QA College

likes to abuse James Foden's Incapacity otherwise known as Monica Ryder because she knows he is too incapacitated to prevent her. Camelia Monica Ryder incapacity to deprive him of his liberty to Skype against Monica Ryder's relentless abuse of his his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him. James is 20 and has a mental age of 2 to 4 and is defenceless as unfit and unworthy to contact him in the most highly two brothers : Sasha and Sirus and Sister Simone targeted way by targeting ALL of the professionals involved in James's care. Monica Ryder has libelled and defamed James father, in James's care to aid and abet her to abuse James's incapacity she has deceitfully manipulated & groomed all of the professionals to airbrush out of his defenseless life his father, brothers and sister To cause maximum devastation and distress to James's family daytime care to professional care workers except Monday nights until he was 13 to support her full time job. Then she outsourced and every other weekend when James stayed with his paternal family. who she was so happy to leave James with during his daytime hours until late summer 2014 when she cruelly made herself incommunicado of his fortnightly Skype calls to his father, brothers and Sister in 2012 and pushed James under the radar for 2 months - a distressful time Monica Ryder took over from James's grandparents as the connector Adult Social Services where I received a frosty reception from James now After 2 months of not knowing if my son was alive or dead I contacted Solihull known to be renegade social worker: Katy Ivko who told me James cannot see during which James had vanished from the face of the earth. awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S16 & the Disability Discrimination decides who my incapacitated son can or cannot see. Clearly, Ms Ivko has no Laws & the truth about James loving relationship and strong bonds with his his loved ones any more because his principal carer is his carer and as such she loving relationship with paternal family amounts to Professional Negligence. Katy Ivko's lack of knowledge of the law and the facts surrounding her client's Ivco fully supports Ryder's past & ongoing abuse of James's incapacity. paternal family who raised him to the age of 13 during his daytime hours. with 3 siblings who will one day be the only family he has left to keep an eye on him, of my son's incapacity to deprive him of his liberty to Skype & continue his loving relationship visit him & bring his nephews and nieces to visit him - he adores children and babies. Solihull Council, via their complaints team, also fully support Ryder's ongoing abuse Council fully supports the abusive airbrushing of a defenseless incapacitated & libellous comments about James's family that Ryder fed them and the person's loved ones out of his life & fully supports the renegade Katy Ivko Solihull Council, via there complaints team, also fully support the tissue of lies the renegade and Professionally Negligent Katy Ivko who covered up for the have aided & abetted Ryder's abuse of my son's incapacity by covering up for abusive Ryder who likes to abuse my son's incapacity to deprive him of loved aiding & abetting my son's abuse by covering it up. Therefore Solihull Council my defenceless young adult son are: Alison Coppock, Liz Gillespie & The Solihull Council employees who have gone on the record to officially abuse Karen Millard who all officially support Katy Ivko's and Monica Ryder's abuse ones just because she knows she can and she knows it hurts. and who grew up with him. As I've proven that Solihull Council only recognise of his loving relationship with his growing paternal family who he grew up with laws that suit their cause - they will not recognise the Mental Capacity Act 2005 of my son's incapacity and they have all worked relentlessly to deprive my son recognise the libel laws because they will think that the exposing of their disadvantage to his non incapacitated 20 year old peers and they will abuse of a vulnerable person's incapacity libels them! They won't realise that & the Disability Discrimination laws to stop them from putting my son at a As Solihull Council are so selective in the laws they are prepared to recognise unfit and unworthy to maintain the loving relationship they've had for 20 years. I present you with James's website that exposes Solihull Council with detailed evidence. the only people who've been libelled are James's father, brother's & sister - as

07/10/15

Dear Legal Team / Mary Badger / Bev

We’ve just seen James on Skype and he was great. He saw baby Si, and baby Simone and they saw James too and they had a lovely short time.

James looked a little bit tired but nothing to worry about. The room was bright and we saw the whole of James face , (normally we only see the shadow) and the video was responsive (normally keeps freezing up).

