A message for the empathic healer in you

 

 Keeping yourself spiritually protected.

As you go through the intuitive healing process you need to know: each of us has our own special power. We carry it within; it waits to be awakened. Call it your inner self, your spirit, or light--however conceived, you must meet and come to know your core-essence. The source of all intuition, it is your fiercest ally and advocate against danger. By connecting with this part of yourself you'll mount confidence, feel safer in the world. Then whatever or whoever crosses your path--even the devil incarnate--will be no match for your resilience.

What you must do is flush out beliefs that divert you from your intuitive healing power. Begin by asking yourself, "What in my life throws me off center and why?" I'm referring to everything from a stranger flashing you a dirty look, to fear of rejection, to dealing with someone in pain. Interactions where your energy dims. Weak spots, points that need securing. And what about negativity? How do you deal with yours, or another's? If a supervisor says, "You'll never be successful," or an ex-lover announces, "You're incapable of a healthy relationship," do you buy into it? We each have our triggers. The basis for centering and protection is grasping where we get caught, and then disengaging the trigger.

Beliefs that Drain Your Power
1. I'm not strong enough to protect myself.
- As children, many of us aren't taught to believe in the full power we contain. Yes, our parents may support our intelligence, talents, physical attractiveness--even teach us sound ethical values, the difference between right and wrong. But what happens to our inner self? Might even devoutly religious parents fail to realise it is there? Our starting point is to recognise we possess a very real internal source which enables us to deeply see and know. Yet when something goes wrong, frequently our first impulse is to look outside ourselves for someone to "fix" us. We get sick; we rush to the doctor. We become depressed; we call a therapist. We're in pain; we take a pill. It's fine to seek expertise--but we have it backwards. Look inside first. Really, it's not a big blank in there. Then act on what your wisdom tells you.


What stops us? A likely culprit is the vulnerable child we each carry within. Mogul or mailman, mother or monk, this aspect of our psyche yearns to be taken care of, protected, and is unequipped to do it alone. He pops up in the darndest circumstances, reducing us to a helpless tiny tot. Of course we must tenderly acknowledge her needs--but know where to draw the line. Would you want a baby running your boardroom? Your life? Remember: Your inner self is more than your inner child. Far grander--capable of ministering to all your needs--is the radiance of your spirit. Feeling this, knowing this, is the best protection of all. You must become your own champion before anyone else can. When you believe in yourself, no one else can diminish you.


2. Other people's negative thoughts can harm me.
I am always struck by how worried people are about being thwarted by other people's negative thoughts. Such concerns need to be addressed. On an intuitive healing level, ill intentions or feelings can affect us, creating anxiety or physical dis-ease. We must train ourselves to deflect them. What is negative energy? Any force antithetical to your well-being. How does it turn up in everyday life? Let's start at the lower end of the spectrum. Your neighbor doesn't approve of you. A friend puts down your plan to start college at forty. Your ex-boyfriend's girlfriend is sending you bad vibes.
What do you do?

Strategies to develop intuitive healing:

* Don't lead a lifestyle based on assuming others are out to get you. This perpetuates fear.


* If someone is sending you negative thoughts, avoid dwelling on them. The more attention you pay to negativity, the more influence you give it.


* Focusing on the strength of your inner self is the best defense against negativity, no matter how dramatic its manifestation. If you are solidly connected to yourself, nothing can get you.


3. I'm too sensitive for my own good.
- The arch-enemy of intuition is lack of sensitivity. Know this: There is no such thing as being overly sensitive. To grasp the concept, you may have to reconfigure old ideas that have been drummed into your head. When parents or teachers said, "You have to toughen up," or especially with boys, "only sissies cry," unknowingly they were undermining the very crux of your intuitive tie with the world. Male sensibility, in particular, has been bludgeoned by such rigid conditioning. But, for both sexes, to break down childhood armoring requires extraordinary commitment, trust, and resolve.


What I'm speaking of isn't simply expressing your emotions. It's slowly learning, in your own time frame, to remain wide open to an intuitive realm--being one with the wind, the moon, other people's joys, sorrows, the continuum of life and death. From this comes an intimate ecstatic bond with all of existence, exactly what you don't want to protect yourself from. Sensitivity only turns against you when you feel overwhelmed. But how do you stay receptive and not get obliterated by the intensity of such input? It is possible to remain vulnerable and feel safe. The answer is never to shut your sensitivity off but to develop it as a creative resource.


4. It’s my job to take on the pain of others.
- We're trained that as big-hearted people it's laudable to try to relieve the pain of others. A homeless person holding a cardboard sign, "I'm hungry. Will work for food" at a busy intersection; a hurt child; a distraught friend. It's natural to want to reach out to them, ease their angst. But many of us don't stop there. Inadvertently, we take it on. Suddenly we're the one feeling desolate, off kilter, bereft, when we felt fine before. This loss of center is what I want to address. It does not serve us. I am adamant: the most compassionate, effective route to healing people is to be a supportive presence, not attempt to live their pain for them. Moreover, sometimes suffering has its own cycle that has to be respected, hard as that may be to witness.


We must lie to rest the old metaphysical prototype of the empathic healer. Typically grossly obese women (extra weight, they mistakenly argued, was the only way to stay grounded), who cured patients by absorbing symptoms with the technique of laying on of hands. The result? Patients would leave feeling better; the healers would be a sickly wreck. These women were convinced such a sacrifice was necessary to lessen the suffering of others. I almost got snagged in the same trap. I used to drag myself home, flop into bed half-dead from everything I'd absorb: a sure path to burn-out. This tack wasn't good for me or anyone around me.


