UK Decoy Tactics

Over the past two years I have been to Internet adoption sites almost daily. Adoption related forums give great insight to how adoption effects people.

It soon became clear that laws and issues surrounding adoption differ from country to country.

One thing that surprised me was how the UK was perceived. The majority believing that the UK has no adoption problems. Well, I know from where I'm sitting there is a problem or three!

I decided to take a trip around the adoption web world with foreign eyes.

It didn't take me long to understand why the UK could be seen by some as a country that had got 'IT' right.

What has taken place in the UK is a rather clever political decoy tactic.

In plain English, a sneaky, devious, corrupt way of getting what they want just by a different method..

Looking over all the discussion forums, when it comes to the UK, the majority of disgruntled adoptees who post are pre 1975 adoptees.
The reason for this is simple. When adoptees where granted access to birth records in 1976 the law differed for anyone adopted prior to 1975.

Instead of automatic access to records the pre 75 adoptees could only have access to records after counselling and through a social worker.

The information we received was decided by the social worker. Many adoptees found that their records had either been 'misplaced' or so much had been blanked out that they were not worth having.

From 1976 the access to records meant adoptions and procedures had to be more concise (wouldn't want anyone thinking something untoward had happened).

This also meant for the adoptees from 1976 onwards they didn't have the problem of finding their identity (on paper), so no grumbling on forum boards.

In the late 70's Politics seemed to turn it's attention to our children's homes. They closed all the larger homes and replaced them with much smaller ones. These homes also became home to 'problem' kids. It wasn't long before most of the 'children's homes' became 'young offenders' homes.

It is strange to look back at those days because I didn't even notice it.

We didn't have any 'children's homes'. Lumping all the kids together in young offenders allowed the politicians to drive attention to the rise in kids wayward behaviour and away from the foster and adoption mess they had previously created.

The government tactics of new policies for dealing with young offenders worked for good while.

An excellent job was being done with our young. Unfortunately (for them) the children of the eighties started to emerge as adults.

As adults they started to speak of the abuse that went on in a lot of the so called 'homes'.

They needed another ploy to deflect from the rising number of ex-care kids who had obviously been damaged by the "care" system.

Deflect from the damage they could not but going back to good old fashioned policies of morality without the public opinion they could. So the birth of Closed Family Courts! Adoptions could get back on track with targets and incentives.

Moral policing of families could be enforced and the best part, silence of the objectors.

If the UK appears to have go 'IT' right with our kids, that is exactly what it is 'appearance'.

Our adoption rate is rising.

In 1995 950 adoptions took place involving children under one year of age in 2006 that number rose to 2,120. 3,700 adoptions took place in the UK in 2006. All these adoptions involved children who had been placed in care.

John Hemming MP, has all the figures.



What has caught my eye and interest most, Tina, has been the use of "Homes" in child placement.

I was born in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada.  I was not adopted at birth.  I was told I was placed in an orphanage, although both parents and family were indeed living.  Was it a foster-home, or children's home?  I don't know.  The agency from which I was purchased declared bankruptcy a few years after my adoption and burned many of their files, hoping (I suspect) no one would search any identifying information.

Just this past year I found three baptism certificates, with three different dates written on them, from the same church in the state of New Jersey, here in the US. All of them were mine.

I was married at the same church, by the same man who signed those baptism papers.

Indeed, appearances are very deceiving.  And yet, the truth will always come out, come hell or high water.

Perhaps "Judgement Day" is sooner than we thought...?


Hiya Kerry, In the UK 'homes' are what  used to be called orphanages. As you know I was in the Sally Army childrens home on and off. Foster homes are usually refered to here as foster 'care'. The Baptist bloke was a busy man wasnt he! Cant you look up church records like you can here?

Kept records

Funny thing about looking-up records.  They are only as good as the people documenting them.

Trust me.  I know.  Not everyone documents the truth; and not everyone sees everything as it really happens.  Such are the risks in child placement.

That hasn't changed, has it?


