation. This made us wonder
as Beth does not talk in that manner especially using the word moaning. Beth tends to say
things like upset, unhappy, sad etc. The fact that Ms Webber stated to our children Is your dad
still moaning? It is no surprise that was put there!
Since the Care Order had been granted by District Judge, Alderson, Mr Slinn did not forget to
make us aware that such an order was in place, which he stated, as care orders have now been

granted it will be a decision made at the next placement whether Cassie will be attending
church as she chooses. We as parents have nothing against Church, however we are not
religious but do believe in a greater power namely, Almighty. We just found this difficult to
accept as we have found out that it was not a choice our children had as the Foster couple, we
apologise, if we do not refer to them as Foster Parents, that our daughters and now our son
have been placed with do attend Church, therefore, Mr Slinn had not made clear that it had been
the Foster couple who attended church and that our children would have no choice in the

337

matter, but instead made it appear as though it had been Cassies choice to attend. Well, it
appears as though Mr Slinn had been so used to disregarding our childrens wishes and feelings
that he doesnt appear aware of the difference!
In summary, parents, ensure you bring a writing pad to any lack with pens, also if you are
unable to attend for whatever reason write/type a quick letter just to apologise, for being unable
to attend stating that your non-attendance should not be interpreted as disinterest, it is important
to finish with a quick note to state that you as the parents do not consent to any decisions which
are made with regards to your child/children, this is very important, even if they, you as the
parent have evidence, in the form of the letter (make copies) that you have not given any
consent.
This chapter should have stopped there, however today we had a meeting with a man named Mr
Jon Fayle on 24th September 2014. He has stated that Mr Gary Slinn has left and that he is the
new IRO for our children,
Jon Fayle
In September 2014, we got an email from this person called fail, purporting to be the
Independent reviewing officer, now assigned to our case. The first Gary Slin as we outlined was
totally a waste of resources. We did a quick Google search as you do these days and were very
surprised to see that Mr Fayle was the Chairman of the National Independent Reviewing officers
Association (Nairo). Based upon the information thats available online he has been involved
with youth justice for a long time. Mr Fayle is also mentioned in a 2013 article regarding his
contract being terminated by a council in 2012, for raising concerns about the authoritys work
with looked-after children. It is claimed in an online article that (Nairo) where Mr Fayle is
chairman, wrote to the childrens Minister at the time that IROs were being intimidated because
there were raising issues that were affecting looked after children. Mr fayle has also given
evidence to the look after Education Committee in 2010. After doing our small research we
thought this person does not look too bad on paper. In one article he his even called a whistle
blower. Were sceptical however, we had an open mind and thought yep, this man might prove us
wrong and may choose to do is job. We thought well, what have we got to lose the tides may
finally be turning for us and this man will blow this entire sordid affair out in the open and the
injustice may start to be put right and our children returned. That expectation was short lived,
when we did a bit of further reading only to discover that Mr Fayle was also a trustee of TACT
Fostering and Adoption agency. These sorts of conflict of interest, is rampant in the Family JustTrick System. These people support the current nefarious practices being perpetrated by rogues,
as they clearly stand to benefit when children enter the system and are fostered or either adopted.
These people will be the first to tell you there is no conflict, and with a straight face too.
Unbelievable! The Just-Trick system clearly has a revolving door policy and the children are
clearly the valuable commodity. Its like a drug dealer running a rehab clinic!
During the meeting with Mr Fayle, he like all the other incompetents pretended as if he was not
aware of the manner in which our children were taken (kidnapped) and held, which goes to the
heart of this case and claimed that our children have stated they do not wish to return home.
Let us see someone kidnap Mr Fayle and deny him from seeing his loved ones for such a long

338

time and see if he wouldnt be uttering whatever the kidnappers wanted him to say! We have not
seen our children alone since they were kidnapped in 2012, we have no idea where they were or
what was said to them since then, it is clear that we believe they were coerced by the Police who
had CONDUCTED TWO ABEs yet this incompetent had the audacity to sit in front of us and
pretend that all the wickedness committed against our four children had just magically
disappeared. If he wanted to do something for the credibility of IROs this was the case. This
man was a complete waste of us and our childrens precious time. In this meeting he was trying
the age old trick of trying to claim the judge has made an order, we thought wow, is this
incompetent, he did not appear equipped to attend this meeting. It appears he was more used to
dealing with parents who are assessed and not parents like us who were by this time verse in
their nefarious tactics. We failed to accept this further, we have been used to Professionals
regurgitating the same old thing; Your children, have said that they do not wish to return
home and why do you think they would they say that? A very simple answer, our children
have learned to give what the Professionals expect them to say and as a result whilst they still
remain imprisoned and under their authority our children simply have no choice. Bear in mind
readers, these are the same Professions our children see as those responsible for the kidnap
back in 2012, the detention, false imprisonment and those responsible of depriving them from
being able to see their parents for a number of months. Therefore, ultimately due to our children
still remaining with the capturers it remains the safest option to repeat things to keep them
(professionals) happy, after all, if we as parents were in their (our childrens) position we would
do the same. Also, how would it look if these professionals were to be told by our children
that they do want to return home after two and a half years with a care order in place? This
would put everything else into question; there will just be too many questions and no
professional wants to view a Judges decision as wrong!
Let us elaborate by giving you a scenario; here is a woman called Tiffany, she has boyfriend who
she has been living with for a few years, however, one night Tiffany is kidnapped and held
against her will at some undisclosed location by a man she doesnt know. Now, this man has
demanded that Tiffany, who has been held for three months, without seeing her boyfriend,
further, she has not been told whether her boyfriend is safe, alive or even whether he is aware
that she is alive. The worst part of Tiffanys false imprisonment, is that she doesnt know if shell
ever see her boyfriend ever again. Now, a month later the kidnapper, manages to contact
Tiffanys boyfriend telling him on the phone that Tiffany does not wish to see him and does not
want to come home. This is just a glimpse into the pressures which can be applied, but
remember what about children? Now, just last year we watch a movie and this brought tears to
our eyes, the film is called Just Ask My Children the events that had taken place in this film
were a true life case of the Kniffen family. We were saddened when the child had stated that he
had felt constantly pressured after many hours of interrogation and repetition by these rogues, all
to claim he and his younger brother had been sexually abused by their own parents. As a result
of the testimony made by the brothers, the mother and father spent many years behind bars.
Now, our point being, when children are removed from seeing their parents, and subject even at
the mercy of those professionals who constantly pressure, even at times threatening children
to make allegations which simply are not true. This reminded us of our case, it is simply put,
extortion, in terms of the child believing if they tell the professionals what they want to hear
they will be able to return to their parents, but when the child realises that is not the case it is too

