Are you an `Appropriate’ person?

By Charles Pragnell January 04, 2007

The last decade has seen an insidious drive by the British government to turn the country into a totalitarian regime marked by the unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion and interference in family life by agents and employees of the State. This has been done under a perverse pretext of protecting children and a belief system within governmental departments that children need protecting from their parents and that the State can raise children better than parents or at least they can transfer large numbers of children to the care of the “approved” substitute parents as part of a latter-day social engineering experiment.

This pretext was more than apparent than in the case of Victoria Climbie’ – an unmitigated disaster by the child protection services and a tragedy of suffering for Victoria, but which the government used to justify the creation and introduction of a massive database of every child and family in the country. The lack of such a database had nothing to do with the death of Victoria Climbie’ which was at the hands of her substitute parent carers whilst child protection `professionals’ failed to intervene, despite obvious signs of abuse and failed to communicate with each other about Victoria’s plight. The database is of course essential for governmental control of the population in many respects as part of its drive toward totalitarianism. The security of such a database, or rather the lack, has already been exposed and millions of records of the family details of millions of children are now somewhere around the nation and no doubt will quickly find their way into the hands of criminals and pedophiles.

Britain is not becoming what politicians term, a Nanny State and the concept of welfare services being a `Safety Net’ no longer applies. It is much more sinister than that. A Nanny State is driven by a benign altruism whilst the present changes are being driven by an insidious and malignant ideology reminiscent in some respects of the Stalinist regime in Russia. “We know what is best for you all” is the mantra of the faceless bureaucrats inside the respective government departments to which can be added, “but it will be painful for some of you who will not or cannot change to fit in with our Utopian dream!”

Some of the behaviours and actions of the populace have to be controlled by the State in some respects, such as behaviours which are categorised as criminal or due to madness but it is those behaviours which are defined as borderline criminal or mad is where the drive to exert even more control is being pushed forward. These can sometimes be very grey areas as they are open to individual and highly subjective interpretations by the government agents involved, such as social workers or psychologists and psychiatrists. It is also why some people with autism and particularly Asperger’s Syndrome have often been categorised as mad and placed in mental institutions and prisons. This was also clearly apparent in the Orkneys and Isles of Lewis Scandals, and other instances of alleged Satanic Ritual Abuse where the fervent religious beliefs of the State agents involved over-rode a requirement for factual evidence and the use of logical reasoning guided by compassion. Further evidence of these highly subjective interpretations of `Appropriate’ behaviours can also be seen in the cases of Fran Lyon and in many other cases of threatened and actual child removal for specious reasons.

It is also what gave rise to the theory of Fabricated and Induced Illness in children which was created and promoted by the medical profession. With no scientifically based evidence and an absence of research rigour, this was initially merely the conjecture of an ageing and now discredited medical Professor but was unhesitatingly accepted by the respective government department and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and was immediately put into practice. In the process it irreparably destroyed the lives of many thousands of children and their families and resulted in many parents being criminalised and sent to prison for several years.

This focus on `Appropriate’ behaviour or conduct is now part of the lexicon of the State agencies. They have their own undefined beliefs in what is and what is not, appropriate behaviour. For example children can now have `Age-inappropriate’ use of language and knowledge of sexually behaviours which lead immediately to accusations of child abuse and a invasive investigation by child protection workers leaving at the least a highly stigmatised family or at worst the removal of the children to permanent substitute state-approved parents. Such decisions regarding the appropriateness of human behaviours are often seen by those familiar with the workings of the child protection system and the secretive Family Courts. The opinions of those claiming that those behaviours are inappropriate are often preceded by the weasel words of “It seems that……” and “It would appear that…..”. So it is not even a firm opinion yet is taken as fact by the Courts.



`Appropriateness of behaviour’ very often comes up when children are in State care and parents are permitted some form of contact with them. Here is where the social workers excel themselves. A letter, Birthday or Christmas card is immediately censored by the social workers if they contain such words as “I love you” from the parent to the child or if the parent should dare to suggest that one day they will be re-united. In one case where a mother dared to suggest to her children that they might one day be re-united, the social worker sharply and loudly retorted in front of witnesses, “over my dead body”. So much for social workers working in partnership with parents on an `equal and genuine basis’ as required under the laws relating to children.