All we have ever asked is for James and his young family not to be deprived of seeing each other. James and the kids have a lovely time when they see each other and I can relax once I’ve seed James is ok. When Si, Simone and 11 year old Sasha grow up they will be very valuable to James to keep an eye on him and bring his nieces and nephews to visit him that’s why its absolutely paramount that his evil principal carer fails at every attempt she makes to corrupt the institutions James resides at or attends into aiding and abetting her airbrush his loving family out of his defenceless life.

Tonight is the most reassured I’ve been since the problems started with his out of the blue kidnapping late last summer that she is indeed failing and common sense is starting to prevail to prevent his incapacity being further abused by his principal carer.

Please keep this up. If James’s weekly visual contact with baby si and simone goes as well as tonight then for the rest of James time at QAC will will be delighted. We know, already that social services will ensure his visual contact goes without a hitch when James, leaves college because, albeit 1 year late after I reported James’s kidnapping, the penny has dropped at Social services that James must never again be deprived of seeing his family as he was late last summer and during the summer holiday just gone social services successfully arranged James contacts and the kids all saw each other.

Kind regards

06/10/15

Dear Legal team

Thanks for sorting out Skype.

Re the sedation I made it clear I was only reporting our observations re excessive yawning and drinking water each time we saw him on Skype. I also made it clear that I understand the sorry position James finds himself in i.e. being 20 years old with a mental age of circa 2 to 4 and that I do not intend to complain about this because nobody can do anything about it. When he was at Reynalds Cross school they blamed and punished him for being disabled – i.e. being 12 and behaving like his mental age of 2. The punishment for his disability was exclusion. The SENDIST Tribunal said this amounted to Disability Discrimination.

If this was your own child you too would be concerned that James could be discriminated against again. I am concerned that the reason QAC has so vehemently endeavored to discourage James’s Skype (and cruelly replace it with a telephone call that would deprive the kids of seeing each other – advocated one by Bev and Dave) contact with his family is because they don’t want us to see him sedated. The last half a dozen times we have seen him he’s been repeatedly yawning and drinks 3 bottles of water. Its sad to see him in this state.

This is not the only time James has been Discriminated against for being disabled. His principal carer discriminated against him when used her Jimmy Savile style Deceitful Manipulation skills to snake charm a professionally negligent social worker into an unquestioning drone to aid and abet her to kidnap James for 2 months, late summer last year, by illegally placing him beyond the reach of his loved ones for two months so that the evil principal carer – Camelia Monica Ryder, otherwise known as Monica Ryder could abuse James’s incapacity to illegally airbrush his loved ones out of his defenceless life while at the same time terrorising James’s paternal family of father, 2 brothers and a sister who she hates do much. I personally believe the evil Ryder should receive a custodial sentence for her offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws. Prior to the sudden kidnapping there were no known issues between Ryder and James’s paternal family and regular communication was civil and James’s rights to see his family were adhered too. The civil communication of prior years is available on James website for all to see and how devastating the kidnapping was when it suddenly came out of the blue. www.solihullcouncil.com

As Reynalds’ Cross school found James’s disability inconvenient and found it more convenient to exclude him from his disabled school because he was disabled its not rocket science that other institutions may find James’s disability inconvenient and in the absence of exclusion they could try to sedate him to make life easier for the staff. I’m not saying QAC have done this and that is why they have bent over backwards to avoid Skype contact. Even if QAC has done this I will not complain because I understand that James will always have this issue where ever he is in institutional custody.

Therefore I have nothing to complain about QAC if James rights to Skype his loved ones are adhered too and his Deputy Head Teacher regains control of herself and is nolonger one of Ryder’s “snake charmed” unquestioning drones used to remotely carry out Ryder’s evil abuse of James’s incapacity to airbrush his loved ones who he grew up with and who grew up with him, out of his life, because he is too incapacitated to defend himself and has only his father and brothers and sister to protect him in the past and going forward.

Apart from the issue of Ryder putting her deceitful manipulatory skills to use against some QAC staff (and Katy Ivco the social worker) to turn them into “unquestioning drones” to remotely do Ryder’s dirty work for her to airbrush a defenceless incapacitated young adult’s loved ones out of his life because Ryder, his abuser doesn’t like them, I have absolutely no issues with QAC and I think its a good residential college and provides opportunities for incapacitated young adults. In fact I’m grateful for my son’s placement at QAC.

