Speaker 1: And it's my daily vant. Of course, the next subject
Speaker 1: for today, which is twentyth for November twenty twenty five,
Speaker 1: there's FALSD adoptions. Yeah, it's a bit of an emotive
Speaker 1: subject for me and I can probably explaining a little
Speaker 1: bit later, but yeah, like I subscribe on YouTube, I'd
Speaker 1: be perfect if you could. And if you're listening from
Speaker 1: somewhere else, it's at my Daily rant UK on YouTube,
Speaker 1: that would be perfect if you could join in. So yeah,
Speaker 1: my emotive subject today. I really do get emotional on
Speaker 1: this one because well it's something that's close to her heart. Anyway,
Speaker 1: parents threatened and blamed by authorities as a thousand adopted
Speaker 1: children have returned to care. There's a personal story in
Speaker 1: one of the newspapers, and I'll read varieties. Breaking point
Speaker 1: with adopted son Liam came after she had already been
Speaker 1: threatened with knaves and arrested by police following untrue allegations.
Speaker 1: Now this has something common or these stories untrue allegations.
Speaker 1: A husband recounts that she at one point, I husband
Speaker 1: recounts that she said, at one point to a social worker,
Speaker 1: what if we can't just do this anymore? Which is
Speaker 1: fair enough most people say that. He says that social
Speaker 1: workers reply again without a moment's notice or hesitation, will
Speaker 1: you'll be prosecuted for child abandonment and this is an
Speaker 1: adopted parent at this case very tinian. Are just fifty
Speaker 1: say just two a fifty parents this report had spoken
Speaker 1: to during a six month investigation into why adopted families
Speaker 1: are being broken apart from their children and returning to
Speaker 1: the care system. As a covered a hidden world where
Speaker 1: parents are subjected to lies and blame by authorities across
Speaker 1: the UK as they struggle with the needs of traumatized
Speaker 1: children who have often suffered abuse and neglect before they
Speaker 1: removed from the birth fumily is I'll tell you more
Speaker 1: about the birth families later. Parents speaker of being threatened, harassed,
Speaker 1: and parents pushed into mental health crisis. Well one of doubt.
Speaker 1: The teenager who returned to care says that was more
Speaker 1: supports that with more support his family might still be together. Now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's the word as well in brackets support.
Speaker 1: The News here conducted the most extensive freedom of information
Speaker 1: requests ever into adoptions that are broken down, finding that
Speaker 1: more than a thousand adopt the children in the UK
Speaker 1: have returned to cand the past five years at twenty
Speaker 1: twenty to twenty twenty five. That's a very high figure
Speaker 1: than the figure and the recent government report, but the
Speaker 1: true number is very much bigger than that. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: that's adoptive parents haven't having problems. A thousand adoptive parents
Speaker 1: are more. They've been returned to souchial work care now
Speaker 1: on the back of this report. As a commentant commenting person,
Speaker 1: so they commented, and I think I'm going to read
Speaker 1: this out to you as well. The UK pretty much
Speaker 1: only permits adoption up until the age of six, which
Speaker 1: I find to be a ridiculous requirement. So many children
Speaker 1: are not in a position and not ready to be
Speaker 1: adopted at that age. So that but I don't get
Speaker 1: because the UK pretty much only permits adoption up into
Speaker 1: the age of sixt that bit which this person finds
Speaker 1: to be a ridiculous requirement. Okay, but this bit, so
Speaker 1: many children are not in a position not ready to
Speaker 1: be adopted by that age. Does that mean they need
Speaker 1: to be adopted later after they're traumatized, because you know,
Speaker 1: they've known their parents longer. Do they need to be
Speaker 1: more traumatized for them to fit in the adoption system.
Speaker 1: I don't know what this lady's trying to say. Please
Speaker 1: let your mind bugle with that and leave your comments
Speaker 1: down below on YouTube please or any other social media platform.
