Showing posts with label bbc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bbc. Show all posts

13 Nov 2014

Mother Justice is busy with the BBC

Mother 4 Justice - Elizabeth Robillard blogs and shares truth and information




Email foi@bbc.co.uk

Information Policy & Compliance

13/11/2014

Dear Sir Madam


Please supply me with the names of accountants and auditors working
for/with and including those who have worked with 'BBC Media Action'
and 'BBC Children in Need' in the last five years.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Lucye Robillard
London
sw5

6 Nov 2014

People responsible (or not) for the welfare of children - covered up by BBC? Discussed 2008

Sunday, 3 February 2008

FAMILY LAW- Vulnerable Mafia?

Family Law: Vulnerable Mafia (gagged by the Brown Broadcasting C....)

'There is a hidden small civil war, happening now between defenceless parents, biased closed family law practices and local Social Services departments in various areas in the UK.

Some families are being deprived of justice and are pushed to the point of suicide and disability due to the enormous strain of having to fight for their lives in secret family courts, these crimes are being commited within the Public Family Law courts in the UK.

Most parents in this situ have no option but to fight the monumental might of a council, with their unlimited resources, the parents often without unbiased professional aid.

These parents are fighting not only for their children but for their reputation -so easily tarnished due false allegations and exaggeration of 'behavior' as a result of draconian actions by councils and family courts.

Malicious gossip and whispering campaigns in Local Authorities must be outlawed as 'Hate Crime' and perpetrator brought to justice.

These rotten campaigns spread into every area of a persons' life.

False allegations and oppression against parents often leave the parents incapable of caring for their family without help, due to widespread failing health from the stress of the fight- like a self-fulfilling prophecy - manipulated by councils.

A simple dislike of a particular parent/s can trigger a domino-effect of emotional torture and charachter assassination against innocent people by professionals employed in the name of 'care' when it is rather 'Authoritian Dictatorship'- destruction of a good family by councils because they CAN do it and do, all too easily.

Presumably the councils intention to effectively destroy a families' life forever for fun (I have seen Social Workers say 'let's stop [] seeing the kid!!' ) whilst actually simply securing the need for their own welfare whilst filling budgets to justify their employment.

A social worker or other council professional (whom has the opulence of unlimited legal support) creates and manipulates a domino-effect of emotional torture so as to effectively destroy a families' life forever.

All in a days work.

Social Services are responsible for childrens' welfare- to drag them screaming from loving parents' or leaving them exposed to other dangers cannot ever be justified outside of the secret family courts, wars have been started for less. '

F4J and the public courts are two different matters. Public courts are the ones where social services dominate the proceedings and dictate to the judges, charmingly spout lies to gain their incentives (need to fill adoption/fostering/special needs []slots) they have teams of legal and medical professionals all backing each other so a hapless innocent parent (target) is left with no recourse at all against the monolithic wall of power that has no governing body. Childrens’ Social Services have no governing body as of April 2007, Judges have no governing body and someone call Trading Standards as they are not working on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen.

In fact it appears we have Family Lawer Mafia running the PUBLIC family law courts (social service domination) . The PRIVATE (divorce) family law courts are open, but CAFCASS are involved in both types of courts. It’s important to distinguish between these two types of court as mothers are generally the targets in public - Elizabeth Robillard

------------------------------------------------------------

social workers the ultimate narcissists, please see my website;

The fact that social workers and employees involved with any local authority, such as those permanent employees at Adoption and Permanancy panels globally are given training in matters pertaining to family law prior to any proceedings. That's illegal isn't it? Isn't that a bias before a case is begun and therefore a violation of a fair hearing [Article 6 ECHR]?

This Leaves a vulnerable, hapless parent [target] violated by professional bullies whom are legally-trained (and trained in the latest 'psych techniques' too! Aren't we modern? Please see article 'psychiatry is redundant' with refs) .