I hope this clears the air and no other issues will crop up during James’s placement at QAC.

We look forward to seeing James at 6 this evening on Skype. I will be very grateful if there are no more issues between now and the end of my son’s placement at QAC.

Yours sincerely

30/09/15

Dear Legal Team. There is nothing sinister about James’s rights to see his loved ones being adhered to by his carer / custodian of the day. This is just normal life and I’m confident no reasonable person would disagree with that. Only his principle carer has bent over backwards to deprive James of his loved ones and she has been well and truly dutifully exposed for her offences under various Acts.

When we are all gathered round the computer to see James myself, baby Si and baby Simone get very excited and when it all comes to nothing because nobody connects his Skype call for him the kids and I feel very disheartened and disappointed.

There are some causes of concern that I do NOT wish to complain about because of the sorry state James has found himself in as an such a vulnerable and incapacitated young adult. The most important is his severe sedation while in residence at the college. The impression is that James is heavily sedated on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays (that’s why they don’t want us to see him on these days) and the reduce his sedation on Thursdays during the 15 minutes he sees us he’ s half asleep and drink’s 3 bottles of water. It is the same every time we see him at college. When we see him outside college he’s not half asleep and he’s not gasping for water. This suggests that while he’s sedated his kidneys are hard at work trying to pass the toxins from the drugs through his urine leaving him dehydrated. This is what happens with untreated diabetics the excess sugar is passed through the kidneys.

It looks like the times the carers don’t connect his Skype calls are the times there cannot wake him up from his sedation. The is also an explanation why Bev didn’t let us see James when we visited his college. No other school ever did that!

I have no intention of complaining about what could be excessive use of sedation while James is at college. It is sadly just part of the sorry state he finds himself in and I’m sure his principal carer is unphased by this as long as she is able to outsource his care as she has done since James was born.

I’m only reporting observations here and I will not complain about them. My only complaint is deprivation of Skype contact.

All I ask is that James is not deprived of seeing his loved ones. This is very important because his outsourcing principal carer has only herself and a step dad to offer my son whereas I can offer him a father, 2 brothers, a sister and a step mum. One day, when the UK Housing Crisis is resolved James family will return to Birmingham and have our contact in real life not just on Skype. Desperate situations require desperate solutions – I’m talking about Jeremy Corbyn getting elected to resolve the housing crisis. James family are not the only victims of this.

Please ask the carers to verify in advance that we can see James at the agreed time so that the kids are not left disappointed.

We will gather around the computer this evening at 6 pm. We are happy to fit in with any college schedule. All we ask is that the college keep to the schedule they give us and be sure to connect James video call for him.

Yours sincerely
Simon Foden

30/09/15

Dear legal team

James carers knew it was James time to see his brothers at 6pm today yet, 1 mile from Birmingham City Centre they were unable to get a Skype connection whilst at the same time James’s family in Thailand can Skype anywhere in the world. It just does not seem credible that they cannot raise a Skype connection in the heart of Birmingham? If they cannot why did they not report the fault until they can?

The public have a right to know about this deprivation of liberty to see family at a residential college for vulnerable and incapacitated young adults and the lack of credibility of reasoning for the deprivation and it is an offence for me not to expose this, indeed it is the first duty of any parent to expose such deprivation of a vulnerable and incapacitated young adult until it is stopped.

It is so disheartening when James baby brother and baby sister are all gathered around the computer to see big and special brother James and nobody connects his video call for him!

I’m sure you will agree that the public have a right to know about this.

Yours sincerely
Simon Foden

23/09/15

Dear Legal Team

Thank you for that. I don’t think that was the issue because Skype had a one off total outage on Monday and as far as I know there were no issues last week. I noticed on Monday that I could not log into Skype and my first though in my current state as a nervous wreck following the 15 months of hell since I was libeled by Ryder to all of the professionals involved in my son’s care and James’s 2 month kidnapping last summer was that you had libelled me to Skype and got my account blocked as you libelled be to the domain company and got James’s website blocked for 12 hours several months ago. Both of these communication issues are now water under the bridge and both Beverly Jessop and Dave a perfectly good defence against their claims that it is acceptable for a severely incapacitated young adult to be deprived of seeing his baby Si and Baby Simon and Daddy as voice call that deprives them of this is adequate. Their defence is not that Skype was down. Their defence is not that I was abusive when I gently pointed out the requirements of the college to comply with James’s rights not to be deprived of seeing Daddy, baby Si and baby Simone on Skype and Sasha when we come to England.

