I am very pleased to have Sam back in the studio with me, and we're going to do Part 2 of the talk through as what happened to Sam, she was trafficked and then when she felt she'd well know when she had reached the sanctuary of the United Kingdom, the next thing that happened to her was that her two children were taken away from her by social services through the family court system. And of course this is a subject which UK Column has talked about on many occasions for many
different families. But Sam's own story had a particular nuance to it, particular emotional aspect, because of course, she'd been through the horrors of the trafficking system. She'd then been accepted into the safety and care of the United Kingdom, and when she was in this country, feeling she was safe, those children were taken. Now, Sam, I know one of the issues that you want to talk, talk about in more detail is how the system works in order to
take the children. And I I'm going to say to you, the aim is for you to be able to tell our audience what, what has happened to you and what you've experienced. So you start the story again where you'd like to. Thank you so much, Brian. Thank you to our UK column, listeners and viewers and everyone else who has watched my story up to now and for all the support. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
So we're going to talk about the system, how it works, and how it targets vulnerable parents around the United Kingdom regardless, regardless of race or creed, they will target. As long as they can sniff any vulnerabilities in your family, they will come for your children. Which is really a shame because I voluntarily contacted Salford City Council for support, which I never received.
But they started sexualizing me, profiling me and victimizing me, and then snatched my children up to today with the help of Kafkas the Independent. They they call themselves independent. Can we just add a little bit to that? Of course. The idea of Kafkas supposedly is that they will represent the best interests of the children. So Kafkas will be alongside to make sure everything is done in the best interests of the
children. So Kafkas are not there in the first instance to support mother or the parents. They're that to support the children. Well, that's what they say. But the reality is contrary to to what they say, because they're actually a part of the social engineering, they're part of targeting mothers to snag
children. And I can tell you that for certain, because it's not only my children, but so many other mothers who who are in obscurity, in secrecy, especially in the northwest of England, they are snatching children away from parents every single day in obscurity and secrecy. How is it done? Mother goes into, say, the GP, the family doctor. The GP then makes a referral to social services. And then it all starts from there.
Sometimes mothers are struggling at home or fathers are struggling at home with a few things and once the referral goes in, that's it, your children are targeted. This is this is continuing every single day. Sometimes the referral is fabricated from schools, so if their mother doesn't want, say, the way the children are being treated at school or the way they are teaching them, we know Brian UK column has published quite a number of articles
around sexualising children. If a mother raised anything concerning about the curriculum today, about sexualising children, that mother is targeted and profiled and the next thing is a referral is made behind the scenes to remove the children, saying there is a risk of emotional harm because the mother didn't agree with what the teachers were pumping into
those children's heads. That is clearly true and I think this is one of the the important points to get over to our audience that the initial engagement between a mother or or a father or indeed the parents of a child, the initial engagement can be very slight. It may be something that was said in AGP surgery. Perhaps a parent said they're feeling down and a bit depressed and finding it different,
difficult to cope. That might be a perfectly reasonable thing for somebody to say and that's picked up by the the GP who then because they will always be very cautious because they're told protecting children is everybody's responsibility. They then make a referral over to social services and then once social services are engaged, you'll you are locked. Well, you're drawn into a process, you're locked into a process. So the initial action by the parent can be very slight.
They might have just said something, but I also know of cases where of course the mother. I'll say the mother, because the one in my head is about a mother. She was unwell to the point where she couldn't cope with looking after a child. She asked for help from social services. Could they provide support for a for a few weeks until she was better? And they agreed to that.
But what then took place was that when mum was healthy again, social services refused to relinquish their involvement with the mother and the child, and ultimately they took the child. So this is an important thing for people to understand. It's very common. It's really very common because we understand now that it's no longer about taking children away from from parents.
As a person, as a woman who has experienced trafficking for me, I see so many traits around trafficking in this, because this is child trafficking. It's no longer about social services snatching children with the help of Kafka's. This is absolute child trafficking. And I can say that with certainty, because why is there so much secrecy in the family court? The media barely reports about how many children are snatched away from parents on a daily basis.
You see, it's so much it's it's secret. It's a big secret. No one talks about it. In the United Kingdom, if I walked on the street and I told someone that my children were snatched away from me, the first thing they would think you must have done something horrific to the children. I can tell you for certain, I never did anything to my children. I never hurt or harm my children. I love my children dearly. I'll never do that to my
children. All I needed was it was extra support from adults who were born and raised in the United Kingdom because the culture I was raised is completely different from here. And that's all I ever needed. But I can tell you for certain because they they've, they've told the public, by the time we take children away from parents is that they've done something horrific. No, they don't. Most parents don't. Most parents don't. It's always a risk.
It's a Christopher that they base their decisions on and hearsay is accepted in family courts, gossip is accepted in family courts, speculations are accepted in family courts, assumptions are acceptable and if you challenge them, they will say you're antagonistic. You're terrible. Just to reinforce the point, many years ago I knew family courts existed, but I had no idea how they functioned.