I've learned the value of being a catalyst for people's growth without compromising my well-being. Friends themselves have taught me I can't do the work for them. That is not my job. Nor is it yours. Keep this in mind: it is none of our business to deprive anyone else of their life experiences. I understand the impulse to want to make things better. Compassion and the desire to console are human. But there's a fine line between supporting someone and trying to do it for them. No matter how well-meaning or heartfelt your intention, doing too much is not an act of love but of sabotage. You can be caring and honest with someone, yet still let them be. Don't equate honoring their growth process with abandoning them. A practical philosophy of intuitive healing must include preserving your energy as well as serving others. Striking a balance is essential.

These people are proof there is still good in the world.

The Voice of Radical Spirit Radio:  Special guests, and regular listener
Vice Chairm...:  Special guests, and regular listener Vice Chairman at SOUTHERN TROOPERS  Simon James wolf Henry otherwise known as wolfy  Sout...

The Voice of Radical Spirit Radio: Nothing Short of Barbaric (written October 2012) -...

The Voice of Radical Spirit Radio: Nothing Short of Barbaric (written October 2012) -...: A Freedom of Information document from the DWP has revealed that rather than an average of 32 deaths per week as a result of Welfare Reform ...

Peace in our lifetime, peace day with Lynne Hazelden

"The first relationship you have to have peace with is, yourself. Love, be kind and peaceful within, thoughtful and share without into the world, exactly, that of which you wish to be reflected back to you" namaste -

 Lynne Hazelden  

PEACE in OUR Lifetime ~ I'm a Dreamer AND ~ We're Creating it NOW

 www.peaceinourlifetime.org

International peace day

Click the above links to know more. 

.

projections

                                                                         

If you are hurt and angry inside, you will unconsciously see and experience everything and everybody based upon a negative conclusion..No matter how beautiful, caring, intelligent, positive thinking, angelic a person is, you will project and impose your view of their intentions upon them..You will reject every soul that tries to align with you, who tries to lovingly support you..and who wants nothing but the best for you..You will not choose to see their light, but your own hurt within them as you reject love..But only you can change your life, by changing what is inside of you..Nothing else, no physical change can make your life better.. Only this will make your life better, only your decision to heal your OWN life.. Always C. Love♥
                                                                          

Abuse of our disabled reletives in care. (Pictures of my sons arms.)

Abuse in care homes  of our disabled happens more than we care to know, especially those whose who are left in care homes because they have no parents and family who can stand up for their human rights. because they  have died and they are left in the hands of these carers who can do anything to them.. This is a reality and . it happened to my son.. and when you complain and try to stand up fo your sons rights, they try to make out that there is something wrong with you..

Abuse of my son whilst in care. neglect and bruising!!

 The above link shows  photographic evidence to support that my son was harmed whilst i a care home named Woodbridge house,Gillingham Kent. ...yet this is covered up and the disabled person moved on to another home where it carries on.  

We must all of us stand and allow justice to be served whilst acting within a state of eternal forgiveness otherwise we remain connected to the perpetrators of our pain .. Imagine the illness that goes on within the hearts and minds of those that will allow families to be split apart, accusations of lies aimed towards those who speak nothing but truth.. I stand firm in my truth and will not budge, they want this brushed under the carpet, and I wont let it be. enough is enough these people must look at themselves in the mirror..Surely these people cannot lay in their beds well at night.  

My son has the  mind is of an innocent child. He hasn't any true concept of differences in a discriminative capacity. He has been schooled with children with all levels of disability and discriminatory issues. 
I have been the most loving caring nurturing empathic mum who brings her children up WITH NOTHING BUT LOVE.. If i try and fight this and take Nick home. and  if they show to be a little naughty they threaten the removal of the next one and the next..and now they have removed my two younger sons, because I had to take Nick from this place as he was being strangled by another resident.   I refuse to comply with any abusive means of bringing my children up.  

We must stand united to get this mess sorted out..They have used my youngest as a pawn in a game..But I am standing by truth and I will not falter in this no matter their threats.. I will have my family together as they should be... and I will make sure that they will see their Nan and grandad and family before its too late.. my focus is right there. and I will get there.. 

Nicholas is  home and safe now..But unable to see his brothers, so my fight continues for the other two. whilst fighting against  those in society who judge wrongly and who contain nothing but inner violence towards what they don't understand. Always C. Love<3

                                                        

British legal history sterilisation sanctioned man severe learning difficulties

British legal history sterilisation sanctioned man severe learning difficulties

 As a parent of a 24 year old man with learning disability, who has always been concerned about when and if he becomes sexually active how I will make sure he uses protection, I would welcome a law that could make it possible for decisions to be taken out of the hands of close family, especially where the person in question does not have the mental capacity to be responsible for this themselves. I understand that is one big imposition on the human rights of the adult. I have found there is far too much red tape involved which takes into consideration human rights, but which fails to take into consideration the vulnerable adults and others best interests. Parents and carers and end up being accused of imposing their view and failing to consider human rights, rather than being seen as being supportive, often there are too many do-gooders out there enforcing a persons rights which are clearly not in the interests of that persons health and welfare. So I welcome this move..yet it should always be carefully considered for each individual.