The fact that social workers regard themselves as superior is an outrage and purely political - they are great puppets for their managers. They cannot move beyond BASIC psychology OR politics.


Not to mention the childrens' wishes completely unheard.

Nobody has mentioned the children who die on the streets fleeing care-homes- have they? Who cares about them? Shelter probably.

They (targets) do not stand a chance, especially once the parent has employed a family solicitor, all parties (except the parent-client-target) then these professionals collaborate regarding timing, payment, likely outcome of case and SO much more - all without the 'client' [ target parent] knowing about it. These professionals have access to all records, letters and every type of detail of your life.

Privacy of family courts? There's no privacy, there is for the courts.

They snort at the profits, in a joyful way.

This legal training for social workers ( Cafcass, etc) makes it a plain case of violation of Article 6 of the Human Rights' Act before any case has even reached court. Doesn't it?

Thank you for reading.

Elizabeth Robillard  READ MORE

28 Oct 2014

It is NEVER religion that causes war - only 'demi gods' and psychopaths






Religion isn't lacking in justice. Religion lacks psychology by making funding the primary driver, over it's own humanity and dogma - also lacks ability to spot NPD (deliberate? I wouldn't be surprised)


The 'Church of England' we used to defend with our life - is just a made-up church by a deranged, NASTY and randy old man who had no RELATION TO JESUS  - not the  bloodline of Christ at all- but I digress (though Tudors were clearly psychopath)



Religion has lacked the ability to prevent psychopaths from  harming kids and other sweet and beautiful creatures, all over the world. Religion has not failed though, religion failed to implement fair justice. It needs to be accountable and make amends. No matter what type of place you worship, they need clear up the mess they made with their exploitation, violation and abuse and provide us all with access to good lawyers, sharpish. (not easy with ham-fisted blind-sided conservatives running things, another reason UKIP has to work so hard to save so many) 

 

 'no more legal aid for the poor' has to be the most idiotic thing any government has ever done since Walpole.  Mickey-taking lawyers need to own up and take it on the chin.

 

The actual  holy texts are probably all well intentioned, from very passionate and caring people. History is also vital to culture and  identity. But exploitation and violation belong to the evil side, from people whom have been unable to tolerate their own personal injury history, some have had such outrageous things happen that nobody on earth could possibly believe them. I would.

 I'm one of a vast number of folks interested in Kim Jong Un for example. He seems very psychopathic to us, but is he really?  I'd love to hear about his childhood and how he perceived things then. A candid read from him, would be extremely enlightening. I suppose it would be a bit 'rehearsed' though. Be candid man, you only live on this planet, once  (maybe)? Imagine him on Parkinson? We need more good talk shows back. I miss quality talk shows like that (though Steve Allen is getting better all the time, well done him, bring him back to early evenings, we need more of him at a decent hour pls gods of LBC)

   It would be amazing to hear about his worries and concerns and maybe if he wrote a book, we could know how to gain some trust from him and his people? I'd love that, I hope he will consider it.  I'm happy to assist him id he'd like help with blogging (feel free to contact me, form on the right) His mum apparently called him ' morning star king' here's a bit more from m the BBC

This all reminds me of how bad psychiatry is. Always presuming to know stuff when it doesn't. Brings me to the other favourite thing - 'assumptions'. Eh Keith? x






26 Oct 2014

RBKC Social Worker Gnome - Bob McGavin - what a web you weaved, sue me (ADULT LANGUAGE)



Bob had one of those CONfabulated accents that sound a bit like James O'Brain off LBC  radio - a northerner always aspiring to be a Londoner and never quite making it. Sometimes I wish James would go back to his foreign hills of the black country and be a lefty there - he is taking up room in Chiswick (where I went to school) and will never lose that accent, he will always use it CONvincingly and it makes me feel a bit queasy and weepy at times. Why can't they hire a proper London lefty like Mark the Artist Taxi Driver?