And it wasn't until I was able to go inside a family court acting as a Mackenzie friend, which I've actually done on a number of occasions. But being inside the court allowed me to see for myself first hand what took place and and to experience the whole environment to the court, which I have always found to be very threatening and oppressive to anybody who's there. But what the public needs to understand, and mums and dads need to understand, of course,
is that the courts are secret. There is no jury, there is no press access. I'll qualify that in some cases, press have been allowed in, in a very few cases, special cases. But invariably, the moment they're in, the judge will tell them that they're under special reporting restrictions and will usually tell the journalists what they can and cannot report. But the key point is that there is no public oversight. There's no members of the public, there's no press,
there's no jury. These are secret courts. They are star chambers where one single judge can take a child or children away from parents and place those children with individuals who ultimately will be completely unknown to the parents. So the power of the the family courts is, is it just incredible? And the fact that there's no public oversight makes them
exceptionally dangerous places? For me, I say that alleged criminals in the United Kingdom have more access to justice than children or children's fate or a family because they have access to the jury. They have access to the media. They can talk about their cases. You know, they can go on social media and talk about these things. But in most cases, families have no access to any of those things. And they're talking about ethics and governance and transparency and all these good words.
But you never hear the family caught involved. Is it not an arm of the government? Are we not supposed to know what's going on there? Why is the why? Is it a big secret? Why are they hiding away from the general public? What is it that they're hiding? They might say that they're protecting the identity of children. I beg to differ because they keep advertising children in different newspapers and these are this is public knowledge.
It's not that it's a big secret. They were advertising children for sale. As long as you have £35,000 per annum, you had access to these three boys, you see. So the the whole idea that they're keeping this as a secret does not make sense anymore. This is heinous, this is sinister. They're abusing families. They're destroying families Every single day. The family court needs to change.
Social services needs to change. But above all, Kafka's is is the one at the at the core of all these because they're supposed to be independent and they're not. They're not, because they're enabling the the destruction and ripping families apart. Sam, let me just add add a bit to that. The first thing I wanted to say is when when you say what is the system, I hope that I'm reasonably intelligent. I think I've got some common
sense. I think I'm quite experienced in life now, being the age I am and I've done some professional jobs. When I apply my brain to the family court system, you you've used the word trafficking, which I totally agree with. What what is actually happening is children are being taken and moved through a system which is equivalent to trafficking in my personal opinion. But also we've got to consider the large amounts of money.
Now you've indicated sums of money that a family might be expected to have in order to take on a child for long term fostering or adoption. But the the first reality about money is that the moment anybody touches a child they are able to benefit financially from it. So if we take a family court case, every barrister or solicitor that gets involved with that case earns money and the longer the family court hearing is drawn out, the more money they make.
Then the local authority will invariably bring in other professionals, psychiatrists or or psychologists, or clinical psychologists or behavioural experts. And each one of those, in order to deliver their report for the local authority will be paid usually many thousands of pounds. And there are other professionals who will also be paid for their engagement.
So if you look at a basic family court case I I calculated that on the simplest of cases, probably about 1/4 of £1,000,000 will change hands around that case. The fees of the judges, the fees of the barristers, fees of the solicitors, the experts. And if you Add all this up, you're dealing huge sums of money. And that's even before the child, the child goes into a network where other sums of monies can apply. Children equate to money. Would you agree with that?
Yes, 100%. I would agree with that because I when I was doing my research in this whole trafficking rocket, I realised the adoption agencies apart of their directors and shareholders are also local authority executives. You can clearly see there is a conflict of interest as to why they want these children snatched away from parents. But also, I looked at their annual reports and you could see that a child who boards out the amount of money.
But then we asked ourselves, as parents, where do these Children Board out? It's on their annual reports. Where do they take the children, you say? Are they giving them to some other people? Why would Children Board out from adoption placements? It's all there. It's all clear. You know, we're thinking they're sexualizing our children. And I can tell you that for certain, because no, no child who has gone through foster care, most of them come out
broken and traumatised. Why, If the state is the best parent for our children, the old scriptures say, you will know them by the fruits they bear. Most children who who've gone through foster care are broken. Why?
If they're saying they're taking children away from loving parents and they are giving them these perfect homes and perfect places, why then, when children are adults, are all broken and traumatised and psychologically damaged, They can barely function, some of them because of the abuse they've endured for years and no one talks about that. Yes, this is getting to the to the heart of the matter.
Now there's going to be a video played out on the UK Column network and that will be an interview, excuse me, with a very experienced social worker called Emma. And Emma describes what happened to her when she alerted authorities. That was the police. And then subsequently it was social services as well, to the fact that in her professional opinion, a boy was being abused within a care facility. And the story she tells, I've no doubt to many of our viewers will be unbelievable.
Because she went from being the qualified professional warning about child abuse to being harassed, threatened, bullied and victimized herself for stepping forward to put out that
warning. And this is where where we can really start to grip the what's going on is that if if good and proper professionals inside the supposed chair childcare system are warning that the children are being abused in care facilities and their warnings are not properly taken up and actions, then we've got we've got a a system which not only captures the children, but it can then abuse children within its care facilities. I'm putting a little parenthesis
around that that expression. This is trafficking and abusive system. Sorry, trafficking and abuse of children being run through the state system, which says it's there to protect children. Absolutely, 100%. And I look forward to watching her interview the social workers, the the social worker who is talking about this because it would be fascinating to listen to her perspective.
There is a lot of deflecting. There is a lot of dismissiveness when you talk about child abuse and child snatching. I can give you an example of my own. When I started talking about today's on social media, Manchester City Council blocked me on social media. Salford City Council blocked me on social media. These are councils. These are not someone's personal accounts, you see. These are civil servants.
