ROCHDALE SOCIAL SERVICES

THICK AND SICK - VILE CHILD ABUSERS
Child stealing, life destroying, professionals at work fitting-up the innocent.

Article based on a BBC documentary called "When Satan came to Town" broadcast during January 2006 (part of the Real Story series).

The social workers quest to find the devil in their midst left five families broken. Wrongful accusations, the children, now grown up tell the real story. In 15 years the children have never spoken before in public about their ordeal - they were gagged by the court. The BBC, on their behalf, successfully challenged Rochdale Council and a family court to enable them to tell, and for the key evidence to now be revealed to us.

Over six months in 1990 a Satanic panic spread over North Manchester. Sixteen children from the Langley Estate, near Rochdale were taken into care. It was alleged they had been forced into a devil worshipping cult and sexually abused by their parents. After a year long investigation the parents were proved to be completely innocent. What drove these social workers to separate these children from their parents for months - and in some cases years.

Beverly (mother): "and that was it and they were gone".

Lisa: "I awoke to hear noise and people coming up the stairs". Cheryl: "I remember all the banging at the door, really loud". David: "They barged into our bedroom, my brother was asleep on the other side. Cheryl: Police were coming up the stairs shouting "police, CID", accompanied by social workers". David: "The police arrested James . I think I remember them saying for child abuse or something". Lisa: "They told my mum to get out of bed and get dressed, they came into our room and told us to get up. Cheryl: My mother sat up in bed, still with her night clothes on, vulnerable, a load of men around her and the odd woman, they were saying "you know what it is all about, get up, get dressed, and get out. She was screaming, crying, hysterical. David: "I got dressed, I could hear my dad in the hallway going mad.

Obtained by the BBC were video tapes of the social workers interviewing the children which they later claimed were proof of repeated Satanic abuse of the children.

Social worker: "We need to know about your dreams so that we can try and make sure they don't happen again. And who puts you in the cage?" Child: "Ghost". Social worker: "Do you know I think this Ghost is really very naughty, Do you know Julie and Daniel?"

We hear the child crying.

Social worker: "Well Julie and Daniel have said that some very nasty things have been happening".

We hear the child crying.

Lisa: "We were a normal everyday people in the same boat as everyone else on the Langley Estate, something traumatic happened to us all and it made a mess of our lives and we have to live with it". Daniel: "All those missed years." Cheryl: "We will never get that back, will we". Daniel: "No." David: "I will never forgive them for this, I don't think any of us could, never. It should never have happened."

It all started at a primary school on the Langley Estate. A six year old boy was struggling in class (shown under a table) he liked to hide himself away and talk about ghosts.

Teacher: "Daniel, Daniel, is that you under there, come on out. Come on stop hiding under there, lets go outside, come on let's go and see the other children outside." The teacher's concerns were reported to a local social worker.

Daniel: "I got took out of class, sat there, two other people were talking to each other." After speaking to Daniel alone Rochdale Social Services decided to question the whole family Six year old Daniel was taken to the Social Services Offices along with his mum, his eleven year old sister Julie, his four year old brother and his three year old brother.

Daniel: "I remember being asked all the questions, I didn't really understand them." As the day wore on the children's mum Beverly waited to find out why the children were being questioned. Beverly: "and then a social worker came back and she said they were to go to hospital, so I said, what for? She said they want to examine them to see if they have been sexually abused. I said when is all this going to be cleared up. The social worker said that after the examinations things should be fine.

They got them examined." Julie: They asked me to lie on the table, so I lay on the table. I looked at mum, she looked at me with a sad face, she knew what they were going to do. She said, don't worry, I am here, I'll not go anywhere." They then sexually abused this eleven year old girl, Julie cried, and cried and cried her eyes out.

Beverly: "By that time it was 11 o'clock (at night), I said what about their tea?

That night all four children were kept and split up between two care homes. They had no idea why they could not go home. Julie: "we got took up stairs, all our clothes took off and put into a black bin bag. We got put into a bath, they were scrubbing us". Daniel: "with one of those small nail brushes, scraping the back of you and everything, it hurt". Julie: "They put our clothes in the bin. I had just got a new coat for my birthday, they stuck that in the bin and said it was filthy, which it wasn't".

