"There has been publicity from all the usual quarters, led inevitably by the BBC, that we are in the middle of something called National Fostering Fortnight. So many children are now being taken into care – 24,000 last year in England alone – that there is a critical shortage of foster carers to look after them...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9277302/About-the-euro-and-global-warming-it-turns-out-the-thought-criminals-were-right.html
A point that is rarely heard, however – although it may help explain why the seizing of children is at a record level, care applications having doubled in just four years – is that FOSTERING HAS BECOME A VERY LUCRATIVE INDUSTRY. Foster carers themselves can be paid £400 a week or more for each child they take in, and the companies which employ many of them (almost invariably run by former social workers) are hugely profitable.
Last year, ROTHSCHILDS ORGANISED THE SALE OF THE NATIONAL FOSTERING AGENCY, the second largest such company, private equity and pension funds bid up the initial bid price of £80 million to £135 million...
The average cost of keeping each of the 65,000 children now in care in England is £37,000, an annual bill of £2.4 billlion. This is quite apart from the other costs of our ‘child care’ system, such as the lavish fees paid to ‘experts’ and the legal profession.
SO ‘CHILD PROTECTION’ IS VERY BIG BUSINESS, one of its main beneficiaries being Barnardo’s, the fostering and adoption agency, with an annual turnover of nearly quarter of a billion pounds. But whether this is likely to raise any questions in the mind of our children’s minister, Tim Loughton, is another matter. Last July he appointed, as his chief adviser on adoption, Martin Narey, who was CEO, from 2005 to 2011, of Barnardo’s."
On 31 October 2000, The BBC quoted Martin Narey, then Director General of the Prison Service, thus:
"The service is not only INSTITUTIONALLY RACIST... pockets of blatant RACISM still exist... I am determined that, working closely with the CRE, we can eradicate all RACISM, both at INSTITUTIONAL and individual levels."On 16 November 2000, Narey said this in The Guardian:
"We have to own up that RACISM is a big problem for the prison service... This is one of a raft of measures needed to get it right."The Guardian explained one of Narey's 'measures', as follows:
"Prison officers found to be members of far right groups such as the British National party will be automatically expelled from the service under reforms to employment practice to be introduced by Martin Narey, director general of the prison service."
David Blunkett was the leader of a notoriously 'loony left' council.
He flew the red flag on top of Sheffield Town Hall, twinned the city with one in Russia and earned it the soubriquets. ‘The People's Republic of Sheffield’ and the ‘Union of Socialist Sheffield Republics.’ (USSR)
In November 2003, Blunkett, who was then Home Secretary, following Martin Narey's lead, called for membership of the BNP to disqualify anyone becoming a police officer and called on chief constables to come up with a plan. Speaking on the BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Blunkett said:
"It's an area where I can only exercise influence rather than direct power. I do not believe it's tenable for a member of the British National Party to be a police officer in this country."
Sure enough, 8 months later, in July 2004, the Association of Chief Police Officers warned all officers and staff in England and Wales that anyone found to be a member of the BNP would be sacked.
On 10 June 2006, The Guardian reported thus:
"A secret high-level Metropolitan police report has concluded that MUSLIM OFFICERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BECOME CORRUPT THAN WHITE OFFICERS BECAUSE OF THEIR CULTURAL AND FAMILY BACKGROUNDS…Secret report brands Muslim police corrupt
The document was written as an attempt to investigate why complaints of misconduct and corruption against Asian officers are 10 TIMES HIGHER THAN AGAINST THEIR WHITE COLLEAGUES.
The main conclusions of the study, commissioned by the Directorate of Professional Standards and WRITTEN BY AN ASIAN DETECTIVE CHIEF INSPECTOR, stated:
'ASIAN OFFICERS AND IN PARTICULAR PAKISTANI MUSLIM OFFICERS ARE UNDER GREATER PRESSURE FROM THE FAMILY, THE EXTENDED FAMILY ... AND THEIR COMMUNITY AGAINST THAT OF THEIR WHITE COLLEAGUES TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITY THAT MIGHT LEAD TO MISCONDUCT OR CRIMINALITY'.
It recommended that Asian officers needed special anti-corruption training and is now being considered by a working party of senior staff. The report argued that British Pakistanis live in a cash culture in which 'assisting your extended family is considered a duty'…
Superintendent Dal Babu, Chairman of the Association of Muslim Officers, said… 'We are gravely concerned about its contents and the message it sends to recruits and potential recruits'."
Oh, yes, your top Muslim Policeman doesn’t want a message sending to the Muslim cops of the future that they’re going to get sorted if they get caught with their fingers in the till.
George Rhoden, Chair of the Metropolitan Black Police Association added.
"We have made it clear that we disagreed totally with the conclusions ... The whole thing needs to be researched in a much more comprehensive way."Yes, the whole thing needs to be researched in a politically correct, positively discriminatory kind of way. You know, the kind of ‘comprehensive way’ where Johnny gets the blame even though Abdul did it. The Guardian went on to say:
"THE FIRST VERSION (of the report) WAS CONSIDERED SO INFLAMMATORY WHEN IT WAS SHOWN TO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE STAFF ASSOCIATIONS FOR BLACK, HINDU, SIKH AND MUSLIM OFFICERS, THAT IT HAD TO BE TONED DOWN!"Membership of the British National Party is 99.9% white and British. Any of them who happened to be police officers (and, perhaps, prison wardens) would, therefore, be 10 times less likely to be corrupt than their Asian counterparts. According to the Asian cop who compiled the report cited above, that is.