They're supposed to be highly professional and, you know, diverse and inclusive on black, so they should be very welcoming of a different opinion. But they blocked me and they don't only block you or on on social media. They took me to a mental health unit and locked me there. When I talked, talked about this and I said, this is a syndicated
rocket of child trafficking. What you're doing, it's not just snatching children away from parents, You're actually running a rocket through family courts by judges who are aware of what's going on. They're conflicted beyond words and they they're allowing this to happen. They're allowing this to happen under gagging orders. How many children are snatched away from Hampstead Heath in the last five years? How many children were snatched away from Chelsea in the last five years?
How many children were snatched away from South Kensington in the last five years? Then you look at the demographics and then you you flip the coin and say how many children were snatched away from Salford City Council, from Wales, from northern Scotland, from Pembrokeshire, from Hampshire. How many children were snatched away from all these islands from Isle of Wight? They're targeting families who are below the poverty line, who are economically strained, who are socially vulnerable.
They're targeting immigrant families who do not know how the system operates. They're targeting families who are vulnerable. This is no longer about safeguarding children. Not at all. It's about selling children for cash. The number of children who were taken into care in during COVID-19? The numbers are scary. The state cannot protect every single child away from risk.
That means the state knew about COVID-19 because every child needed to be in to care for safety, because if they're saying or any danger, anything that will come. Social workers need to protect children. That means the state was aware of things like COVID-19 happening because if they they can anticipate every single risk in the future to snatch our children away, then they mean it means they know what harm is is about to happen.
I think, well, that's my way of thinking or about this as a parent. I don't know what you think, Brian, but that's what I think at the moment. And I'm also very concerned about judges because it's very scary. It really is because judges are supposed to be independent, but they will never say the truth. They were. Most of them are siding with social workers on Kafka's and just rubber stamping whatever
the the local authority wants. Whatever they want, they'll just agree with it. Well, what would I like to add to that? Just another remark on what the system is. We we are describing what we believe is a, a trafficking system of children within the UK. But a man I'd like to mention wrote a book and what is his book called? It's called Gulag of the Family Court. So he's equating the family court system in the United Kingdom to the gulags in the Soviet Union.
And obviously that's a very powerful title. And he chose it because, in his opinion, once the system got hold of you, it could draw you in through an income, through an increasingly onerous, draconian system where if you fought and really fought for your children, you would certainly be labeled as mentally ill. That's what they do.
They certainly will then take that further so that if let's say, a mother gets to the stage where she is terrified that her children are going to be taken away, she will do virtually anything to protect those children. And if she gets shouty or what's perceived as aggressive, then that label of mental health problems can then be taken to the the, the mother or the parents even are put in
psychiatric facility. So I'm not surprised that you're saying that when you started to challenge the system, that's what's happened to you, because this has happened to many other people. You can still get his book and I'd encourage people to read it, But think about that title gulag of the family courts. And the other bit I want to pick up on is, is the value of children and who handles children? Many years ago I was very interested to discover that there was a an adoption.
I'm going to call it a fair in Plymouth, where? In the local Guild hall, the adoption agency. So this was local social services, but also, with the help of the BBC, had set up desks and if people were interested in adoption, you could come into this area with lots of wonderful brochures and pictures of children and you could talk to professionals about how you could adopt A
child. I went into that venue and I asked some of the people very nicely how they could be sure that the children had been taken away from their parents voluntarily and they did not want to talk to me. In fact, they ultimately called security and I was asked to leave. Sometime later I was able to get in touch with the BBC consultant who was a lady, to say what due diligence had she done in order to ascertain that the children being offered for adoption had been taken with the full consent
of the parents. And she went very quiet. And I'm going to be fair to her in as much as I can't say she was complicit in what was going on. So clearly it had never considered, she'd never considered the fact that the children might only be available for adoption because they'd literally been wrenched away from the parents. So that's my second point and I'll just add a third one if I may, about the failure of the UK
state to protect children. Absolutely no doubt that the children are being abused in care. But let's remember a little while ago the government was happy to say that over 400 Syrian children that had been accepted into UK for safety from the conflict in Syria, the government casually said those 400 children had disappeared. This was reported publicly and we never did hear what had
happened to those children. We never did see that there was any investigation that took place to find those children. They simply disappeared. Thank you so much, Brian, for that. It's really heart ranging and heartbreaking to see that our beautiful country, the United Kingdom, all these things are going on underneath and it's not exaggerated numbers. These are experiences that are happening every single day. And yes, BBC is still glossing up adoption. First adoptions every day there.
I wrote something about this on social media where I was calling out the BBC and telling them why do you gloss up adoptions and over advertising adoptions. I'm not anti adoption. Adoption is beautiful. If it's consented and ethical, you know it's a beautiful gift to to someone and to a child where where they're going to be raised in a very happy, loving home if it's consented and ethical.
But where there was coercing, manipulation, clear social engineering, and targeting and profiling families, it's heinous, it's evil and it's wicked. And this is what's happening in the United Kingdom today, in 2023, and it's been going on for years, for years. Parents are shattered. They can barely speak about it. Some of them are coping with drugs.
Some of them are highly medicated, some somewhere locked up in mental units, and they will never come out because they spoke out or tried to or tried to defend themselves. Some of them are filled with shame and guilt. Well, I won't be filled with shame and guilt because I didn't do nothing to my loving children. I love them dearly and that's all I will ever do. And I will fight till my last day because what they've done is evil. I survived trafficking and I
Will Survive this too. You will not traffic my children and you have to bring them back. These are my children. I love them anyway. Sorry, Brian, for going on there. Not at all. This is, this is, this is a very emotional subject and it should be. This is this is about families and it's about children and it's about families being destroyed. So don't, don't apologise for being emotional about it, Sam. This is this is the heart of the story.