So it is `inappropriate’ to say to your child that you love them.

The ill-defined boundaries of what is `appropriate’ and what is `Inappropriate’ behaviour of members of the general population, are now being constantly driven back by psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, doctors and nurses and all of those other professionals involved in child protection work. They in turn are driven more by the alluring seduction of fame and status within the profession for creating a new theory of child abuse, rather than a compassionate concern for the safety and welfare of children. A successful adopted theory of child abuse can rapidly lead to demigod status as has been seen on several occasions albeit some of those demigods careers and reputations now lie in ruins as the country begins to awake to their deceptions.

To the governmental mantra of ”We know what is best for you” can also be added, “We also know what is good for you”. This is particularly so in matters of the health of children and the statements of the government that vaccines are safe, when they and millions of others know that vaccines are not safe for many children. The evidence is in the personal testimonies of thousands of parents around the world who have found their child stricken with autism immediately following a vaccine jab and from the thousands of young women who have died or had serious illnesses following the Gardasil vaccine injection. A similar situation exists with many medications for children and which are put out for general usage with no effective research and testing. In consequence many children have died or succumbed to illnesses far more serious than those for which they were originally given the medication.

But the government’s belief is in `Herd Protection’ and “Who cares if one child in fifty dies because of vaccines or untested medications, as long as the rest are protected!”. A parent who refuses vaccines for their child is immediately brought under the pressures of health professionals and others and in the USA the penalties can be even worse.

The dilemma for a parent is enormous. Risk causing your child serious harm such as autism or even death, or risk them suffering a minor childhood illness such as measles or mumps. Of course the government propaganda emphasises that some children die of measles or mumps which is true in countries where children have poor diets and are malnourished but not so in countries where children are healthy and strong and have strong natural immune systems. For example measles and mumps had virtually been eradicated in Britain and America before the introduction of the vaccines and if an infection occurred then medical personnel actually encouraged other children to become infected to bolster their own immune system.

And of course it should be remembered that vaccines yield vast amounts of money to pharmaceutical companies who are constantly lobbying governments and add substantially to the incomes of many members of the medical professions.

And if a child survives a vaccine-caused death but is left with autism or another serious neurological condition, then of course the parent (usually the mother) can be blamed for causing the child’s illness. Very neat for the government and a win-win situation for the medical profession.

My only advice for anyone whose behaviour is deemed as `inappropriate’ is to demand to know how such inappropriateness is defined and by whom and where is the scientifically-based evidence to determine such `inappropriateness’.

Never in his wildest dreams could George Orwell have imagined such insidious State controls over the population nor the penalties for those who inadvertently transgress the mist-shrouded boundaries of `Appropriate’ behaviour are far worse than those which Orwell contrived..!.
ByCharles Pragnell January 04, 2007 Diploma in Social Work and Letter of Recognition in Child Care Expert Witness – Child Protection and Social Care Consultant and Child/Family Advocate..

The Seriously Unhealthy State of Paediatrics

ByCharles Pragnell December 10, 2007
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health [RCPCH) and several prominent U.K. paediatricians have given their unqualified support to Dr. David Southall, despite the fact that Mr Southall has been found to have guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council on two occasions in recent years. It must be presumed therefore that the RCPCH are fully in support of Mr. Southall’s conduct on those occasions and that they view his actions as acceptable conduct in the paediatric profession.
In the past the RCPCH have argued powerfully that patients of paediatricians should not be allowed to complain about the paediatrician’s conduct or incompetence or alternatively that such complaints should be automatically treated as frivolous or vexatious. They now add to this by arguing that even if such complaints are proven, then the paediatrician should be exonerated or at the least completely pardoned for his/her misconduct. The only argument the RCPCH can put forward for such a system is that finding paediatricians guilty of serious misconduct will deter other doctors from undertaking child protection work. They have already convinced the Courts that paediatricians should not be accountable for any professional misconduct when they are giving evidence to Courts and they use the case of Victoria Climbie’ to illustrate their point that children are suffering yet in that case there were 13 agencies, including health and medical workers, who already knew that Victoria Climbie’ was at serious risk of harm..




