Monday 28 October 2013

When social workers call on home educating families



In a recent  comment on this blog, somebody drew attention to this link, which appeared on the Education Otherwise support group list. Here it is:

http://ccpexposed.wordpress.com/category/kids-for-profit/


This was posted in connection with the idea that social workers might visit home educating parents. Scroll down and you will see mention of fathers killing their children, rather than let social workers take them away.  For those who don’t know about this particular conspiracy theory, the notion is that stealing children from families and then placing them for adoption is a money-making racket run by various businesses, in conjunction with corrupt and venial local authorities. This is said to be especially  dangerous for home educating parents, as social workers might be more inclined to seize their children and such parents should therefore fight tooth and nail to prevent social services from gaining access to their children. I have to say that in my experience, whenever social workers take an interest in a home educating family, they invariably have good reason. Still, maybe that’s just me! I’m going to look at a real case today and then let readers judge for themselves. It involves the children of a home educating mother being snatched by police and social workers and then held for over eight months in foster homes. I know something of this case, because it took place in the London Borough of Hackney, where I lived and worked for many years.  I will use the real names of those involved, because the parents have put all the information into the public domain and also so that readers can check what I am saying for themselves.

Here is what happened. On January 29th this year, a home education group was meeting in Springfield Park in Hackney. The police and social workers turned up and took away an eleven year-old boy called Guy Freeman-Pow and his nine year-old sister Mia.  They were then sent to foster homes. The rumour, quite correct in fact, was that this action had been precipitated by something which the boy had posted on his Facebook page. There was no suggestion that the children had been neglected or ill-treated, nor that their education was defective.  At subsequent court hearings, it was decided that the children should not be returned to their mother. She commissioned a report from Alan Thomas, the well known expert on home education. The report may be seen here:

https://www.facebook.com/LindaPow1391/posts/3329728659073


The judge at the hearing in July this year, refused even to look at this report.

This then is the case as it has been circulating in certain circles; a terrible indictment of social services and the tendency of local authorities to snatch children on the most trivial pretexts. What justification could there be for a nine year-old girl to be seized like this and put into a foster home?  This is the sort of case that those of us interested in such things see all the time on internet lists about home education  and this is all that most people on such groups will ever know about it. Let’s look now in detail at the background. Readers who are prudish or of a sensitive disposition, may wish to go no further. You have been warned!

The children’s mother, Linda Pow, says that  she is, ‘ Fighting to get my children back from being stolen by police and social services for supporting my partner Michael J Freeman in the ipornographerbooks.com.’  To begin with, her partner’s  name is not always  Michael J Freeman, but we will return to this point later. He certainly goes under this name currently and so let’s see what he does. Here is a book  called Forbidden Passion, written by this man:

https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Michael_J_Freeman_Forbidden_Passion?id=CWXCWRpoNxQC


Hmmm. It shows a young person tricked out as a schoolgirl and we can see right up her skirt; her knickers are showing. You will observe that the mother of the children taken by social workers endorses this book and has apparently read it. Well, we shouldn’t judge a book by the cover alone! Let’s have a look inside:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CWXCWRpoNxQC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=forbidden+passion+michael+J+freeman&source=bl&ots=Lorbg9Wy4K&sig=ufgOfe1DfohqxRPFYu9ndyrcY2M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZpJuUqmnMc_e7Aab3oD4Dw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=forbidden%20passion%20michael%20J%20freeman&f=false

On Page 1, our eyes fall at once upon the sentence, ‘He wanted to fuck a real schoolgirl now and have sex with her.’  This isn’t too promising. By Page 2, the protagonist has met a real schoolgirl and is talking of, ‘shooting his sperm all over her face’.  Well, I think we have seen enough of that book. Those who actually read the section on offer will soon find that the small part which I have quoted is relatively inoffensive.   Still, Michael J Freeman has written many others. Perhaps this was not typical of his oeuvre. Here is his Amazon page:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Michael-J.-Freeman/e/B001K8WIMY/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1382978231&sr=1-2-ent


Let’s have a look at a few other books of his. The Honey Trap is about a man sent to prison for producing child pornography.  The Nonce is about a man sent to prison for having sex with an underage girl. What else do we have?  The Abduction tells the story of an eight year-old girl who is abducted by a gang of paedophiles. Let's have a look at,  The Pervert. Ah, this is about a man who meets an underage prostitute via the internet. I think perhaps that readers are  beginning to get the idea! The recurring leitmotif in these stories is prison and underage sex. The author of these stories is the father of the children who were taken into care in Hackney. Before they were taken away by social workers, they were dividing their time between this country and Italy, where Michael J Freeman lives. I wonder if any readers with nine year-old daughters would care for them to spend much time in the company of a man who writes about fucking schoolgirls and shooting sperm in their faces? No? You prudes! 