Not that I'm intolerant or anything but I'd prefer listening to someone like Jules Holland or Chris Evans (whatever happened to Chris?) or Danny Baker. Someone who is actually a Londoner would be good and more representative of our capital. O'Brien would be good for Midlands BBC.  Sometimes he's OK. When not using obvious smarm and NLP seduction tips to get callers to ring in. I digress.

Bob MCGavin is a tall gnome, a beardy cunt.

Years ago (circa 2003-4) I was attempting to participate in an old 'scientology' forum known as 'MSBP,COM' (screen shots being investigated) allegedly for mothers accused of harming children 'for attention' Clearly it was a place not just for mothers but for female psychopaths. Quite a few people suffered stalking and hacking after having joined the board. It created  a lot of upset and paranoia.

Having some sympathy for the issues both Penny Mellor and David Southall were bringing, I was rather intrigued by it all. There was no talk of NPD then (see Sam Vaknin)

There was however. a person using the handle 'searcher' - an IT professional who had been 'falsely accused' of paedophilia. Being into justice and hating paedophiles too, I wanted to know how this person thought. I am a behaviourist after all.

Long story short, searcher told me he was wanting children and always had wanted to be a dad. He was having a tough time with IVF stuff (Julia Hartley Brewer from LBC is experienced there) and had 'such a small dick, the wife turned lesbian'  He was very intelligent and funny and used to spend a lot of time with me. I was rather ill at the time and the story of that is really for another day - this is to establish why Bob told me that 'searcher' was 'class A convicted paedophile' when I requested info on the man. Well. I should have known better than to trust a bent social worker (sue me Bob) I know - but when searcher said I was 'bad little baby' during sex, it was a hysteria moment I swallowed. When, however, he held a photograph I didn't like, high above my head, as if I were three. it sent me nuts - confirmed - for me - this was a big bully - may well get pleasure from undermining little ones. Chased him out. Got a bag of flour, a tin of beans and duffed up his car. I'm still not certain but the offence he was 'convicted' of, was for looking at kids in a school, from his car, once. That does not make any sense though.

Over to you RBKC Police, CSA Earl's Court.  Meanwhilse, what is Mark up to?







21 Oct 2014

Our Barbara Richards ('TIP') shared this - reminding us all 'it isn't all about YOU!

'Part 1 of the 1994 BBC adaptation of William Horwood's 'Skallagrigg'. Esther, a young woman with cerebral palsy, investigates the legend of Arthur and the skallagrigg while getting to know her father.' here

19 Oct 2014

Diane Abbot says Labour mustn't be too UKIP about things

There was me thinking our favourite piss 'ed would be joining that sexy and happy and tax-respecting determined band - when she said today 'Labour mustn't overdo the UKIP '- or some such gem. She once said on BBC London (or was it LBC?) that she used to drink THREE BOTTLES OF WINE JUST FOR LUNCH' made the hard corer weekend drinkers worry for the future of North London did that - still. I have known some other fab lushes from there. Very harsh, snappy and rude some of them, squirrel killers too - but usually - heat of gold with priorities in order. Come on Diane, aint ya sick of all that whining yet? Listen to our reggae you can't argue with it.  Join
UKIP



 

United against communist oppression - I HATE CONTROL FREAKS - and then - the ICO Iman spoketh

So we're all united in that. The BBC appear to be sweaty and clambering over each others backs (not the kids?) but not in a joyful way any more, I wonder why? They are considering what may happen to them (enjoy the Tree of Life!)  - I guess - with the world looking at the 'BBC Children in Need' money (in MUCH finer detail, and then under the teenier grains of sand) and the 'BBC Action' community posts that were pulled, and who's order THAT was...because that was also BBC Children in Need 'BBC Media Action’? And so  - Iman of the ICO sayeth 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <casework@ico.org.uk>
Date: 16 October 2014 10:51
Subject: IRQ0555556, response from ICO[Ref. IRQ0555556]
To: f@gmail.com


16th October 2014

Case Reference Number IRQ0555556
 Dear Ms Robillard

Thank you for your correspondence of 19 September 2014 in you you made a request for information to the ICO.