Yes. I wanted to take you back about what happened to me when I was going in the hospital and giving birth because it's the latest trauma of enduring lately. You know, I've had several events over the years of enduring different things, but this one got me off guard because I didn't realise that beautiful people in the United Kingdom could do this, especially the so-called professionals. So what happens for a mother when they're going through family courts?
Well, social services who have taken your child will give you a lawyer that they've worked with over the years. For me, they gave me blisters. The lady who was representing me at the time, she turned up in court and I said, oh, I didn't know I had a lawyer. And she said yes, yeah, sure, sure, work. I got you a lawyer and it's me.
I'm the one representing you. Look, you're emotional because they've just snatched your child away from the nursery where you paid for, for your baby to be in this nursery. It's a private nursery. I turn up at court and this lawyer is there. And she said the best way to go about this is for you to accept everything social workers are saying, so you can have your child at home. And I said, really is, is that all? And she said, yes, just say yes to everything they say.
If they say was their domestic violence, say yes. So you can have your child. Do you struggle mentally? Yes. Just accept everything. Well, I was naive. I was an African girl who didn't know anything. I thought, first of all, in Africa you're raised that adults do not tell lies. I'm sorry, we are naive, some of us. And second of all, if someone is in the power of authority, you have to respect to them. Well, the lawyer.
What a beautiful sword. And all I did in my early 20s was to respect whatever she said. Well, she had the best interest for me and for my children. I'm so sorry, Brian. Oh dear Lord. Well, let let me just add a bit. Well, why don't you, why don't you compose yourself a bit? Because what what you've just told the audience, I I can I can back up in so many cases that mums. Because most of them are mums that that I've dealt with with family court cases.
The fundamental message about the legal system is don't trust the legal teams, even solicitors which they've obtained themselves. So not a person that's been recommended by social services or the local authority, but as solicitor the the mother or father has gone out and found themselves. One of the things they describe is that first of all it was all OK.
The solicitor seemed to be working for them but when they got to a critical hearing in the court, the solicitor completely betrayed them and said all sorts of things that they hadn't agreed with the mum and the dad and and what they describe is the fact that ultimately the allegiance of the legal teams is to the court, it's not to the mum and dad as their client. That's right. That's absolutely right.
They're they're working for the family call they liaise with a judge behind the scenes they liaise with social services behind the scene and and as parents in the 20 in the 21st century we have to to upgrade on finding out what really happened to our children. And I can tell you for certain that my lawyers who were accuses Queen's council now King's council we're we're advising social services behind the scenes yet we paid them privately thousands and
thousands of pound. My ex paid What I'm saying is the truth and nothing but the truth, and I do not mind. We we can still get the meat of this story out without actually mentioning the individual's name. They were actually advising the other side, yet we paid them behind the scenes and we have confirmation and evidence of everything I'm saying to you today, not it's not just hearsay, it's not speculation, it's there.
All the data points are there. We had to do a few things, unorthodox like they do because these are our children, these are not our neighbours children, these are not some someone else's children. We had to do a bit more. What can I add to that? Well of course money is an important issue for the legal teams, and a clear tactic seems to be that if enough money can be drawn out, sucked away from a family that they end up with no more money to pay the legal
teams. This of course automatically places the parents in a weakened position. So one of the tactics that is obvious in a number of cases is that the cases are drawn out so that the fees accrued with the legal teams continue to grow to the point that people run out of their savings. They can't pay these fees anymore. But this isn't a problem for the legal teams, because then they can simply swap mum and dad across to legal aid and they can then get their fees paid via the
public purse. So the legal teams never lose. And the longer the cases can be drawn out, the more money they're going to make. Yes. Oh my God, Brian. This is a very emotional topic for me, particularly because I see it as if it's just happened to them. You know, I, I or you know when you grow up in Africa, we watch BBC, you see, we we see the best of Great Britain every single day. You never, you never in a million times in a million
years. You would never think there is child snatching happening in Great Britain, a country so beautiful that everyone desires to come and live here. But I just like I said in my last interview that this is, this is not just my family, it's other people's families that's this is going on. Anyway, I just wanted to remind you about how they snatched my son. So I my doctors told me as a black woman that I'm more likely
to have Type 2 diabetes. I laugh about that a little bit because most of the things are so they they they're shocking because they make up things and because they wear the professional pass and a few titles. You think they're telling the truth now. Then they told me I might develop diabetes during my pregnancy. I needed to come in a little bit more so that they can monitor me during my pregnancy. This was another lie. So I turned up in in the hospital three to four times a week.
They told my they told me my son was so small that he if I didn't, if they didn't take him out as soon as possible, he will die. This was in Countess of Chester Hospital where Lucy Littleby was operating. I don't know whether you remember the child killer. That's where I gave birth in that hospital. I went in in the hospital. The social workers were liaising with the counties of Chester Hospital. We've now got all the reports clearly showing that they were
talking behind the scenes. The judge was waiting for the child to be born and they set up the date for me. My son was born prematurely, prematurely, because these monsters wanted to steal my son. I'm so sorry. They wanted to steal my son and they lied to me. They said my son was going to die if I didn't, if they didn't cut him out immediately. But it was a lie. My son was born perfect health. Nothing was wrong with him. Everything is well documented. There was nothing wrong with
him. So I asked the doctor, so why did you hastily cut him out? And the video shows where we recorded them, the nurse clearly saying, oh, we thought he was small. So it was just a thought that you ruined my child, his life because you thought and you did all these scans and reports and submitted them to court and said, oh, the baby's too small, we needed to cut him out. And these are supposed to be doctors.
