Michael Gove’s advisor, Sir Martin Narey, believes that not enough children are taken into care. He also believes that only a very small minority of children are erroneously placed in care. However, those who follow the stories of child stealing by the state believe that the correct figures run into thousands.

Martin Narey advocates a change in the family courts system which would permit more ‘openness’ in that the judgements may be publicised but the lack of transparency and fairness in the courts will continue in secrecy, it seems.

Christopher Booker provides an example of a child in care pleading to return to her parents:

On the very day Sir Martin was being deferentially interviewed by the Today programme, I received two more handwritten letters, smuggled out to her family from her foster home, by a bright 13-year-old girl who has now, for quite ridiculous reasons, been in state care for more than two years.

In one she wrote: “I miss you sooo much and I love you even more, I’m so sad and I don’t want to live any more, I can’t take it any more, I have so many scars, I’m so scared, Daddy, please help me! I’m so sorry I’m so scared. I should be brave!” In the second letter she writes: “I’m so scared, my heart is shattered to pieces. I love you infinity itself, and miss you infinity itself.” This is an articulate, utterly distraught girl, who was never harmed by her family, who has been repeatedly ill-treated in foster care and who has been repeatedly refused her right under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to put her own case to a court.

Her story is just a tiny part of the reality of what goes on behind that wall of secrecy that our child-protection system has erected – way beyond anything it is authorised to do by Parliament – not to protect the children, but simply to protect itself. Lord Justice Munby’s guidelines will do not a jot or tittle to change it.

Creating rotten systems for children? Let’s make sure the island is not to be accused of this in the future. Chris Robertshaw, please instil some sanity into the present insane system in the department of social care.



How were the over-intrusive and costly practices in the Social Care department introduced? That is surely the burning question.

We were assured the database would not happen as it was against public wishes (1), but then discover (2) that costly ‘new working practices’ have been introduced and that the department has actually been following the (discredited) Every Child Matters procedures (3) and the predicted over-referrals have indeed materialised.

  1. Children Bill will not proceed, says Minister – Education and Children Press Release

What part of ‘we don’t want it’? do our ‘representatives’ not understand? The assurances were probably not quite what they appeared to be, however. It comes down to semantics:

A DRAFT Children Bill will not proceed in its present form after more than three quarters of those who responded to a public consultation exercise came down against it.

The question of who instigated this remains unanswered.. Remember it is our money that has been spent on a system which was rejected by the public consultation. Ministers past and present are fudging here. How did it happen? We need measures in place to prevent this ever happening again.


At long last Manx Radio has caught up with the story. This morning’s report about the huge amount of over-referrals in the Department of Social Care was overdue. Mr Llewellyn-Jones’ statement was clear and concise. With over 900 referrals and around 1000 births per year, statistically seen every child could be netted into the system at some point. The vast majority of these referrals are not followed up. In other words, this is unnecessary and therefore undesirable intervention. The result of this crazy system, which has necessitated importing social workers at high cost to the taxpayer, appears to be that they are wasting their time investigating non-existent cases and this could result in their overlooking the real and possibly serious cases.

Mr Robertshaw’s stance seems to be that he inherited the catastrophic system and pulling the plug risks overlooking a serious case of  a child in need of ss intervention, but surely that is exactly the issue with the present system. The over-referrals could lead to overworked social workers missing the crucial case. Therefore, I would suggest that Mr Robertshaw’s claim does not really hold water.

However, this costly and intrusive practice has surely raised a pressing point. If Mr Robertshaw did not introduce the measures, and it seems highly unlikely that they were the brainchild of his predecessor, then who did? Despite assurances from the government that the public’s view on Every Child Matters had been noted and that no database would be introduced, both the ECM policy and a database were introduced – without public notification. The ‘new working practices’ which prompted Martyn Quayle to request around half a million pounds a couple of years ago, were seemingly based on Every Child Matters and a database was put in place without a word to the public.