339

late. It wasnt until the Kniffens were exonerated and the children all grown up, that they were
able to see the effects the whole situation had on the children. The eldest child appeared guilty as
though he had deceived his parents and this is one of many cases, when children realise it is then
too late, because the parents are either assessed and labelled or imprisoned or both!
The next example, we know a lot of people can relate to. When someone is arrested namely an
adult, he/she for the first time and placed inside a cell, many become anxious, many distressed
and the one thing running through their minds whilst in that small cell is, Get me out of here!
The person is so eager to come out, why do you think when Police officers ask them to sign a
caution; many sign it without a second thought? This is because a caution signifies the end of the
matter; however, it also means that you have accepted which will remain on the system against
your name. However, for those who are aware of this fact and still sign a caution, it would mean
that they could no longer tolerate being inside that cell, and do you know what? The Police
officers are well aware of this fact! I, Mrs Plowright, had been left inside that cell over night,
falsely imprisoned and not even interviewed, however, chose not to accept a caution. What
remains clear is that even though it may be a few hours, or even over night, when someone is
imprisoned and unaware of when the detention will end, they become desperate which results in
them signing anything, even if it goes against their name. One case we had witnessed in the
criminal court was that of a Bus Driver and a case about an alleged assault, he was an elderly man
aged between fifty and sixty, upon listening to the interview which had taken place between
himself and the Police, this elderly man stated that he would much rather sit and be interviewed
than to be inside of the cell! What we are saying is that, we are talking about the impact of being
falsely imprisoned for adults but ask yourselves what about children? We as parents would like
to say how proud we are of our children, they are so strong to be detained for what had now
turned into two and a half years and still remain resilient, telling us that they want to come home.
We salute our four children and as parents, they have demonstrated to us just how strong they
are and this is why we believe it had taken DC Cooper almost three weeks after they were first
kidnapped to conduct the two unlawful ABEs, why? Because throughout our children remain
defiant.

340

Intentionally blank

341

Chapter 13
Complaints
You cannot break the law and seek refuge

342

Intentionally blank

343

Chapter 14
Targeting and Surveillance
There is no defence against an evil which only the victims and the
perpetrators know exists.

As stated at the beginning of this book, its a daunting task to formulate this book
in a coherent and cogent manner. This is reflective of the manner in which we
were ambushed and attacked. Like most parents who have been attacked in this
manner we are extremely fortunate to be in a position to write about it because
most parents dont! Not because they dont want to but because the attack has left
them severely wounded with scars that wont heal for a lifetime!

This book is already gone beyond what we expected so we will just get straight to the point on
this one. Parents who have their children taken into care in most cases have no clue as to the fact
that they may also be the subject of targeting and covert surveillance. Sounds like fantasy. Well
the truth is usually stranger than fiction. Local Authorities employ the services of private
investigators in many cases of bin collection issues and school catchment areas. Do you believe
in cases of family proceedings especially where they have committed countless unlawful acts
there will be any difference? When rogues mess-up as they did in our case they will go on a
campaign to try and find any dirt to use against innocent parents.
With the implementation of a host of legislation granting police and local authorities more
snooping powers, parents are now at the mercy of these rogues. Most parents are unaware of the
immense resources at the disposal of these incompetents to create absolute havoc and ruin lives,
with the advent of:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Regulation of investigatory powers act 2000 (RIPA)

Data Retention and Investigatory powers act 2014 (DRIP)
Mobile surveillance and tapping technology such as IMSI Catchers
Property interference techniques
Private investigators
Sophisticated Tracking device technologies

While dealing with the stress of our children being kidnapped and all the stress that comes with
that, someone somewhere has made the decision to put us under surveillance. We have no idea
who is directly responsible for this constant surveillance we have found ourselves under, but we
can tell you its not funny. Imagine having your every move monitored. Your most intimate
moments listened to and observed. At first we thought, that it cant be possible, these
incompetents would not be so bold. Its really hard to write about these experiences. The fact is

344

most parents who are targeted dont even have a clue they are under surveillance. The
authorization for a long list of covert surveillance activities no longer require a court order and
senior police officers can now approve these surveillance activities at will. So what defence does
an innocent parent have against these activities when their situation also includes the complicity
of senior officers who have also committed and authorised unlawful acts. We have made serious
complaints against senior officers. We have also had numerous meetings with senior police
officers due to the unlawful acts committed in our case; we have made complaints against the
officers involved. At some of these meetings we have asked if the Metropolitan Police Service
(MET) is responsible for the current surveillance of us, and the answer is always the same
outright denial or a blatant Not at all! We have no way of verifying that, but whats in the dark
shall surely come to light. It is reported that Doreen Lawrence was under surveillance by officers
from the met in an effort to find information to smear. If it was not for Peter Francis then until
now we would still be the dark regarding that. Even with Peter Francis revealing his part in
covert surveillance activities the MET have still not fully accepted that they were conducting
these sorts of activities. So what chance do we have of them admitting to surveilling us? Local
Authorities are notorious for their surveillance activities as well. When these rogues commit
atrocities as they did in our case, we guess surveillance was to be expected considering they are in
most cases surveilling people for incredulous, simplistic and outright ridiculous reasons. The
kidnap of four children from innocent parents, without a reason would most likely have put
these rogues in overdrive. It is clear that efforts were made to gather negative information about
us from the get go. The Royal Borough of Greenwich, immediately after kidnapping our
children, and without any lawful authority to do so conducted agency checks on us to include
International Police (Interpol) and serious and organised crime agency (SOCA). We have no
criminal records so why was it that the serious and organised crime agency (SOCA) checks were
carried out. Then the Interpol check. To conduct such searches using our personal details
requires our consent and there must be a lawful and legitimate basis authorising them to do so
on a legitimate basis. They had no legitimate basis because they had children without any lawful
authority for doing so an as is clear were digging for dirt. They found no dirt and what appears
to have transpired is that we became targets for continued surveillance in their efforts to find
dirt. This has not been an easy experience. The powers that are granted to government agencies
to prevent and detect crime are wide ranging. What happens when these powers are used against
unsuspecting and innocent parents? The effects can be detrimental.
Those involved in criminal activity have the resources and in most cases are fully aware of these
tactics. However an innocent family does not have the resources and are not equipped to deal
with these sorts of surveillances tactics. Remember Mr Baker, The headteacher of Charlton
manor where this all began, well Mr Bakers only input to the family proceedings, was not how
he feared for the wellbeing of our children or that he believe the children were being abused. It
was a letter suggesting that a conversation occurred between him and Mr Plowright which,
Needless to say no such conversation had taken place between Mr Baker and Mr Plowright. It
was not the first time these rogues have lied and presented documents regarding events that did
not take place. Mrs Sengupta during her cross examination, under oath claimed she had a
meeting where Mr Plowright at Charlton manor school on the 13 November 2010 and claimed
that Mr Plowright was aggressive at the meeting. She had prepared a statement and everything.
The only problem was that the 13 November 2010 was a Saturday and the school was not open.