In this correspondence you requested:

“Please will you provide me with the following information? This is a FOIA request. 

1. who, names please are/is responsible for payments to 

2. When was the decision made to make BBC Media Action not accountable to the law?  

3. Does the BBC have a list of its investments that are available to the public if not; may we have a reason given for that please?”

Response to request

Firstly, it may be of assistance to explain that the ICO regulates the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act and would likely hold information about an organisation if there was a complaint about them or we were engaging with them. 


Having considered the type of information you are asking for and also having carried out reasonable searches we have not been able to locate any information to answer your questions posed under number 1, 2 and 3. For clarity, we have searched our information management systems for complaints or documents held about “BBC Media Action” “BBC list of investments” and can confirm the following; no complaints have been brought to the attention of the ICO about BBC Media Action. There is also no information held on our records management system about “BBC list of investments”. If you have reasons to believe that the ICO holds this information please clarify why, this may assist us in targeting further searches.

If however you wish to bring a concern to the attention of the ICO about “BBC Media Action” or “the BBC's” compliance with the Information Acts including publication schemes and refusal to provide information please use the following link to report it to us

http://ico.org.uk/concerns


I am sorry we could not be of more assistance on this occasion

If you are dissatisfied with the response you have received and wish to request a review of our decision or make a complaint about how your request has been handled you should write to the Information Access team at the address below or e-mailaccessicoinformation@ico.org.uk.

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response. Any such request received after this time will only be considered at the discretion of the
Commissioner.

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have a further right of appeal to this office in our capacity as the statutory complaint handler under the legislation.  To make such an application, please visit the ‘Concerns’ section of our website to make a Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations complaint online.

A copy of our review procedure is available here
http://ico.org.uk/about_us/~/media/documents/library/Corporate/Notices/ico_review_procedure_v9.ashx



Yours sincerely

Iman Elmehdawy
Lead Information Access Officer


19 Sep 2014

Baroness Stowell of Beeston and the ICO - she has some interest in cctv and insurance?

Mother 4 Justice - Elizabeth Robillard blogs and shares truth and information


                                             Friday 19 September 2014

The Baroness Stowell of Beeston
House of Lords
London
SW1A 0PW

Dear Lady Stowell of Beeston,

I noted your interest in the ICO.

Hoping you will kindly follow this (below) correspondence on my blog at

http://mother-4-justice.blogspot.ie

BBC  charities and subsidies, potential
corruption/perjury/misfeasance/misconduct enquiry

Dear ICO

Good afternoon.

Please will you provide me with the following information? This is a
FOIA
request.

1. Who,names please are/is responsible for payments to 'BBC Media
Action' ?

2. When was the decision made to make BBC Media Action not accountable
to
the law?

3. Does the BBC have a list of its investments that are available to
the
public if not, may we have a reason given for that please?

Thanks

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Lucye Robillard

BBC FOIA REQ sent to ICO in response to theirs of the other day

Mother 4 Justice - Elizabeth Robillard blogs and shares truth and information

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

BBC  charities and subsidies, potential
corruption/perjury/misfeasance/misconduct enquiry


Dear ICO

Good afternoon.

Please will you provide me with the following information? This is a FOIA
request.

1. Who,names please are/is responsible for payments to 'BBC Media Action' ?

2. When was the decision made to make BBC Media Action not accountable to
the law?

3. Does the BBC have a list of its investments that are available to the
public if not, may we have a reason given for that please?

