Tactics

I know that the Jersey Evening Post is not the most accurate of publications but for the sake of this argument I will assume that the figures mentioned on page 3 of the xxx October 2007 edition are correct. The article states:

"The police carried out 99 joint investigations with the Children's Service, resulting in 5 physical abuse prosecutions and 5 sexual abuse prosecutions".

I note that there is no mention of the number that may have been tried and found guilty, nor of those cases where allegations of both physical and sexual abuse were thrown.

If I am allowed to to have an opinion then I would say that a person who is prepared to sexually abuse a child would probably not be greatly concerned in abstaining from physical abuse. In other words it is rather likely that some of the allegations overlap, shall we guess at 2 cases? Furthermore the article takes great pains to leave out the "results", how many of those prosecutions resulted in a conviction? Shall we say that in 2 cases the accused were proven innocent of the charges?

Let us take a look at the numbers again. Because of the overlap there are only 8 different defendants and say 6 of these found guilty of something.

6 "results" out of 97. Ninety-one innocent families put through an utter hell, possibly destroyed, at the whim of the jokers in the Children's Service. Even if my assumptions are over optimistic and the full ten prosecutions were proven to be successful then it is still ninety percent of families that are being destroyed (rather than 94%). Only in the public sector would such a gross insult, a 90% record of destroying the innocent, be contemplated, only somebody who has willingly swallowed the whole SS/CS/Cafcass cant would be prepared to take part in such travesties. Now consider the likely number of cases where they did not carry out a joint investigation with the police, whatever the number is it makes the quantity of families that have been damaged even worse.

The basic tactic of the Children's Service is to put you on the defensive from the start. Do you actually know what you have been accused of that might justify their interest? You will then be played along their lines where their "rules" are the only ones of concern (regardless as to whether they have any basis in the traditions of British law, or indeed the law as it currently stands) which may well take you on to their pet product of a Child Protection Conference. In the meantime the slightest comment that you make will be open to deliberate distortion and both your words and actions will be subject to the grossest "psychological" analysis. Being contacted by the Children's Service is in and of itself an utter insult in the first place and as it becomes clear that they are willing to support any accusation that can be made it is to be expected that you might not act in an unstressed manner. It is at that stage that they might ask you to attend "for a little chat", be VERY careful about the conduct and purpose of this "chat", one thing I can state quite clearly is that it is not held for your benefit. Remember, the overriding purpose of the Children's Service is to break up families, they have been given a lot of time and money to make up their methods of doing so.

If you are about to be put through the SS wringer I'll start from the position that you are innocent until proven guilty, and by the sounds of it I am going to be correct in that initial assumption at least 19 times out of 20.

Whilst some of the tactics used by the SS/Cafcass are described in reasonable detail on other pages there are a few ideas that you might consider using. Because not every tactic can or should be used in every situation I think it best if you are prepared to discuss your particular details first (the contact email address is on the Questions page).

Homepage

[ Although not linked directly to the States of Jersey Social Services Pete Middleton has requested publicity for his short youtube clip which, whilst using actors apparently replicates the words and demeanor of the two English Social Services operatives that paid him a visit. For the sake absolute of clarity the "nextdoor gunshots" are not implied as having occured in his instance but rather rams home that the SS will focus on trivial matters that any rational person would reckon to be irrelevant to their remit whilst ignoring cases which should have their attention. I feel that the vast majority of people that have had the SS visit will clearly understand the point he makes ]