 

 

A disabled man will have to be sterilised because it would damage his life to have any more children, a judge ruled yesterday. 
Mrs Justice Eleanor King said the man, who has a mental age of between six and nine years, was deeply distressed when his girlfriend became pregnant four years ago.
The child is now being looked after by his grandmother.
However the judge decided sterilisation ‘was in his best interests’ as he could not be relied on to use condoms or other birth control methods to prevent another pregnancy.
The 36-year-old, who can only be referred to as DE, is in a long-term relationship with his girlfriend – who also has learning difficulties. 
While he is dependent on his parents, the court heard that he had got to the stage where he could catch a bus, go swimming, or go and buy a coffee by himself.
The judge made it clear that DE’s relationship with his girlfriend, which was disrupted by her pregnancy, should be supported and the couple ‘should be permitted to resume their sexual relationship’.
But she said that having another child would threaten his hard-earned independence. 
And she insisted that the vasectomy would let him have ‘as normal a life as possible as soon as possible’.
‘DE is unequivocal in expressing his wish not to have any more children,’ she said.

The application to Mrs Justice Eleanor King, sitting in the Court of Protection, was made by DE's local NHS Trust with support from his parents, his GP and the local authority involved in his care

Claiming the ruling would be in his best interests, she added: ‘DE’s hard-earned achievements, whether they are learning to swim by imitation as he can’t process spoken instruction, or getting a bus on his own, must be treasured.’
The application to sanction a vasectomy had been made by the man’s NHS trust, supported by his parents, GP and the local authority that organised his care.

 

 

 

 

Click on the link for article on The tragedy of 4,000 babies placed on at risk register before theyre born.

Tragedy 4,000 babies placed on at risk register before theyre born

 

Tragedy of 4,000 babies placed on 'at risk' register... before they're born

• New figures mark a 13per cent increase over two years deemed at risk of physical or emotional negligence
• Campaigners said to put unborn children on register presumes parents will be negligent

Thousands of babies are being put on ‘at risk’ registers by social workers before they are even born, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
And campaigners say the system is weighted to presume that parents will be unable to adequately care for their children.
New figures released under Freedom of Information laws show that more than 4,000 child protection plans – which are automatically implemented for those registered as at risk – were initiated last year in England for babies still in the womb, which represents a 13 per cent increase over two years. 
The figure for the UK as a whole is likely to be nearer 5,000, and hundreds of babies are being taken into care each year within days of birth.
Most put on the registers were deemed at risk of neglect or of physical or emotional abuse, while others were exposed to dangers associated with having parents who were drug addicts, alcoholics or had serious criminal convictions.
Child protection experts insist it is right to keep newborns away from potentially dangerous parents, and argue they have to be more cautious following cases such as the death of Baby P, later named as Peter Connelly, and four-year-old Daniel Pelka, who was starved and beaten by his mother and her lover, finally dying of a severe head injury.
But opponents of the system say that it presumes guilt and that social workers are removing children to cover their own backs. 
John Hemming, a Lib Dem MP and vocal critic of the fostering and adoption process, said: ‘There can be good reasons to put an unborn child on a child protection plan.
'But the system can lead to the wrongful removal of very young babies for all sorts of strange reasons. Once children are removed, only about 20 per cent go back to their parents.’

 

More...

• NSPCC reports 'sharp rise' in sexual abuse calls in wake of Savile scandal: Reporting nearly double compared with last year
• 3-month-old boy dies after father 'leaves him in boiling car on 100F day for over an hour to smoke marijuana with co-workers'

He continued: ‘With child protection, not every case is a Baby P case. But I know that social workers have been fired for saying that a child should go home to its parents. If you put them under that sort of pressure, they are going to say the child should be adopted.’
Ian Josephs, who provides informal legal advice to parents, said: ‘These parents are being punished without committing a crime. In the family courts, they are guilty until proven innocent.’
A child may be put on a protection register if doctors or social workers fear for its safety. The parents are invited to discuss the matter but do not have to be present for the child to be placed on the register. No court order is needed.

Cautionary tale: Four-year-old Daniel Pelka died from a head injury after being starved and beaten by his mother and her lover

Once a child is registered as at risk, a protection plan will be drawn up. In most cases, it will prescribe regular visits from social workers to check on the child. 
But the plans can also be a precursor to court proceedings that will have the child taken into care.
The latest figures from the Department for Education show that 52,120 under-18s became the subject of child protection plans in England in the year ending March 31 2012.
Separate statistics obtained by this newspaper show that at least 4,044 – or almost eight per cent – related to unborn babies. That number grew to 4,153 in the year to March 2013, and was up 13 per cent over two years.
The true numbers are likely to be higher still because 41 of 152 councils failed to respond.
Those that did reply took 179 infants into care on the day they were born, in the year to March 2013. Many more are likely to have been removed within a few weeks.
Bridget Robb, chief executive of the British Association of Social Workers, said: ‘No professional wants to see children subjected to child protection plans.
‘But the increased vigilance arising from baby Peter Connelly’s tragic death has inevitably exposed more instances where sufficiently serious concern exists that children’s services feel the need to at least monitor a family closely.’

 

US police state now forces You Tube to take down UFO content..if they have nothing to hide why would they do this?

 

If they have nothing to hide why would they do this?

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN UFO Please join our facebook group UFO Independent.