345

This sort of thing was common place in the secret family proceedings, the rogues just created
documents at will. Now, back to what I was saying about Mr Baker, he too sent an undated and
unsigned document to the court as mentioned earlier in the book claiming that Mr Plowright and
him at a conversation that never took place, whats very peculiar about this letter is that he was
making claims that we found very confusing. Mr Baker claimed Mr Plowright asked him if he
was a mason, he then went on to make other ludicrous claims. Let me just quote the exact letter
below, maybe a reader of this book can possible decipher what Mr Baker was up to by sending
this letter to the court. We believe it to be some sort of message, but message to whom. In any
event we were confused as to why this person who this entire situation began with and who got
his Ex-police friend Mr Palmer to have the school monitor our family on a vindictive and
malicious basis send such a letter to the court. The letter states and we quote:

Mr Plowright asked to be shown around the school. I walked him round and he seemed
pleasant on the first meeting. However he then asked some strange questions. Firstly, he asked
me what the school emblem was. I explained it was a Griffin. He looked at me suspiciously and
then asked why. I explained that it was an emblem from the original coat of arms for Charlton
House. He then asked if I knew what it meant. I told him no and asked him what he meant.
He said you look it up. He then asked me if I was a mason. I told him I wasnt. He saw my tie
pin and asked what the symbol on it was. I told him that it as an emblem of a Swedish town and
as a gift from a Swedish teacher. He then said again are you sure youre not a mason. I again
assured him I wasnt and asked him why he kept asking. No reason, he replied. All through
the visit however he kept asking me about the Griffin and the tie pin. Did I know their
significance? Why did I wear the tie pin? Why a Griffin? He seemed quite fixed on them. He
then left. T Baker Heateacher
Mr Bakers letter sent us on a researching spree to try and decipher what was behind him
writing such a letter. We researched, GRIFFIN , Coat of Arms and then Mason. It was during
the research concerning mason we came across an author called Stephen knight who has
written about masons. There were many other books however this book highlighted exactly
what we were and in some senses are still going through regarding surveillance activities. This
Stephen Knight was spot on. What we find most striking is the statement:

There is no defence against an evil which only the victims and the
perpetrators know exists.
Christopher Senior Whitehall Civil Servant and Freemason

We have quoted and excerpt from his book below:

Extract from Stephen Knights book; The Brotherhood. Christopher, a senior Whitehall Civil
Servant and Freemason explained that Masonrys nationwide organisation of men from most walks
of life provided one of the most efficient private intelligence networks ever imaginable. Private
information on anybody in the country could normally be accessed very rapidly through endless
permutations of Masonic contacts police, magistrates, solicitors, bank managers, Post Office
staff, [very useful in supplying copies of a mans mail, and especially if you say the target is a sex
offender Julian Assange comes to mind [1]], doctors, government employee, bosses of firms and

346

nationalised industries etc., and a dossier of personal data could be built up on anybody very
quickly.
When the major facts of an individuals life were known, areas of vulnerability would become
apparent. Perhaps he is in financial difficulties; perhaps he has some social vice if married he
might retain a mistress or have proclivity for visiting prostitutes; perhaps there is something in his
past he wishes keep buried, some guilty secret, a criminal offence [easily obtainable through
Freemason police of doubtful virtue], or other blemish on his character: all these and more could
be discovered via the wide-ranging Masons network of 600,000 contacts [2] [this number has
perhaps increased by at least a third since this article was originally written in 1984, though its
normally accepted by the UGLE that there are 400,000 members in the UK, though as I say, I believe
the figure to be much higher. Perhaps Knight was also referring to other Freemasons further
abroad, or other affiliations such as the Rotarians, Odd Fellows etc.], a great many of whom were
disposed to do favours for one another because that had been their prime motives for joining.
Even decent Masons could often be conned into providing information on the basis that: Brother
Smith needs this to help the person involved. The adversary would even sometimes be described
as a fellow Mason to the Brother from whom information was sought perhaps someone with access
to his bank manager or employer. The good Mason would not go to the lengths of checking with
Freemasons Hall whether or not this was so. The target was presented as a Brother in distress
by a fellow Freemason, especially a fellow Lodge member that would be enough for any upright
member of the Craft. Sometimes this information gathering process often involving a long chain
of Masonic contacts all over the country and possibly abroad would be unnecessary. Enough
would be known in advance about the adversary to initiate any desired action against him. I asked
how this action might be taken. Solicitors are very good at it said Christopher. Get your man
involved in something legal it need not be serious and you have him. Solicitors, I was told, are
past masters at causing endless delays, generating useless paperwork, ignoring instructions,
running up immense bills, misleading clients into taking decisions damaging to themselves, [and
this I can vouch for, and one of the reasons I dislike and dont trust many people of the so called
legal fraternity], Masonic police can harass, arrest on false charges, and plant evidence.A
businessman in a small community or person in public office arrested for dealing in child
pornography, for indecent exposure, or for trafficking in drugs is at the end of the line, said
Christopher. He will never work again. Some people have committed suicide after experiences of
that kind.
Freemasons can bring about the situation where credit companies and banks withdraw credit
facilities from individual clients and tradesmen, said my informant. Bank can foreclose. People
who rely on the telephone for their work can be cut off for long periods. Masonic employees of
local authorities can arrange for a persons drains to be inspected and extensive damage to be
reported, thus burdening the person with huge repair bills; workmen carrying out the job can find
in reality cause further damage. Again with regard to legal matters, a fair hearing is hard to get
when a man in ordinary circumstances is in financial difficulties. If he is trying to fight a group of
unprincipled Freemasons skilled in using the network it will be impossible because Masonic
Department of Health and Social Security and Law Society officials can delay applications for Legal
Aid endlessly. [3] Employers, if they are Freemasons or not can be given private information about a
man who has made himself an enemy of Masonry. At worst he will be dismissed or consistently
passed over for promotion. Christopher added.
Masonic doctors can also be used. But for some reason doctors seem to be the least
corruptible men. Only the fighters have any hope of beating the system once its at work against
them, he told me. Most people, fighters or not, are beaten in the end, though. Its . . . you see,

I you finish up not knowing who you can trust. You can get no help because your story
sounds so paranoid that you are thought a crank, one of those nuts who think the whole world
is a conspiracy against them. It is a strange phenomenon. By setting up a situation that most
people will think of as fantasy, these people can poison every part of a persons life. If they
give in they go under. If they dont give in its only putting off the day because if they fight, so
much unhappiness will be brought to the people around them that there will likely come a time

347

when even their families turn against them out of desperation. When that happens and they
are without friends wherever they look, they become easy meat. The newspapers will not
touch them. There is no defence against an evil which only the victims and the perpetrators
know exists. Christopher Senior Whitehall Civil Servant and Freemason Quoted in
Stephen Knights book: The Brotherhood, 1984.