Their parents Andrew and Beverly were no strangers to Social Services. Although they loved their children it had been claimed that they did not know how to look after them very well. After four years of of parenting classes they were told that they no longer needed help. They were not alone with their difficulties, Rochdale had one of the highest number of children in care in the country. The Langley Estate was an impoverished part of Rochdale, half the residents unemployed, one third of the houses boarded up. It was not an easy place to bring up a family but what happened was beyond anyone's worst imagination.

The first time that Andrew and Beverly understood the accusations against them was when they saw their solicitor. He told them that the social workers and police believed that they were part of a Satanic abuse cult which included: sexually abusing their children, the slaughter of animals, the drinking of blood, and the sacrifice of human foetuses.

Beverly: "the eating of foetuses? It frightened the life out of me, I might get done for murder. Andrew: he was going into detail, foetuses, taking the kids out in the middle of the night, taking them to graveyards, I was gob-smacked, I knew we did not do these things and yet he was reading these out and the children were supposed to have been saying this. In my head I was thinking the kids would not be saying this, I knew what had happened to the kids.

The social workers also suspected that they had involved other children from the estate in their Satanic ring. Families that knew Andrew and Beverly were targeted three months later at 7.30 am. on the 14th June 1990.

Cheryl: "we were just dragged and bundled out into the car and we saw our mum being put in to a police car." Lisa: "I was scared when he got me in the car and Cheryl was asking where are you taking us, where are we going, and what is going on with our mum, what has she done?" Eleven year old Lisa and her two sisters, six year old Catherine and fifteen year old Cheryl, had no idea why they had been forced from their home. Cheryl: "It was like being kidnapped, it was like something that you see on the telly, they might have put blankets over our heads and just bundled us in, they just shoved us in and set off".

Thirteen year old David and his six year old sister Caroline were also taken from their home and their eighteen year old brother was arrested for sexual abuse. David: "it was all crazy, I didn't understand any of it and it proper shook me up as well".

Twelve children were taken that morning and all interviewed by social workers.

Cheryl: "they wanted to talk to us separately, they put me in this big room and they just shut the door and started asking me lots of questions.

David: "then they got a doll, a naked doll, and they started pointing to the genitalia of it and they said can you tell me what in your own words that is". "Yeah, a dick." "and they said, what's that? "An arse". They then asked him what it was on a girl.

We next see actual film of the interview. "And little girl's parts, do you know what they call little girl's parts". "Vaginas". "Vaginas, vaginas, yes … and boy's parts are called the … ?" "Penis". "Yeah, Yeah, and what else do you call the boy's bits?" "A lot of other things". "A lot of other things, yeah, yeah".

Fifteen year old Cheryl was asked to describe the details of sexual intercourse. Social worker: "but what I am trying to get at is what happens to his body when that happens". "Feels good". "But could you tell, could you tell apart from the noise?" "Start holding you tighter and like, kissing you more, or going faster". "And what would happen to his penis?" "Goes soft". "So do you know how you could get a baby from making love?" "Yeah". "How, what is it that makes the baby?" "When the sperm hits the egg".

Cheryl: "after the more intimate questions, they asked things like, have you ever been pregnant? I was so shocked I just said no, not at all, and I really did not understand why they had asked that, but eventually when we had got home and we had read the papers and paperwork my dad had, it was things like they thought babies were being born just for sacrifice".

In the newspapers around that period had appeared bizarre articles with fictitious stories about secret Satanic abuse taking place across Britain. Social workers became excited, held a conference and training videos arrived from the USA (where witch hunting has succeeded in stitching up people). The NSPCC supplied their staff with Satanic Indicators. In 1989 Nottingham Social Services had claimed to have found the first case, one child at school is supposed to have said that at school we pray to God, at home we pray to Satan.