Who made paediatricians God for eternity that they should be viewed as unable to do any wrong?. If this is the state of paediatrics in the U.K. that paediatricians should be beyond reproach and completely unaccountable for any harm they may cause, then paediatrics really is in a serious state.
Why should the principle that `no-one is above the law’ and is responsible and can be held accountable for their conduct, not apply to paediatricians when it applies to monarchs and other State Leaders?. To place any individual or group above the law is the first step towards tyranny and the accompanying harm to others.
The case against Mr. Southall is part of a much wider malaise which has infected the child protection services in the U.K. and has illustrated yet again the deep-seated and problematic operations of the child protection system in the UK. And the British government continue to keep their heads in the sand regarding the very serious problems and dysfunctional operation of the child protection system in the U.K.
How many more children such as Victoria Climbie’ must die while child protection `professionals’ prevaricate and dither instead of taking incisive action and yet on the other hand, persecute children and parents where allegations of abuse are at the least spurious and of extremely dubious merit, and at worst are malicious and totally unfounded?. The worn-out cliché’s of `Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t’ and `Lessons have been learned’ are no longer acceptable as responses from those professionals when the very system designed to protect children and keep them safe from harm has in fact become the worst and most prolific perpetrator of child abuse and is increasingly destroying families around Britain. Some families who are entirely innocent of the crimes they are alleged to have committed against their children and others who merely require help in coping with the needs of chronically sick or disabled children or appropriate education provision for their children but because of the serious shortcomings and incompetency's in the agencies charged with providing those services, they are blamed by those agencies for causing their child’s sickness or disability.
The frequent Public Inquiries into child deaths and in Court and GMC proceedings over recent years have all painfully illustrated that the child protection system and the associated legal system is deeply-flawed, erratic, and dysfunctional and in urgent need of a major overhaul. Unfortunately changes to the system which have emanated from those Inquiries and Proceedings have been piecemeal and whilst some have led to minor improvements, many have caused even greater problems. Many parents who have experienced the punitive interventions of the child protection system feel that there is a witch-hunt against them and that their human rights and those of their children are frequently abused and violated and that they are the unwitting victims in a governmental inspired social engineering experiment. Their children have been removed from their care on the basis of fabricated, embellished, or distorted evidence or the flimsiest of such evidence and their children removed from their family into a government-supported system of substitute parental care and they have been permanently excluded from their children’s lives.
Many of these parents have shared their harrowing experiences with each other because of the increasing advances of technology and the worldwide availability of discussion forums, but there is no orchestrated campaign against the professionals involved, only individual fights for truth and justice in their individual cases. If all of those parents were to gather into a single organisation they would undoubtedly become an irresistible force for change.
If doctors and any other child protection professionals are becoming discouraged from undertaking child protection work then it is they who must examine how to put their house in order. It is the unprincipled, egotistical and tyrannical professionals who are creating the problems, not the parents.
Bringing actions against rogue professionals is almost impossible for these parents as those professionals have such little accountability under the law, their professional standards authorities, and under their employment contracts and it is this lack of accountability which has enabled such rogue professionals to flourish knowing their employers and a small minority of their colleagues will always support them under a mantra of “My professional colleague, right or wrong” as in this case with the RCPCH and the small group of paediatricians. Similarly employers of doctors and social workers are blindly defending their employees in order to protect themselves from any subsequent claims for damages which might arise from the improper actions of their employees.
But before any changes to the child protection system can be enacted there must be a full and open major Inquiry which gives the opportunity to these parents and their children to fully state their experiences as the small number of parents have been able to do at the GMC Hearings against Mr. Southall. The GMC Hearings in regard to Drs. Meadow, Southall, and San Lazaro are merely the tip of a massive iceberg of discontent at the serious miscarriages of justice and abuses and injustices which are daily perpetrated on children and families by social work and medical practitioners engaged in the child protection system. No family is immune or protected from these rogue professionals and as has been shown, even taking a seriously ill child to a hospital or medical centre can result in horrendous consequences if the doctor lacks the knowledge to diagnose the child’s illness or disabilities or has another agenda of research and development for his/her own purposes.
The real danger which is now occurring is that many parents are not taking their sick and disabled children to doctors and other medical practitioners because of their great fears that they will be precipitately accused of causing the child’s illness and disabilities with no means of defending themselves against such charges and they are terrified that they will forever be deprived of the right to love and care for their own children. Ultimately therefore it is of no matter whether paediatricians or any other doctor are reluctant to engage in child protection work as parents will no longer be bringing sick, disabled, or injured children to receive help and treatment from medical professionals but will be seeking other forms of treatment or self-treating or simply watching painfully as their children suffer. ByCharles Pragnell December 10, 2007
Diploma in Social Work and Letter of Recognition in Child Care
Expert Witness – Child Protection and Social Care Consultant and Child/Family Advocate