This is not however the full story, not by a long chalk. Michael J Freeman is really Michael Muldoon. He has a string of convictions dating back sixty years, when at the age of fourteen he was arrested for  carrying a firearm. He was a pornographer in the 1960s and in December 1969, was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. He stabbed a man eighty nine times and then dumped the corpse in Epping Forest.  Yes, you did read that right; eighty nine stab wounds.  After his release, he started to deal in pornography again and was sent back to prison. He was also charged in connection with a film of naked children, which led to a trial  under both the Obscene Publications Act and the Protection of Children Act. Here is his own account of this:

http://danceproductions.wix.com/eroticartist#!about-videx-/c1jou


As to what  eleven year-old Guy posted on Facebook,  it was an advertisement for the book; The Nonce. When the police went to his home, they initially arrested the mother for possession of indecent material, which was found on a computer. She says that this was a misunderstanding; the material was actually on her eleven year-old son’s computer…

I have examined this case in some detail for a purpose, which is this. The next time that we hear of social workers wanting to speak to home educated children, we should not be too quick to assume that they are in the wrong and that this is persecution of an innocent family. Usually, as in this case, there is good reason to be concerned and the children’s interests are the priority.  Do any readers think that in this case, Hackney social services over-reacted? 

17 comments:

  1. if what you say is true are you really comparing the rest of home educators that ss want to see as being the same as that man?

    I would not trust ss who do kidnap children to make money or allow abuse to go on in the homes that ss send them to

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'if what you say is true are you really comparing the rest of home educators that ss want to see as being the same as that man?'

    As to whether this is true or not, I have given the names of those involved so that readers may look into this for themselves. I think that home educating parents who are involved with homicidal pornographers with an unhealthy interest in underage sex are probably pretty rare. I give this as an example of one of those cases where home educators were up in arms at the injustice of the thing, without knowing the facts. This is likely to be the case with other such cases that we read about; there is invariabaly more to the matter than meets the eye.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The case Simon mention is rare because we know both sides of the story - because the parents have chosen to put that info in the public domain; and it is an unpleasant story to say the least. In most cases we only hear a small part and it is impossible to judge whether it is a case of someone taking a child inappropriately from its parents or really an abuse case. I am always concerned by women who "stand by their man" when the partner is suspected- surely they should always act to keep their children safe and with them, even if it means temporary separation from the partner whilst ss investigate. (Thinking of Lianne Smith here).
    I am certainly dubious about the whole concept of cash incentives though - using a private fostering or adoption agencies is always a last resort, due to the very complex nature of some of the children in the care system; I may not approve of fat salaries but that doesn't make the placing of children in this way somehow unfair or against the childs best intreest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crafty Julie says "even if it means temporary separation from the partner whilst ss investigate"

      Those investigation can on for months with SS trying to make dubious evidence fit to prove that abuse as taken place and what do you tell other members of your family and neighbors do not worry i am being investigated by ss over alleged abuse? family courts held in secret behind closed doors with holding of documents and once something written down about a family by ss it is almost impossible to get it removed you would always be viewed as the man or women who had abused children
      I would never have let ss into our home and would recommend you keep all contact with them in writing any meeting that is forced on you only have with your solicitor present in his office with ss

      Delete
    2. Hello Julie,

      Standing by your man when lies are being told is a very important stand to show who the wrongdoers are.

      And the lies that these people tell specially these corrupt and greedy social workers..

      And yes I do defend my partner as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, and human rights should come in to play. I do not play around with the arts and literature.And Amazon and Google support my partners authored 30 odd books.

      A child should only be taken from their parents when serious harm, abuse is found... But just to let you know there is still no evidence. And we are taking our case to the European courts for justice.