 

US police state now forces You Tube to take down UFO content

Government steps up efforts to expunge published UFO articles

By Doc Vega

There is no doubt about it that since the 9-11 Tragedy in New York we now live in a different world. The world is not necessarily different because of the alleged terrorist act itself, but because of the security state legislation that was allowed to take place in the aftermath of that tragedy. Under the aegis of the Patriot Act, a piece of crucial legislation that not only Republicans but Democrats participated in, there are freedoms that Americans once took for granted that are rapidly fading away.
You Tube capitulates
Recently it was discovered that the popular internet channel, You Tube, has been bowing to every federal government demand for expunging or taking down already published UFO content once available to millions of viewers. Over and over again You Tube has given up information and content much of which is UFO coverage. Little known to the American people thanks to the Patriot Act US media news and all major news networks of national interest are now subject to the inspection and filtering of not only US security agencies, but the United Nations. Now it Is possible that we here in America will never receive much of the news coverage that we could once count on being available to the public. Why?
Neglecting national coverage
If there is nothing to UFO’s if they do not exist, then why under the aegis of National Security are UFO films and articles subject to take down by the US federal government? Little did most people know of Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project, a thorough introduction of expert witness testimony by more than a hundred credible military personnel, pilots, and other trained observers who not only described their experiences but also detailed the security measures being exercised by the US military which discourages interdepartmental reporting of the phenomena even suppressing their officers from submitting reports through normal channels.
Other take down information that You Tube has submitted includes government requests for omitting data and information that has had to do with rights and privacy laws once in place to protect private citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, something our forefathers were very aware of after rebelling against the harsh rule of the King George’s Royal Government prior to American Independence. Because the American people have grown complacent and reticent to confront their government on these issues it has only emboldened our bureaucrats to continue their scourge upon the freedoms of the US citizen.
The sad truth
For those of you skeptical of the New World Order because you would rather submit to the claims of our mainstream media that such allegations are the wild speculations of conspiracy theorists, let me repeat that US major media news is now subject to being censored by not only US federal security agencies, but also and not limited to the United Nations. This means that now foreign intervention in the affairs of American media outlets is now allowed. This means that another nation outside the US has the right to expunge news they deem unflattering about their nation or their interests. Is this not an example of global government at work?
The Disclosure Project goes largely undisclosed
Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project was held at the National Press Club on Capitol Hill, why were testimonies not covered by the major news networks? Why were there not national news releases that quoted important testimony by former US military officers about the seriousness of this matter? Even though the proceedings were allowed under the guise of a freedom of speech conference, little of it was ever mentioned beyond Washington DC. As a matter of fact, this is how the media isolates major news stories that the powers that be do not want nationally publicized. When a controversial news event occurs say in a town in Georgia or Washington State, and it is deemed to be in conflict with someone’s interests whether in the US government or abroad, that coverage is not picked up by affiliate stations, the story simply does not get national distribution. It dies a quick death there and then even though it might have appeared on local TV or radio. This was the case at the Disclosure Project in Washington DC.
Disinformation is a powerful tool used by the elite to dissolve opposition or discredit potentially damaging exposure of the truth. CIC (Counter Intelligence Corps) operations are alive and well through out US society to discredit inconvenient stories and testimonies. Former CIA agents have even admitted that news articles they want published are encouraged and the newspaper rewarded for publishing such content.
Donald Keyhoe’s preclusion
As long ago as 1958 well known UFO journalist and investigator, Donald Keyhoe, was entirely blacked out on the TV screen when he made one inquiry outside of the scripted question and answer dialogue that had been strenuously edited by the US Air Force. This constituted a Soviet style censorship that the US was so good about accusing the Russian of in their supposed totalitarian dominated society.
The saga of Bob Lazar
Whistle blower, Bob Lazar, was almost completely marginalized when government security agencies expunged all of his personal and educational background records so as to lend doubt to his credentials. A former Area 51 employee who claimed to have seen and worked on back engineering extraterrestrial space craft, Lazar appeared in front of a federal judge, who acknowledged that the disappearance of Bob’s records was highly unusual. However, Lazar did retain the tub of a paycheck he had received from the US Navy for work had had done at Area 51. You might recall that with full knowledge by the general public of the existence of Area 51 during the Clinton administration that the President signed an agreement that continued to refuse the acknowledgment of Area 51 as a federal government facility!
Technology the government’s unwitting partner
Today with the increased advent of the internet and digital technology the omission of and elimination of UFO related stories and articles seems to have taken into high gear as US security agencies pressure such social media outlets as You Tube to give up crucial information that was published by individuals to inform an audience of millions. You might recall after Yahoo had established itself in the Chinese market that the government had requested the email addresses of many dissidents opposed to the regime. Yahoo caved in, turning over that information. As a result, those dissidents were rounded up imprisoned, and likely tortured and even executed. Just so Yahoo could remain in a lucrative Chinese market people were imprisoned and died.
The final assault on freedom
Will the same thing happen in the US some day? One can only wonder what happens next as the noose of the security state seems to be growing ever tighter around our necks. This highly unconstitutional invasion of privacy and censorship of the US press was foreseen long ago by the signers of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. Our framers knew exactly how big intrusive government could begin its draconian assault against personal liberties guaranteed as the American way of life, but the people became lazy and apathetic. Now we are paying the price

link to article Top judge's war on secret courts: Family hearings must be exposed to 'glare of publicity'

dailymail news article-Top judges war secret courts Family hearings exposed

One of Britain’s most senior judges vowed yesterday to expose family courts to ‘the glare of publicity’ after decades of obsessive secrecy.
In a landmark ruling, Sir James Munby said parents of children taken into care must no longer be gagged by the courts and the public should be told what social workers are up to.
Sir James, who is president of the Family Division of the High Court, said the removal of children from their families had become the most drastic matter judges dealt with now there was no death penalty. He said the rulings could affect mothers for ‘upwards of 60 or even 70 years’ and children for even longer.
There was a ‘pressing need’ for the workings of the family courts to be opened to public view and the arguments for scrutiny and public accountability were compelling.
Parents must be given the freedom to criticise judges, the courts and social workers, and the Press must be free to report what has happened without the interference of judges, Sir James added. The break-up of families by the state must no longer happen in secret, on the pretext of protecting the children involved.
The Mail has reported numerous cases where the names of social workers, experts who advise the courts and even the names of councils have been kept under legal wraps. The voices of those whose families are split up by social workers and kept apart on the orders of family court judges have been routinely silenced. 
But Sir James’s unprecedented ruling is likely to punch a hole through this curtain of secrecy.
His judgement came in the case of parents whose four children have been taken into state care. The father made a video of the seizure in April of the couple’s newborn by social workers and police. The film was posted widely over the internet.
Sir James rejected a sweeping injunction designed to effectively prevent anyone in the world from seeing the film, knowing the names of the social workers involved, or even discovering the name of the local authority that applied for the order, Staffordshire County Council.