Their defence is that they too are victims of Ryder’s libel of James family as being unfit and unworthy to contact James and the fact that Ryder libelled them all to the Gullible Professionally Negligent social Worker who fully supported Ryder’s heinous kidnapping of a defenseless severely incapacitated young and adult and would have placed Beverly and Dave into an impossible position. On the one hand a professionally Negligent Social Worker: Katy Ivco fully supporting and aiding and abetting Ryder’s abuse of a severely incapacitated young adult’s incapacity by rampantly committing crimes against James incapacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws by kidnapping him for 2 months and libeling his family as unfit and unworthy to see him all knowing full well that James was to incapacitated to do anything about it and on the other hand you had James’s desperate family desperately trying to re-establish contact following James’s kidnapping and the libelling of his family by Ryder and Ivco.

Katy Ivco, please give me the contact details of your solicitor if you do not believe you are Professionally Negligent for rampantly supporting crimes against a defenceless severely incapacitated persons incapacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination Laws.

Legal Team, you know full well Ryder has repeatedly libeled me and you told me yourself that the reason for my frosty reception by the college was because you cannot tell me what Ryder told the college about me. However if you could tell me what the very cruel Ryder said it would be that she cruelly, viciously and aggressively libeled me to ALL of the professionals involved in my incapacitated son’s care because there is no other explanation for the frosty reception I received from social services when I first introduced myself to them in the most meek mild and temperate language as the father of a severely disabled young adult who had been missing for 2 months. There is no other explanation for the frosty reception I received from the college and the way I, baby Si and baby Simone have been treated as some kind of monsters who have no right to see their son and brother.

In contrast to the the Professionally Negligent Social Worker: Katy Ivco’s rampant support of my son’s and family’s abuse by Ryder, the WPC investigating Ryder’s false complaint against me for exposing Ryder’s abuse (in making this false complaint Ryder behaved like a burglar complaining to the police because his victim is holding him to account for his offences!) was totally impartial. The WPC would have seen Ryder’s butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth look as she attempted to deceitfully manipulate the WPC with a tissue of lies and the WPC was completely impartial following the tissue of lies Ryder fed the her. The WPC is an experienced lady and has probably seen many ladies with Ryder’s butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth expression feed her a tissue of lies and probably concluded that there was at least a 50% chance that Ryder was feeding her a tissue of lies and so the WPC acted on Ryder’s tissue of lies with total impartiality. I commend this WPC!

In contrast to the experienced and impartial WPC, Katy Ivco, the Professionally Negligent Social Worker employed by Solihull Council was completely taken in by Ryder’s butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth look as Ryder, Jimmy Savile style, Deceitfully Manipulated Ivco with a tissue of lies about James’s, a very vulnerable and severely incapacitated young adult and his loving family of father, 2 brothers: Sasha and baby Si and sister baby Simone in order to recruit Ivco to aid and abet Ryder commit crimes against my disabled son’s incapacity as laid down by Parliament in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws.

Jimmy Savile looked like a wide boy and was still able to use his deceitfully manipulative personality to gain the confidence of professionals to facilitate his abuse of vulnerable people in the care of the professionals. I believe Ryder’s Deceitfully Manipulative personality to be more dangerous than Savile’s because of Ryder’s butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth look in addition to her highly developed skill set in the dark art of deceitful manipulation allowed her to “Snake Charm” a naive Social Worker who Ryder recruited as a kind of “unquestioning drone” to facilitate and aid and abet Ryder’s crimes against a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young adult such as abusing his incapacity to kidnap him for 2 months by using the “unquestioning drone” social worker Ryder recruited to aid and abet her to push my incapacitated young adult son under the radar for 2 months leaving his family distraught with no idea where he was or indeed if he was alive or dead. This kidnapping immediately preceded James’s residential placement at Queen Alexandra College and coincided with my frosty reception by the college even though they has never met me before. James must have been frightened to death being placed in a strange environment having not seen his father and brothers for 2 months and thinking “Where am I? Do my Dad and brothers know where I am”?

