Speak The Truth

Chris Thomas 188 Replied: December 14, 2017 Is it retribution you were seeking or a better system? I think the latter. I don't log in to Manx Forums regularly so I missed your message. You have some misunderstanding about how government works. Phone me if you want. Best wishes Chris Quote Report reply Speak The Truth 163 Replied: just now Retribution? Perhaps you can temper that by changing the wording. Justice. Heard of it? Those guilty of misconduct should be held accountable. Those who have suffered at the hands of dishonest or corrupt state employees should have closure. You never responded to previous communications, why would you now? Could it be the involvement of the Telegraph and the Guardian? Obviously not, you have seen no previous correspondence and know nothing of the UK press looking at your gravy train. If I phone you I will give you a sacrificial cow, why not have it that you phone me? You have my details on more than one email and letter. You did not bother responding then, so I must be in your 'waiting file'. Don't worry if you call the wrong number, we are all in the same boat - it's the one that floats above your boat called 'Ignored Until' . Ours is in your files and emails called ,'Ignored'. Bit of advice, start the pumps, your on a train sinking on the sea of truth.

2 members active in this conversation (including you) Chris Thomas Read: December 14, 2017 Speak The Truth Read: Just now Report reply Speak The Truth 163 Started conversation: November 4, 2017 You have no doubt been browsing the posts whilst protecting your identity by not logging in. I appreciate that without the say-so of Howard you will probably not post on this forum, but, perhaps you could ask him if you could re-engage and answer my last question. It would also be enlightening if you could explain why, when in 87.5% of the questions asked by the 'Independent' Investigation found serious failings, to put it politely, by 'professionals employed by your government only small tweaks are needed to rectify the problems? Given that in 6 of the cases it was fully proven that employees had, to be polite, abused their position of trust - can you confirm what disciplinary action has been taken against their employees implicated and the managers who turned a blind eye to the complaints? Can you also inform me, given that, with regards to 36 of the possible 48 findings, what action has been taken by yourself and your elected colleagues, have taken to ensure that the partial evidence to prove will be fully, independently investigated to ensure that abusers are held to account? I look forward to your answers, prior to your next re-election campaign.

Speak The Truth 163 Started conversation: November 4, 2017 You have no doubt been browsing the posts whilst protecting your identity by not logging in. I appreciate that without the say-so of Howard you will probably not post on this forum, but, perhaps you could ask him if you could re-engage and answer my last question. It would also be enlightening if you could explain why, when in 87.5% of the questions asked by the 'Independent' Investigation found serious failings, to put it politely, by 'professionals employed by your government only small tweaks are needed to rectify the problems? Given that in 6 of the cases it was fully proven that employees had, to be polite, abused their position of trust - can you confirm what disciplinary action has been taken against their employees implicated and the managers who turned a blind eye to the complaints? Can you also inform me, given that, with regards to 36 of the possible 48 findings, what action has been taken by yourself and your elected colleagues, have taken to ensure that the partial evidence to prove will

I haven't read the whole thread yet but Bloody Hell! How many chins in one picture? I am totally pissed off now, thought I got a bargain on the latest of 'wide angle, panoramic, see all' camera lenses in the sales. Now they have released the fat, incompetent, dishonest lens with chin shop included! Bastards. Next thing you know Bettisonchin will be back making excuses for Quayle's DHSC. No...... surely not!

They love the sight of blood. Let them see their own, what ever you do their god will forgive you. The pathetic excuse for justice on the IOM won't,so make sure CCTV doesn't catch me, I mean you, us whatever! Q. Why was Jesus nailed to the cross? A. Because they hadn't invented screws. Ramsey girl gives birth to a fatherless child, gets the bus to Douglas, she is still a >>>> Ramsey girl. Jewish girl gives birth to a fatherless child, gets a donkey to Bethlehem, gives birth to a God. Right 'O' We can all read the bible now! That God grows up, sleeps with 12 other fellers every night and hates homosexuals. Nothing fucked up there! That God needs kids to help out the preachers of his new religion, (cult, form of control, go on keep going). Christians hate and kill Muslims. Muslims hate and kill Christians. Hindus, Buddhists, Goatists and Welsh people are conditionally disliked by both and should be killed anyway. That condition being - have they moved into my street without having my paranoia? Atheists hate people who hurt them, they don't care about the religion, the skin colour, political views or the size of their feet. So lets all support the God Ath - don't bow or kneel, like the rest of the gods - its not real and no one is watching!