Professor Elizabeth Newton, a child psychologist and independent witness in the Rochdale case, believed the social workers there had become swept up in the satanic panic. "They were right in the middle of the first flush, if you like, of conferences originated in America, there was an unhealthy excitement about the latest thing in social work, and to find this in Rochdale was a very exciting thing for them".

The only possible evidence of Satan worship found in the raids on homes in Rochdale was two lollypop sticks made into a cross and a ceremonial bowl for holy water found in the house of Andrew and Beverly. Social workers at Rochdale were convinced though that their videos of interviews with the children, that they and the police had snatched, were certain proof.

Once again we watch video pictures of a child being interviewed. "Do you have any secrets that are bad secrets Jules?" "No". "No, so I am wondering if there is anything you want to tell us that's upsetting you? Jules: "No, no, everything is OK at home". Social worker: "Steven does not like them, they do horrid things". "Who?" "Bev and Andrew". Jules: "No".

Although the children consistently denied they had been abused and there was a handy checklist of innocent child behaviour symptoms, this was ignored by the senior social worker Susan Hammersley and the rest of the team let by Jill France.

Some later interviews were filmed but the crucial first interview, contrary to guidelines, was not and no contemporaneous notes were taken. The social worker Susan Hammersley claimed Daniel had told her elaborate tales of ghosts who wore hoods and took him flying, gave him sweets and drinks, they had even locked him in a cage.

We see a child interview video, a young boy is in front of a doll's house. "How did he get into your house Dan?" "He goes through the house and up the chimney". Daniel's fantasy dreams about ghosts were taken as evidence that a ring of devil worshippers were abusing children. The social workers assumed that ghosts were Daniel's name for abusers. "Did you fly out of the window with the ghost?' "Yes". "You do, so do you do your spinning before you go out of the window then?"

Another clip from this major interview with Daniel shows clearly how his words were misinterpreted. "Does the cross look like this or does it look like that (we see film of a social worker drawing on paper), or does it look like this. Which one is it? "Daniel: "that". "So is it in the middle that the line goes across?" "Yes". "So it looks like that?" "Yes". "So where do the ghosts set fire to it, does he pick it up and set fire to it? Or…." Daniel: "He picks it up and sets on it, on fire."

This seems like an innocent conversation about a young boy's fantasies but the social worker later presented it in a more sinister light to the judge, saying it showed Daniel talking about ghosts, his abusers, and setting fire to inverted crosses. An independent expert witness believed there was a much more innocent explanation for Daniel's interest in ghosts.

Dr. Donald Holt (child psychiatrist): "I gather that they had been reading about ghosts at school and there had been a haunting in the family that all the children in the neighbourhood knew about. Such that they had had to invite the priest to come and bless the house and in addition he had been able to watch some regrettably violent videos at home and these things had added together in his mind and fed the disturbance I was seeing".

By now the social workers were encouraged to believe that Satanic abuse was taking place and Daniel's sister, eleven year old Julie, was interviewed. She was asked about her dreams, again in spite of the guidelines the interview was not taped. In later recorded interviews she made it clear that nothing bad had happened to her.

(Video of child interview room). Social worker: "if you did have any bad secrets, any things that somebody had really frightened you with … would you be able to tell anybody?" "Yeah". "Who would you tell?" "You". "You'd tell me?" "I haven't got any". "You haven't got any?" "No".

Julie (now adult, to camera): "they sat us in a train and asked us whether anything bad was happening at home, I said no" This was ignored. Julie's denials were not mentioned in later official statements to the court.

The social worker pressed on: "I would quite like you to draw me something out of one of your dreams". Julie (adult, to camera): "I did say that I dreamt of ghosts, drew pictures of ghosts and had nightmares, but they twisted it and tried to make out it was happening in our lives at home".

(Video of child interview room). Social worker: "He's saying (Ed: who - a doll?) he needs to know about your dreams so that he can try and make sure that they do not happen again".

Programme presenter: "How were social workers interpreting Julie's dreams, were they interpreting them as reality?" Prof. Elizabeth Newson, child psychologist: "yes, immediately, immediately. Now I thought that - hang on a minute - that's a big step from - she had had these things happen to her - to she had to convey it by the way of dreams. What's that mean?"