We are being told that this was all a fait accompli? Somehow, without anyone’s knowledge, the entire system was put into place. A system which has cost the taxpayer dearly, while cuts have been made in the education department. Someone, somewhere was responsible for pushing this agenda – and it is essential we discover how this system really works. Mr Robertshaw did not disclose the situation in his department, until questioned, and now continues to make lame excuses for the continuance of the costly chaos there. Who is really behind this? Where did the directive come from? If we do not succeed in uncovering how this situation arose then we leave ourselves open for further underhanded situations. And where will it end?

The procedures should be changed forthwith and those responsible held accountable – whoever they may be.


Finally, we have an admission that the Department of Social Care has been responsible for a phenomenal amount of over-referrals in the children and family division. Why? Because despite government claiming to have abandoned the idea of a database this project was in fact pursued and implemented without our knowledge. The utterly abysmal project, Every Child Matters, was imported from the UK – copied and pasted, Mr Robertshaw? – and no expense seems to have been spared in putting a highly excessive and intrusive surveillance system in place.

The Manx Radio interview included a reference to 900 referrals and the birth rate being around 1000 a year. Do the maths! Almost every child could have been netted at some point.

Every Child Matters to whom? This nonsense is another intrusion which has emanated from UNESCO – the same organisation that recommends that five year olds are taught about masturbation.

The practice of blindly copying and pasting legislation and guidelines from the UK has to stop. UNESCO’s intrusion in our lives is local. That is where the focus has to be.

To put it bluntly, while one department has been slashing items on the education budget, money has been thrown at intrusive and unnecessary intervention in families and no one flagged it up, they just kept on going in case they missed one severe case. This seems reminiscent of placing CCTV everywhere, just in case. However, in the case of families this intrusion could cause enormous damage. We have no insight into the effects of this Orwellian-style surveillance and monitoring. Investigation by social services is undoubtedly something most parents would wish to avoid. The perceived stigma and fear of further action must surely cause families enormous stress.

A formal apology to the families involved is insufficient but it might demonstrate some good intention. On reflection, perhaps all families deserve an apology from the department as it would seem that spying and surveillance has been pursued, at no mean cost (while outgoings on education were reduced). No wonder they were short of social workers! We pay for them, remember. While education cuts have been implemented the Department of Social Care has been spending taxpayers’ money on surveillance that the stasi might well have been proud of.


Deep Geopolitics?

An Evening with Ian R Crane

Have you ever wondered whether 9/11 was an inside job? Or the 2008 financial

crash a manufactured crisis? Whether pharmaceutical and oil companies suppress

medicines and technology that would help humanity, but hurt their profits? Have

you ever wondered if a corporate oligarchy is the real power behind our seemingly

democratic governments? On Saturday the 20th of July, Ian R Crane is coming to

the Isle of Man to present his case that the world is truly very different to what we

imagine it to be.

Ian Crane is an ex-oilfield executive who was one of the first civilians to enter Kuwait

after the First Gulf War. What he saw there so shocked him that he began a long

journey to re-evaluate everything he thought he knew about the way the world

works. Subsequent to the events of September 11th 2001, Ian began to give public

lectures on his research. In this talk on the Isle of Man, he will discuss the

experiences and research that have led him to form his unique perspective on the

world, covering such topics as false flag terrorism, manipulation of the financial

markets, genetically modified food and his latest research on the dangers of fracking.

Ian’s opinions are controversial and would be labelled by many as ‘conspiracy

theories’. This lecture is intended to provide an opportunity for residents of the Isle

of Man to decide for themselves. Agree or disagree, it will certainly be an

interesting and challenging evening for all.


Sat 20th July, 7:30pm, Empress Hotel, Central Prom, Douglas,


Isle of Man


Tickets £8 in Adv, £10 on the Door


Advanced tickets and info or 0207 558 8869



There seems to be a pattern emerging. Yet again at the last sitting of Tynwald before summer recess we discover that amidst cuts and service reductions the Department of Social Care has once more been spending money on staff without the knowledge of the public. Libraries, pre-school, nurture groups have all been the subject of proposed cuts. Yet the secret database was introduced against the will of the people and the over-referrals the system appears to have generated have not only been accounted for but it would appear that the requisite staff to accommodate the unnecessary and excessive referrals have also been put into place.