 

The order means the video, which includes pictures of the baby, can be more widely distributed and watched by anyone.
The submission by Staffordshire that naming the authority or its social workers would lead to identification of the baby was ‘merely fanciful’, the judge said.

Sir James, who is president of the Family Division of the High Court (pictured), said the removal of children from their families has become the most drastic matter judges deal with

However Sir James said the names of the parents and the baby must stay secret in order to protect the child from any harm publicity might bring.
The parents of the baby, known only as J, have never been accused of harming their children, the father said yesterday. Instead social workers decided that his wife was incapable of bringing them up because of her learning disability, he claimed.

 ‘Freedom of speech is not something to be awarded to those who are thought deserving and denied to those who are thought undeserving’, Sir James Munby

‘They were taken away as a preventative or precautionary measure,’ he said.
Sir James said the case raised ‘important questions about the extent to which the public should be able to read and see what disgruntled parents say when they speak out about apparent deficiencies in the family justice system’.
He added: ‘It must never be forgotten that, with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make.
‘When a family judge makes a placement order or an adoption order in relation to a 20-year-old mother’s baby, the mother will have to live with the consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70 years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years.’

The ruling in the case of child J promises to end years of gagging of parents, who have found themselves threatened with legal sanctions and imprisonment if they try to talk about what has happened when their children are taken into care or adopted.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming welcomed the judgment

Newspapers and broadcasters trying to investigate the behaviour of social workers have found themselves prevented by law from speaking to parents or publishing any details of what has happened to them.
The system has ensured that the stories of how more than 60,000 youngsters who live in children’s homes or with foster parents in the care system cannot be known.
Sir James, who took over as head of the family court system in January, set down new guidance for the courts in July that called for much greater transparency. He said the public had the right to read judgements now rarely published.
The guidance also applies to the Court of Protection, the secretive system which decides the affairs of people too ill to make their own decisions.
Earlier this year Sir James and Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge ordered the family courts and the Court of Protection to stop imposing in secret jail sentences for contempt of court.
This followed the disclosure by the Daily Mail that a Court of Protection judge secretly imprisoned 50-year-old Wanda Maddocks for disobeying its instructions and trying to remove her father from a care home his family disliked.

John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP who has been pressing for more openness in the family courts, said: ‘People have been going to jail for complaining about what is done to them, and that is wrong. This is a good judgement.
‘I was very pleased when Sir James was appointed as president of the Family Division because I thought he would change the direction of an unaccountable and opaque system to an open system.’
Philip Atkins, leader of Staffordshire County Council said: ‘It is a ground breaking ruling because the court has recognised and clarified the need to protect children’s interests within the electronic world that we now live.
‘Ultimately, this ruling means that websites hosted in England and Wales must not publish information which identifies a child who is being protected by care proceedings. From now on children will have the same protection for privacy in the electronic world as they do in print.’

We don't need new law to muzzle the Press: Judge's comments put him on collision course with lawyers and politicians

Sir James Munby struck a blow for free speech yesterday, putting the leading judge on a collision course with fellow lawyers and politicians who are trying to restrict it.
As part of a ruling against secrecy in the family courts, Sir James declared: ‘Freedom of speech is not something to be awarded to those who are thought deserving and denied to those who are thought undeserving’.

Sir James's comments counters Lord Justice Leveson's (pictured) report on the culture, practice and ethics of the Press

He defended the right of the Press to criticise – even in the most ‘robust’ terms – and stressed the importance of its power to expose wrongdoing.
His views clashed starkly with those of other judges who have in recent years developed wide privacy laws that have prevented newspapers and broadcasters from publishing uncomfortable truths about the rich and famous.
It also counters Lord Justice Leveson’s report on the culture, practice and ethics of the Press published last autumn.
Lord Leveson condemned the ‘outrageous’ behaviour of some of the Press and called for a new and tougher regulatory system backed by new laws – effectively state regulation of newspapers.
Sir James, who is president of the Family Division of the High Court, said the Press was necessary to ensure scrutiny of the courts and that occasional bad behaviour by some journalists had to be tolerated.
If Press criticism ‘exceeds what is lawful’ there are already laws to deal with that.
‘It is not the role of the judge to seek to exercise any kind of editorial control over the manner in which the media reports information which it is entitled to publish,’ he said. ‘Comment and criticism may be ill informed and based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the facts.
‘The fear of such criticism, however justified the fear may be, is, however, not of itself a justification for prior restraint by injunction.’
He also stood up for the rights of tabloid newspapers to express criticism in ‘intemperate language’.
‘If there is no basis for injuncting a story expressed in the temperate or scholarly language of a legal periodical or the broadsheet press, there can be no basis for injuncting the same story simply because it is expressed in the more robust, colourful or intemperate language of the tabloid press or even in language which is crude, insulting and vulgar.
‘The publicist ... may be an unprincipled charlatan seeking to manipulate public opinion by feeding it tendentious accounts of the proceedings. But freedom of speech is not something to be awarded to those who are thought deserving and denied to those who are thought undeserving.’