Julie had made it absolutely clear that what she had described was only in a dream that she had then woken up from: "and then my mum was shaking me saying wake up and I was like that". Social worker: "so was your mum in the dream?" "No, I woke up and that was the end of the dream". "Oh right, that was a horrible dream, wasn't it?" "Mmm". On another occasion Julie makes clear again that she is talking about a dream - not about reality. "Did he come to your bedroom in Asby Close?" "Yes … I don't know … no". "No?" "just in my dream".

Despite repeated questioning neither Julie nor Daniel accused anyone of abusing them. But choosing to believe that there was a wider ring of abuse the social worker tried to find out who else was involved. So with some prompting Julie talked about her friends and people she knew on the estate. Julie: "it was just, went out sometimes, I played out sometimes with a friend". "Who's your friend?" "Lisa". "What about Lisa, because you said Lisa was in this one (dream), didn't you". "Yeah". "Was Lisa ever in this one?" "I think it was a boy, I don't know".

Julie (adult, to camera): "at the time we did not understand what they were … trying to get at, we didn't know why they were making us do these things … watching us from a camera … sticking us in a room with all the toys and making us play with them. And now, thinking about what you said then, you wish you had said a different thing. We did not realise that playing with toys and doing all that would stop us going home, did we?"

Three weeks after being mentioned by Julie, Lisa and eleven other children in another early morning raid were taken and interviewed. After being questioned Lisa was separated from her two sisters, her friendship with eleven year old Julie singled her out as a likely victim.

Julie's innocent mention of her friend was taken as all the evidence the social workers needed that other children were involved in a wide spread cult of Satanic abuse (film clip shown of a bedroom, a man, a woman, and a policeman struggling with a child dressed in night clothes and screaming).

Lisa (adult): they put me in a room and locked me in, I was kicking and punching the door but it was locked". Cheryl (her older sister): "I said I am not leaving without her, they said, that is not your decision". Lisa: "I wrote letters to my mum and they said they had passed them on, but my mum has never told me that, she never got any. She had written to me as well and I never got any of her letters. We were not allowed any contact, they thought we would write in code".

The social workers thought that if parents saw their children they could make secret Satanic signals. Andrew (parent): "and we did ask what sort of signals … and she said, if you scratch your head that could mean 'shut up and don't say a word' or 'if you pick your nose 'the kids get a bit excited or go mad' anything we did, could mean a signal to them. That is why they decided access was terminated".

Lisa: "I would ask the social worker every day when she would come (her mother), and when can I go home, and she would just say 'in a couple of days'. The days turned into weeks and the weeks into months and they were still saying the same thing. So I knew they were lying to me".

Meanwhile things were not easy back home, the wild accusations spread around the estate, many people believed that the devil had come to Langley. Cheryl: "they thought we had, like, things buried in the back garden, that was the rumours that were going around, just because of these social workers that believed in all this rubbish.

The local council became increasingly concerned about the horrifying abuses Social Services said were being perpetrated on so many children in their borough. At Rochdale Town Hall councillors and the police gathered to discuss this new threat.

Tony Heaford, local councillor: "I asked the Deputy Director (of Social Services) what he had heard and what evidence he had, and he said that fingers of children had been cut off, children nailed to a cross in the cemetery, children microwaved, new born babies microwaved. I looked at the policeman and said, have you been round to the hospitals and cemeteries, have you seen any four fingered children knocking about? What evidence have we got that any of this has gone on? He said none".

Nevertheless, three months later after the dawn raid, another family were targeted for showing neighbourly support. On screen, Linda and John (parents). Linda: "we used to go around to Bev and Andrew's, then they used to come around to ours, having a brew (of tea), having a laugh, playing cards, and having a couple of drinks with them.