State Terrorism

ByCharles Pragnell December 10, 2007
Beyond Orwell’s 1984
What has become of Britain?. And England in particular?. When every honest parent and children live in a perpetual state of terror that they may be separated and never see each other again?. And it is not something that affects just those in low socio-economic groups but families at all levels of society – no one is exempt.
Britain has become a State where mothers are terrified to take their sick and poorly children to a hospital in case they are accused of abusing their child by causing the sickness! – or if their child falls from a bicycle or from a piece of furniture and injures his head they are afraid to take the child for medical treatment in case they are accused of causing the injury by shaking the child!. Where fathers are terrified of taking a photograph of his two small daughters running around in the back garden sprinklers without their clothes, in case he risks being accused of being a perverted paedophile!. Or he will be in the same state of terror if he dares to bath his small infant daughter.!.
Where teachers in residential schools are terrified of touching a child, even a distressed and unhappy child, in case they are accused of physical abuse!. Or social workers in a Children’s Home who are placed in the same situation.
Where elderly men living alone see glances of suspicion as they walk down the street or if they sit idly gazing from a park bench while mothers scurry past with their prams and toddlers and sneaking disgusted looks out of the corner of their eyes.
We have become not only fearful of the state police in the form of child protection workers but fearful of each other !.
So who and what has brought about this State of Terror in every parent and adult who works with children or is simply enjoying a day in the park?. It is the zealots of the child protection system who have now convinced everyone that child abuse is occurring in almost every household and park and street around the country.
It probably began in the 1980s with the horrors in Cleveland when children were torn from their beds in midnight or dawn raids by social workers while burly policemen held their parents captive in case they sought to prevent their children’s removal in the dead of night. And the children were taken off to a hospital where they were examined by doctors repeatedly peering and poking at their rectums while they cringed in fear and embarrassment.
Then began the purges of the teachers and social workers who had worked in residential schools. They were taken from their places of employment and held in the local police stations while they were interrogated for hours about fictitious incidents which had supposedly occurred twenty years previously and their accusers were now grown adults encouraged by proffered financial rewards to create accusations of abuse. Some of these unfortunate workers within the child care system were found guilty in Courts and were sentenced to long jail terms solely on the basis of the verbal evidence of the allegations of their accusers of fictitious events twenty years before – with no physical or forensic evidence to support their accusations and who had made no complaint of these alleged events
in those twenty years.