Public Information

It is very important public information to expose how, even after Rotherham, and Stoke Mandeville, lessons have not been learned and naive inexperienced social workers are rife in local authorities and easily be taken in by Deceitful Manipulators such as Ryder and Savile to to become unquestioning drones ready to aid and abet criminals such as Ryder to commit crimes against vulnerable people!

After I exposed the professionally Negligent Katy Ivco for unquestioningly supporting Ryder’s crimes against James’s incapacity the Solihull Council Complaints team consisting of the Professionally Negligent Chief Cover Up Officer (CCO): Karen Millard, her Professionally Negligent boss the Professionally Negligent Liz Gillespie and the Professionally Negligent Alison Coppock all closed ranks behind the professionally Negligent Social worker and decided to support the Social Workers Negligence and crimes under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws come what may!! If these named and shamed individuals do not think that have behaved disgracefully and are professionally negligent then please email me the contact details of your solicitors so that I can directly put the charges to them.

One thing is clear, unlike the police in Rotherham, the police in Solihull have a zero tolerance policy of abuse against vulnerable people and are ready to ask the necessary questions to ensure abuse does not take place. In contrast Solihull Social workers have no such Zero Tolerance Policy and refuse to ask the necessary questions such as “is this Deceitful Manipulator with a butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth telling me the truth or feeding me a tissue of lies and if so to what extent is she feeding me a tissue of lies?”

James Skype video contact with his brothers and baby sister

Ok Legal team. We will gather around the computer at 6pm tomorrow, Thursday, for James (with the help of a career) to Skype his weekly video contact with his family.

Immediately after I will take www.queenalexandracollege.com off the air but www.solihullcouncil.com will remain on the air until Katy Ivco, her boss Rita Rogers who stopped James abuse a disgraceful 1 year after I reported it (she ignored cogent barrister derived abuse reports for a whole year) and the complaints handling team of Karen Millard, Liz Gillespie and Alison Coppock show a bit of contrition and apologise for their “mistakes” and Ryder and the council participate in the cost of the last 15 months work they set me to clear my name and all abuse of my son’s incapacity permanently ceases and my incapacitated son is never again abused by a Deceitful Manipulator to place him beyond the reach of his family who he grew up with and who grew up with him which is a serious crime under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S 16 and the Disability Discrimination laws.

Yours sincerely
Simon Foden (father of incapacitated victim and a victim of libel and a victim of a hate campaign in his own right by a very cruel and dangerous woman called Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder)

PS

Suggestion

After this week’s Skype tomorrow can we change the day of James’s Skype contact to a day earlier in the week so that if there is a “Technical Issue” we can reschedule the next day. Currently, if there is a technical issue on Thursday, Friday he goes to his Moms and baby Si and Baby Simone lose a whole week’s contact with their big and special brother. Could I suggest Tuesdays at 6pm? That would enable rescheduling on Wednesday and Thursday in the event of a technical issue on Tuesday. Surely this would be more reasonable than a distressful whole week’s audio visual contact being lost for ever?

22/09/15

Dear Anonymous Legal Team who supports the abuse of the Incapacity of a very vulnerable young adult by taking advantage of his severe incapacity to deprive him seeing on Skype for 15 minutes a week, his his loving family who who he grew up with and who grew up with him and who are also innocent, co victims of the abuse of James’s incapacity. The Co victims Simon Arthur Foden, Alexander Simon Foden, Sirus Arthur Foden and Simone Emily Foden.

Dear Legal team

An important legal issue has arisen since we last communicated and it has resulted in the necessity to temporarily re-invoke James’s college website: http://www.queenalexandracollege.com

Please desist in placing impediments my already severely impeded son’s path to weekly Skying his father and brothers and sister who James grew up with and who grew up with him.