(Beverly and Andrew seen). Beverley: "I was getting proper worried, you know, I did not like the idea of their children getting took - which in the end did happen". It happened on a September morning. Linda and John's six year old daughter Caroline was taken along with her even younger brother and sister. Caroline (adult): "I think it was Steven and our Michelle who were interviewed first, and I was the last one. I was sat on the floor and my mum turned to me and said, I don't think you are coming back home with me". Linda (the memory painful, rubbing her face, near to tears, the agony apparent): "and Caroline turned round and said yes I am … I said no you are not".

Caroline (crying): "she said, when you go to see him, make sure you tell the truth". Linda (now crying): "and she was made a Ward of Court at 25 minutes past four (even more tears), at 25 minutes past four they got made a Wardship, they were taken away, the Social Services took me back home. I cried all the way home, and they said the best thing you can do is go and see a solicitor.

Completely unknown to their parents, Caroline, Michelle and Steven were medically examined for signs of child abuse.

Caroline: "I had to lie on a bed and (now sobbing) … have a doctor look … down at you … not nice, not nice at all. I thought … and I … I think our Steven was really frightened … and … get the curtain around … and I stayed in the room while they checked Steven over … it wasn't nice at all".

It was an experience shared by all the children who were taken. Lisa: "right now it makes me feel violated". Julie: I felt sick … I felt invaded …". Lisa: "I do think one of my parents should have been there with me, they had no right to do that to a child because in my eyes - that is abuse".

Strong evidence is required to undertake physical examinations of this kind. The evidence used to justify them was one of six year old Daniel's early interviews, when a doll was dressed up to look like one of the ghosts in Daniel's stories.

(Clip of interview) Social worker: "and then that goes over there like that, is that right, and is this the thing that makes him fly? Right, and so there he is in the loft …". Daniel had said that he played a game of tick with the ghost but the social worker suspected that this could be code for something more sinister. Social worker: "and he has to tick you back. So here we are then, can you show me … how does he tick you back? Six year old Daniel: "by his hand", "Where does he put his hand?" "On me tummy". "On your tummy?" "Yes". "And do you have your clothes on then?" "Yes".

Daniel clearly says that the ghost ticks him or touches him on his tummy. This was ignored and interpreted as touching him on his genitals and from that they concluded that all of the children were being sexually abused. The police dropped the case after a six month investigation but the Social Services were determined to pursue the case through the family court and their allegations became increasingly bizarre.

(Linda and John, parents). John: "I don't know how it all actually came about but … I was getting accused that the bar (home bar used for drinks) was being used as an altar … and … drinking the blood of animals or something, wasn't we (turning to Linda)? "there was also something about foetuses" … Linda: "no, that was supposed to have been done to graveyards or something". John: "where they got all that rubbish from, I haven't a clue, they was nothing like that at all".

While her parents tried to fight the accusations Caroline adjusted to being in care with foster parents (clip of young girl crying in bed) and separated by 50 miles away from her brother Steven and sister Michelle. Caroline (adult): "every night I used to kneel down at the foot of the bed and say, "please God, let me go home (now crying, sobbing) … and look after Michelle and Steven and my mum and dad".

The families were not able to appeal to anybody for help other than their solicitor because the court had imposed strict conditions of secrecy. They were not allowed to tell their local Member of Parliament or local Councillor.

Presenter: "How were the people on the Langley Estate able to deal with Social Services, to fight their own corner?" Tony Heaford, local Councillor: "if you are fighting a bureaucracy of courts, of police and social services … well. these are just ordinary people, not very educated, some of them could not even understand the letters being sent to them, they did not understand what was happening to them or their children". As the court case approached some local councillors and journalists started to challenge the secrecy surrounding the case and the claims of the social workers, that up to 20 children could be being abused in devil worship seemed increasingly far fetched.

Local newspaper headlines shown:
"SILENCED, THEY TOOK AWAY THEIR CHILDREN AND TOOK AWAY THEIR RIGHTS"
"SCANDAL OF THE STOLEN CHILDREN".
"ABUSE CASE SHOWS NO SATANIC LINKS".
"TOP LEVEL PROBE INTO SATANIC ROW".

