See also: • Cascading Oppression • Magnetic Morality • Authoritarian Paradigm Collapse • Conspiracy Theory Coincidences
Children Services Abuse:
1st draft by Complaints Officer 09/11/2011
26 November 2011
Previous Document Main Index Next Document

Proposed complaint written by the Complaints Officer!

Having had a meeting on 2 November 2011 Mark Hughes went away and constructed his proposition for 'the complaint' and emailed it to Mr Hook on 9 November 2011.

Dave began to read the document and soon realised there was a lot wrong with it.  The more he thought about it the more dreadful it became.  The more he got into the document the more it revealed the appalling mind set of these people who are in responsible positions.  The more it became apparent that, although on the surface Mark Hughes seemed an average reasonable guy, in fact he is acting as a devious, prejudicial, manipulator.  He may not mean to be, but the psychology of the beast is revealed in his presentation.  The perverted interpretations, half truths and misinformation indicate what seems to be a collective unconscious exhibiting a Freudian projection of an abusive predatory mindset.

(As an aside: On the few occasions that Mark Hughes referred to the Children Services he has spelt it such.  In other words he has not asserted that it should be the Children's Services which is what it is usually called by the Children Services themselves.  The question as to what they are really called still remains unresolved.)

Here are some points about how this document is a perversion of the truth and an attempt to continue the abusive assault on Dave and Helen.

On page 1 Mark Hughes assumed, and stated, that it was Sumshire Children Services who investigated the Hooks seven years earlier when CAFCASS requested an investigation due to Marion's allusions and insinuations.  It was not Sumshire, it was Frabenshire where they lived at the time.  A perfectly understandable mistake but worrying since Mark is employed to look into this complaint.  If it were one of only a few assumptions and errors it would be fine.

Mark proceeds on page 1 to state "There was suspicion of sexual abuse and Mr Hook said that he was arrested following allegations that he had assaulted his former wife."  That is not a fair or reasonable way to phrase the 'information'.  He does later mention that the Social Services investigation concluded "... that there was nothing to substantiate the concerns about sexual abuse." but although that is a feigned (and inaccurate) attempt to vindicate Mr Hook he also fails to redress the comment about the arrest.  So the truth is that Marion self harmed and made a false allegation about Dave and he was subsequently arrested and released when the police concluded there were no charges to investigate.  And Marion also suggested so strongly to CAFCASS that Dave was sexually abusing their daughter that they had no option but to launch a full investigation by the Social Services.  The gentleman investigating concluded by saying he was very pleased to report that there was "clearly nothing wrong".  The whole point of mentioning these examples in the 'history to the complaint' is to highlight the relentless abuse that Helen and Dave have suffered.  Ironically Mark is falling into the same abusive mindset that Dave is now complaining about in the Sumshire Children Services.  Mark has left the comment about the arrest hanging with no suggestion as to whether there was actually an assault and his comment about the Social Services investigation is deliberately leaving the possibility wide open that there may have been sexual abuse.  He says there was "nothing to substantiate the concerns" but should clarify that there was clearly nothing wrong.  It is the difference between saying "I couldn't find the murder weapon in the study" and "The murder weapon was not in the study".  The first statement leaves the reader with the strong possibility that the murder weapon was well hidden.  The second statement simply clarifies the situation.  So it seems Mark Hughes is either colluding with the Sumshire Children Services or is astoundingly prejudicial himself without realising what he is doing.

The last paragraph on page 1 is yet another misrepresentation of the truth which simply plays into a negative interpretation of events.  It gives entirely the wrong impression, and misses the salient point, to say that Helen was out of school because she was being bullied.  The cultural assumption is likely to be that there are nasty peers being horrid to Helen and a sympathetic mindset might think 'poor Helen' in an apparently benign, but nonetheless demeaning, view of Helen.  But the reason Dave raised the issue was to highlight the fact that it was an abusive teacher who illegitimately demanded that Dave remove Helen from school.  Yes, she was bullied out of school but not by her peers, by the 'authority' at the school.  The cascading abuse from the Education Authority 'threatening' Dave with imprisonment to the hospital school irresponsibly suggesting they would deny Helen's legitimate right to contact home was all part of why Helen was not in school.  Mark went on to say "Helen found it difficult to mix with people and dropped out; this has been compounded as she was not getting any benefits."  There is little more to say about this except that it is utter fabrication.

At the top of page 2 Mark says that "Mr Hook said that Helen suffered a pentasyitus ...".  Mr Hook assures me he does not know what a 'pentasyitus' is and so could not have said that.  And so the sloppy, casual, incompetent, tirade continued.  Mark evidently got tired around page 2 and it seems he copied the original 20 page complaint into his new complaint and arbitrarily chopped chunks out leaving an unintelligible stream of erroneous junk.

But it is worse than that because Mark evidently attempted to make some sense of some of it but changed the meaning and the facts.  For example at the bottom of page 2 he has reconstructed chunks of words to read "Helen read a few pages, got up and left the room; "I expected it would upset her."  I happen to know my daughter quite well."  It clearly reads that Mr Hook "...expected it would upset her" but this point is raised in Dave's complaint precisely because it was Obelix, the social worker, who exclaimed with a smile "I expected it would upset her."  So the truth is perverted by Mark Hughes.  It is hard to imagine that he doesn't know what he is doing.

Although examining this wreckage of a proposed complaint reveals a lot about how people's minds work and how oppressive regimes perpetuate their misconceptions for their own benefit it is not otherwise worth reading.

A last point worth making is regarding the final statement (on page 14) prior to the declaration and signature: "Mr Hook would like a full investigation into his complaints and a meeting with a senior manager following the outcome of the investigation."  Why did Mark Hughes add that?  There is something quite deep and malevolent about this statement.  Of course on the surface it seems reasonable.  But it assumes a world view that is already being questioned.  Not to put too fine a point on it, it assumes that Mr Hook would like to "have words" with someone "high and mighty" as if that would give him satisfaction.  No: Mr Hook requires the Children Services to formally apologise and remove the offending documents from the system.  Mr Hook requires them to fix the damage they have done.  Mr Hook requires compensation for the devastating effects of their dreadful behaviour.  And Mr Hook requires that they then set about doing the job that they were employed to do in the first place;  Namely to provide benign support and assistance for Helen.  Of course 'senior management' may want a meeting or two with Mr Hook but he doesn't give a damn whether they resign or simply palm him off with a million pounds compensation.

For the record here is the first draft offered by Mark Hughes:

Previous Document Main Index Next Document

Toxic Drums Share

© Sente Limited 2011