Human Rights Abuses in Social Care
Bar Graph Control Chart
SFR 61/2017 was published on 2nd November 2017 under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0.
The graph above is a copy of Figure A in the document.
SFR61/2017 is available online at
The graph above looks innocent enough, but it tells a story, a horrific one. The story goes like this: It is alleged that the UK Government has taken control of the entire child population and is holding parents hostage using their children.
Now to break it down.
I will begin by explaining what the term ‘Child-in-Need’ means. A child-in-need is a child whose parent has so failed in the execution of their parental duty (of caring for their child) that the government has to assist or take-over. The arm of government that is chiefly involved in this is called ‘Social Services’.
Under normal circumstances, the number of children-in-need is expected to either be a steadily declining (a good service provider typically works themselves out of a job) or a randomly fluctuating figure because parent failure should be something that cannot be predicted beforehand. Social Services are there to assist parents and families in whatever way they can as and when the need arises.
I would expect, therefore, for the graphical presentation of children-in-need to look something like this:
or like this:
However, it looks like this:
All together now:
Let me explain what this means:
Looking after a child is the parent’s responsibility, the state only gets a shoe in if the parent has evidently failed. Parents in England are not failing at a ‘high enough rate’, so in an innovative move known as “employment creation”, state agencies plant evidence of failure in order to justify the state’s intervention. This means that the parent has to be convicted of Child Abuse to legitimise the State’s stepping in to ‘help’.
Parents and carers are being criminalised in order to justify classifying their children as Children-in-Need. If you thought there was nothing for free nowadays you were wrong, they are giving out free criminal records to parents and carers in England. But that’s putting it mildly, state organisations are imputing criminality on innocent citizens to service a hidden agenda.
Let’s look at those figures again, as a line graph this time:
Do they look random to you?
Here’s the output from a simple and straightforward statistical operation (finding the line of best fit).
Tell me that that isn’t a horizontal line?
This is like someone saying “Out of 10 throws of a standard dice, I got the results: 6, 5, 5, 6, 5, 5, 6, 5, 5, 6. Those were my results.” A standard dice? “Yes.” It had 6 faces? “Yes.” It actually had the numbers 1 to 4 on 4 of those 6 faces? “Yes.” But the results you got were just fives and sixes? “Yes.” And they came in the pattern described? “Yes.”
If ever there was a picture of carnage, that innocent-looking bar graph there is it. In this case, it appears that one or more factors are working together to produce a contrived picture of Children-in-Need. Those figures are not random.
A PDF document of the full statistical analysis that I conducted using the figures from that so-called bar graph can be found here.
In short, I used a statistical package called MINITAB to conduct a test for randomness,
Test for Randomness
This output means that the figures are not random and that the data is indicative of there being some factor(s) being employed to produce an artificial picture of Children-in-Need. According to MINITAB, this data is more accurately represented in the form of what is called a ‘Control Chart’. The program generated a control chart at a 95% level of confidence (it conducts what is the equivalent of a post mortem on the data). The Control Chart looked like this:
The evidence is irrefutable.
If you are wondering how such horrors could be pulled off right under our noses, here’s how:
It’s called grooming.
So right now the situation looks like this:
But it’s about to get worse.
CPP – Child Protection Plan CNSIR – Children Not in School Register LA – Local Authority
Observe the pretense of an emergency response: no flashing lights, no sirens, lots of meandering – a nonchalant approach
If one reads articles like this one here
and find that despite that the judge stating that the Social workers were in the wrong, she not only allowed them to continue working as Social Workers, she said that the children ought to remain in foster care?!
Let’s be fair here. If the parents were really that bad and the children would have been better off in foster care, why did the Social Workers go to all that trouble to tell lies about the parents?
What makes an act valid is capacity, consent, cause and object. The bar for getting a parent investigated by Social Services is set very low, much lower than for other civil matters. Something as vague as “your child is at risk of significant harm” is supposedly enough reason for Social Services to get involved. Now look at the sentences meted out by these Family Courts: Children’s lives get turned upside down as they are taken into foster care or adopted, the parent loses their child. Low burden of proof, most severe punishment in the land=parents being lynched.
If Social Workers obtain a Family Court Order only by way of lying, that is a inexistent act based on the above criteria that makes an act valid. A Court Order that is based on an inexistent act is a void Court Order. My understanding (as informed by this article here) is that void Court Orders are not legally binding and need not be obeyed but as far as the Police are concerned, there is no such thing as a void Court Order.
To deny that such a thing as void Court orders exist is not much different from denying that counterfeit money exists. Law Enforcement Officers that cannot tell the difference between a valid Court Order and an invalid one have no business enforcing Court Orders. It would be like having a Bank Teller who cannot tell the difference between valid bank notes that are legal tender and counterfeit money.
The allegation therefore is that Local Authorities get to classify children as Children-in-Need through inexistent acts (void acts), they later go to Court with their lies and obtain a Court Order. This gives the impression that the Courts have endorsed the Court Order when in actual fact it was confirmed by the House of Lords in Bellinger v Bellinger  UKHL 21 that a void act is void from the outset and no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) – has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act.
So what am I saying? I am saying that void Court Orders are being used to subject an entire demographic. This is white collar crime. Sophisticated human rights abuses are being perpetrated under our very eyes.
The Police will take the Court Order at face value and indiscriminately enforce it, which means that even if you know the difference between a void and a voidable Court Order and you present your evidence to the Police, the Police will still act in support of the Local Authority. Passing off counterfeit money as legal tender when you know it is counterfeit is a crime, so is passing off Court Orders that you know to be void as legally binding. Local Authorities get away with it because they are guaranteed of Police support. Does it make sense to you that we can have a Police Force with CID departments that claim not to know how to tell the difference between a void Court Order and a voidable one?
We are human beings. How can we be doing these kinds of things to each other?
I think we need a Public Inquiry into that Control Chart as soon as possible.
Whatever you can do to help, please. And please spread the word.
Next Article: Citizen’s Questions
Click here to read more about how the Control Chart came to be.
For a structured approach to this disturbing subject, I recommend that you read the book entitled
The book is being made available as
PDF interactive [21MB] * Not-in-Service PDF eBook (interactive)
PDF non-interactive [10MB] * Not-in-Service PDF eBook (non-interactive)
ePUB fixed layout [27MB] * Not-in-Service ePUB Book (fixed layout)
reflowable ePUB formats of the book (for mobile reading) can be explored at this link https://sufficientproductions.com/epub-selections/
The book is not a source book, so I would not recommend dipping into it; it is setup so that each section builds on the one preceding it.
It is my sincere hope that you will find your reading worthwhile. Thank you again for your interest.