After up to six months in care the social workers began to allow the children to visit their parents at weekends but it was always hard when the time came for the children to return to the care home. Caroline: "on a Saturday when a car came for us there was a song playing on tape, 'Unchained Melody', and the words in that … I was sat in the front seat and Michelle and Steven was in the back … I looked around and Michelle and Steven were crying and the words to that song, 'wait for me and I will be coming home' (now fighting back the tears). I just wanted to get out of the car and stay with them" (her parents).
ß
Eleven months after the children had been taken into care social workers brought the case before the Family Court. Only now would the parents find out if their children could come home. As the court case progressed the mistakes of the social workers were laid bare.

Child psychologist, Prof. Elizabeth Newson: "I think the key error from the very start was that the social workers were absolutely sure that they knew best, here at last was Satanic abuse, you know, they were witnessing it and therefore whatever they interpreted was bound to be true".

We see a clip of the child interview room with two social workers present talking to each other, one says: "I suppose when I saw these drawings today I got a bit worried because I have seen drawings a bit like this before". The other replies: "he has not got his private bits on though, has he?" "No". "Perhaps he's not got any". "He hasn't got any".

David (as an adult) laughing: I don't know why, but I had drawn a Mister Man (cartoon character), I don't know why, I just did, and they said, "why is he not wearing any clothes … Mister Man does not wear pants! I just find it really, really scary. You could say that that was abuse, in itself".

The questioning of the children was often repetitive and according to some experts, bordering on interrogation. This was Lisa's interview on the day she was taken (scene of interview room). Social worker: "would she not describe what it was like? What do you think ghosts are like? Can you draw a ghost? What do you think ghosts are like?" Lisa, "what". Social worker: "can you tell me a little more about the ghost that you were frightened of?" Lisa: "what ghost?" Social worker: "When we were talking about … the ghost that was at Julie's house … that was the ghost that frightened you, wasn't it? Is that right? Lisa: "I didn't see that ghost". "You didn't see that ghost? … so you were frightened of the ghost that Julie told you was in their house?" Lisa: "can we go and see the rabbits now? "So when you was scared of the ghost that had been at Julie's house … were you scared of any other ghosts then? Lisa: "No". Social worker: "No".

Professor Newson: "the problem is that it is very difficult for a child to withstand an adult who repeats and repeats and repeats and repeats the same thing and is really insistent at what they are trying to put over. Children are used to accepting what teachers say, what social workers say, and so on, it is very difficult for them to deny things."

As well as singling out the key social worker Susan Hammersley and the team leader Jill France the judge criticised the whole of Rochdale Social Services department saying that the interviews were below standard, the social workers lacked adequate training.

We see a scene of an interview room and a social worker asking for advice from colleagues over a phone link. Social worker to child: "what we have got in here is a telephone link to a room behind there". We see her pick up a telephone "Hija, back yet? Right, I'm just wondering whether … whether to start explaining the set up really", and again later to the child: "let me just check something on the phone" she then picks up the phone, "Hija, I am wondering how much more I can say about that really", and later still, to the child, "OK, we'll stop a minute and ring through, then into the telephone: "Hija, any thoughts on that? Any … anything on it, to go back over … thinking about moving on, on really … on to touches etc., right, ok, thanks".

Presenter: "you watched hours of interviews with the children, what is your assessment of all this". Dr Holt, child psychologist: "it made painful viewing, the children's denials weren't listened to and sometimes the children would be really distressed and yet nobody was there to comfort them, the interviews were allowed to drag on far too long".

One session was with David's six year old sister Caroline. She cried from the moment she entered the interview room and within two minutes was sobbing uncontrollably. Caroline: "I want David, I want David". She asked over and over and over again, she sobbed for 17 minutes. Caroline: "I want David, leave me alone".

Professor Newson: "Caroline couldn't think of anything but the fact that she wanted her brother, and she wanted to go home and she said those two things over and over and over again and cried for seventeen minutes. The social worker went on and on and on and on trying to explain to Caroline through Caroline's crying, now you just cannot do that to a child".