Thank goodness we are not living in 1984, and with countless revelations regarding the corrupt
practices of a lot of these people, the public is more aware of these nefarious tactics. With that
said we firmly believe these sort of unethical networks still exist and it appears Mr Bakers
sinister letter to the court is very telling indeed. Now it does not look so much of a coincidence
that Mr Bakers Contact in the council Mr Ken Palmer ex-colleague DC Cooper was the detective
who kidnapped our four children then placed unlawful bail conditions to restrict us from our
children, Conducted two unlawful ABES then instigate a malicious prosecution against us.
Then Mr Baker in utter brazenness was sending a letter to the court, not of is great concern for
the wellbeing of our children but regarding a conversation that never took place. Oh,
highlighting amongst other things that he was asked by Mr Plowright about being a mason.
We firmly believe this corrupted bunch of vile people clearly kidnapped our children for some
nefarious reason. This was facilitated by the Royal Borough of Greenwich and Invicta Primary
School and the family Courts. The interesting part of this story is that unlike most people that
find themselves in these sorts of situation we have preserved the evidence to support our claims.
Mr Baker, Mrs Corbett, Mr Ken Palmer, Detective Brett Cooper, and the entire list of all the
incompetents involved who were willingly or otherwise complicit in the kidnap of our children;
let us remind you that the internet has changed the way society does business. This is no longer
the Jimmy Saville era. Please take notice because, our fight is not over, there will be further legal
action to follow and not in your kangaroo secret family courts. You have all been getting away
with your wicked acts for far too long. We will not stop; we will not relent until our children are
returned home and you are all brought to justice.

Very bizarre events which have occurred since the kidnap of our children
Since the abduction of our four children, we have experienced many unusual and bizarre events.
We would love to hear the experience of parents and others who have faced corruption and
injustice in the system.

348

Many parents and families who experience this family Just-trick system become targets for all
sorts of attacks. Some are aware of it and some arent. Some blame family members and
neighbours for these attacks, never really knowing who the perpetrators really are. Anyone who
is deemed a problem by the rogues in the system best beware and proceed with caution. Whether
you believe what we have stated is true or otherwise, the fact is these events did happen and it is
only because of the Almighty, we are here typing this book!

Be vigilant, because when rogues commit unlawful and wicked acts and set-out to cover their
backs your very existence may be attacked and the worst part is catching the culprits, is near
impossible, unless you have serious resources to invest.
The manner in which these sorts of attacks are carried out are in most cases covert, and designed
to cause ultimate annoyance and frustration. If you really upset these entities then, the attacks
can become life threatening. There will be occasions where those who appear to be absolute
strangers turn out to be something else.
We have learnt the hard way to be mindful of coincidence.
Ever since the kidnapping of our children by the authorities, we have had countless strange and
weird occurrences. Now, for any covert campaign to be effective the intended target must never
have any evidence or knowledge of the perpetrators who carried out the attack. The cherry on
top would be if the target has no idea or suspicion they are being targeted. Surveillance covert or
overt is less effective if the target knows they are being spied on.
Anyway, covert surveillance creates an unfair advantage for the cowards who are perpetrating the
attacks. Because, where there is no evidence of the attack or no one to blame then the target is at
liberty of appearing as though, the attack never took place and that they (the parent), are making
the whole thing up. Rogues in the secret family courts routinely accuse innocent parents of being
fantasist or another favourite is paranoid or delusional. Targets also run the risk of appearing
overly suspicious when experiencing the effects of the disruptive and vindictive attacks with no
evidence to show it is happening.

349

We will outline the list of events that have taken place since our children were kidnapped and
you can be the Judge of if they are just coincidences, evidence of being targeted or just random
innocent occurrences. Bear in mind, that Local Councils up and down the country employ the
services of private investigation companies (who usually employ ex-police officers) and use Antiterror Laws to spy on residents for issues as small as bin collection and school catchment area
issues. The police have an entire collection of tools at their disposal, to carry out all sorts of
covert activity. The ex-police officer Peter Francis exposed the Met For its surveillance of the
Lawrence Family and it appears a number of undercover officers even got women pregnant.
There is a plethora of other examples that we could refer to but, we think we have made the
point. In todays society anyone can be under surveillance for putting out your bin on the wrong
day, or for wanting your child to attend a particular school. Fact! Those are trivial matters for any
government to serveil its citizens. So just think, what happens when you really piss off these
people? Or like us, they are liable because of their overtly unlawfully and nefarious actions,
which may result in these rogues being disciplined or worse may have to find alternative
employment. Then every effort will be made to know what you had for breakfast when you were
6 months old, in an effort to see if can be used against you. If you ask us, we dont know where
they find the time or resources, both of which we are constantly told are in short supply for
many these days. A simple apology and accountability could solve many situations. However, this
failure to take responsibility is ultimately, a very costly approach. Not only in terms of financial
ramifications but more importantly the reputation and trust of these entities are once ruined hard
to re-gain.
We would like to make clear, that we not accusing or blaming the Police or the Royal Borough
of Greenwich on this one, because as we said above we do not have any clear evidence regarding
who carried out these acts. However, these events took place after our four children were
kidnapped by the Police and the Royal borough of Greenwich, who were at the time also busy
carrying out unlawful Interpol checks on us, in an effort to find any information that would
discredit us-they ultimately failed in their efforts!
A. We have resided at the same address in the newly named Royal Borough of Greenwich
for 4 years, before our children were kidnapped and none of the occurrences listed
below have ever taken place in all that time. However, shortly after our four children
were kidnapped these events took place:

1. The location where I, Mr Plowright was parking my car for more than 4 years was
deemed to be an ambulance access route by the council and subsequently, bollards
were quickly installed shortly after our children were kidnapped. I should add that for all
the years we have lived at this address an ambulance has never used that so-called access.
They use an open car parking area at the other side of the property.
2. My car has been vandalized. The right side driver door and passenger door was damaged.
It appears to have been kicked in, and the result was a horrible dent and scratches.
3. In the early stages after the kidnap of our four children, we decided to go to the cinema
in an effort to try and take our mind off things. A bit of escapism, if you like. It has been
years since my wife and I have been out without the children and we had not been to the

350

cinema in a while. Anyway, we got to the cinema bought our tickets and headed to our
seat. When we arrived, the movie had already started and we found our seats and sat
down to watch the movie. Two people, a man and woman came in after us and sat
directly behind us. Nothing was said by us to them or the other way around. In any
event, at the end of the movie everyone got up to leave as usual. Whenever I go to
cinemas I like to allow some of the people to leave so as not to add to the sometimes
disorderly exit. So, we sat in our seats until the crowd reduced a bit. When we got up to
leave the couple who came in after us, got up to leave as well. The man immediately said
to us that we were sitting in their seat. We said we are sorry, you must be mistaken
because we were sitting in our correct seats. We looked at our tickets again to check and
we were actually sitting in our correct seat. In any event, the film was now over and half
the cinema had gone, so we started to make our way out. But this man was adamant we
were sitting in his seat and attempted to block our path of exit. I immediately became
suspicious of what was taking place. The film was finished, nothing was said by this
strange man about seating throughout the entire time the movie was being shown or
even when it has finished. However, as soon as we got up to leave, he had a problem
with his seating and we were the ones to blame. Also, this guy had police written all over
him. What do I mean? Well, for all the years of being harassed by police, Ive sort of
developed a sixth sense for spotting police officers, undercover or otherwise. I have a
95% success rate in telling who may or may not be a police officer. I am not always
correct hence, 95% but, I am on the money most of the time. If body language, haircut,
dress code, or the way they walk dont give them away. Then, what always reveals a
police officer is the way they talk or to put it another way, the language they use. I dont
know how they do it over there in Hendon, or wherever else they train police officers,
but they all use the same language and vocabulary. Anyway to cut a long story short this
guy and his female accomplice was still cajoling us when we got to the bottom of the
steps inside the cinema, at which point I turned and in the most assertive tone inform
him that he should stop following us as the movie as ended and if he had a problem with
is seat he should have raised it with cinema staff when he arrived. Due to this strange
mans overtly aggressive behavior cinema security were had now arrived. As they arrived
this strange man told them to call the police. We were stunned by his request to call the
police, when he was the aggressor and trouble maker. In any event the security personnel
in the cinema told the stranger that they will not be calling the police unless its to arrest
him and is accomplice. The security pointed out that they had watched the entire event
unfold on the cinemas CCTV cameras. The strange man and his accomplice upon
hearing the cinema security personnel response left the cinema in a hurry. We still dont
know who these two strangers were, however if I was a betting man then I would say:
(Undercover, ex- police, Private investigator). However we may never know.

