This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
This is rather disturbing.
A woman thought to be whistle blower on child abuse, with perpetrators apparently involving politicians, gets jailed for 2 years because of details undisclosed.
http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/melanie-shaw-given-two-years-following-secr...
2
2
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I'm minded to contact/join Liberty and Amnesty about it, see if there's any way of applying pressure to make things clearer.
I'm seeing my own country in a new light all of a sudden. It raises all kinds of questions.
I'm minded to contact/join Liberty and Amnesty about it, see if there's any way of applying pressure to make things clearer.
I'm seeing my own country in a new light all of a sudden. It raises all kinds of questions.
Post edited at 21:04
5
3
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
Same "Melanie Shaw"?
http://www.nottinghampost.com/sherwood-woman-melanie-shaw-serve-community/s...
Same "Melanie Shaw"?
http://www.nottinghampost.com/sherwood-woman-melanie-shaw-serve-community/s...
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
So is the "political prisoner" thing a load of melodramatic clickbait then?
So is the "political prisoner" thing a load of melodramatic clickbait then?
2
In reply to Rampikino:
Who knows? The use of secret courts according to the justification for the Justice and Secretary Act was to ensure (mainly) US intelligence sources weren't compromised in British courts.
She was at Beechwood and allegations have been made. Seems heavy handed to me.
Who knows? The use of secret courts according to the justification for the Justice and Secretary Act was to ensure (mainly) US intelligence sources weren't compromised in British courts.
She was at Beechwood and allegations have been made. Seems heavy handed to me.
In reply to toad:
Yep, I know nothing about this case but looking at some of the articles on the website that I do know something about (like EU military coop.), its utter bollocks.
Yep, I know nothing about this case but looking at some of the articles on the website that I do know something about (like EU military coop.), its utter bollocks.
4
In reply to Rampikino:
It would appear that her tragic story is being abused for political, and clickbait, ends.
https://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/article/why-we-must-never-forget-m...
It would appear that her tragic story is being abused for political, and clickbait, ends.
> Raped and abused from the age of 3-4 years old by members of her family, she was passed to the ‘care’ of a foster family who also abused her. She was then taken into the care of Beechwood children’s home Nottingham where she was abused until she was finally allowed to leave. Denied any help to find a job she then succumbed to a life of drugs and the streets.
https://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/article/why-we-must-never-forget-m...
Post edited at 22:51
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Yes, she has some notoriety locally, not in a good way.
The place where she was sent as a child was certainly grim though, I had a friend who worked there (just after the main abuse stories) and he didn't see abuse but it did put him off youth work, as drug abuse and prostitution was rife and there was no power to stop the kids because it wasn't a secure unit and the girls came and went as they pleased. It was too depressing for him.
> Same "Melanie Shaw"?
> //www.nottinghampost.com/sherwood-woman-melanie-shaw-serve-community/story-25653432-detail/stor...
Yes, she has some notoriety locally, not in a good way.
The place where she was sent as a child was certainly grim though, I had a friend who worked there (just after the main abuse stories) and he didn't see abuse but it did put him off youth work, as drug abuse and prostitution was rife and there was no power to stop the kids because it wasn't a secure unit and the girls came and went as they pleased. It was too depressing for him.
1
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
You seem to be presenting yourself as someone who knows what they're talking about in this case. Who are you?
You seem to be presenting yourself as someone who knows what they're talking about in this case. Who are you?
4
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
Hard to say though and jumping to conclusions doesn't help. It seems that the judge has recognised that she needs help, not incarceration.
The danger is that people with other agendas use this story for their own aims...
Hard to say though and jumping to conclusions doesn't help. It seems that the judge has recognised that she needs help, not incarceration.
The danger is that people with other agendas use this story for their own aims...
2
In reply to Timmd:
Why? It's clearly paranoid rubbish, although it's worth noting that UKColumn refer to themselves as UKC as well, perhaps they share a love of conspiracy theories. The other place that's links to it is David Icke so we've joined the lizard lickers now you've shared it here.
> I'm seeing my own country in a new light all of a sudden. It raises all kinds of questions.
Why? It's clearly paranoid rubbish, although it's worth noting that UKColumn refer to themselves as UKC as well, perhaps they share a love of conspiracy theories. The other place that's links to it is David Icke so we've joined the lizard lickers now you've shared it here.
3
In reply to aln:
I have no special insight or interest other than having heard of the case before if that's what you mean. Her story crops up every now and again. The secret court aspect hits a nerve though.
I have no special insight or interest other than having heard of the case before if that's what you mean. Her story crops up every now and again. The secret court aspect hits a nerve though.
Post edited at 22:59
1
3
1
In reply to Timmd:
From what I can gather from the little sound information online, it sounds like she is a very damaged and abused person, possibly schizophrenic/schizoaffective, (drug affected?) who has never formed a complete personality.