We see the social worker on video say: "we've got to try and find out whether it is safe enough for you to go home Caroline … and that's what you want to know, isn't it Caroline".

Professor Newson: "and then she said, 'are you listening Caroline, can you hear me Caroline', well it is obvious that Caroline can barely hear her through her own tears".

We see Caroline on video sobbing: "I want David". Social worker: "listen, listen". Caroline: "I want to go back." Social worker: "if you stop crying we can talk about you going back, can't we, will you stop crying for a minute?"

The judge described this interview as one of the most abiding and disturbing parts of the case.

Social worker: "when you stop crying Caroline, when you stop crying we'll go back. David (adult) her brother: "the child was six, she didn't even know what a social worker was, how could she be surprised that she was distressed - fucking arse holes". (well said David : Ed ).

As the trial wore on the Satanic abuse claims of the social workers were disproved one by one and the actions of the social workers were increasingly criticised. Professor Newson: "the social workers believed that they were saving these children and they simply were not. Now some times you can see the obsessionalism about it by the fact that the social workers were quite prepared to tell very ordinary lies".

Interview room. Social worker: "do you know I think this ghost is really very naughty, he does lots of things to you that aren't very nice, doesn't he? Fancy putting you into a cage. Can you get out of the cage if you want to?" Daniel: "Yes". "Who lets you out?" "Myself". "Oh, you can let yourself out?" "Yes". "And are the ghosts al-right or do they shout at you if you come out?" "They're OK". "They're OK?" " They're very kind ghosts" … "are they very kind ghosts? Oh right."

In court, this conversation was presented by the social workers as Daniel telling how he had been forced by his abusers, the ghosts, into a cage and then locked in. That supported the social workers - but that was not what Daniel had said.

Presenter: "you called them lies, did they (the social workers) tell the wrong things about what was going on with the children, out of malice, or of misguided zeal to help the children?" Professor Newson" "well … the judge was kind enough to say it was misguided zeal … I am more straight talking than that and I thought it a lie".

As the case drew to a close it was clear that there was no evidence of organised Satanic abuse on the Langley Estate. Dr Holt: "I interviewed all the children and the parents, I watched one hundred hours plus of video and I read all the reports, and I found no evidence at all to support the fear that they had been Satanically abused. I simply do not believe it, I don't think there was any".

Judge: "At the end of all the evidence the conclusion is inevitable that neither these children nor their parents have been involved in anyway with Satanic ritual or organised abuse".

The children were allowed to return home - all except for one family - Andrew and Beverly's children were kept in care. Social Services NOW claimed they had poor parenting skills and could not look after them (Editor: these nasty, nasty, nasty people - pure spite).

Julie (adult): "It was hard to take it in, we couldn't believe it, that this was happening to us because we missed them (their parents) a lot, didn't we. We had been torn apart, the family had been ripped apart". Andrew and Beverly were only allowed to see their children for one hour per month and eventually visits to Daniel were curtailed to just one hour PER YEAR. Social Services claimed that it was too emotionally distressing for Daniel to see his parents more often.

Beverly (looking very sad): "I felt a stranger, in a way, but I knew him. I didn't like it, I asked for more hours to see him but they wouldn't have it". Andrew: "I didn't think the kids would ever come home and the reason I thought that is that we didn't really have any support, there was just myself and Beverly, we were on our own.

Andrew, Beverly and their children were the forgotten family, they were ill equipped to challenge Social Services and after years of fighting had got nowhere. Local Councillor, Tony Heaford, heard about their plight.

Presenter: "and what was your reaction when you realised that they had been in care for so long". Tony Heaford: "well I couldn't say a lot because I thought there must be something more on this family than I knew about the others and so I had to ask Social Services for the file on them. Of course, I read the file, and I didn't find any word of abuse. I found lots of words about having no money, debt, things like that, but I never found anything about abuse. With Tony Heaford's help one by one the children were allowed to come home and finally, after ten years in care Daniel, the first child to be taken was at last allowed back (Now 16 years old after 10 years in their clutches : Ed).