351

Key point
We would like to highlight in this book that our first book balancing the Scales the Criminal
Justice System was sabotaged. What do we mean? Well, after writing the book we moved to the
stage of having the manuscript edited. It is well known fact that it is not good practice to edit
your own manuscript. Therefore, we had our original manuscript edited by 3 separate individuals
of mix disciplines. We had a Criminal Lawyer, a College Professor and a Graduate with a
Bachelors Degree. After which, we applied the suggested edits to the book and sent the book to
be typeset before print. When we receive the print ready version, it was full of mistakes and
wholly different from the original edited manuscript sent to the typesetters. We reported this to
the typesetters who were themselves shocked. Our contact with our typesetters was via email, we
would send the manuscript and other communications via email. What appeared to have
transpired is that in between the transmission of emails from the typesetters to us, the
manuscript was intercepted and sabotaged. We had a deadline to meet and did not intend to
delay the publishing of the book; we therefore took the decision to publish the book with the
errors. The errors in the book are subtle but are damaging none the less. They include but not
limited to: spelling (one letter would be removed from a word to make the meaning obscure),
Commas (removed and put in place where no commas are required or were before) amongst
other minor but subtle changes. In any event, the saboteurs were unsuccessful because their
efforts did not take away from the overall message of the book and we have received countless
positive reviews.

Why would someone sabotage the book?

We have written books regarding the injustice we have suffered at the hands of the corrupt and
incompetent in Criminal Justice System and The Family Justice System, if there are simple errors
highlighted in the book it gives the impression that there may be other errors abound. This can
be concerning to readers who have no understanding of either systems of Law as to the
credibility of the author. The simple fact is, a reader like any reasonable member of society can
draw a negative assumption based on mistakes or errors contained in a book. Especially books
highlighting and discussing paramount issues of Law and the injustice that we as a family have
endured. There are many who are opposed to us writing about the injustice we have suffered and
highlighting the malpractice and incompetence prevalent in both systems. The rogues in these
systems have for too long enjoyed the comfortable anonymity and professional privilege
afforded to up standing members of their respective professions. The public should be warned
that these rogues are well versed in using the system and laws to defend their wrong doing to the
bitter end. The public should also know that rogue professionals are well protected by other
rogues in their professions and even when caught doing deplorable acts are often protected by
the professional associations and bodies that represent their profession. A significant amount of
resources is often deployed by these organisations via the securing of Lawyers and other experts
to defend the actions of these rogues. When faced with this type of effort and investment to
protect rogues, the ill-quipped parent or other party seeking justice usually jump ship and the

352

rogues are left in place more arrogant than before, ready and more prepared to wreak havoc on
other innocent unsuspecting customers.
We feel it is necessary for this book to contain this chapter, since our four children were
kidnapped we have been under immense pressure, the intimidation we have experienced is not
enough to stop us from fighting for our children and in particularly writing this book. Below, is a
mixture of events recorded by us from note books we have kept over this time since, March
2012- present day-

Key Point
What many in the public may be unaware of is the use of damage limitation experts by some
Councils when wrongdoing is highlighted and made public. The system is well and truly stacked
against innocent parents. Parents dont have access nor in a position to afford damage limitation
experts when being attacked by these professionals, which often charge an arm and a leg for
their services. However, Councils are armed with an endless supply of resources to hire these
sorts of services. These experts are essentially spin doctors and there to lessen the blow to
these corporate wrongdoers and are very good at providing crisis response services. They have
crisis protocols and everything in place should damaging information (the Truth) come out
about the unlawful and nefarious actions of some Councils. Let us be absolutely clear, there are
many experts employed by corporate Councils to provide many useful services. They arent the
ones we are referring to here. We are referring specifically to the experts drafted in to minimise
the Councils liability and accountability for wrong doing. We can be sure, many in the public
werent aware that there tax money was being used to protect civil servants who commit
atrocious, nefarious and unlawful acts. The important thing to point out about these experts is
that they are not cheap; it puts a different twist to your tax money being hard at work! Check it
out for yourself; you might be surprised what you find.

353

Important Note to readers- It appears theres something sinister going on!

What remains crystal clear regarding our case is the three weeks that the CAIT Detectives and
the Royal Borough of Greenwich failed to go to court for an Emergency Protection Order
(EPO), or Interim Care Order (ICO) even when they (LA, Police) were fully aware of our refusal
to sign a Section 20 Voluntary agreement, they continued to fail to return our children or initiate
proceedings.
Now, when we ask ourselves why didnt they just go to court for three whole weeks? We are
left with an overwhelming feeling that something improper/sinister had been in the works.
With recent spate of revelations regarding paedophile in the media surrounding some of the
most prominent members of society, we are left feeling very troubled. Especially the manner in
which our children were taken. We raise our children from birth and then for them to be taken
in the blink of an eye by these people for no reason whatsoever leaves us with tons of
unanswered questions. Peadophiles dont come with a sign on their foreheads saying paedophile
and they hide themselves in the places people would least expect. They often occupy jobs that
directly relate to and surrounding children. Take for example the Jillings report which was buried
for 17 years by rogues. What is the Jillings report I hear you ask?
Well, as reported by in the Media:
A report written 17 years ago has finally been published identifying long-term "extensive"
abuse at children's homes in north Wales from the 1970s to the 1990s.
Abuse allegations at several children's homes, including the former Bryn Estyn home in
Wrexham, emerged in the 1990s.
Sir Ronald found there had been "appalling mistreatment" of children over a period of 20 years.
Some of the key findings of the report are:

Extensive abuse of children over a substantial number of years

Children had been severely disturbed by the abuse. Some later took their own lives

Responses to reports children had been abused were "too little and too late"

The interests of children were sacrificed to safeguard professional position

Five men working at Bryn Estyn were convicted of serious offences involving 20 boys and five girls aged
10-16

The inquiry, hindered by serious constraints over available social services and police material, was
almost abandoned

Some staff refused to meet investigating panel

North Wales Police did not conduct independent investigations of allegations against former and
serving police officers