Easy question to answer. For obvious reasons I will not name one but I will give an example. A child is reported by teachers as having bruise's that are unexplained. The parents are then summoned to either a police station or Murray House. After a five minute meeting the parents are separated with the father being asked to explain the bruise's whilst the mother is being told that the bruises could only have been caused by assault. These interviews are not recorded, except for the written report of the social worker. The father is told he must leave the house or the child will be taken into care, he does so and, social workers report, in their files, that the fathers leaving of the family home is an indication that he has done wrong. A week goes by and the child still has bruises, including fresh ones. A restraining order is placed on the father, the mother will not facilitate or agree with any form of contact between the father and the child. Because 'professionals' say there is a risk - the courts support ss and the mother. The mother, in evidence, states that she is fearful for the welfare of her child after learning from ss what the father has done. She is granted full custody, the father has no parental rights, the child has lost their father and a family is ripped apart. And all the time the bruise's keep appearing. Turns out that the child is very robust whilst playing football, is the daredevil of their class when climbing trees, swinging from climbing frames and being a child that pushes their physical boundaries to their limits. They barely spent a day without a cut, a scrape or a bruise. Even a year after the father was removed. And during all this, ss never admitted or explored the possibility they may have got it wrong. Why would they? The initial social workers have gone to a different jurisdiction after questions were raised and as agency workers it was just easier to move on than to have to answer questions. Perhaps you should first ask - As the result of the investigation, considering the findings, why has there not been a full investigation into those findings and action taken against those proven to have been guilty? Why have the relevant Registration Authorities for those social workers not been informed of the findings? Why has there been no apology for the eight families that gave evidence? Why, given the findings, is there not now a full, public enquiry into the proven abuses with powers to investigate all other families that ss have been involved with without the restrictions imposed by Bell, Quayle and the other politicians who were aware of, but chose to ignore, the abuse their gravy train condoned? Why do family courts not question evidence given by ss? SS publishing information is a pipe dream - they exclude anyone who dares to question them from meetings and involvement. This includes other significant professionals employed by the same government. If you need to ask why those professionals do not challenge, you need to ask how many would put their conscience before their pensions.

The Information Commissioner is Independent. Paid by the government but not a Civil Servant. Speak to the man and you will know. The main question is why, when they are paying huge amounts to fund a body dedicated to ensure compliance with Manx law, the government has not given that body powers to prosecute? Could the reason be that the majority of prosecutions would be against government departments? That the majority of those would be against one department in particular? His agenda? Possibly application of law for all, no exemptions for government, accountability for those proven in government reports to have broken Data Protection laws. Nasty agenda for some.

Perhaps it would be enlightening if you could just come out and tell us why you have an issue with understanding every response given to your drivel. Whilst you obviously have such a high opinion of your own intellect, perhaps you should consider why your superior mind is incapable of questioning proven abusers but is fully able to apply itself to attempting to discredit anyone who is capable. What is your agenda? Who is it that you are trying to protect? Why do you have such issues with abusers of children and their parents being exposed? I would bet that your pay-day will be on the 24th this month as the 25th is a Saturday and that next month you will be paid a week early along with other government employee's.

He definitely has not been found in the back of any van by the Met of any country. He has not been allowed to walk due to political embarrassment for the feeders of the Islands gravy train. He has definitely been seen by his friends walking through Ramsey, Tynwald, and Nobel's Park. His spokesperson said, "As Chief Minister, Big Al served the people of his own house with dedication not seen since the conquering of Mount Murray. Despite the best efforts of civil service activists, like TC, allegedly punching Big Al's mates, Big Al showed his political ability to control the AG's office whilst stroking his friends walle, I mean ego's by preventing an embarrassing prosecution of a government employee and ensuring that the only local employed by Gubay was the one repeatedly interviewed by the Work Permit section that was under the influence of the previously mentioned rogue civil servant ,TC." Big Al was supposedly massively impressed by the industry of that one local employee. This was shown when in a speech where Al, allegedly, received the award for most improved golfist of all those who got their hole putted thanks to Gubays Mount Murray said, "Bert, you said it was only a couple of holiday homes! I want a bigger prize." As always with Al - this comment was tongue in cheeks.