From what I can gather from the little sound information online, it sounds like she is a very damaged and abused person, possibly schizophrenic/schizoaffective, (drug affected?) who has never formed a complete personality.
> Melanie Shaw is one of the few child abuse whistleblowers who is prepared to name politicians as having been among the abusers of her fellow inmates, some of whom she asserts were murdered on site at Beechwood.
2
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
Secret?
Oh, and
If it were that "secret" how come this "UKColumns" a branch of the "British Constitution Group" of numpties, is reporting it?
It sounds like she had a mental health hearing while on remand for her arson and paint attacks.
> The secret court aspect hits a nerve though.
Secret?
> "A woman convicted of arson after a family of five had to flee their home when she allegedly set fire to their shed will serve her sentence in the community. Melanie Shaw ... was found guilty of starting a shed fire and throwing paint on a Sherwood family’s home last month." "Despite denying the charges, she was convicted by a jury’s unanimous verdict of arson, being reckless as to whether life was endangered on February 1, and damaging property at the same house on June 26."
Oh, and
> Melanie Shaw did not appear in person in court for this hearing, which was conducted by video link from her prison, as has also been the case with previous of her court 'appearances'. She states that without fail, whenever in the past she has given testimony by such video link, she has been cut off on the pretext that "you were shouting", which she denies.
If it were that "secret" how come this "UKColumns" a branch of the "British Constitution Group" of numpties, is reporting it?
It sounds like she had a mental health hearing while on remand for her arson and paint attacks.
Post edited at 23:06
3
In reply to Big Ger:
What's your take on the necessity for the 'secret court'? I'm no lawyer so talking out of my arse here, but say the hearing was done behind closed doors to further shield her from her past, is there not allowance for her to have anonymity even as the defendant?
Serious question - why do it in secret?
What's your take on the necessity for the 'secret court'? I'm no lawyer so talking out of my arse here, but say the hearing was done behind closed doors to further shield her from her past, is there not allowance for her to have anonymity even as the defendant?
Serious question - why do it in secret?
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Perhaps that answers the question. Though if there are no transcripts, as asserted, we'll never know.
> It sounds like she had a mental health hearing while on remand for her arson and paint attacks.
Perhaps that answers the question. Though if there are no transcripts, as asserted, we'll never know.
Post edited at 23:10
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
Most mental health hearings, especially where the patient may not be in full self control, or where abuse accusations may be aired, are not held in public, for obvious reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Review_Tribunal_(England_and_Wa...
> What's your take on the necessity for the 'secret court'? I'm no lawyer so talking out of my arse here, but say the hearing was done behind closed doors to further shield her from her past, is there not allowance for her to have anonymity even as the defendant?
> Serious question - why do it in secret?
Most mental health hearings, especially where the patient may not be in full self control, or where abuse accusations may be aired, are not held in public, for obvious reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health_Review_Tribunal_(England_and_Wa...
6
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
Perhaps it wasn't - it doesn't seem to fit the descriptions of a secret court I have found. Perhaps it's an exaggerated account.
Dunno.
Perhaps it wasn't - it doesn't seem to fit the descriptions of a secret court I have found. Perhaps it's an exaggerated account.
Dunno.
In reply to Big Ger:
And these would be held in a court?
> Most mental health hearings, especially where the patient may not be in full self control, or where abuse accusations may be aired, are not held in public, for obvious reasons.
And these would be held in a court?
In reply to Rampikino:
Yeah, not sure about the 'political prisoner' angle. Wrong tree to bark up there.
> That would make more sense than the "political prisoner" idea...
Yeah, not sure about the 'political prisoner' angle. Wrong tree to bark up there.
1
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
It also remains a tragic tale of a person who has been badly failed many times over.
I personally am not tempted to join Amnesty because of this though.
It also remains a tragic tale of a person who has been badly failed many times over.
I personally am not tempted to join Amnesty because of this though.
2
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
Did you not read the link?
It would appear that, due to Ms Shaw's incarceration and mental health condition, she was on a video link from prison to a court where this "secret court case" tribunal sat.
Did you not read the link?
> Tribunals normally sit in private and take place in the hospital or community unit where the patient is detained. Physical location aside, the tribunals resemble court hearings, during which appropriate witnesses are invited to speak in turn. These include the detained person, his or her solicitor, the member of the multi-disciplinary team responsible for the detained person's care in hospital, known as the Responsible Clinician or RC (usually a consultant psychiatrist), a representative of the nursing staff at the hospital and the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP). Additionally, the RC and AMHP (or more frequently the patient's care coordinator) are required to submit written reports on the person's state of health to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing. Sometimes the primary inpatient nurse for the patient may also submit a written report.