Once this legal issue is resolved (to ensure my defenceless incapacitated son’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S16 are adhered to and he is not to be deprived of his right to visually and with audio too: Skype his father and brothers and sister who he grew up with and who grew up with him) the website http://www.queenalexandracollege.com will be taken down as soon as James’s rights are adhered to and will remain down while / if his rights are adhered to.

Latest entry to James webpage under the qacollge page:

Queen Alexandra College resumes its abuse of James’s incapacity by failing to adhere to James rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 to ensure he is not deprived of his weekly 15 minute audio visual Skype call with his brother, Baby Si, sister, Baby Simone and father Simon and step mum Cherma. Adhering to his rights simply requires providing him with a viable Skype device that has a viable internet connection. This is not rocket science and it’s not even a special request – it is merely “normal life”.

There were no problems with the Internet connection between February this year and end of term in July. Apart from some issues such as “his iPad has broke and his principal carer is not replacing it” or “His new laptop has no camera and the battery is flat”, (indeed the creativity of the obstacles placed in my already severely impaired son’s path beggar belief) all Skype visual calls were fine, James brother and sister saw their older but very special brother and James saw his family.

However, the sheer extent James’s principal carer has gone to abuse James’s incapacity by previously kidnapping him for 2 months by illegally placing him beyond the reach of his loved ones for 2 months to the extent that we had no idea if James was alive or dead during this time he disappeared from the planet and the extent to which she has libelled James’s father and brothers to ALL of the professionals involved in James’s care and went on a campaign of harassment of Queen Alexandra College to recruit the college to aid and abet her abuse of James’s incapacity by terrorising his father and brothers by placing impediments in his already severely impeded life to Skype his loved ones.

Even the deputy Head was recruited and is on the record as saying an audio call is an acceptable alternative to an audio visual Skype call even though James and his brothers and sister cannot see each other on an audio call! How can an audio call be an acceptable alternative to Skype? I put it to the Queen Alexandra College Deputy Head: Beverley Jessop that it is very cruel of her to suggest that it is acceptable for James to be deprived of seeing his baby sister Simone and brother Sirus both of whom James has watched grow up from a new born babies to almost 3 for baby Si and 6 months for baby Simone and both get very excited to see big and very special brother Jamesie on Skype. I put it to Beverley Jessop that she would not be so cruel to defenceless disabled people if the defenceless disabled person was her own son and I put it to her that it is very cowardly of her to be cruel to other people’s defenceless, helpless utterly disabled young adult children!

Last Thursday, Dave, one of James carers at QAC repeated the deputy head’s line “You can telephone call James if you want” but a mere audio call is an offence under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 16 because it “deprives” James of seeing his younger brother and sister and it deprives James brother and sister of seeing James. In fact an audio call is more than mere deprivation – it is cruel!

Therefore – to Beverly and Dave – an audio call “deprives” James of seeing his younger brother and sister and it deprives James brother and sister of seeing James. In fact an audio call is more than mere deprivation – it is cruel!

To put even more impediments in my severely retarded and incapacitated son’s path over and above the ones he’s lived with all his life due to his mental age of 2 to 4 is cruel. That’s right – it is cruel. Carer Dave and Deputy Head Beverly Jessop both know that James needs help to connect his weekly 15 minute Skype video call to see his father, brothers and step mum. Cruelty James suffers at the hands of his principal carer and principal abuser of his incapacity: Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder, the woman with the Jimmy Savile style deceitful manipulation skills is normal. It has been normal for this woman to abuse James incapacity since she kidnapped him for 2 months late last summer 2014 and harnessed his incapacity to move him beyond the reach of his loved ones who James grew up with and who grew up with James.

So you can see – cruelty towards my son by Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder is normal but I expect my son’s residential college – Queen Alexandra College, Deputy Head Beverley Jessop and Carer Dave to know better than the cruel Camelia Monica Ryder and not be cruel to my defenseless incapacitated young adult son with a mental age of 2 to 4 and his family, father, two brothers and sister I expect QAC College to know better than Mrs Ryder and to behave better than her not to aid and abet her to be cruel to my son and his family!