Lord Leveson condemned the 'outrageous' behaviour of some of the Press and called for a new and tougher regulatory system backed by new laws ¿ effectively state regulation of newspapers

Unlike Lord Leveson, he emphasised the ‘enormous challenges’ posed by the internet
‘The law must develop and adapt, as it always has done down the years in response to other revolutionary technologies.’
Privacy law, developed by judges and based on the Human Rights Act, has encouraged increasing numbers of celebrities to apply for injunctions concealing embarrassing stories about themselves.
It led to a controversy in 2011 which led to MPs and peers using parliamentary privilege to name two individuals who had used privacy injunctions to suppress news of extra-marital affairs, ex-Royal Bank of Scotland chief Fred Goodwin and footballer Ryan Giggs.

PUBLIC HAVE RIGHT TO KNOW: EDITED VERSION OF SIR JAMES' RULING

There is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system.
There are a number of aspects to this. One is the right of the public to know, the need for the public to be confronted with what is being done in its name.
Nowhere is this more necessary than in relation to care and adoption cases. Such cases, by definition, involve interference, intrusion, by the state, by local authorities and by the court, into family life.
In this context the arguments in favour of publicity – in favour of openness, public scrutiny and public accountability – are particularly compelling.
The public generally, and not just the professional readers of law reports or similar publications, have a legitimate, indeed a compelling, interest in knowing how the family courts exercise their care jurisdiction.
I have said this many times in the past but it must never be forgotten that, with the state’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which family judges are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make.
When a family judge makes a placement order or an adoption order in relation to a 20-year-old mother’s baby, the mother will have to live with the consequences of that decision for what may be upwards of 60 or even 70 years, and the baby for what may be upwards of 80 or even 90 years. We must be vigilant to guard against the risks.
We must have the humility to recognise – and to acknowledge – that public debate, and the jealous vigilance of an informed media, have an important role to play in exposing past miscarriages of justice and in preventing possible future miscarriages of justice.
The compelling need for transparency in the family justice system is demanded as a matter of both principle and pragmatism.
It is vital that public confidence in the family justice system is maintained or, if eroded, restored. There is a clear and obvious public interest in maintaining the confidence of the public at large in the courts.
It is vitally important, if the administration of justice is to be promoted and public confidence in the courts maintained, that justice be administered in public – or at least in a manner which enables its workings to be properly scrutinised – so that the judges and other participants in the process remain visible and amenable to comment and criticism.
The family lawyer’s reaction to complaints of “secret justice” tends to be that the charge is unfair, that it confuses a system which is private with one which is secret. This semantic point is, I fear, more attractive to lawyers than to others.
The remedy, even if it is probably doomed to only partial success, is – it must be –  more transparency; putting it bluntly, letting the glare of publicity into the family courts.

I received this today after signing the petition against the gagging order trying to be passed through parliament. Please sign this too.

please please sign the petitions to stop this before it affects everyones life tomorrow.

MPs vote on the gagging law for a second time. They’ll walk into the vote knowing that they’re under pressure. Together, 38 Degrees members have done a magnificent job of making the issue huge.

We’ve sent over 46,000 personal, original emails to Chloe Smith, the minister responsible for the gagging law, and nearly 150,000 emails to our own MPs before and after the first vote. Nearly 2,000 of us called our MPs last Monday, and 77 MPs have been visited by 38 Degrees members in person. Thank you for everything you’ve done so far - but there's still lots more to do.

On Friday, it seemed that the government had given ground. And there were media reports saying that “ministers have been forced into a U-turn”. [1] That’s not true. There’s a really long way to go before we’re safe to claim victory. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations said that parts of the gagging law are still “neither clear nor workable”, and that “... civil society may still be subject to ambiguous and damaging legislation”. [2]

If we’re going to defeat the gagging law, we need to get the word out further. If everyone who’s ever joined a local campaign group or taken action with their favourite charity knew that they could be stopped from doing that again, the public outcry would explode.

The good news is that there’s something we can do about this. Together, we number over 1.8 million people. That’s five times more than the circulation of the Guardian, the same as the circulation of the Daily Mail - and four times the population of Liverpool. [3]

Simply put, we have quite a reach. So let’s use it. Can you help to get the word out by sharing this five minute video explaining the gagging law in simple terms? The more people who know what’s going on and what’s at risk, the more chance we have of making the outcry too big for the government to ignore.

Here’s the link to the video. If everyone who gets this email sends it to just one person who hasn’t heard of the gagging law, we could make sure that millions of people across the UK know what the government’s planning. Could you share it with your friends and family now?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/gagging-law-video

Here’s a paragraph which you can include with the video, or you could just press forward on this email:

You might have heard about the “gagging law” currently being voted on by MPs. If you haven’t heard of it, it’s really bad news. If it goes through, it will have a chilling effect on British democracy and on our right to speak up on the issues that matter to us.

Basically, the law slashes the spending limits on campaigning for the year before any election. Campaigns that have impact don’t cost the earth, but they aren’t free.

Community groups, charities and campaigning organisations would all be hit. Election time is when ordinary people have the most influence on our politicians. On the big issues of the day – whether or not to go to war, the future of our NHS, the environment, welfare, immigration, etc. – we'd all be gagged.

The problem is that this law has come out of nowhere and not many people have heard what’s going on. If we’re going to defeat it, we need to get the word out further. If every single person who’s ever joined a local campaign group or taken action with their favourite charity knew that they could be stopped from doing that again, the outcry could explode.