It would appear that, due to Ms Shaw's incarceration and mental health condition, she was on a video link from prison to a court where this "secret court case" tribunal sat.
Post edited at 00:20
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Not last night, no.
Your link talks about mental health tribunals. The OP link talks about a court passing a custodial sentence. Different things?
> Did you not read the link?
> It would appear that, due to Ms Shaw's incarceration and mental health condition, she was on a video link from prison to a court where this "secret court case" tribunal sat.
Not last night, no.
Your link talks about mental health tribunals. The OP link talks about a court passing a custodial sentence. Different things?
In reply to Timmd:
Sounds like a tragic story, but it's worth mentioning that 'UKColumn' is basically a one person operation and not a particularly reliable source of information based on the proprietors opinions on various types of 'woo'.
Sounds like a tragic story, but it's worth mentioning that 'UKColumn' is basically a one person operation and not a particularly reliable source of information based on the proprietors opinions on various types of 'woo'.
5
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
So you trust the OP link? On your head be it....
It talks of a "hearing" BTW, mental health tribunals, at "hearings", can mandate a person be detained in a secure facility if they pose a risk to themselves or others due to mental illness.
As a "mental health officer" myself, I am frequently involved in such hearings.
So you trust the OP link? On your head be it....
It talks of a "hearing" BTW, mental health tribunals, at "hearings", can mandate a person be detained in a secure facility if they pose a risk to themselves or others due to mental illness.
As a "mental health officer" myself, I am frequently involved in such hearings.
Post edited at 20:49
In reply to Big Ger:
Do I trust it? No, but I live in Sheffield which given events here over the last 40 years or so, means I'm well aware that cover ups* at high office level occur, but thanks for the advice.
* (Taylor/Hillsborough report, the dealings of SYP force in the miner's strike, Jay report to name but a few).
The line in the link talks about a 'secret court hearing'. And keeping a person in a secure unit during a 'mental health tribunal' seems prudent for someone with her difficulties. It also makes mention of a custodial sentence though. That isn't something that, if any of this is true, could be executed by anything other than a court, no?
I'm sure that's very challenging.
> So you trust the OP link? On your head be it....
Do I trust it? No, but I live in Sheffield which given events here over the last 40 years or so, means I'm well aware that cover ups* at high office level occur, but thanks for the advice.
* (Taylor/Hillsborough report, the dealings of SYP force in the miner's strike, Jay report to name but a few).
> It talks of a "hearing" BTW, mental health tribunals, at "hearings", can mandate a person be detained in a secure facility if they pose a risk to themselves or others due to mental illness.
The line in the link talks about a 'secret court hearing'. And keeping a person in a secure unit during a 'mental health tribunal' seems prudent for someone with her difficulties. It also makes mention of a custodial sentence though. That isn't something that, if any of this is true, could be executed by anything other than a court, no?
> As a "mental health officer" myself, I am frequently involved in such hearings.
I'm sure that's very challenging.
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
It ain't much fun Stuart mate.
She was already on a custodial sentence for arson and other offences.
It ain't much fun Stuart mate.
> It also makes mention of a custodial sentence though. That isn't something that, if any of this is true, could be executed by anything other than a court, no?
She was already on a custodial sentence for arson and other offences.
In reply to Timmd:
Timmd and Stuart, you may wish to consider this;
http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/8924047.Bankrupt__Wirral_businessman_who_...
and this:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/British_Constitution_Group
Timmd and Stuart, you may wish to consider this;
> A Wirral man who has refused to pay his council tax and led a rebel protest to "arrest" a judge has been declared bankrupt today.
> New Brighton businessman Roger Hayes should have appeared before a High Court judge at Liverpool this morning but he failed to attend. Mr Justice Calvert-Smith was told that Hayes, chairman of the British Constitution Group, had written a letter asking for an adjournment as he had "a prior engagement."
> But as the hearing was the fourth hearing in the case the judge refused to adjourn it and granted Wirral Borough Council's bankruptcy petition.
http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/8924047.Bankrupt__Wirral_businessman_who_...
and this:
> The British Constitution Group or BCG is a British tax protester group that advocates so-called Lawful Rebellion under section 61 of Magna Carta, and other freeman on the land-associated pseudolegal woo. They also believe that statute law is contractual and that it can be declined, as well as the pseudolegal strawman theory. The group occasionally arranges conferences with speakers espousing their form of woo. They are also one of the main peddlers of conspiracy theories surrounding the organisation Common Purpose UK. The group was founded by its current chairman Roger Hayes, a former parliamentary candidate of the Referendum Party and subsequently former (expelled) member of UKIP. (Why does UKIP always attract the crazies?) It appears recently to have changed it's name or to be at least also operating as the British Campaign Group [3] but still lead by Hayes.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/British_Constitution_Group
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...