It was not known how many statements made were handed to CPS

It was not known how many alleged abusers, including police officers, were named in the statements

354

An earlier report into abuse at another home was shelved after concerns over prejudicing a prosecution
and insurance worries

The report had urged a public judicial inquiry

The above report was buried for 17 years by rogues; ask yourself how that was possible? As you can also
see the findings of the above report is very troubling. The fact that some children took their lives as a
result of the abuse they face in these homes is abominable. The report clearly highlights that the
interests of children were sacrificed to safeguard professional position. That is exactly what has taken
place regarding the corruption we face. Ask yourself again how could such a report be buried for 17
years? The Jillings report is just one of many such reports. We can answer that. If the corruption we
face today involving our four children being kidnapped is anything to go, then back then it would have
been a walk in the park for those vile rogues. They all collude and side with each other to cover each
others wrongdoing to the detriment of the children. The current frenzy is focused on historic abuse
however these rogues are still at it to this very day. We as parents will fight with everything we have got,
because we are not interested in any apology or excuses years down the line and then to be told that
lessons will be learned when the obvious is steering everyone in the face right now. To think Mrs
Corbett and the rest of these rogues kidnap our children, wanting them to be placed in a system that
they are fully aware is riddled with paedophiles, which damage children and as the above Jillings report
highlights even killing children as well. What sort of monsters are these people?

Readers, think about it, the Local Authority Childrens Services Director namely, Ms Gillian
Palmer and the Head of CAIT Police would be aware of the consequences and legal backlash of
not going to Court, both legal departments would be aware of the implications. Ask yourself,
what did these professionals have in store for four young black children? It is clear the rogues
did not want our children picked up on the radar, what we mean is that they didnt even want
the Secret Family Courts to become aware of our four children, why?
We have carried out some research which has highlighted a whole host of possible wicked
reasons. These include but are not limited to:
Organ Harvesting: No one wants to talk about it but there appears to be a thriving black market,
the organ harvesting industry is worth millions. Yes, we are talking about the organs inside of
the human body. Ask yourself, where are these black market suppliers of organs getting their
supply of organs?
What is easier than to take some children that not even the UK Courts are aware of and then,
well, we dont need to go into that. There are a growing number of cases in America where
people have been murdered for their organs. There was a case of a young man killed by another
individual making it appear like an accident when in actual fact it was all planned, in summary
when his body was released it was filled with newspaper and all organs removed without the
parents knowledge or consent. You can bet the same is being done here!!!
Satanic Ritual Abuse: The next and well known by many, is this vile, disgusting and sinister,
(SRA), Satanic Ritual Abuse. We know with the paedophile revelations being brought to light
and continuously unfolding, this is something that is going on all over the world and happens to
involve some well-connected individuals, some celebrities even some members of Parliament,
who appear to worship Satan and commit these sordid acts of child sacrifice for their God. In
order to show respect or praise their God a lot of babies and children suffer.

355

Child trafficking: What we have also come to know, is that adopting children via the black
market and by that we mean it is not official, no paperwork just kids for cash, and after all, we
have no idea if our children were purchased without our knowledge, with the intent to sell to
someone? It is also important to note, that when we were interviewed on Galaxy Radio station in
a two hour interview which you can listen to online via YouTube. A listener who had called in
had stated, that their belief was that they (rogues) were intending on selling our children.
Remember, these rogues had no intention of going to Court, even the a Professional in our
case stated to us in all her years she had never experienced a Local Authority keeping children
and hesitant to go to court for 3 weeks- why? That is the answer that has had all these rogues
behaving in such a manner; they appear to be aware that something sinister is at play. To not
even want to go to the same Secret Family Courts, known to go in their favour, something
desperately wrong is at play, why didnt they want to go to Court? Further, a trusted source told
us our four children were even taken to Wales! This is by no means any disrespect to the
beautiful place, however, Wales, like Rochester, and Jersey to name but a few have been known
for endemic and serious child abuse scandals. We need to ask these kidnappers, why were our
children taken to Wales?
The fact is we dont know who is connected to who and the manner in which our children were
kidnapped raises alarm bells that something very sinister was about to take place. Remember, if
we were not parents who fought and pushed for the LA to go to Court in the first place, then
whilst they had our children without the Courts knowledge, it would have been our word against
theirs. An example of this would be that the LA and CAIT could deny being involved and state
that perhaps we as parents are imagining things? We would be assessed and so who would
believe us? They could say, We know nothing about these children, when you came to the
school on 29th March 2012, you did collect them, it is that simple.
What is of great concern to us?
Our children were taken from Invicta Primary School on the 29th March 2012. After they were
taken we never saw them again until for a considerable period of time, mother didnt see her
youngest three children, until 19th May 2012 (nearly 2 months!) and eldest on 16th June 2012
(nearly 3 months!) Throughout this entire period we had absolutely no idea where our children
were being held. This is very concerning and worrying to us and has caused considerable
distress and mental torture. What has aggravated this mental torture is the fact that there is now
a plethora of stories in the main stream media regarding paedophiles operating at the heart of
Government, in the Police and also in Schools. Where were our children taken between those
dates when had no contact with them? Mrs Corbett accused us of calling her and the staff at
Invicta paedophiles, when we came to collect our children (on 29th March 2012) and she refused
to bring them to us. We said no such thing; we did not accuse her or anyone else at the time, of
being a paedophile. We were fortunate to have had our recording device on the 29 March 2012
when we attended the school to collect our children or else we believe the accusations fabricated
against us would have been considerably more outrageous. She later changed her story when
being questioned claiming mother had said there are a lot of paedophiles in London. The
thing is, we never mentioned anything regarding any paedophile to Ms Corbett or any of the
staff. We know Ms Corbett is prone to creative and selective thinking however we were
wondering at the time, that for all the accusations she could come up with regarding name calling
why did she choose paedophile? She could have accused us of swearing or shouting even
spitting, not that we did any of those but why use the word paedophile? The point we are
making is Ms Corbett could have accused us of calling her a million things, so why in the world

356

did she choose paedophile? Why would Mrs Corbett accuse us, namely mother of calling her a
paedophile?
There is a lot of talk at the moment about historic child abuse by many a powerful people,
however nothing is being said or done about current cases of child abuse. Investigations appear
to only be started when a lot of the perpetrators are dead. However what about paedophile
networks currently operating in this country.