Well, they said they're taking the child away from me because there is they might be a risk of harm. The social worker comes to the hospital. I found her in the hallway. My son, my son's crib is still at home to to this day. His nappies are still with me. Everything is still with me. I never took my baby at home because they they could be a risk in the future of harming my child. To this day, I don't know what risk that is. I don't abuse drugs.
I don't use alcohol. I don't I I don't have any depletating disease. I'm healthy and well, why should you steal my children? I find the social worker in the hallway and she says we have to take the child. And here is the the foster carer. The foster carer was an elderly lady around 70 or something. She needed care herself, the poor woman, but they gave her my baby. She was a single lady in Manchester. As the foster carer, she takes the child, they grab her and drive.
Drive off with my baby, the social worker tells me. Before this, the foster carer goes away with my baby shattered, bleeding heavily with a cesarean section that was unwarranted for. So if you want your child back, this was a social worker from the Countess of Chester Hospital, she said. If you want your child back, I think you need to apply for a non molestation order against Mr. C That's my ex partner and if you get this non molestation order ready, we will get your son back with you.
Remember, you're bleeding heavily. Sorry, Brian, this is women's stuff. Take your time. You remember, you're you're bleeding heavily. You're bleeding heavily from the cesarean section. That is best on Absolutely Lies and deception and medical negligence, whatever they call it. Your son has been plucked out of your tummy. This is happening in the United Kingdom because it's all recorded and it's all on medical
records. Your son has been plucked out of your tummy before bath before the final gestation period. He's healthy but they lie. They told me and the court that he was too small so we needed to take him out. I stayed with my baby for 8-8 days. I called my mum. I told her mum I don't know what to do because they're going to take her, take him and she would say the best we can do is to pray for him and we give him a
name. Let us give him the name because that's all we can do. They're so powerful, yeah. Let me just add a little bit from my experience about this. I've also been able to talk to other mothers who've had had the baby taken away at birth, not from a cesarean section, but they had given birth in the hospital and the social workers were there to take the baby the moment it was born.
And I've seen the distress. On the faces of that, well, that mother and and other mothers where they've had babies snatched out of their arms. UK column many years ago put out a video of a baby that had been cared for by its mother at home
for some some weeks. But eventually social services came to take that baby and we we broadcast the film of the social workers taking the boat, the baby from a screaming mother and the impact on the audience, the UK column audience was immense because of course people have never seen this, they've never understood that this type of stuff goes on. And of course in that particular incident, and it's not, it's not an uncommon thing, the police were also in attendance.
So the family are faced with the police, who are supposedly there to keep law and order. But what the police are actually doing is taking part in the kidnap, the stealing of children under immense duress to the parents. But babies being taken at birth must be one of the cruelest things that takes place in the system. So I'm. I'm not all surprised that you would be this distressed. Any mother would be, surely. Yes, the social worker tells me, if you agree, we get a non
molestation order. Remember, they are scraping the barrel for evidence. They're looking for anything to fit you into the toxic trio I described in my part one of Mental health, domestic abuse and drug misuse. So they're looking, they're scraping for any little snippets of evidence. So to justify the stealing of that baby now, then, they have to manipulate the mother. Remember, you're vulnerable, you're still bleeding, you're
lactating. And any parent, any parent on this planet, if they told you jump, you will ask how high for your baby will tell you do this, you will do it for your child to protect your baby from harm. You'll do anything for any send parent who'll do that. So this show show worker Diana Butcher tells me, let's go into let's go into the court.
The judge was ready for me with a non molestation order granted against my ex partner and to this day still regret for why and how naive was I to listen to them. What they did to you is a standard procedure. Often this is done very early in a case because if you have a a married couple or a couple living together who are in a a perfectly strong, reasonable loving relationship, social services will do their utmost to drive a wedge between mum and
dad to break them apart. And it's very very common for social services to say to the mother, Oh well if if you if you separate from your husband, if you separate from your partner and get them out of your lives, then this will this will clearly make the situation in court much better. But what they're really doing, of course, is breaking apart the
strength of the relationship. Your your partner supported you, as I understand it, to really great effect, because they were prepared to fight with you in in the courts. And So what what social services would would have invariably tried to do is get rid of that male support so that you would be more vulnerable on your own. This is a very, very common tactic. They had to repress a part. They they made sure that he wasn't in my life or in my son's life. So the non molestation order
destroyed him. It would destroy any man you see because they would not understand who is coercing all these and what's really going on. He thought, oh God, some I don't understand what you're doing. And then he's, he had to, he had to stop speaking to me. And few few weeks later, a few months down the road, I told him this is what the social worker told me. So I did it. And he was saying, God, you're so dumb, you don't understand how the system here works.
