The Petitions Team
House of Commons

7th February 2025

Dear Petitions team,

Petition: “NATIONAL PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO UK’S CHILD TRAFFICKING SCANDAL- STOP THE THEFT NOW!”.

I understand on consulting my email that this was  Kerrie Little’s started this petition, which you advised me about.

Would you please indicate what you felt was confidential, libellous, false, unproven, or defamatory information, accusations of wrongdoing, or a reference to a case where there are active legal proceedings? 

As I did not make the petition, I’m struggling to understand the context. Perhaps you are not educated, and I can assist?

Certainly, the title of the petition is appropriate, as in 2016 Interview by Sue Read when she was with Daily Mail of Maggy Tuttle. In2016, when this video was filmed, my daughter Emily went missing from her social media feeds. Which discussed the concept of children for sale: 

It should be pointed out by 2016 that everyone was made aware

“Every month a foster family or adoption family is paid a minimum of 500 pounds before expenses. Recent reports stated that the Department of Education wanted the voluntary adoption agencies to double the number of adoptions they had from 2,000 to 8,000 a year. This agency searches out parents who want a child. The local authority then goes and finds one. Just like a dating agency. The local authority pays the adoption agency 27,000 pounds for each new child it places with five children; that payment is 80,000 pounds. Of course, for this system to be working, the local authority needs this agency to keep finding placements and children taken into care. It was even suggested that the European model would replace the American/English model, which rejects forced adoption, which gives more rights to these families that don’t want to give up rights to their children.”

(Whoah) So there is the secret… An odious report put together by the coalition government invited investors to pour their money into a new social adoption fund called a ‘finance bond’ under the title ‘It’s all about Me’. Under this scheme, the adoption agencies get far more than the 27,000 pounds fee for matching a parent to a child in care. This new all-inclusive service to stop the placement from breaking down is 54,000 pounds per child paid in four instalments. A boost to finance the Social Outcomes Fund. A 20 million-pound money pot. Of course, the investors would require a decent return on their capital. A Freedom of Information Request from a council in the South East had dealt with a staggering 179 cases over three years and received over 6 million pounds from fees from one council. This former company was owned by two social workers. A statement from the blurb Admits there are many agencies like their own which are now owned by private equity companies and have been sold on at a profit.”

Following the non-investigation of the LGSO in the case of East Sussex Our ref: 24 012 899 which Justine Mensa-Bonsu Assessment Manager of the LGSO said Mr Price had dealt with, which he meant in our language to mean ignored. Its stated in this letter dated today: reasons not to pursue investigation to save using scarce public resources.

The experienced social worker in Southern England who shared with a Sunday Express investigation the troubling reality of council managers exerting pressure on him and his colleagues to rewrite reports that are perceived as “too positive.” This distressing situation involves the demand for “more dirt” on parents, aiming to enhance the likelihood of obtaining court orders to place their children in care. These actions not only impact families but also serve to elevate councils’ Ofsted ratings. the Express Whistle blower is alleged by the Express the worry of having another Baby Peter Conoly on an authority’s hands had created a climate of fear that was destroying innocent families. He said These psychologists create such a high standard of for parenting that most of us would fail. The findings were last night described as a “national scandal” by one Lib Dem John Henning MP who was demanding a full Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s child protection system.

Nishra Mansuri, of the British Association of Social Workers, expressed deep concern regarding the whistleblower’s comments, emphasizing the significant impact of budget cuts on social workers. She highlighted that the heightened pressure stemming from these cuts has led to a situation where crucial decision-making is compromised. Mansuri’s remarks underscore a pressing issue within the social work sector, shedding light on the critical need for sustainable support systems for social workers to ensure the welfare of those they serve.

Sexed up reports and psychobabble are happening as a direct consequence on social workers to provide children into this oppressive system and the correct decisions are not being made. Why wont the government and its paymasters release information in regard to the cohort that it states would or should never be in family court. Why are they not releasing this. Courts are being asked to make claims on biased improper or information which is sexed up reports. Children need to be in their families. They are told to make things look bad change the Emphasis of all reports making the family looks problematic. The paymaster experts are too busy collecting their pay-packet leaving social workers to write these reports under a non de plume calling it nebulous abuse in the form of a cloud or hazy vague or ill-defined report.

In a news story by TED JEORY 00:00, Sun, Dec 11, 2011 it was said Social workers ‘sex up abuse claims to snatch children for adoption’ SOCIAL workers are regularly “sexing up” dossiers on problem parents to remove children into care and even to farm them out for adoption, a whistleblower reveals today.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/289232/Social-workers-sex-up-abuse-claims-to-snatch-children-for-adoption.

It is deeply concerning that discussions surrounding children’s welfare are couched in market terms, reducing them to mere commodities. Instances such as Coram’s reference to children as “stock” in their minutes underscore the pervasive commodification of vulnerable individuals within institutional frameworks. Such dehumanizing language underscores the urgent need for a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize and approach children’s welfare.

Kind Regards

Mr Martin Newbold