Says a person who lengthens their ego by having a pretend hero cuddling an ape as their id pic. I am sure you are popular in your own small mind.

Bear in mind that many of the abused families have spent years hoping that someone, anyone would actually listen to them. As I have said before, considering the sensitivity of the situation the families found themselves in, the trauma those families went through at the time of their involvement with the state employed abusers, the fact any and all previous complaints, including those from the Information Commissioner, have been ignored, when given the opportunity to partake in, what they were told, an Independent investigation - they leapt at the chance. The front for the investigation was a woman who identified herself as being from outside of the Island, Bridget Griffin she identified her colleague as Paul Burnett. It was never made clear by either that he was on the government payroll. When the report was, slightly and conditionally released to the 8 families who were invited to meet with the authors. Paul Burnett was busy with other meetings on the day. Bridget Griffin was left with the , uncomfortable, job of explaining the findings. Even then desperate people were clutching at straws and correcting 'inaccuracies'. Then they had to wait for months to see their own information, the same information that social services, mhk's, mlc's and all their mates had access to from the start. Broken families, broken individuals, broken children placed their trust in a lie. Publish? Can you imagine that any one of these families will once again open themselves up to abuse? You will not see 8 out of 10 again. But you will see some who have nothing to loose, and from the headlines you may agree with the government. Give it time, others will come forward.

OK, here goes - something you will never hear from a social worker. I may have gone into rants about this subject, I may have responded to the apologists instead of always remaining focused on the fact abusers are employed and excused, at tax payers expense, I have still not lowered myself to their levels. I never intended to deflect attention from the subject but, my response's have helped to keep the subject in the public domain. I am sorry for any rants. I am not sorry for the fact that my rants have kept certain people, like Chris Thomas, Alan Bell, Tim Crookall, Amanda Barton, Howard Quayle, Kate Beecroft, Edward Coates, Juan Turner, Lawrence Skelly, Duncan Lyon, Bill Malarkey, Ray Harmer, (you get where I am going with this), from feeling comfortable in their positions where they have either abused or condoned abuse. Apparently social workers felt under pressure because they may have been held accountable for their actions. These are the same social workers who, if you are prepared to look through the shite in the latest and the previous report, were found to have acted in a way that would have caused most of us to loose our jobs along with any chance of continuing our careers in any other company or domain. Our government made sure that did not happen. The investigation was hamstrung, the reports publication was 'delayed' and the investigators and contributors where threatened with legal action. Legal action for the investigators is one thing - being the subject of legal action for the families would mean that the same abusive social workers would, once again, have a gun to their heads. The average qualified social workers salary on the Island is in the region of 38K+ out of hours pay, overtime, expenses and every other penny they can screw from the tax payer. Most will take home in the region of £1000/week. + 5 weeks holiday, 9 days bank holiday plus, a disproportionate amount of sick pay. Then take half of their working week away so they can attend meetings, ( travel and meal allowances paid), with other professionals your tax money funds. It really is a vocation, not a job. Then to cover up their incompetence they misrepresent, lie about and threaten the families they are supposed to help - coz the gravy train cant stop. When senior managers in Children and Families have no children of their own, are under 35 years of age and defend the actions of Agency employed social workers to protect the statusquo I am sickened. I admit, I may respond to those with something to hide in a way that resembles those apologists. The facts remain.

Try reading all my posts before you inflict your wisdom

So eloquently stated. I will endeavour to meet your exemplary standards in the future. But the question remains - can Seashite, Bendover, Pie Eater, Quillnowhit, Chris Thomas, or any other enlightened person, either with or without self interest at the heart of their posts, show one single example of my statements being wrong, not quite right, slightly mistaken or just a hair breadths from the truth?

So you can't prove that I have not been wrong, dishonest, evasive or even just mean to the poor social workers! You are a knob, enjoy your breakfast in Coffee Corner, the Finch Road escape of abusers.