Here’s a simple five minute video you can watch for more information. Can you take a look, and then help get the word out by passing it on to your friends and family?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/gagging-law-video

Thanks for everything you do,

Susannah, Becky, Blanche and the 38 Degrees team

PS: The sooner we see the back of this damaging law, the sooner we can return to campaigning on the issues that matter to all of us. We’re committed to working together on the NHS, on MP pay, on fracking - and this week, there were developments in our legal aid and zero hours campaigns. There’s hundreds of other issues that we’ll act on together too. But first, we need to defeat the gagging law.

Share the video with your friends and family now:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/gagging-law-video

NOTES
[1] The Guardian: Ministers make U-turn over ‘gagging’ anti-lobbying laws after public outcry: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/06/ministers-retreat-anti-lobbying-laws-charities

[2] Here’s the full statement from National Council for Voluntary Organisations (http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/):
‘The government’s commitment to abandon the change to the test of what constitutes non-party campaigning is a significant step in the right direction. When the new wording is published we will take legal advice and also urgently seek the view of the Electoral Commission, to ensure the revised test meets the spirit and the letter of policy intent set out by government.

The revised test should ensure that for charities operating within charity law, their activities should not be subject to registration with the Electoral Commission and therefore the regulation outlined in part two of the Bill.

We remain concerned that other voluntary organisations in civil society may still be subject to ambiguous and damaging legislation. NCVO believes in a society where freedom of speech, the freedom to associate and the right to free and fair elections are all similarly inviolable.

The proposed definition of controlled expenditure remains neither clear nor workable for non-charitable voluntary organisations. We remain similarly concerned that the expenditure thresholds proposed in the new bill will be damaging, particularly for small community groups that are not charities. These must be restored at current levels. The question of how to sensibly regulate groups working in coalition remains to be addressed.

If a revised test of what constitutes non-party campaigning by charities, together with a clear definition of controlled expenditure and unchanged expenditure thresholds, cannot be achieved, we will continue to argue for the withdrawal of part two of the Bill.

We will continue to work with the broad range of organisations expressing concerns, as well as with government and with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to ensure we get legislation that recognises and does not undermine the valuable role undertaken by charities' and community groups.’

[3] The Guardian: ABCs: National daily newspaper circulation March 2013: http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/apr/12/abcs-national-newspapers
Liverpool Council website: Population: http://liverpool.gov.uk/council/key-statistics-and-data/data/population/

 

 

family law

Often situations that happen force us to understand that we are asked to step up a level and into the knowing that we are of a higher calling even beyond human relationships and when we reach this place we may have lost something beautiful at the time, but we gained so much more when we see the reality from a whole new perspective.. one of all love.. and love of all.. Always C.Love<3

                                              

A River of Love.. simply beautiful I had to share.x

5 February 2009 at 21:41

A River of Love


You are a beautiful jewel that I hold in My hand and turn to the light. How you catch the light, and in so many ways! I turn you toward the Sun, and you become all light. My light and your light become One. There is no longer My hand holding you. There is simply Our light shining.


Our light might be called blinding, and yet Our light is the opposite of blinding. It is seeing. In the light, We see. We see what really is and what matters, and We know. We know light, and We know the beauty of it. We are the beauty of it. We are the light, beloveds. You and I are the light We give, and We are the light We are. We are lighted love.


You may say that you crave love more than you are able to give it. You may say that anyone can throw you a few crumbs of love, and you pick them up off the ground voraciously, and no amount of love is enough for you. You may say that you don't get that much anyway nor are you able to give much if at all. As best you can tell, you light up with love equal only to the amount of love given to you. You may think of yourself as a love-hound rather than one who is able to give love. You may think of yourself as a constant forager for love, sort of like one who digs for diamonds. You are always looking for diamonds of love. You pick them up, turn them over, and they are never right. Only for a while do you hold the illusion that you hold a diamond in your hand. Sooner or later, it seems to you, the diamond turns into dust.


Whether you are the hunter for love or the prey, you are swimming in the stream of love. Which end of the stream you are swimming in is okay. You are in the stream. You are in the stream of love. Ultimately, it is your own love that you are hunting for. You see a reflection of it every once in a while, and then the reflection escapes you. Keep swimming in this stream, beloveds.



Yes, sometimes your swim is disrupted, and you think you will never swim in the river of love again, but you will. You know you will. The fact is that there is no other stream to swim in. Your life on Earth is all about the light of love.


You seek to know that you are worthy of love. You look for your own love in others' eyes. And all the love in the world does not seem to be enough, so eager is your heart for love. Even the seemingly coldest heart is eager for love.
If only your beleaguered heart would believe in its love!

Even when you love Me with all your heart, still you often feel on the outskirts of love, as if love were a territory that somehow is off bounds for you, as if love were a land where everyone else can visit and take up residence, but not you. Somehow you fear you lack the passport. No matter how you try to get in, you feel rather like what is called an illegal alien. Love is for others, yet somehow not for you. No matter how you try, you just don't seem to be able to get through.


And even My love does not seem to be enough for you. You want to hold love in your hand like a diamond in the same way I hold you in My hand and turn you to the light. You want to love like I do, and yet your hand and your love are not steady.


Never mind. My hand is steady, and you are an offering of love, and you do shine brightly, even when your light seems to have wandered off.

I practice metta.