Thanks

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth Lucye Robillard
sw5 9ba

Ken Livingstone knows what's what and who is whom, sure as there is a nose on yer face! And HM Queen Elizabeth did not respond to this

Mother 4 Justice - Elizabeth Robillard blogs and shares truth and information

http://www.mama2.org/AO Ken Livingstone Fwd: FUAO Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Adriana C Ref: 05/A/01426/NP)‏

FAO Ken Livingstone Fwd: FUAO Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Adriana C Ref: 05/A/01426/NP)
Elizabeth Robillard   20/10/2005   Keep this message at the top of your inbox
To: mayor@london.gov.uk
Cc: chelsea.[]@hotmail.co.uk


Dear Mr.Livingstone,

I'm writing because my mother was a big supporter of yours. Please see below
(letter to Sir Rifkind) and my story (an open letter to the HRH The Queen)
here http://www.mama2.org [taken down]

I would also like to ask you to please investigate the incestuous nature of
RBKC. All charities bar one are subsidised- but always threatened with
funding withdrawal if a client of subsidise charity
should take the authority to court. This is a means of defeating the most
vulnerable.

Thank you for your time,

Yours faithfully,

Liz Lucy Robillard

HRH Queen Elizabeth
via email
26th November 2007 (copied to BBC)
Dear Madam,

Please pardon my temerity at writing and for this intrusion.

I'm writing as your servant and distant- relative (De Lucy, Robillard, Champagne) and as the daughter of J.G.L Robillard whom was decorated (by your father) for his efforts as a pilot with the CRAF and RAF during WW11.

Please review family court lawyers and judges acting 'in your name' - they are accountable to nobody (no governing body) and acting, in some instances, as power-crazed (sorry for the strong language) but they ought be judging their findings on evidence when at the moment they depend heavily on the words of social workers (children's services as of April 2007 also have no governing body) whilst all parties whom truly benefit (bar parents involved) are legal departments, all of whom make huge profit often with the hapless parent unaware of why children are taken from them etc .

 In an effort to understand this,  I took six months of university reading social sciences and dropped out due to is heavy bias toward communism and my refusing to put my name to work I was ordered to plageurise (communist bias)

 Also the training of social workers is often popular psychology (most is hypothesis very far from any fact) yet learned men and women willingly accept the view of these people, employed in your name, over that of your citizens and friends that actually know the families involved, wishing for fairness and openess in your public family courts, for their friends (eg friends - up to 20 in some cases, go to court as witnesses for the parent, but the power of authority to rule, outweighs that of any justice)

It would be refreshing to see such judges not depending on their perception of psychology e.g. a scoundrel knows to 'show remorse' (crocodile tears) will often release him from charges. This is common knowledge and I believe the judiciary are aware of this only recently.

 Sadly I have personal tragic experience of these public family courts and despite informing my MP (Sir Rifkind) very little appears to be done to stop the local authorities simply being able to march into any ones home and 'kidnap' children for the sake of filling the needs of job placements, such as permanent adoption and fostering officers and departments.

As a disabled mother and previously an actress, I am sad to find myself an unfortunate campaigner for public family law reform.
This job, separating families, surely ought to be one of a community, including free legal support for a parent in such a plight, as well as impartial support for the child? Too much communist influence is determining the lives of the British people as far as I can see.

The Children Act ultimately says 'the paramount interest of the child' but surely the abuse of that statement- leaving judges to disregard fact eg hundreds of hard fact evidence due to  a social worker or two urging it, is contrary to the paramount interest of the child?

Thank you for your kind observation and consideration

As always

your servant

Elizabeth C Lucye Robillard
-

17 Sep 2014

Whiff of stasi from the BBC - again * Final response* = freakshow bollix, frankly

British Broadcasting Corporation Room BC2 B6 Broadcast Centre White City Wood Lane London W12 7TP

Telephone 020 8008 2882 Email foi@bbc.co.uk

Information Policy & Compliance

bbc.co.uk/foi       bbc.co.uk/privacy


Ms Elizabeth Lucye Robillard
Via email



17/09/2014



Dear Ms Robillard,


Freedom of Information request ­ [RFI20141412]


Thank you for your request to the BBC of 01/09/2014, seeking the following information under the
Freedom of Information Act (`the Act') 2000:


`Who was responsible for editing and publishing for the BBC Action community site
from 2006 to it's closure?'