Hi Kerry, false documents or missing documents  is the norm isn't it. I reckon if we found just one adoption file that was complete and factual it would be worth more than a penny black! I didn't mean look up the church records for Mr Baptisms truth. I meant if you could look up the originals to the ones you have you might be able to work out if they are all genuine or if someone has copied them to suit their own time line (I am not explaining myself very well sorry). I have to plead my ignorance when it comes to most things American (that's terrible!) I don't know how the system works. I assume there is no normal reason to be baptised 3 times. I was brought up Proddy in  orange lodge (when the sally army didn't have me). Where I grew up has a clear proddy/catholic divide. When I found my real family they thought it hysterical I had been brought up in the orange order... considering I was a born and bred Roman Catholic! In my case it turned out my adop parents had never had me christened  or at least their is no record of it.they just ignored the fact I had been christened a Catholic. My real mum gave me my documents from St Anthony's. Back to you anyway, If they are all genuine then couldn't you write to your head of church or mp (do you have mps) and ask them to clarify how or why you came to be baptised 3 times?  Like I said I don't know the system. I would have thought the orphanage was a children's home or mission home (especially if religion was a big part of your adopted family). Is there anyway of finding out what homes may of been in the area, Is there a central place that holds town plans and blueprints. Sorry for asking so many questions. Just one more (feel free to tell me to mind my own business) how did you end up in US from Canada was it through the system. I have been no help what so ever to you haha If you get the time would you give me a bit of a low down on how the system is/was where you are.
tina x

Sealed lips, records, and tombs

I had to laugh at your sweet post!  It's your innocence, not ignorance that makes me laugh... so I will answer what I can.

In my case, I was told by the social worker who found my records from a fire that was supposed to burn all adoption records, I was named and baptised by my Catholic mother in St. John's.  I was placed in "foster-care" for almost a year, then taken by my new adoptive parents, who had me re-named and baptised at THEIR church, in the United States.  Why I have several copies of the same sacrament, with several different dates from THAT SAME church, with the same signature at the bottom, is a mystery to me.

At this point, I prefer not to open that Pandora's box.  I have enough papers to review, in addition to those I found this past year.

I was a Private Agency case, so I suppose money had much influence in my ultimate placement.

State laws differ, state-by-state, as do countries... so for me, I would have to follow NJ State laws and Newfoundland ,Canada laws to search my biological information.

However, my natural mother only birthed me in Newfoundland; I'm almost certain she left the nest once she could. 

Sweet hahahaha

Well, Ive picked me self up off the floor, wiped the tears of laughter from my eyes and can almost see the screen. hahah. Never in my life have the words sweet and innocence ever been directed at me! I love it. I will be honest I have been that wrapped up in my own fucked up adoption and terrorising any one that looks remotely official that America was of no interest to me. I know a bit about Canada and a fair bit about Australia but that is only because I spent a fair bit of time looking into our child migration. Empty our children's homes and fill the Colonies with 'good British stock'. Between the 1860's and 1920 it is estimated that 90,000 children were exported to Canada (who unlawfully passed a lot on to America). We continued shipping kids to Australia up until 1967. Its only through going on forums and talking to Americans that I have taken an interest , how sweet is that haha. I'm going to read the links you give me. I know I waffle shit sometimes and cant explain what I mean its because if I have the slightest doubt about what I'm saying i have to keep talking it through in me head (you know my story) and end up writing it as it is in my head (perhaps they where right and I am mental haha).
Tina  x


I know a bit about Canada and a fair bit about Australia but that is only because I spent a fair bit of time looking into our child migration. Empty our children's homes and fill the Colonies with 'good British stock'. Between the 1860's and 1920 it is estimated that 90,000 children were exported to Canada (who unlawfully passed a lot on to America). We continued shipping kids to Australia up until 1967.

I was born in 1968.

The dumping of children, exporting them, for whatever reason, to keep a country clean (?) is wrong.  There is no sweetness in a lost childhood.  It stinks.

For what it's worth, Tina, BECAUSE I know your story, I think you are sweet and beautiful... and if not for your wicked humour, I would not laugh as much as I do!