So while Martyn Quayle’s request for half a million pounds for ‘new working practices’ at the final sitting in 2011 may have raised some eyebrows at that time, Chris Robertshaw’s department has well exceeded this. Over two million pounds spent on 51 staff instead of the 10 new social workers previously mentioned? Why would we need so many children’s social workers? Because we have a huge amount of over-referrals perhaps? (Over-referrals resulting in no further action being taken). However, Mr Robertshaw apparently has no qualms about this seeming harassment of parents.

Glancing through the question papers of late I have been surprised by the lack of questions! Yet come the final sitting we have numerous questions tabled and it doesn’t take a clairvoyant to see that they couldn’t possibly be answered orally in one sitting. Result? They will be responded to in writing. How much easier to deal with the contentious issues in the later questions when there are no supplementary questions to contend with!

Cynics might suggest that the questions were saved for the final sitting. Surely not?


At last, as Tynwald draws to a close, Question Papers become interesting again. More than interesting, in fact. Amongst a wide array of topics including many questions relating to hospital practices, monitoring etc. there are some exceptionally interesting queries with regard to the children’s department.

Readers might recall that Martyn Quayle requested half a million pounds for new working practices, at  the final Tynwald sitting in 2011. We then discovered that a secret database was in use by the department and that staff involved in this schemee were directed to report if in doubt, this directive doubtless contributing to the vast amount (over 670 within a period of around 12 months) of over-referrals. We can imagine the impact of SS investigation on families.  Mr Robertshaw, however, appears to be content with this vast amount of unnecessary reporting and the amount of man hours this consumes.

Many undoubtedly view the above as undesirable and interfering. However, we are now informed that while financial cuts have been made in this department the cost of the ueber-surveillance has been huge – and has seemingly not been officially sanctioned:

Question 31 from Mrs Beecroft directed at the Minister for Social Care: Pursuant to his Answer to question 27 in the June sitting of Tynwald, why an additional 51 agency children & families social workers were employed at a cost of £2,027,538 when the July 2011 Tynwald  approved a Supplementary Vote of £498,000 to recruit an additional 10 children & families social workers?

Further questions from The Speaker, Steve Rodan, reveal that an external assessment into the department was conducted at the end of 2012 and it would appear that details of the results have not been divulged to Tynwald.

What is going on in children’s services? They employ (import?) huge amounts of social workers to deal with the predictable increase in referrals? Without consulting Tynwald or notifying the court of a phenomenal increase in required funding?

It seems that we always have enough funds for surveillance and monitoring.

Free as they sweet mountain air? I don’t think so.





File:Surveillance video cameras, Gdynia.jpeg

Beware! Our telecommunications are being observed. That is the message in the media and the warning is promptly being posted on Facebook. Suddenly, the mainstream is full of reports of Big Brother surveillance. One article contained the words ‘Watch what you say!’

I have been aware of intermittent tampering with my telecommunications in the past. What did I do? I kept on talking, surfing, emailing and generally communicating. Result? Nothing happened. How easy it is to prevent the as-yet-unawakened from waking up. There could just be a grain of truth in this conspiracy stuff, they think. Appetite whetted they start surfing and researching only to hear that we are all under surveillance. Better not pursue things then? Exactly the desired reaction. Could it be that social networks are having an undesired impact on the status quo? And the predictable reaction: Attempt to instil fear.

In my case the surveillance coincided with my first research into the actual conspiracies our system is built on. I know exactly what triggered the eavesdropping etc. and was also aware that I was doing nothing wrong. However, the excessive response was a clear demonstration of paranoia. Nothing to hide. Nothing to fear. So why the surveillance when I attempt to question and research things? The reaction only served to change my initial casual curiosity into determined research.

There have been other attempts at intimidation in the past. Yes, we are under observation. So give them something to keep them busy. Pass on links, emails, telephone to your heart’s content. Overload the system. Who knows, we might even convert the spies and eavesdroppers?