The information you have requested is excluded from the Act. This is because our subsidiaries
(including BBC Studios & Post Production Ltd, UKTV, BBC Global News Ltd and BBC Worldwide
Ltd), as well as the charities BBC Media Action and BBC Children in Need, are not subject to the
Freedom of Information Act, pursuant to 6(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. The BBC is therefore not obliged to
provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion.


That said, the BBC makes a huge range of information available about our programmes and content
on bbc.co.uk. We also proactively publish information covered by the Act on our publication
scheme and regularly handle requests for information under the Act.


Appeal Rights


The BBC does not offer an internal review when the information requested is not covered by the
Act. If you disagree with our decision you can appeal to the Information Commissioner. Contact
details are: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire,
SK9 5AF telephone 01625 545 700. www.ico.org.uk


Please note that should the Information Commissioner's Office decide that the Act does cover this
information, exemptions under the Act might then apply.


Yours sincerely,

The Information Policy & Compliance Team


BBC Freedom of Information
BC2B6, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP

www.bbc.co.uk/foi



Email: foi@bbc.co.uk

6 Sep 2014

I was RUDE BBC - have a look how RUDE I feel Auntie

Your BBC Guide Entry has been removed‏

Action Network (actionnetwork.moderation@bbc.co.uk)
  
30/05/2006
 
 
To: chelsea.finest@hotmail.co.uk
actionnetwork.moderation@bbc.co.uk
Dear BBC Community member,

Thank you for contributing to a BBC community site. Unfortunately we've had to remove your
Guide Entry below because it contravenes the House Rules.

This decision has been made for legal reasons. Legal reasons could include:

*Potentially libellous comments
*Contempt of court (writing something which may influence the jury in a current or forthcoming trial)
*Breach of an injunction
*Inciting an illegal act

Please remove any such material from your message, then resubmit it.

If you would like to re-write your contribution to remove the problem, then
we'd be very happy for you to add it to the Guide again.

If you have read the House Rules carefully and are still unsure why your message was removed, please reply to this email.


Best wishes,

The BBC Moderation Team

URL of content (now removed):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A12068976

Subject:
Abuse of disabled Children: UK today . 'ABA' . 

Guide Entry:
<GUIDE><BODY>Abuse of disabled Children: UK today:

DFES: ? DFES:? + MENCAP:? DFES DISABILITY RIGHTS:? DISABLED CHILDRENS RIGHTS:? NSPCC:? DFES DISABILITY LAW:? DISABILITY DISCRIMIATION:? MENCAP:? WHERE IS MENCAP:? : WHERE ARE THEY WHEN YOU NEED THEM? = 'ABA' :