Doh! I wasnt saying what a good thing it was. I was born and live in england I don't refer to myself as British. 'The Great British Empire' born out of other peoples misery blood and land. Good old Blighty will never be clean and never be cleansed. Politicians do what they like and just  call it another name. They have no interest in the truth only how our country appears to the rest of the world oh and pleasing Bush. They will never acknowledge past mistakes and will never give our children the decency to hope. tomorrows

Propa Propaganda

They put a leather belt around her
13 feet of tape and bound her
Handcuffs to secure her
And only God knows what else,
She's illegal, so deport her
Said the Empire that brought her
She died,
Nobody killed her
And she never killed herself.
It is our job to make her
Return to Jamaica
Said the Alien Deporters


I don't think you need to be a different color to be strapped and deported, but it sure makes it the easy excuse and justification for it to happen, especially if people are color-coded!  "Hmm,  Which one's first?"     

For babies, isn't the color-coding done in pink or blue?  (Ship 'em out as fast as you can!)

Hitler tried doing that, back in another war-time, rich in propaganda, didn't he?  There was a  "cleansing" of his people, by keeping a certain image as the ideal. What was it, blue eyes, blond hair and non-Jew?  I'm not the most well-read person, so I'm sure there were others in history who have done much of the same.  Getting rid of what you don't like, and passing it on to others to deal-with is nothing new.  People would even get paid a lot of money to do it! 

Is that really so surprising?

In fact, I bet it's what causes a lot of wars.  Dump enough crap, people start revolting.  Isn't that the vicious cycle?  Kill or be killed, not live and let live.

More attention to the original subject

I want to re-focus on what you were originally discussing, because I believe you found something so few piece together:  historically, mothers and children are separated, because there's great money to be had in it.

WHY is this done?!?

Because a kingdom's randsom can be made?  If so, isn't that sick???

I did my own quick research and came-up empty handed, (statistically speaking - in the documented form, of course), but was amazed to learn how many people I found willing to speak to me.  It seems that back in the Era of Closed Adoption, especially during the time I was born and sold, Newfoundland and Labrador Canada were real hot-spots for selling white-babies to Americans.  Why?  Your thread "Behind Closed Doors" , sheds some light as to why such an invention as baby-moving and child trafficking would take place, at all.

PPL was named as such because babies should NOT be taken and treated as if they were puppies... milled and moved as if any mother would do.  Abuse and neglect happens, and to ignore these facts is a negligence of the highest order.  People need to stop and read about the consequences of permanant child placement, and read more about who's doing it and why.

Humans are supposed to be the smartest and most compassionate of all God's creations.  I often wonder if in fact this is true!

Most sickening, upsetting and disturbing

Tina... how do I thank you for your efforts?

I am always humbled when strangers share a mutual interest in the problems and malfunctions that I believe need profound fixing and readjusting.  The simple truth is, these are  problems and situations that are so HUGE and so broad in scope, it will take MANY hands with huge hearts to help tackle and make right.

Let me share with you what I feel are most typical and unchanged in terms of "Pound Pup" social/health issues, as per the links you chose to show us. First is, oddly enough, the first link listed:,,1676508,00.html

A six-year-old girl abducted from her bath and left naked in a freezing street has given a partial description of her attacker to police, who are optimistic about completing the picture after a series of gentle interviews by specially trained officers.

The child, who suffered a sexual assault but is now making a good recovery, has also given details of the winding, three-mile route taken by her kidnapper as she crouched shivering in his car for around a quarter of an hour.

<!-- This site/section combo is not set up to show MPU's -->Detectives on Tyneside issued a description of the wanted man as they continued to check the whereabouts of known paedophiles and others on the sex offenders' register. The man was white and between 5ft 4in and 5ft 8in tall, in the girl's words "not skinny" and with hair on the sides of his face, which police are taking to mean sideburns. He was wearing a black hat, black coat and black gloves and was initially described as middle-aged. But detectives are keeping an open mind on how old he may be, as the girl based her assessment largely on his height.

The abduction happened at around 7pm on Tuesday when the intruder slipped through an unlocked back door at the child's house in North Shields. The girl did not know her abductor but one line of inquiry being followed by Northumbria police is that he had some knowledge of arrangements at the house in a rundown street where locals have complained that traditional neighbourliness has been wrecked by drugs and street crime.

The girl and her 18-month-old brother lived with their mother and her woman partner, who met through an internet chatroom. The children's father, a former soldier, lives apart but has been back to help his daughter recover from her ordeal.