Yet what is the true situation of child abuse in the U.K. and England in particular?. According to government statistics there are approximately 500,000 reports of child abuse every year in England and the zealots claim that this is “Only the tip of the iceberg of child abuse”. However less than 35,000 of such reports are found to have any form of substance to them when investigated by child protection workers whose claims of abuse having occurred in these small proportion of cases are of a very low standard of evidential proof !. And only a very small proportion of these ever reach the Courts to meet an evidential standard of proof of “On a balance of probability” which is based on a presumption of “more likely than not’ that abuse has occurred i.e. it only needs to be 51% proven to a Judge with no jury present.
To arrive at a Court the parents will have endured months of questioning – by social workers, and probably also by doctors, nurses, police etc and most likely will have to face the unjudicial Inquisition of a Child Protection Conference without legal representation and without formal legal protections. Yet it is extremely rare that they will ultimately be accused of anything so they are denied their day in Court. All that will happen is that their children will be removed from them by Court Order without naming the alleged abusers but by default they will be branded as the child abusers without a chance to defend themselves or clear their names. Even terrorists who threaten to bomb and maim innocent citizens are released from interrogation after a set number of days or are given a fair trial and competent legal representation to defend themselves.
This also proves that it is the small number of false accusations of child abuse which reach public notice which are the tip of an iceberg of such false accusations and that claims of widespread child abuse are a fiction perpetuated to obtain increased resources for those agencies engaged in child protection work.
And what of the many hundreds of parents in the vast majority of reported cases of child abuse where it has been found that such reports are false and have been made for mistaken, mischievous, or malicious reasons?. They are left completely devastated and in many instances their lives are destroyed and the mere fact that they have been suspects will follow them for the rest of their lives – at schools, doctor’s surgeries, and even at workplaces, not to mention among their neighbours and relatives who mistakenly have the simple belief that, “Well there’s no smoke without fire”. Yet there has been no fire and all there has been is smoke and mirrors. Such an experience affects parents very deeply especially where only one has been accused of the abuse – even the other partner is left with unanswered suspicions and this gnaws away at their relationship until they finally separate leaving the children with only one parent and the continuing fear that they may be removed from their beds by mysterious and compassionless adults in the middle of the night.






Living with constant terror is extremely disabling and it can be extremely difficult to continue to live normally – merely going to the shops becomes a chore when there are stares and whispers behind hands. For those with strong religious beliefs they can be banished from their churches with no compassion or support shown by those who profess the same religion. The established churches have no compassion for anyone accused of child abuse – even if such allegations of child abuse were proven, wouldn’t the principles of such churches lead them to give some support and compassion for the transgressors and to help them redeem themselves?.
The zealots have their own religion. It is based in the unproven and unscientific theories of psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, and social researchers and which are based at best on anecdotal stories and at worst on junk science and many of which have been proven by authentic research to be fraudulent. Yet these theories become the basis of the belief system of the child protection world. They hold regular conferences to re-assure themselves and each other and new converts that such theories are valid and to press their beliefs regularly through training courses and other conferences. Such theories include Satanic Ritual Abuse, Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy, Shaken Baby Syndrome, Repressed Memory Syndrome etc etc. All serve to confuse and confound the uninitiated in Courts and other venues. When the theories are exposed as fraudulent then the titles are merely changed and claims are made that the new theory is different but with the same definition.
These theories have been rampant in child protection work for over three decades largely promoted by the social work training institutions but there is some slight hope for the future as some Courts are beginning to rule that such theories are inadmissible as evidence and are no substitute for facts on which Courts should have been making decisions.
But the real masterminds of the reign of terror by the child protection system in the UK are the faceless bureaucrats in the Department of Education and Skills who promote and enforce the policies which the child protection workers must follow. Yet when things go wrong, as they oft times do, these bureaucrats sit back in silence knowing they will escape the subsequent fallout but will be quick to mount their own inquiry afterwards and find fault with the front line workers who have failed to carry out their policies.
Is there any hope of bringing this State engendered terrorism to an end?. Sadly not much!. The present government are implacably engaged in an ideological social engineering experiment based on beliefs that they, and not parents know what is best for children, and if parents don’t comply with their ideas of child care and upbringing, then the children will be removed into substitute care with adopters or foster carers. Further to this end such workers as midwives and health visitors are now to become their espionage agents – prying into people’s lives and reporting them if they do not meet the State’s requirements. This will be extended into schools and other points where the public come into contact with education, health, and welfare services. The information they gather will then be fed into a nationwide database with subjective decisions by these workers that a parent may be alcoholic, engaged in prostitution, have a mental illness, is a drug taker, or has a criminal conviction etc. Any two of these subjective accusations will immediately trigger off a child protection investigation with the accompanying devastating consequences.
Even George Orwell in his worst nightmares could not have envisaged what is happening in Britain today. It only requires a camera in every home linked to the local child protection office and the circle will be complete. Beware of Room 101.
You have been warned Britain!. ByCharles Pragnell (UK/Australasia) December 10, 2007
Diploma in Social Work and Letter of Recognition in Child Care
Expert Witness – Child Protection and Social Care Consultant and Child/Family Advocate.

.