But I was dumb. But now I'm not. I know how they operate and I understand this is child trafficking and it's a racket and it has to stop because you have to stop stealing our children. We are watching you. We are watching everything you're doing. Do you know what's so fascinating, Brian, is the reports for stealing my son were already written. The interim care order was already written before my son was born. Everything was so ready they prepared to steal my son when he
was still in my tummy. Tell me if that is justice. By the time we went to the court in Manchester, the interim care order when we applied for the paperwork had been granted weeks before my son was born. Let's put it in different language, Sam, because we're talking in terms of trafficking, well, child stealing and traffic trafficking. But what what we're now describing is that there was premeditation. And there is deliberate altering
of documents. When my ex partner sent a document to the core in May in March 2018, the judge stamped that some document with a stamp of May 2016. You see, we were represented by QCs. I thought they pay attention to detail by the time they become QCs and KCS. Well, yes and no, because of course, as we've already described, the legal teams work within a system where pay their loyalties to the court and be they're paid effectively because of that loyalty to the court.
So why should they put their professional careers and risk and income at risk by telling the truth? There's there's clearly a very effective encouragement for them not to tell the truth but simply to a deal with wishes of the court. And the the other bit I just wanted to drop in is that in your case they they came for
your son. But my instinct tells me that the the whole of the what's the word, the the whole of the effort to take your son by social services would have been based on the fact that you'd already lost your daughter. So the way, the way, the, the, the, it's like a net which gradually ensnares the parents or ensnares the mother. And so first of all, they went for your daughter.
They had to create, they had to create the evidence, the accusations that would enable them to take your daughter and they took your daughter because she could have been at risk. So they said in the future, then once they succeed in taking your daughter, that is then used as the basis to take your son in
the future. That is how I think that they were playing the system and This is why they'd be so confident in that they wrote the court orders in advance, because they'd already in their minds achieved the evidence. They took your daughter and therefore risk of future harm they could simply apply to your son. And my mind takes me to a case which actually took place in Plymouth, where a mother was in hospital, gave birth to her her child in hospital and the child was I'll at birth.
There was a problem. The hospital tried to make out that the child had cancer and wanted to give a day old, two day old baby radiotherapy or treatment, cancer treatment. The mother's instinct was that the child did not have cancer and as a result this brought the mother into conflict with the medical opinion within the hospital and the hospital subsequently engaged social services and ultimately that child was taken away from the mother and stayed away from the
mother. Even when it later emerged that the child did not have cancer or any major life threatening illness, it was a relatively minor problem which could occur to a number any number of children and could be fixed quite easily. But the meat of this story is that the mother went on to have another three children, and each of those children were taken on the basis that the previous one had been taken, and the first child was taken on the basis of
a pack of lies. Tell me if it's if that is non child trafficking, you tell me, because that's what traffickers do. They will target vulnerable people, vulnerable families and they snag children away from them. The only difference here is that we have a court that is enabling this to carry on.
That's the critical statement because what you're now identifying I I believe absolutely correctly is that this system could only operate as it does and with the scale of it, the number of of children being taken, it could only operate with the full knowledge and connivance of the court system which is supposedly there to protect the children. So this is state orchestrated stealing and trafficking of children. Yes, absolutely. It's it's it's beyond, it's beyond painful.
Yes. I'm I haven't seen my daughter and my son for years, since 2018 because the judge said I was anti adoption. I had sent emails to to them, to the lawyer, to the judge and to everyone. When I was extremely distressed, I kind of remind, I reminded it reminded me so many of the horrific things that gone through of what they were doing to me and my children. So I sent them these emails when I was so upset. Well, they use the emails against me, Brian.
In the United Kingdom, your e-mail can grant you never to see your children again. That's how. That's how twisted the the whole thing is here. Child stealing is very common in the United Kingdom. Every single day they're stealing children from, from
their, from, from families. For me, the judge refused me to see my children again because I spoke about a case of Matthew Scala. I don't know whether you remember the case where an adoptive father killed a baby in North Wales. In North Wales, this was a fresh case. I was my children were at the verge of being adopted by strangers. I go into the contact centre, which is always looking haunted. Half of the time there is someone with a clipboard.
Every move you make of how you look at the baby, how you turn and how you twist, no cameras allowed, nothing is allowed there. So for us to even have footage, it's by the grace of God because you're overly monitored by social workers who are looking for every evidence, anything that they can pick on. So I go in there and my friend sends me a link some This is what's happening.
This adoptive father's just killed a baby and they're doing a wishy washy job about reporting about it and they they were assessed by social services there I tell about it and and she says you're anti adoption you'll never see your children again. You're horrendously terrible. How could you talk about this case? And I said, but this is an adoptive father. You're saying adoption is wonderful, but we have a case of Murphy Scarlett here. How can this be right?
You're saying you're looking out for the best interest of my children where you're splitting them even further because my daughter is in a different placement and my son is in a in a different placement as well, both with single parents, both of different heritage, but they're they're looking out for the best interest of my children now and in the future. So I don't, I really don't understand how or who is supposed to safeguard our children in the UK if you're not
a millionaire. That's a very interesting point because having money is not necessarily a protection to having your children taken. And this, this takes us into a very interesting point you you've stressed that that you feel that people who are new to the country, migrants, ethnic minorities are particularly vulnerable to child stealing. And I would absolutely agree with that.