Detective Chief Inspector Jim Napier, leading the hunt for what he has called "a very dangerous man," said that the girl had picked out the local Rose Inn and Kwik Save supermarket as landmarks passed during her terrifying drive. He appealed to the abductor to examine his conscience and give himself up.

He added: "We would also ask anyone who was in this area last Tuesday evening who noticed anything suspicious, particularly a vehicle being driven erratically or in a strange manner, with the driver possibly being distracted, to contact us."

The description given by the girl matches accounts by other children of a stranger hanging around and behaving oddly earlier on the evening of the abduction. Families gave details to police after their children ran home when police cars converged on the streets in response to an emergency call from the girl's horrified mother. An eight-year-old boy who was playing with two friends near the street where the girl was dumped has given detectives a description of a red car "like the type Ali G drives - some kind of souped-up hatchback", which left the area near the girl's home shortly before the attack, with its tyres screeching.

The girl was rescued by a neighbour, Geoff Brown, 43, who was watching TV with his wife when they heard screams. He found the child naked and trembling and crying about how "a nasty man" had taken her out of the bath and away from her home.

The child's relatives have been told not to make a big issue of the abduction with her, but to pass on any details from her chatter to detectives.

Imagine having to keep this event and it's fall-out as something that's "no big deal".  Imagine if your daughter was younger, and raped, and injured, needing medical attention; imagine her being older in age, getting raped and becoming pregnant as a result  These are medical issues, not just psychological ones.  Imagine what those events can do to a female, taken from her home, sweet home. 

The second link that really moved me was the legal appeal made to the public:

courts take children from loving parents who have committed no crime. 
3:-These parents lose their children for ever to adoption by strangers. The children adopted are refused access to records of their birth parents or siblings at least until they are 18, and usually for the rest of their lives; 
4:- Parents are GAGGED and regularly sent to prison in secret proceedings if they reveal what went on in court. 
5:-Establishment judges make decisions to take thousands of babies for risk of possible future emotional abuse.
(Extract from The Times, Aug 23 2007:  “Emotional abuse” has no strict definition in British law. Yet it now accounts for an astounding 21 per cent of all children registered as needing protection, up from 14 per cent in 1997. Last year 6,700 children were put on the child protection register for emotional abuse, compared with only 2,600 for sexual abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse. Both of the latter two categories have been falling steadily. Meanwhile emotional abuse and “neglect” - which replaced the old notion of “grave concern” in 1989 - have been rising. Both are catch-alls. But emotional abuse is especially vague. It covers children who have not been injured, have not complained, and do not come under “emotional neglect”.)  
6:-No jury would take babies from mothers because some expert made predictions of their future behaviour.
(Extract from The Sunday Times, Nov 18th 2007):A review is still going on of 700 cases in which bogus forensic scientist Gene Morrison gave evidence. Morrison, 48, from Manchester who was sentenced to five years for fraud in February, admitted he pretended to be an expert witness and bought his qualifications on the internet because it “seemed easier” than getting real ones.

 For many of the genuinely qualified experts, legal work is a lucrative sideline, and if they are perceived to be able to “tailor” their evidence convincingly, the commissions keep flowing in. John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning about the misuse of medical evidence, says fees for a basic written opinion, based on reading through existing files, start at £4,000. If the expert concludes there is a case to answer, they attract court attendance fees as well.
“I have known experts get as much as £28,000 for one report,” said Hemming, who is lobbying for experts to be required to produce the scientific publications on which their opinion is based: “Unless we start using evidence-based evidence in court, we will get nowhere.”) 
7:-Criminals facing 6+ months in prison can demand a jury;parents losing their children for life cannot.
8:-Pregnant mothers with no criminal records or disabilities are told their babies will be taken at birth!
9:-Local authorities are rewarded by central government for reaching "adoption targets" hence adoption is prioritised.
10:- Fosterers get up to £400/week/ child,special schools up to £7000/week,adoption agencies,experts lawyers all cash in lavishly!

SO :- What to do?
 - Stop the secrecy and the gagging of parents.
 - Stop adoptions of children for emotional abuse or for "risk",and open adoption records to children already adopted.  
 - Stop judges deciding cases of long term fostering or adoption,and give juries the final decision.
 - Stop excessive rewards for those who live off the misery caused by this wicked system!