Speaker 1: They should open it up and put the decision back
Speaker 1: into the children's hands. Now that's a good idea, and
Speaker 1: give them the power whether it's plus and decide if
Speaker 1: they want or not want to be adopted. Yeah, that'd
Speaker 1: be good. Then they can be placed with families opening
Speaker 1: for adoption or begin meeting perspective families the US to
Speaker 1: be adopted by the age of six is not a
Speaker 1: good system, very true. It certainly doesn't help that far
Speaker 1: too many adoptive pants are twisted and hoping adopt, then
Speaker 1: we'll heal their trauma, which is using infertility. On top
Speaker 1: of this, many wanted to just adopt little babies like
Speaker 1: a blank slate. So, yeah, you don't adopt because you've
Speaker 1: got a problem with your fertility. You don't adopt because
Speaker 1: that suits you in your bloody lifestyle. There's also a
Speaker 1: huge lack of support for adoptive families. Yeah, well, there's
Speaker 1: not a lot of support ever for theological families. They
Speaker 1: have unique needs and complications that require a lot of
Speaker 1: community support. Yes, so do we the biological families anyway,
Speaker 1: we're talking about the adoptive families. Then there are the
Speaker 1: original families, which, yeah, I've just mentioned. I advise anyone
Speaker 1: to see how dangerous, u hinged and scary families can
Speaker 1: be when they have had their children removed. You can
Speaker 1: see groups on Facebook, she says, called social workers Exposed
Speaker 1: Forced adoptions every town in this country, Peterborough, London for
Speaker 1: adoption activists on Facebook and all these little ones. Yeah,
Speaker 1: forced adoptions edinburn's arm and they're threatening, you know, with
Speaker 1: personal information social work as well. I don't agree to,
Speaker 1: you know, break the law, but you know, if they've
Speaker 1: done wrong, why not publish their details, but in a nice, calm,
Speaker 1: constructive way that you know you did wrong, we're going
Speaker 1: to do about it, rather than you know, you don't
Speaker 1: do nothing naughty to them. Of course, some are perhaps innocent,
Speaker 1: and there are innocent biological families, and they didn't deserve
Speaker 1: to have their children taken away. However, if they're able
Speaker 1: to make contact with the children part of their adoption,
Speaker 1: they can really get their heads and turn those children toxic. Well, no,
Speaker 1: they don't turn the children toxic. Deliberately the biological parents
Speaker 1: when they're going to care and they're going to be adopted,
Speaker 1: they do it because they're traumatized, and the biological parents
Speaker 1: have added chance to recover from that traumatization, which I'll
Speaker 1: explain a little bit later on. And it says basically,
Speaker 1: from start to finish and beyond, it's a cycle of
Speaker 1: misery and toxic born from the trauming pain that begins.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a sad state of affairs. Like everyone,
Speaker 1: the birth parents search work as the adoptees. The adoptive
Speaker 1: parents are constantly award of each other, rereading and worth
Speaker 1: editing that the adoptees are not sharing equal blame as
Speaker 1: they deserves no blame of alill they never ask for
Speaker 1: any of it, especially when they are still in their minor. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well I kind of agree a little bit with that
Speaker 1: last bit. I mean, nobody wants once any of that,
Speaker 1: do they? But and then of course, hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of unmarried women were forced to give up their babies
Speaker 1: for adoption, and they should receive a government apology. Well
Speaker 1: I don't know if they've had the apology by now,
Speaker 1: but fucking hell, part the language, why shouldn't you have
Speaker 1: apologized by now this is my daily vant Maine said
Speaker 1: the odd swear word, and I shouldn't I did. That
Speaker 1: was the motive subject inquired by the Joint Committee and
Speaker 1: human rights were set up followings of reports by and
Speaker 1: these channels. One hundred and eighty five thousand women in
Speaker 1: fifty sixties and seventies were shamed and conhearsed into giving
Speaker 1: up their babies. And yeah, and ever since then, of
Speaker 1: course you've had the natural forced adoptions by birth parents.
Speaker 1: So they started off in the early fifties, sixties and seventies,
Speaker 1: taking mothers away from babies, away from mothers that weren't married,
Speaker 1: didn't have a lot of money, blah blah blah, and
Speaker 1: now they're still doing it. Forced adoption around the world
Speaker 1: is happening because governments don't care. People are too traumatized
Speaker 1: and too weak. I mean, one guy I've met many
Speaker 1: times forced adoption dot Com, Forced adoption dot Com. He's
Speaker 1: got a couple of books in Joseph. An amazing guy.