      Regards Linda

      Delete
  4. But we are not talking about HE issues here - we are talking about possible abuse; I know from various cases that I have been personally involved in that refusing to let ss in means police and a care order- I would do anything I could to protect my children in these circumstances!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sweet talking Julie says "we are talking about possible abuse;"

      that no good possible abuse so a family life is turned up side down on the off chance it could be abuse? you would ruin your partners life over an alleged allegation of abuse? and when he was found it was not proven would you say oh never mind dont worry about it?
      I told that clown Jack Cawthra and David Kirk from Hampshire LA no one will get into our house to see Peter not him no ss only over my dead body and their knew i meant it i had a lovely surprise waiting for him but he never showed up
      It does not mean a care order or the police one must contact your solicitor at once if their are any threats from ss

      Delete
  5. Still think that is terrible advice Peter - as much as I trust my husband ( been married 30 years and all my children are now adults so it is irrelevant anyway) I would do anything to prevent my children being taken into care .... your troubles with the LA were over educational issues, Simon's case is about other far more serious matters than deciding whether a child has had a good education. Look what happened when Lianne Smith decided to support her partner over her children welfare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you would turn your husband world up side down just because ss said so? and when it was not proven you would to him oh that ok then shall i tell the neighbours the good news or will you?
      one must not base policy on the Lianne Smith cases

      Delete
    2. I would put my children's welfare first -keeping them out of the care system in the circumstances we are describing would be my first priority.

      I spent some time reading through some of the cases ( not HE ones) on some of the anti- ss sites and facebook. What strikes me is how absolutely stupid some of the parents are at dealing with ss- they only seem to want to put their own welfare first; so , for example, a young mum put in a mother and baby home for assessment with her new born is determined to leave prematurely to get back into her own flat because of " her plants." She seems to fail to recognise that the simplest way out of her problem is to do the assessment, keep smiling and get out of there at the right time - and that leaving on her own is bound to result in the baby being removed. Even worse if the encouragement of her friends to do what she wants.
      Sigh....

      Delete
  6. Curious to know what waffling williams curious surprise was. Probably won't say as he is all talk......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. boring Cheshire Cat says "Curious to know what waffling williams curious surprise was. Probably won't say as he is all talk......

      Come round and met Bertie our Pet Bulldog once he get hold of some thing he never lets go of it until he finished with it.His jaws are so strong goes though bone like butter!
      Hampshire LA never had the guts to come round to our house wonder why?

      Delete
  7. Toll Road Junkie26 August 2014 at 09:33

    Where did you get info on Freeman/Muldoon about firearms offence etc? Did you know he worked with Simon Honey AKA Ben Dover in the 80's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you need any information you know you can always befriend me on face book and yes Ben Dover used to work for Michael who started off his career..

      I certainly don't have anything to hide but the people who stole my children certainly do and it leads to serious corruption within the police force and now showing in the care system as us parents have joined forces in showing you about the so called care system...

      And yes it could be any family picked on.....frightening thought isn't it?

      Regards Linda
      https://www.facebook.com/LindaPow1391

      Delete
  8. Being personally involved in this case , I would like to point out the following:
    In my 10 years as a home educator myself and in the 7 years I spent running home education groups - this case is the only case I have ever experienced where social services saw fit to remove children. In all the paper work I have looked at in relation to this case- The nature and quality of home education provided to these children was NOT in question and was NOT the reason for removal by SS.
    I would also like to point out (in the event that Guy should read any of this- and feel responsible for events- which were not in any way his fault ) that the children were NOT removed because of any thing Guy wrote on Facebook, although SS had cause for concern in relation to his comments and subsequent comments made by family members.
    On a general note: We as adults and tax payers, all want to see children protected. As such we would all expect any allegations of abuse to be properly investigated and acted on, both by the police and SS. It breaks my heart that these children's names and information are being shared over the internet and the negative affect that this will undoubtedly have on them in the near future has not been considered as a priority over any drive to make political points. So now, if Guy decides at some point to Google his name (or if one of his friends does)-he is going to have a barrage of articles such as this!

    Perhaps, Simon Webb you could choose not to participate in the damage this child already suffers and remove the children's names from this article?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Children's names are omitted to protect corrupt social workers and their ilk. The greatest damage to my children has been done by removing them fromLinda Pow and myself their parents and all they look forwards to now is "serving their time" until they are 18 and coming back, returning to their loving parents.. In the meantime we are still fighting the corrupt British courts and taking our case to Europe. If Guy were to discover this he would be proud I am sure.

      Delete
  9. I had to reply but Guy is resilient and I explained why I killed Hawley as I feel that one should always tell the truth to one's son.
    https://plus.google.com/116704293538794211553/posts/iYi1amSywUT

    ReplyDelete