That's that's what I understand. And there are some cases I can talk about where that's clearly those children have been obtained from vulnerable people. They can come from a variety of places, but particularly if they don't speak English properly, that automatically makes them vulnerable. But we've seen many targeted minority communities where the
children have been taken. However, what we've also seen over over many years, let's say the last 15 years, is that the system's now got so blatant it has tried to increasingly try to take the children from, we'll say, white professional families. And on at least two occasions that I can remember, they even had a go at taking the children
of legal professionals. And if I remember correctly, one of those ladies was a barrister and she was horrified to be caught up in this system that was so confident in its ability to do what we're talking about, which is steal children. It was prepared to have a go at targeting somebody who was very, very highly qualified legally themselves. So the system I see is becoming more aggressive and more
widespread in the targeting. But yes, I would agree with you that people who are new to the country, particularly if if they don't speak English very well and don't understand the systems here, they are being targeted in the Sheffield area. I think I'm correct in saying Gypsy Romani families have been particularly targeted, but in other parts of the country, Midlands predominantly, yes. Immigrant communities have have been targeted for their children with some with some particularly
unpleasant nuances. So that if abuse has been reported from within the community, Social services then leaks the names of the people reporting that abuse back into the community. Whereupon depending on the nature of the community and particularly if the informant is a mother. The mother is then threatened and or beaten up inside her own community for daring to report the child abuse taking place. So the system is vicious.
It does target vulnerable, but it's also confident enough to target white professional people and their children. Target white professional families if they have traditional or conservative kind of values. For example, if they believe in God, and they are they, they're not very sure about sexualising their children in schools.
If they question anything with their transgender movements or LGBT community, if they speak out about things like that, if they challenge anything to the status quo, they are more likely to lose their children. And we've seen this not just a few parents, but so many parents, even though they they are well off their perfect parents. But the moment they challenge the status quo, they are more likely to lose their children and fabrications are made.
Then you see that they have families torn apart, the father is is removed. I wanted also to touch base with things to do with health visitor. When you have a baby in the UK and you're still new to to the whole system, the health visitor will come in kind of probing you. Are you feeling any anxiety? Are you feeling anxious as if they care, but they don't when you're lactating, they they, they don't really care, they just want to, they're sniffing for vulnerabilities.
Well, this is. This is entrapment. What what's going on here is that they're looking to entrap you by you making a statement, which they can then use to their advantage. So they kind of probe you. Are you looking, Are you feeling any? Are you feeling low? Are you feeling anything? Remember, as a mother who was just giving birth, sometimes you don't sleep, you're lactating. You wake up and wake up so many times, you're distressed, your hair is all over the place and
they expect you to be perfect. Everything has to be perfect. And the moment you disclose that you're not feeling well, then she will say risk of emotional harm to the baby. And then the Spyro continues. The referee is made behind the scenes, The health visitor doesn't have to turn up in court. It's all hush hush, and she gets her Commission behind the scenes. That's how everything is working at the moment, which is really a shame. Oh my goodness, there's so many
cases, Brian, so many cases. But what is also interesting to know is that some charities are involved in this. They're also involved in the adoption scandal because they're part of the whole racket. You will be surprised by the patrons of this charity. You'll be surprised by the shareholders of this charity and how it all goes back into adoption agencies, adoption agencies, their executives, their shareholders. You know that everyone is just
cashing out on our children. This is an area that I've also paid attention to the role of the charities and perhaps our audience will be stunned if we say what sort of figures, what sort of money are we talking about when we we deal with charities who are connected to children? Well, we're talking millions, multi millions, 10s of millions,
100 million. This is very, very big business and everybody who can touch the child, whether it's involvement in the so-called care placement and care of the child, can earn money. And then of course, once children are in the system, they can be removed from that system for really unpleasant stuff, which of course is the abuse or the sexual abuse, where even more money changes hands.
So the key thing about the children is that they they, they come with this ability to make money for anybody who can touch them. Even we have to say people who, who? Take on the care of Children can be earning significant sums of money per week, particularly if the child has got special needs or complex special needs. Then carers can be receiving thousands of pounds per week in
order to look after a child. And some carers are so capable, it would appear that they can look after more than one child with with complex special needs. So they're earning multiple thousands of pounds per week. This is an industry. It is an industry that I, I, I believe is like a pyramid skill.
So you start off as a social worker at the entry level, then you upgrade to an advanced social worker, maybe with a rubber stamped degree from the nearest university in the local authority, and then you go from there. The more children you snatch away from families, the more you, the elite group where everything is protected, you're protected legally, you're protected from any sort of damages, you're untouchable. And they can abuse children.
They can do anything to these children and no one is going to say anything about them because they are untouchable. You see, they are above the law. They can abuse our children in obscurity and secrecy, manipulate data, and they come in front of the whole general public that they're safeguarding children. But they are no, they're abusing children every single day, and all the information is public knowledge. People just decide not to look at it. People just decide not to hold
these people accountable. The BBC will never speak about children. The Guardian will never speak about what this is doing to our beloved children. The conflict of interest is beyond describing what they're doing because they've been in this whole pyramid scheme for years. They they just rubber stamp whatever each other is saying. I remember one of the lawyers saying the mother doesn't have maternal instinct. And I asked him, how do you know that I don't have maternal
instinct? Do you need me to breastfeed you? So you know, sorry about that, Brian. Some of these things I don't understand. They just make up things as they go. Because how would a lawyer know that I don't have maternal instinct when I've been breastfeeding my son? How would a lawyer know that I don't have maternal instinct. You know, he's a lawyer, He's a children's lawyer. He's not a psychologist who is an expert. I've spent thousands.