Speaker 1: He sums it up. He's next county counselor from Kent
Speaker 1: in England. A lady came to him one day saying, look,
Speaker 1: I've got problems. Can you help me? They sacked him
Speaker 1: because he's trying to help people, and he's saying and
Speaker 1: this is true. It's a punishment without a grime. Baby's
Speaker 1: taking at birth for risk of emotional abuse. How can
Speaker 1: you predict that you're gonna harm your child in the
Speaker 1: future if you're harming him now, or yeah, lose your
Speaker 1: children go to jow you deserve it, But how can
Speaker 1: you predict in a crystal ball it's a future risk
Speaker 1: of emotional harm? Toddler's take at six am by squads
Speaker 1: have ununiformed police and social workers for this that may
Speaker 1: never happen. Whether those who putict the fouture used to
Speaker 1: tart cards, crystal balls, or tea leaves is the material
Speaker 1: because the fact is that parentfully their child to care
Speaker 1: for risk of events that may never happen by gone
Speaker 1: to government stats are far more likely to happen under
Speaker 1: state care, so not the birth parents. These children would
Speaker 1: be damaged in state care than from loving imperfect parents.
Speaker 1: No parent is perfect, but they try their best. And
Speaker 1: a lot of reports that I can't tell you right
Speaker 1: now because it's on the internet anyway. Sue Reader is
Speaker 1: one of them from the Daily mail of ten fifteen
Speaker 1: years ago reported that children are better off in an
Speaker 1: imperfect family situation than being in care. And of course
Speaker 1: it's the family courts that make most of this real
Speaker 1: and they shouldn't do because you know, they listen to
Speaker 1: the liars, they're not bothered about what the parents are saying.
Speaker 1: By the time the parents get to speak, it's actually
Speaker 1: am I over for them, so the night mayor begins.
Speaker 1: When social workers act like a second police force, punishing
Speaker 1: parents have not committed any crime. They do this by
Speaker 1: obtaining an emergency care order in the parents' absence. Often
Speaker 1: they take away the children for care. They claim these
Speaker 1: children have a suffered emotional harm or worse, still at
Speaker 1: risk of it in the future. On this basis, an
Speaker 1: order is nearly always granted without permission. It's disgusting. Of course.
Speaker 1: The kangaroo culture and the legal aid lawyers, known in
Speaker 1: the trades as professional losers use bised clients to listen
Speaker 1: to the social workers. If that rings a bell anywhere? Yeah,
Speaker 1: And then there was this what do they know? Request? Yeah,
Speaker 1: they wanted to know. Do social workers conceal child abuse?
Speaker 1: Telling children that their parents don't love or want them,
Speaker 1: telling children their parents are dead. We're moving children from
Speaker 1: parents and allegations not believing children when they disclosed abouse. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because they like children care. Even nowadays, they get sexually
Speaker 1: assaulted or raped by a professional or a care and
Speaker 1: everyone looks the other way. Bloody, help out of my language.
Speaker 1: Stop parents seeking meddle advice to bring attention, you know,
Speaker 1: like Munchan's there's no People may be worriers, but they're
Speaker 1: not doing it deliberately. They may go to hospital, they
Speaker 1: may get a doctor for medication for reasons they don't understand.
Speaker 1: You know, why is my child being bruised? You know
Speaker 1: all this already, the shaking babyb syndrome, all this stuff. Now,
Speaker 1: this is all this stuff. There's a link between social workers,
Speaker 1: police in the court trying to take children away because,
Speaker 1: as Maggie Turtle said many years ago, from children's screening
Speaker 1: to be heard, it's a multi million pound industry and
Speaker 1: it really is. I could go on this subject a
Speaker 1: lot more, and I indte you to email me Freedom
Speaker 1: Talk Radio twenty thirteen at gmail dot com. I really
Speaker 1: do help you to email me Ami, and and I
Speaker 1: just want you to share your story and we'll get
Speaker 1: your word out there. On the Internet and YouTube live
Speaker 1: at the moment on Twitter X on Facebook, on riverside FM.
Speaker 1: I love you guys. Please support the channel on YouTube.
Speaker 1: I hit the bell, like, share comment, and of course
Speaker 1: I have a good day for now. Oh yeah, I
Speaker 1: was gonna say. And of course you know I read
Speaker 1: every comment that you provide. Yeah,