Not only are charlatans and sadists brainwashing good parents into believing their children will speak (not even one such mistake is morally acceptable) and learn to be 'normal' (not possible for a genuine autist to 'be normal' thus alienating autistic people from relationships with people that already scare them) they are lying and misleading in courts of law to do so. These psychologists will diagnose anyone with autism or asperger syndrome for the right price, then of course they pass the devastated parents and children to colleagues 'consulting' on 'ABA ' (aka LOVAAS or CABAS) which is nothing short of 'make it up on the spot' dog training. They use a lot of rubbish data giving no thought about what making these children repeat over + again is doing to the child. In short they force a child to repeat an action over + over for hours, days, weeks, months, 9 years in some cases, until the child completes the task. They call it 'complaiance' - it being an 'ultimate goal' acc!
ording to one self-labelled 'supervisor' famous for her American accent, strange as when not 'supervising' speaks with a broad BRUM (Midlands UK) accent . Some children become utterly compliant. Not excactly the perfect goal for a helpless non-verbal child wide open to every type of abuse- is it? One such child has suffered 'ABA' for 9 years . He remains in nappies, unable to read/write/communicate/point or anything much at all. A helpless child that had some words + is now made to sit at a table repeating the same puzzle up to 30 times a day and being fed a sweet / candy to 'reinforce the good behaviour' or on completion of a puzzle- ABA is simple - anyone can do it. You simply reward 'wanted' behaviour + ignore 'extinguish' unwanted behaviour. The trouble is the 'ABA' cultists now purport to be experts in teaching severe learning diabled children. They are but money making machines with a psychology degree. People using ABA to teach animals are far kinder + know little !
of this criminal abuse of this type of behaviour modification for disa
bled children. This 'therapy' is not only unsound and unsafe + using unproven hypotheses + theory based on the 'recovery' of 9 of 19 children (LOVAAS '87) whom cannot possibly have been autistic *unless* you belong to the outmoded school of thought that Bettelheim ('psychiatrist' later found to have falsified his credentials + famous for his plageurism) blamed 'absent fathers + refrigerator mothers' for causing autism (Bettelheim later was discovered to be a paedophile and killed himself when discovered) - a parent in London, back in 1997 changed the law with a landmark judgement+ created what she thought was a victory for all children suffering autism + needing specialist education when she won public funding for LOVAAS home education. The same parent is now battling through courts again to prise her poor (non-verbal incontinent + helpless) child OUT of such a school + also was disgusted at at the way she was used + lied to by these misleading 'professionals' when she saw w!
hat emotional and physical torture was being perpetuated in the name of ABA/ 'recovering autistic children to normality' . Consultants enjoy their visits to London and boast about many extra marital affairs + offshore bank accounts etc - a non-practising lawyer (whom deliberately but erroneously went to High Court where the judge illegally accepted his evidence to overrule a previous refusal for this therapy at a tribunal - this fake lawyer obtains an awful lot of money to act for parents to get this 'education' for these vulnerable children- since when was a 'behavioural therapy' supposed to be paid for by The Department for Education + Skills? Surely, if it's needed AT ALL it ought be at least overseen by the NHS? The people are criminals + although there may be some justification for using ABA for 'EBD' children this is NOT any type of education or acceptable for Severe Learning Disabled people, where is MENCAP + DFES? WHY do they allow this to continue? 

Taken from Michelle Dawson; and Autist, single - minded for attempting to acquire justice and correctness for some autistic individuals:
Comments
"AUTISM, ABA + MMR ::- those pro the former + anti the latter appear to be inextricably linkld? Re 'ABA' again: :

Quote Michelle Dawson (an autistic individual) :

In Canada, the new, improved ABA has resulted in children staying in ABA indefinitely (ABA is being demanded without limit for all ages). The aversives in Lovaas (1987) have been replaced by massive amounts of extrinsic reinforcers. Children may remain dependent on food reinforcers after three years in treatment. In many legal cases, it has been ruled that children in these programs get “distressed” and “out of control” quite apart from losing what they’ve “learned” when the level of reinforcement that they are dependent on is in any way diminished, even after they’ve been in ABA for many years. It has been ruled that any reduction of reinforcement constitutes “irreparable harm” of these school-aged children.

There are no peer-reviewed published adult outcome studies of any ABA program, Lovaas-type or not. 
As for moving on from Lovaas (1987), recent (Eikeseth et al, 2002) and upcoming (Sallows &amp; Graupner, in press) controlled trials continue to use The Me Book (Lovaas, 1981) as the “manual” describing the treatment for the experimental group, with the sole caveat that aversives are no longer used.

A recent Canadian study (Eaves &amp; Ho, 2004) shows no effect of kind or amount of treatment (including ABA, which half the 40 children underwent) on outcomes in the assumed-to-be-critical 2-5yr old range. Some autistics did really well; some did poorly—but this was regardless of what kind of treatment or how much treatment was used.

This is apart from ethical issues which I’ve written about herehttp://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_aba.html and herehttp://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_vic.htmlamong other places.
Michelle Dawson"