This would be a very very good start!  

Here are 4 important questions that SHOULD be answered by social services or by family court judges but which have so far been systematically ignored ! 

1:- Why do family courts gag parents forbidding them to reveal details of proceedings after they have had their children taken for forced adoption by family courts?

Surely the right to protest against a perceived injustice is  fundamental in any democratic country.?

2 A minister admitted in parliament that family courts  imprison more than 200 parents every year with no public hearing ! Surely prison sentences ,often for as long as 2 years, without public trial should  happen only in

dictatorships not in a democracy such as the UK?.

3:-Why do family courts take children and newborn babies for adoption just because a hired "expert" makes a "prediction" that one day in the future there may be a "risk of emotional harm from their parents.? Parents (and their children) are punished not for anything they have done but for something some "expert" thinks they might do in the future! How can this be justice?

4;- A burglar facing 6 months or more in prison can demand a jury so why should a jury be denied to parents who risk losing their children for life? Few juries would take babies for adoption by strangers just because an "expert" said there was a "risk of emotional abuse" .Records show however that family court judges play safe and nearly always "go along" with social services no matter what the parents say.How can it be fair or just to allow a jury to hardened criminals but refuse one to a loving mother who only seeks to care for her own children? 

The 4 obvious reforms would be:-

1;- Remove the gag from parents involved in family court proceedings

2:-Forbid judges in the family courts to imprison any parent without a public hearing.

3:-Abolish "risk" as a reason to remove children from a sane parent unless in addition to risk it can be clearly shown and proved that such children have already suffered significant physical harm.

4:-Any parents facing the possibility that their children could be removed for long term fostering or adoption without parental consent should have the right to demand that the final decision be made by a jury not a judge.

I believe the above information speaks for itself.

Last but not least is the sample of how much the public needs free support and reliable/trustworthy information as the forum link you provided indicates:

People WANT better for themselves, they simply may not know where to turn because no one has been open and honest about these topics before.  there's no directory to offer those lost in a maze of family dysfunction.

I believe it's time to demand  for radical change in terms of how we seek and are treating those who were broken and torn from what was once safe and known. Origins matter, and they need to be respected and protected, so a better future can be had for all our children.  This way of thinking has to begin somewhere, doesn't it?

You have to admit it Kerry

You have to admit it Kerry when it comes to public  image making our Goverment are brilliant! Kerry I have hundreds of examples you can see. It is a disgrace. Also these same children who for 'protection' and privacy' 'deserve closed courts, can as soon as the freeing order has been made can be seen here
and here

I m lazy sorry haha I have just copied the below off one of my blogs.

Will you be our mum and dad. There is something very disturbing about seeing a 6 year old and a 3 year old blazened over a Tabloid news paper asking this question. Sure, any child would be excited at seeing their own face in a newspaper and even more excited if they think they will get a mum and dad. So their photograph appears along side a full page spread detailing their lives to date and asking readers to get in touch if they want to be the 'mum' and 'dad'.

Viral video babes galore

WATCH our brand-new viral video channel featuring some of the hottest babe video.

Hidden Breast cam.

Topless Gymnastics.

Babe in Cadbury Ad spoof

Hamburg Babe.

Classifieds: get a bargain.

Dear Deidre: Sex Therapy.

These are just a few of the articles and videos that also appeared in the tabloid that day.

How will these two children feel futher on down the line. Will they still be excited about being in the newspaper or will they be too busy dodging the cruel playground jibes. How will their self esteem be effected? It is hard enough dealing with the emotions that come with being adopted without thinking you had to ask the world if anyone would have you!

In the UK our family courts are closed courts, which has lead to many injustices. There are currently over 100 cases of children having possibly been wrongly freed for adoption by our courts. These tragedies are happening because parents cannot get the proper help and representation for fear of being held in contept of court. The reason for closed courts... to 'protect' the childs identity. So why is it that the moment the courts free a child for adoption their identity and life story lose all protection.

I would like to make it clear that this tabloid article was brought to my attention through an email. I do NOT and have NOT bought or read the Sun newspaper since April 1989. You can find the reason why in my Hillsborough videos.   

Pound Pup Legacy