Such things, of course, are of no consequence to Brit-loathing social engineers like Blunkett and Narey.
On 5 February 2002, The Daily Mail reported thus:
"Home Secretary David Blunkett today pledged to ‘smash the gangs’ with a major crackdown on car-jackers and mobile phone thieves. Mr Blunkett said a forthcoming White Paper on sentencing will bring tougher sentences for dangerous criminals...‘A choice between community sentences and prison?’ I thought the Home Secretary was going to ‘smash the gangs with a major crackdown on car-jackers and mobile phone thieves!’
Blunkett pledged to ensure ‘those who hold people up at gunpoint and even kill them to steal their cars are away for as long as I can make it stick’… Those responsible for crimes such as the fatal stabbing of estate agent Tim Robinson, 25, from Battersea, south London, will be ‘banged away for a very long time.’
His get tough stance came after it was revealed a 41-year-old woman was beaten unconscious by violent car-jackers, who left her by the side of the road and drove off in her £50,000 Mercedes… On mobile phone theft - RUNNING AT AN ESTIMATED 770,000 A YEAR - Mr Blunkett backed Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf who last week called for violent mobile phone robbers and gang leaders to be jailed for up to five years…
Director General of the Prison Service Martin Narey said the jails were in crisis and welcomed Mr Blunkett's initiative TO REDUCE PRISON NUMBERS… The service was struggling to cope with the ‘insanity’ of a prison population that has risen from 44,000 in 1991 to 68,000 today, and may top 70,000 by the summer, he said…
‘What the Home Secretary is offering today is A CHOICE BETWEEN COMMUNITY SENTENCES AND PRISON - and that's what gives me a lot of hope’."
Of those described in the article, Dwaine Williams, the youth who stabbed Tim Robinson seven times, his accomplice, Aaron Jones, and the 'violent carjackers' who attacked Gloria Hamilton and stole her Mercedes, were all black.
By October 2006, Narey and Blunkett weren’t on such friendly terms.
After the former Home Secretary published his diaries and spoke disparagingly of Narey's handling of the 2002 Lincoln Prison riot, The Times quoted Narey thus:
"He shrieked at me that he didn't care about lives, told me to call in the Army and 'MACHINE-GUN' THE PRISONERS and - still shrieking - again ordered me to take the prison back immediately. I refused. David hung up… I don't think David was decisive that evening; I think he was reckless."
When the top folk have a falling out, that’s when you find stuff out. The old adage ‘honour among thieves,’ almost never applies when the thief in question happens to be a PC tw*t as well.
On 7 September 2009, The Telegraph quoted Narey, by then the boss of Barnado’s, thus:
"We just need to take more children into care if we really want to put the interests of the child first… We can't keep trying to fix families that are completely broken. It sounds terrible, but I think we try too hard with birth parents... If we really cared about the interests of the child, WE WOULD TAKE CHILDREN AWAY AS BABIES AND PUT THEM INTO PERMANENT ADOPTIVE FAMILIES."Martin Narey calls for children to be taken away from 'failed' parents at birth
In the same article, Tim Loughton, Conservative shadow children’s minister at the time, said this:
"Martin seems to have this predetermination that kids are destined to be problem kids and I don’t agree with that. The bottom line is that the people who know best how to look after their children are the parents of those children. Martin… sees a far greater role for the state as being corporate parents, I just look at the record of the state and it is appalling."
I agree with the parents knowing best and the ‘the record of the state’ observations, Timothy. As for a deeply sinister, stary-eyed weirdo like Narey being allowed to ‘take children away as babies,’ perish the thought. What manner of soulless zombie might be churned out by the ‘adoptive families’ thought suitable by such a died-in-the-wool anti-Brit, one wonders?
That a slitherer like Narey could ever have wormed his way to the top of such wildly different organisations as the prison service and Barnado's is deeply instructive. It happened, I should think, because of what Brooker describes as the 'success… achieved by the upholders of politically correct orthodoxies in taking over the institutions that represent the commanding heights of our society... Any view contrary to their dogmas becomes what Orwell called, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, a ‘thought crime’.'
"Last July he (Loughton) appointed, as his chief adviser on adoption, Martin Narey, who was CEO, from 2005 to 2011, of Barnardo’s."Why would Loughton appoint a bloke whom, according to the Telegraph article, he doesn’t ‘agree with?’ Why would he want to work alongside someone who ‘sees a far greater role for the state as being corporate parents,’ when he himself thinks the ‘record of the state… is appalling?’
Maybe it’s down to Barnardo’s having ‘an annual turnover of nearly quarter of a billion pounds’ and ‘child protection’ being ‘very big business.’ The expenses and cash-for-access scandals suggest that the do-gooders spawned by PC modernity have never been shy of making a bob or two along the way of the good they allegedly do.
P.S. Interestingly, for such a champion of the ‘politically correct orthodoxies’ as Narey, by 2012, he was happy to admit to this:
"For this particular type of crime, the street grooming of teenage girls in northern towns… there is very troubling evidence that Asians are overwhelmingly represented in the prosecutions for such offences."Most grooming offences committed by Asians says ex-Barnardo's chief
Oh yes, when the rats are about to leave the sinking ship, the smarter ones are liable to leave a little Valentine behind for those who come after.
You know, a billet doux of the I’ve-always-been-a-secret-admirer-I-was-only-following-orders variety? Score a brownie point or two with the golden lads before you go seek asylum where the Dark Lords prevail.
Smart, you see.