The Pali word metta is a multi-significant term meaning loving-kindness, friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, inoffensiveness and non-violence. The Pali commentators define metta as the strong wish for the welfare and happiness of others (parahita-parasukha-kamana). Essentially metta is an altruistic attitude of love and friendliness as distinguished from mere amiability based on self-interest. Through metta one refuses to be offensive and renounces bitterness, resentment and animosity of every kind, developing instead a mind of friendliness, accommodativeness and benevolence which seeks the well-being and happiness of others. True metta is devoid of self-interest. It evokes within a warm-hearted feeling of fellowship, sympathy and love, which grows boundless with practice and overcomes all social, religious, racial, political and economic barriers. Metta is indeed a universal, unselfish and all-embracing love.

Metta makes one a pure font of well-being and safety for others. Just as a mother gives her own life to protect her child, so metta only gives and never wants anything in return. To promote one's own interest is a primordial motivation of human nature. When this urge is transformed into the desire to promote the interest and happiness of others, not only is the basic urge of self-seeking overcome, but the mind becomes universal by identifying its own interest with the interest of all. By making this change one also promotes one's own well-being in the best possible manner.

Metta is the protective and immensely patient attitude of a mother who forbears all difficulties for the sake of her child and ever protects it despite its misbehavior. Metta is also the attitude of a friend who wants to give one the best to further one's well-being. If these qualities of metta are sufficiently cultivated through metta-bhavana — the meditation on universal love — the result is the acquisition of a tremendous inner power which preserves, protects and heals both oneself and others.

Apart from its higher implications, today metta is a pragmatic necessity. In a world menaced by all kinds of destructiveness, metta in deed, word and thought is the only constructive means to bring concord, peace and mutual understanding. Indeed, metta is the supreme means, for it forms the fundamental tenet of all the higher religions as well as the basis for all benevolent activities intended to promote human well-being.

Two Great Stories of 'Parents Know Best'

13 September 2013 at 15:04

Two Great Stories of 'Parents Know Best'

We turn to experts every day for insight and guidance because they are, well, experts. They know more on the subject at hand than we do, whether it’s “What is making my faucet drip?” or “Why is my car overheating?” Experts can be, if you will, a helpful diagnostic tool.

But when it’s time to make decisions about your child, you know the real expert is you.

That proved especially true in two heart-warming stories in the news this past week, as parents defied the experts and saved their children’s lives – one figuratively and one literally.

At age 2, Jacob Barnett was diagnosed with autism when, after learning to talk, he suddenly and irreversibly went silent. Experts recognized that his attention had turned inward, and they prescribed what would become a 60-hour-per-week therapy regimen. One specialist warned he would never even learn to read.

Then one day, mother Kristine realized that while she was playing with other children in the daycare she ran from her home, her own son was losing his childhood. “I knew in my heart that if Jake stayed in special ed, he would slip away,” Kristine later told a 60 Minutes interview.

That’s when she decided to focus not on what he couldn’t do, but on what he could. She halted his therapy and instead invested time in what he liked – which appeared to be the stars. They would lie out at night and look at the sky, and make occasional trips to the planetarium.

On one such trip, a university lecture was taking place, so mother and son decided to sit in. At the end of the class, the professor asked if anyone knows why Mars’s moons are oblong. Jacob’s hand went up. “How large are the moons?” he asked when called upon.

When the professor answered that they’re quite small, Jacob correctly responded, “The gravitational effects of the moons are not large enough [compared to that of Mars] to pull them into complete spheres.”

Jacob was 3 years old.

Today, at age 15, he is involved in an international study program for post-graduate level physicists at Perimeter Scholars International in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He has developed his own theory of relativity, expanding on that of Albert Einstein. His level of genius is literally off the charts – and he can share all of this with the world that so amazes him because his mother decided to counter the experts and take an unconventional approach.

In a similar vein, young Congresswoman Jaime Herrera-Beutler of Washington recently faced a parental dilemma of her own. Five months into her first pregnancy, doctors discovered that her baby, suffered from Potter’s Syndrome: the baby had developed no kidneys, and could therefore produce no fetal urine. Without fetal urine, she would have little or no amniotic fluid, which would ultimately keep the baby’s lungs from developing.

Doctors told Congresswoman Herrera-Beutler and her husband, Dan, that there was zero chance that their baby would live.

“As the doctor was giving us the diagnosis (Abigail) was kicking,” Herrera-Beutler told FoxNews. “We were totally broken, we’re sobbing, we’re asking, ‘What can be done? Is there anything that can be done?’ And she’s moving inside of me, and the doctor is saying, ‘No, there is no option. This is fatal.’”
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler
Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, mother.

But the Beutlers refused to give up, and instead located a doctor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore who had an experimental treatment he was willing to try. There was no pre-natal fix for the absence of kidneys, but perhaps injecting saline solution into Jaime’s abdomen would provide the fluid the lungs needed to develop.

Miraculously, Abigail was born on July 15 with a healthy set of lungs – the first known survivor of Potter’s Syndrome anywhere, ever. She still needs special care, and won’t be ready for a kidney transplant for about a year. From that point, however, doctors are hopeful she can have a normal, healthy life.

And the difference between no chance and full life was in the decision of loving parents who dared to defy the odds and prove the experts wrong.

Both of these stories feature a variety of experts, including those who "got it wrong" – and those who ultimately helped these parents to save the children they seemed destined to lose. There is nothing wrong with experts.

But there is a powerful, natural reason why parents, not the experts, should make the vital decisions that will ultimately shape their children’s lives. The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution will ensure that the right to make these decisions remains with parents for generations to come.

Please pass this email along and invite your friends and family to join the movement to protect parental rights at ParentalRights.org.

Sincerely,