This reply is rubbish [see below].
The woman whos written it is labouring under the assumption and assuming all pieces of evidence given in these “closed” secret courts is totally honest, true and accurate information. I can state emphatically and categorically that 99% of the so-called “evidence” put forth in the Musa trial was made up of total fiction – as was the so-called evidence given at the hearing beginning Mon 31 Oct 2011 – Nov. 7 2011 at the Royal Courts of Justice. A new bundle had been presented also by the prosecution at that hearing which differed in many ways from the original court bundle used before that day – items were changed, reworded and revamped in so many instances I was reliably informed by Mr. Musa during the hearing, and not for the first time either.
The Musas, having no legal representation at that hearing as with so many others simply had to sit back and accept all the bs thrown at them and were simply overrun with the onslaught of lies and prevarications, as had happened in numerous hearings closed or open that preceded that fateful RCJ hearing which led ultimately to their remanding 21 days later on the 28th which led after 259 days in custody to receiving a 7 year sentence each – all based on inaccuracies, exaggerations, and total lies.
The reply sent would be valid in cases where true honest criminal court cases have taken place where the defendants deserve whichever custodial sentence is deemed for them to accept. BUT THE POINTS MADE IN THIS REPLY DO NOT REFER IN ANY WAY TO THE MUSA CASE – AS THE ENTIRE CASE AGAINST THE MUSAS, IN THE FAMILY OR CRIMINAL COURTS, IS NOT BASED ON TRUTH BUT DISHONESTY!
And had the Musas been able to get any kind of proper legal representation, and had the entire legal profession not ganged up together to deny this family true justice, a much truer picture would’ve emerged – not the biased one-sided premeditated farce that purported to be a criminal trial that everyone had to suffer for 7 weeks during the Musas “criminal trial” or at other biased one-sided concocted hearings that preceded that over the period beginning the 8 April 2010 when the first 5 of 7 Musa children were removed under totally false pretences..
All concerned with the prosecution of these Nigerian parents, and all concerned in the removal of their 7 children should hang their heads in shame for the suffering and grief they have caused to this family. When these characters leave this plane they will find their retribution will be beyond description!!
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:04:56 +0100
Subject: Department for Education response: Case Reference 2013/0060317
Thank you for your email of 21 September, addressed to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education and Childcare, expressing concerns about how local authorities (LAs) interpret and adhere to child protection policy and guidelines. I hope you will appreciate that the minister receives a large amount of correspondence and is unable to respond to each one personally. On this occasion I have been asked to reply and apologise for the delay in doing so.
I hope you will understand that we are unable to comment on individual cases. These cases have been before an independent family law court, which is closed in order to protect the privacy and welfare of the children involved, and we cannot comment on the judgements passed. However, the length of the sentence given by the judge would generally reflect the seriousness of the crime committed.
From my reading of your email it would seem that your concerns are twofold. Firstly, the length of the sentences given to the parents in the two cases you mention, based on the evidence; and secondly, the motivation of LAs for taking the children into care. The government is clear that protection from abuse and neglect is a fundamental right for all children. In the statutory guidance ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children 2013’, the government is clear that, if at any time it is considered that a child may be a child in need, or has suffered significant harm or is likely to do so, a referral should be made immediately to a LA’s children’s social care service. The department is committed to reforming the current child protection system to make sure that children at risk of abuse or neglect are identified early and protected from harm.
To address your concerns about the motivations of LAs in taking children into care, I have outlined below how the child protection system in England works, and the thresholds which must be met for LAs to intervene in family life.
The Children Act 1989 provides the framework for the English child protection system. One of its key principles is that children are best looked after within their families, with their parents playing a full part in their lives, wherever possible.
Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 sets the threshold for statutory intervention in a child’s life. If a LA has reasonable cause to suspect that a child living in their area is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, they are under a duty to investigate. This is to enable them to decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare.
The ultimate decision to remove a child from his or her family rests with the courts. The welfare of the children is the paramount consideration in any decision. The judiciary is independent and outside of government or LA influence. The courts may only make a care order if they are satisfied that the child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm and the care order is deemed better for the child than not taking any action; or the child is beyond parental control.
In relation to your concerns about the adoption system in England, please let me assure you that the reason for the government’s adoption reforms is to eradicate delays for children, so that where adoption is the best option for a child, they are placed quickly in a stable and loving home. In order to do this, there needs to be a system that can quickly recruit and assess adopters, of which there is currently a shortage. There are a large number of children awaiting adoption; the number awaiting a placement order increased by 15% to 6000 in 2012.
Thank you again for writing and I hope you have found this response helpful.
Your correspondence has been allocated reference number 2013/0060227. If you need to respond to us, please visit: http://www.education.gov.uk/contactus, and quote your reference number.
As part of our commitment to improving the service we provide to our customers, we are interested in hearing your views and would welcome your comments via our website at: http://www.education.gov.uk/pcusurvey.
Ministerial and Public Communications Division
above: meanwhile Maurice Kirk has not been heard of after being put in Cardiff prison on more fanciful dubious charges on the 16th. SHAme on the welsh authorities responsible for these miscarriages of justice against Maurice kirk for the past 20 years!!!!!