We are still confused as to why Mrs Corbett chose to make that claim?
We are very concerned for our children who were blatantly and brazenly taken without any
justification and denied from seeing us for 2 months at first. When we finally saw our children it
was at a supervised contact where we were closely monitored by not one but two contact
supervisors. We need an urgent investigation into the actions of all the corrupt rogues involved
in our case.
Our eldest daughter Avery at the first contact after nearly 4 months of not seeing her dad ran to
father and whispered is ear. Within seconds, the contact supervisor interrupted her and
immediately told her she must not whisper in my ear.
We would like to make it absolutely clear that we are not accusing any specific incompetents
named in this book of being peadophile. They could be just a bunch of corrupt incompetent
professionals. But put yourself in our shoes, what would you think if you were a parent in our
shoes. Especially with the current spate of revelations coming to light and the barge of teachers,
celebrities and even police officers being convicted of offences against children, it leaves us
petrified an scared for the wellbeing of our children. It was Mrs Corbett who brought first
mention and lied about being called a Paedophile.
We dont want to contemplate it but is it possible that our children were actually kidnapped by
a modern day paedophile network?
The manner our children were taken is beyond sinister and the lies, deceit and corruption that
followed is way beyond what any parents has disclosed to us. Many parents who have actually
gone through the corrupt family Just-Trick System are left baffled by the way our children were
taken and held. The tactics used to deny us of our children (unlawful bail conditions) and the
overt disregard
But the fact is it was Mrs Corbett who first lied about us accusing her and her staff of being
pedophiles. Again the question remains why make such a vile claim?
However, lets highlight a few facts
1. Our children were taken from Invicta Primary school on the 29th March 2012 (Fact)
2. We never saw all our children together as a family until 12th July 2012. (Fact)
3. Mother first saw our three youngest on the 19th May 2012. (Fact)
4. Royal Borough of Greenwich first went to Court after 3 weeks of having our children
without any legal basis for doing so. (Fact)
5. Even after wrongly being granted an Interim Care Order our children were wrongly and
still prevented from seeing us. (Fact)

357

Since the kidnapping of our children we have never been told who exactly or was
responsible for their care. Especially between 29th March 2012 12th July 2012. Our
children were kidnapped from the school with the clothes on their backs and nothing
else.
Between 29th March -12th July 2012, where were our children being held? Were they cold?
What were they being told? When they cried and asked for their mum and dad what were
they told? Were they hungry? What were they fed? Where did they sleep? These people
did not even know or asked about any medical conditions or any allergies our children
may have before or after kidnapping them. Further, to this, is the fact that until this day
we still dont know where our children are. We are told that they are with Foster Carers
we have never met. From the moment our children were kidnapped, we have been kept
in the dark regarding their location and care and it is now nearly, three years after the
kidnap of our children.
However, the Royal Borough of Greenwich not only returned our children back to
Invicta the following day after kidnapping them, they alo forced our children to remain
there for the entire duration of their persecution of us as parents. From March 2012- July
2013. Throughout that entire period the Royal Borough of Greenwich appears to have
kept Invcta Primary fully informed as to the whereabouts of our children and not us, as
Mrs Corbett and her staff were the parents of our children. We found out through our
daughters that our children have been on many school trips and been in the company of
many strangers. Mrs Webber, a teacher at Invicta and one of the main characters in this
sordid ordeal has even been granted access to our children and visited them wherever
they were being kept. This is the woman namely, Ms Webber, who it is claim the
allegations of physical abuse originated with and who gave our 9 year daughter sex
education and telling our daughter sex is okay and normal, after she was kidnapped. All
this took place against our wishes and without our consent. Until this day we find this
despicable, the audacity of the Royal Borough of Greenwich to allow this woman to
teach our 9 year old daughter about sex, at the most stressful, traumatic and distressing
time of her life (While she is kidnapped from the care of her parents and all that she
knew).
How many times has Ms Webber and heaven knows who else, visited our children
wherever they are keeping them? We as parents do not know where they are hiding our
children, yet; the Royal Borough of Greenwich has allowed Ms Webber to know where
they are and even allowed her to visit them. No one from the Royal Borough of
Greenwich Social Services or any of the countless incompetents disclosed the fact Ms
Webber visited our children. It was our children who actually told us. The real question
is, who else was and is allowed access to our children?
A lot of people have asked how is it that the pedophiles, the likes of Jimmy Saville and
Cyril Smith were able to get away with what they did for so long and not be caught? Well,
based on our experience of corruption at the hands of countless incompetent so-called
professionals and the subsequent attacks we have endured we can see how easy it is for
cover-ups to take place. How can four children be brazenly kidnapped in broad daylight
from school and held for upwards of two months and denied contact with their parents
or any family member, in England in 2012. Our children could have been on planet Mars
within that time for all we know. If these people can do this in 2012, then no child is safe
in England. The perpetrators are always swift to tarnish and threaten victims of their
actions.
With paedophiles operating and occupying positions of power and having well
established networks of contacts within many organisations even the Judiciary, victims

358

are at their mercy. They can cause serious havoc in victims lives, Cyril Smith was a high
ranking paedophile MP and is reported to have been protected by the Police. Now, what
chances would his victims have? Jimmiy Saville was a paedophile operating with impunity
for over 3 decades with countless complaints lodged by is victims with police over the
years and they were disregarded, only after he died and with substantial pressure before,
he was highlighted. Sir Peter Hayman Ex MI6 High ranking official has been named as a
paedophile. What we want readers to understand is that these paedophiles had access to
power and were in positions of power themselves they had the resources to wreak havoc
on their victims and have any complaints against them disregarded. Victims often then
found themselves being further attacked with impunity by the very organisations that
they would try to seek help from.
It is blatantly clear that paedophilia is endemic and is not only a historic issue but a current
problem. Upon carrying out some research, it has come to our attention that PIE the
Paedophile Information Exchange which is claimed to have been disbanded in 1984, had one of
its main postal address in Greenwich now Royal Borough of Greenwich. This organisation is
reported to have a long list of powerful supporters. What is very shocking to us is the close
proximity of the PIE postal address is to our actual and current address.
PIE Postal address: PO BOX 316 or 318 London SE3 8QD

Our Postal address: 27 Thelma Gardens London SE3 8ET

Think about that! This is very bizarre and disturbing. Just a brief snippet, the Paedophile
Information Exchange, was a pro- Paedophile activist group founded in October 1974 and
officially dis-banded in 1984. Yes, we are shocked too, how were they allowed to operate for a
decade? Really ask, how is their PO Box address so close to where we live?! It is claimed that
they are not operating anymore; if you want to believe that then thats your right. However we
do not believe that for a second and believe that they have just become more covert with their
activities and networks. With the recent paedophilic revelations exposing powerful people within
Parliament and elsewhere; it is no surprise children all over the world are being kidnapped and
children and babies forcibly removed from innocent parents in the UK and expediently adopted
quicker than you can say injustice, the reasons are very clear!

359

Intentionally blank

360

Chapter 15
Names of the incompetent and Corrupt involved in our case, a glossary of rogues

It is a long list!!!
They are all complicit in the unlawful and immoral actions committed against our family and the
continuing injustice we are suffering.
Not one of them had the courage to speak out and act according to their oaths or professional
codes of conduct. Even at the very least, to act with Morality, integrity and basic common sense.
They all took the money, look the other way and profited from the suffering of our children.