I've spent everything we had to protect my babies from harm because I know the outcome of what's going to happen. The data is very clear of how many children are broken out of placement orders, out of adoption orders and out of foster care. You know, their identity is stripped away. They're given a new identity. They're never allowed to look for their best families. They're told their birth families are terrible. You know, you were neglected, you you were never loved.
And all this brainwashing. In several cases, I came to learn that one of the tricks that they they do in order to break the bond between older children and mothers is that they basically will say to the child, oh, your, your mother's very poorly. She's, she's unwell and she wants to kill you and then she will commit suicide. And that's been related to me by several mothers. And that that was what the child was told in order to try and break the bond with the mother. Oh my.
God, Oh my God, they they will, they will do everything. I remember the social worker from Salford City. She said wishes and feelings have to be protected and I said OK, So what are her wishes and feelings? And she showed me the paper which I still have, where says I enjoy swimming with my mum, I enjoy going out to cook and I enjoy all these wonderful things I do with my mother.
And I said, OK, then, are you going to consider a supervision order where you can pop in anytime you want to check on just so you don't take her away to new strangers? And she said that will depend on what the judge says. We had several judges on my case. We had judges who didn't know what the case was about. We had judges who didn't even know my children's name, and when they tried to box me into the mental health things, I I had to do whatever I could do. You know, I think I'm above
average intelligence. I hate blowing my own trumpet sometimes, but I went for six specialists so they can assess me and if truly, truly I had anything with me to say that I'm I might harm myself. I might harm myself or hurt the children. I wanted someone to fix me if I really had any problems. So I I sought support. I went to different therapists. I went to Doctor Fieldman. You know, he's a top consultant. He's a top psychologist. He's amazing. I went to Doctor Pasetti.
I went to Doctor Sawyer. Alice, these are these are incredible, incredible psychologists and psychiatrists. I went to Doctor Lennox Thomas. I thought I would have to seek a second opinion on this because their expert witness said she could not see any symptoms or any traits of trauma. She couldn't see anything, but she assumes and she feels these are her feelings and thoughts without using the DSM 5.
She felt these are feelings of people and thought not a professional opinion that I could have complex PTSD or a personality disorder. Now then I asked her, I challenged her and I said you didn't use a DSM 5. Your colleagues who have sold second opinion from they said there is no way someone can diagnose you with complex speeches. The aura, personality disorder in one sitting, in an hour or half an hour.
It's impossible. They need to assess you on several, several occasions, so we don't know where she's coming up with that. I brought these experts in court before her Honour Judge so they can testify and Doctor Alex Alice Sawyer had been in my home in Wales. She came to my home to assess where the children will be living, she said. I cannot write a report unless I know where you live. I have to assess it several
times. She travelled all the way from London to come all the way to Wells to say where the children were leaving. She saw everything was perfect in my home, but my children were refused to come home. Doctor Alisa was refused to come into court to give evidence. Doctor Lennox Thomas was refused to come into court to give evidence. Doctor Philippe Paset was refused. Dr. Feldman was refused. All these experts were refused because their reports were
supporting me as a parent. Sam, I can immediately reinforce what you're saying with a a case that I'm extremely familiar with where for for for the parents. I have to choose my words very carefully for the parents. They have absolutely been refused professional witnesses in court where there's been a psychological report written which says that mum and the dads have no psychological problems or defects at all. That evidence is simply not allowed into court.
It doesn't fit into the box of the Toxic Trio for the child traffickers. You see, I I remind you, Brian, sorry about this because this is really emotional for me. The the books for the for the toxic trio is mental health, drug and alcohol abuse and, yeah, domestic violence or domestic abuse. So they have to make sure social workers who are snitching children away from families, they have to make sure with everything they've got that they can box you into either of the boxes.
If they can take off one of those boxes, your child is has to go away. My ex partner was never arrested. They couldn't touch him. He was never persecuted. He's a free man, you know he doesn't have. He's raised other children who are perfect, who are happy and healthy. He separated from his ex-wife like some other people, but those were their personal concerns.
That doesn't mean he's a horrific person that he could not raise, but they had to money, psychologically manipulate me because I didn't know their horror system. I was emotional. I was bleeding from childbirth, pregnant and what not. In in the process they they broke us apart, but they didn't win. Because I'm not going to stop fighting for my children. I'm not going to stop fighting for you until my last day or my son and other children that you've stolen away in different
in in different boroughs. Sam, that's that's really an incredible statement that you've made and I think most other parents would totally align with that, wouldn't they? That you're not going to give up on your children. So I think that's a very good place perhaps for us to end this
Part 2 interview. There's still a huge amount to talk about and I've got some thoughts about what we might do together in the future, in particular, helping take people on to the to the immense work that you've done to try and alert other people. And I know you've also come into contact with other people who've been through this process. So I'm already looking at doing more with you. But I think that this is a good place to end.
Part 2. And we're going to say to our audience, just reflect on what Sam has said to you about a system in UK in 2023 that is not protecting children, it's doing the opposite. It's facilitating the taking and trafficking of children. Sam, I'm going to thank you very much. You've been very brave once again. Thank you for joining us. Thank you so much, Brian. Thank you so much to UK column
viewers and our audience. I really appreciate every support and all your prayers for my beautiful boy and my beautiful girl. I will not stop. I will not stop. I will not give up on them. I'm healthy and well. And I thank you so much everyone. Thank you. OK. Thank you very much, Sam.