Daniel: "it was near Christmas and I got a phone call from mum, surprised and everything, she asked me if I would come home for Christmas, I couldn't stop smiling (we see Daniel looking joyful, for the first time). I said yes, I had Christmas, it was nice, I said to mum, can I stay here, she said yes". Beverly: "it was nice that first Christmas wasn't it?" "Yeah". Beverly: "the whole family back together again". Julie: "it felt … normal, didn't it. It didn't feel unsafe. It didn't feel dangerous".

Daniel and his family are still together on the estate, and like the other families trying to piece their lives back together again but they were not the only one's to fall victim to this Satanic panic. In the late 1980's and early 90's more than 80 cases of alleged Satanic abuse were reported across Britain. NOT ONE was ever proven to have any connection with a Satanic cult.

Following this case Rochdale Council accepted a judges view that dawn raids to remove children were harmful. Rochdale Director of Social Services (Gordon Littlemore) resigned and extra training and more rigourous guidelines were introduced. The council adds that it has already apologised for the mistake made and took immediate steps to ensure they wouldn't be repeated. It recognises the painful and traumatic experiences of the families (weak, weak, excuses). But for the children that does not add up to an apology for the trauma they suffered, they are now taking the council to court.

As they continue to await the Council's response their memories live on.

Cheryl: "do you think we will get a public apology in the same way we were smeared across the papers". Solicitor: "I think we have a very good case for an apology, it was really one of the biggest mistakes made by Social Services in the last 25 years, so they should apologise, I have asked for an apology and we are now waiting for that".

David: "from coming out (David obviously views his time in care as imprisonment : Ed), my life was so messed up after what these had done, I couldn't slip back into the way my life was, you know what I mean".
Lisa: "I am not going to let my depression and anxiety get me down, lets control it. I do get angry because of the things I have been through and having to learn how to control it, I blame them for what they did and for me being the person I am today".
Daniel: "I don't know how to start a conversation or to talk to people, I do not have that confidence … everyone else seems to have …"
Caroline: "I can't say if things would have been different if we had not been taken into care because we did not have that opportunity, it just happened around us … like a piece of paper that has had a chunk ripped out of it … you've stuck the other bit to it and that bit is just and that bit is just … you can never bring that bit back (she is now near to tears)."

Daniel spent 10 years in care from the age of 6 years (now 21 years old in January 2006?).
Julie spent 5 years in care from the age of 11 years (now 26 years old in January 2006?).
Caroline spent 6 months in care, at age of 11 years (now 26 years old in January 2006?).
David spent 2 months in care at the age of 13 years (now 28 years old in January 2006?).
Lisa spent 5 months in care at the age of 11 years (now 26 years old in January 2006?).

The Rochdale children (including those who have not gone public) spent a total of 34 years and 4 months in care. The social workers involved chose not to take part in the programme, Susan Hammersley and Jill France still work in child protection. (So what happened to Gordon Littlemore, the director. Did he get further employment in this business? Ed).

The last word went to Julie who said: "what they have done has made me angry - all kids have imaginations - they make stories up - that is what kids do".

In the late 1980's and early 1990's more than 80 cases of alleged Satanic abuse were reported across Britain, NOT ONE was ever proven to have any connection with a Satanic cult.

 

Editor's comments: So why did this immense cruelty happen in the 1990's? Well surely for the same reason as in the 1690's - vindictive pleasure. The only other reason could be incredible stupidity.

The judge in this case made excuses for the social workers claiming they were dedicated and warm hearted (can you hear the violins) and had considerable skills, well we learnt how warm hearted they were when they continued the imprisonment of Julie and Daniel..

The judge obviously considered that there was no crime in them accusing people of witchcraft, trying to get parents life sentences in prison, and stealing their children. The establishment in Britain invariably comes to the aid of their own and secret family courts and gagging orders stop the rest of us knowing the truth, that is why they are used. It makes you want to vomit.

Three cheers for investigative journalism and the BBC "Real Story" team. If the BBC repeat this programme - watch it.

 

 

More Rochdale child stealing

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

www.slimeylimeyjustice.org