This puts a whole different twist on the concept of a few bad apples. This is a total
infestation!
These geniuses attempts at covering up their wrongdoing by muddling the issue and weaving an
ever widening web of accomplice will not hide the fact that we believe they have committed the
countless unlawful and immoral acts and kidnapped our four children. The ever increasing
numbers of so-called professionals does not validate the wrongs committed and the only thing
that strategy has achieved is highlight and reveal the large number of rogues that exist within the
family just trick system. There is nothing uncommon about the numbers that get involved in
these cases and is often used as a shield to claim they all cant be wrong. All these rogues do is
just cut and paste and compound what their previous colleagues did and continually side with
each other. The lucky part for us is that our list is shorter than most innocent parents because we
have not been assessed. Most parents have a longer list to include Psychiatrists and a host of
other medical experts. We were fortunate on that one.
The long list below highlights the contemptible nature of the current Family Just-Trick System,
however what can we say the more the merrier. A total infestation, that will save the British
taxpayers a fortune, when you are all held to account and removed from the system.

361

Inner London & City Family Proceedings Court First hearing on 20 April 2012 Justices of the peace:
Rosemary Baker, R. James, E. Walker
Judges:
District Judge Crichton (CBE),
District Judge Alderson,
Court Appointed Guardian:
Ms Marlyn Samuels- (Cafcass)
Lawyers:
Davadire Horsford- (solicitor) Royal Borough of Greenwich
Cleo Perry (Barrister)- 4 Paper Building (Royal Borough of Greenwich)
Matthew Perrson-(Barrister)-4 Paper Building (Royal Borough of Greenwich)
Mark Towmey-(Barrister)- Coram Chambers
Kate Hudson - (Barrister)-Coram Chambers
Dzifa Gan-(Solicitors)-Osborne Solicitors
Bridget Thompson-(Solicitor) Osbourne Solicitors
Claire Holland-(Solicitors)- Laurence Davies & Co Solicitors
Stella Sweetman-Mk Law Solicitors
Manisha Knights- Mk Law Solicitors
Sean Wallace- Great St James Street Chambers
Lauren Mercurius-Taylor- MTC&Co Solicitors
Yemi Adergibge- Nathan Arron
Gavin Kendall- MK Law
Kate Klaxton- MK Law
Russell Powell/power- Local authority
Davidaire Horsford- Local authority

362

Social Services:
Marie Morris,
Alison Mc Donald,
Victoria Carrington,
Teresa Amprako-Appiah,
Fardowsa Galal,
Kathy Elliffe,
Alinda Benade,
Karen Sholtz,
Elenor Tur,
Kate Collins
Toyah Holness
Charlton Manor Primary School (1st school)
Tim Baker-Head teacher,
Mr Price,
Miss Smith,
Mrs Sengupta (Deputy Headteacher)
Mr Turner-Wing (Behavioural Manager)
Mrs White,
Ms Justine Han (Pastorial Officer)
Miss Friday
Invicta Primary School (2nd School)
Mrs Marie Corbett (Head Teacher)
Mr Ken Maslin (Deputy Head teacher)
Miss Vicki Cuff (Inclusion Leader now Deputy Headteacher)
Miss Alison Webber (Learning Mentor)
Mrs Avani Chokshi
Mr Christopher Rae

363

Miss Hunter
Miss Christine Oconnor
Miss Marie Erol,
Miss Emily Williams
Council -Royal Borough of Greenwich
Mr Ken Palmer (Child Protection Co-Ordinator and former (CAIT) Detective)
Mr Steve Myles- (Royal Borough of Greenwich)
Gillian Palmer (Director of Childrens Services)
Mr Gary Slinn- Royal Borough of Greenwich (Independent Reviewing Officer)
Mr Jon Fayle-Royal Borough of Greenwich(Independent Reviewing Officer)
Paediatricians
Dr Nacunskaite
Dr Mirza-Rizwan
Fostering Agencies
Home Finding and Fostering
Orange Grove
Police
DC Bret Cooper (Cait Team Sidcup)
DC Carla Cullinane (Cait Team Sidcup)
DI Justin Armstrong (Cait Team Sidcup)
DS Sara Fisher (Cait Team Sidcup)
PS Sugitt

Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) Officers Assigned to investigate complaints against

Police.
PI Paul Etheridge
DI Coretta Hine
DCI Iqbal Singh now Superintendent Iqbal Singh

364

DCI Smart
PS Ray
Foster Carers
Heenah Minas
Ann Blcakman
Irene Southby

365

Intentionally blank

366

Chapter 16
Financial Impact on innocent parents and families attacked by this corrupt
system

No one talks about the immense financial strain innocent people face when the rogues attack
parents and families. Whats important to bear in mind is that these rogue professionals are
being paid through the entire process of their attack, while parents arent being paid to sustain
the attacks.
The stress of the attacks and the endless meetings make it impossible for parents to cope or
maintain employment. Further, one whisper to employers that parents are being investigated
for child abuse by social services or police, will have an adverse effect on parents as employers
are quick to distance themselves, because of any negative impact that may have on their
business. Social workers and other professionals are fully aware of this fact and will be the ones
who in most cases contact parents employers under the guise of seeking information regarding
a parents working habits or whatever excuse. Parents will then quickly find themselves out of a
job. The lack of financial resources has caused many an innocent parents to abandon the fight
and jump ship. We have experience the same difficulty but refuse to give in. We have spent an
enormous sum to be here typing this book and when that ran out we started borrowing. We
have no regrets and would do it again for our children. The current state of the system and
how it attacks innocent parents is just outright cruel. These rogues are fully aware of the
financial restraints placed upon many parents. If you have a friend or relative going through this
horrible system, support them if you can.

Advice for family and parents

We would like to encourage all innocent parents who have had their children taken to write a
book about your experiences, so that the world can know. No matter how bad they try to smear
us or whatever is done to try and discredit us after this book is released, please do not be afraid
or deterred (because the rogue professionals and their masters like to make an example of people
to deter others). We know you might feel afraid or worried of the world knowing that your
children have been taken or that you are being investigated for child abuse. But if you know you
are innocent dont sit there and be silent. We have been through hell and at the time of writing
this book the fire is getting even hotter! because these people who have done us wrong appear to
be attacking in full force, now, more than ever hoping to derail this book from coming out.
However, the fact that you are reading this means they have not been successful. We sincerely
know that when these rogues attack with the threat of taking your children or have actually taken
them, the last thing on your mind is writing a book. We have been there and if someone had told
us in the midst of the attack to write a book, we would have told them where to shove their
head! However, please try to take notes and keep records, like we have done, so that one day you
may be able to tell your story.

367

Another point to remember is that most people will never understand what you are going
through. Dont be mad at them, they are unaware of the attacks you are enduring. Who feels it
knows!!!
If they were placed in our position for only 1 minute they would kill themselves! Therefore,
we say again to all those innocent parents being persecuted by what is essentially a corrupt
and unjust system, be strong and take heed! Who feels it knows!
What do we want now?
1. We want the immediate return of our four children.
2. We want accountability of those involved in unlawful actions.
3. For Police to not be in a position to place bail conditions and or the Courts to decide.
4. For the Family Courts to become Public for all to see thus, saving children untold
heartache and trauma.
We need help in continuing our fight against these rogues.
The country is in a state of austerity and it is wrong to spend good money on incompetent
rogues when there are people who cant buy food.

Davion & Elizabeth Plowright

NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!

368

369

370

371