A simple undertaking from the college solicitor to ensure that the college complies with its obligation to see that James’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws too will be adhered to is enough to re take down http://www.queenalexndracollege.com and halt the exposure of James’s abuse from that web address.

The https://www.solihullcouncil.com web page will remain until the dispute with Solihull Council is resolved due to the suffering my family have endured due to the renegade actions of the Professionally Negligent Social Worker: Katy Ivco who naively bought the tissue of lies the Very Cruel Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise known as Monica Ryder fed her to trick the social worker to aid and abet Ryder’s abuse of James, incapacity, her Professionally Negligent Boss: Rita Rogers who fully supports Ivco’s support of Ryder’s abuse of my son’s incapacity and the Professionally Negligent Solihull Council Complaints team consisting of the Professionally Negligent Karen Millard: Solihull Council’s very own Chief Cover up Officer (CCO) her Boss the Professionally Negligent Liz Gillespie and finally the Professionally Negligent Alison Coppock. All of these professionally Negligent Solihull Council employees have all supported the Very Cruel Camelia Monica Ryder otherwise Known as Monica Ryder to abuse my son’s incapacity and I am very confident that these cruel Professionally Negligent Named and shamed people would not support the abuse of a severely retarded helpless incapacitated young adult if the incapacitated person was their own son, but as James is not their son they cowardly have all supported his abuse of his incapacity raining terror down own his family. Rita Rogers who Negligently the Professionally Negligent Social Worker’s supervisor ignored Ryder’s abuse of my son’s incapacity for a year but last month she stopped the abuse and James saw his father and brothers at his home in Solihull, on Skype 3 times during the summer holiday. The outstanding dispute is to ascertain why Rita Roger’s ignored Ryder’s abuse of my son’s incapacity for a year before she got the abuse stopped. Outstanding issue is why did it take Solihull Council a year to stop my son’s abuse of his incapacity by his principal carer? A whole year after I reported the abuse. Why?

Why did this nightmare happen? Why are all these people so cruel and Professionally Negligent?

The answer is simple. It is because your answer to why I received such a frosty reception from Queen Alexandra College in September last year which immediately followed my defenseless incapacitated son’s 2 month kidnapping that was supported by the negligent Social work leaving me distraught – your answer was “I received a frosty reception because you cannot tell me what Mrs Ryder said” a quote from a recent email you set me. However if you could tell me what the very cruel Ryder said it would be that she cruelly, viciously and aggressively libeled me to ALL of the professionals involved in my incapacitated son’s care because there is no other explanation for the frosty reception I received from social services when I first introduced myself to them in the most meek mild and temperate language as the father of a severely disabled young adult who had been missing for 2 months.

Then the same frosty reception happened at Queen Alexandra College and the frosty reception grew even colder when Ryder embarked on a rampage of harassment of the college to recruit the college to aid and abet her to abuse James’s incapacity, commit serious offences under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 S 16 and the Disability Discrimination Laws and the only reason all of these professionals became so Negligent in their responsibilities is because of Ryder’s PHD level skill set in the art of Jimmy Savile style Deceitful Manipulation. This makes Ryder a very dangerous woman.

This cruel woman has wreaked havoc, by terrorising James’s family and brothers by highly targeted libelling and slandering them while at the same time getting ALL of the professionals involved in Jame’s care into trouble because they were all so gullible in believing the tissue of Lies and Deceit that Ryder fed them all with her Deceitful Manipulation Skills just like Savile tricked professionals into inadvertently helping him abuse vulnerable people! Savile’s abuse was grotesque physical abuse of vulnerable young people whereas Ryder’s abuse is grotesque abuse of a vulnerable person’s incapacity but both of these vile people used / use a well developed deceitful manipulation skill set to recruit professionals to sleepwalk into helping them abuse vulnerable people. Savile and Ryder have a lot in common when it comes to putting highly developed set of deceitful manipulation skills to work to recruit sleepwalking professionals into helping them abuse vulnerable young people: physically in Saviles case, abuse of incapacity in Ryder’s case.

Please desist in placing impediments my already severely impeded son’s path to weekly Skying his father and brothers and sister who James grew up with and who grew up with him.

Yours sincerely
Simon Foden

Date: 22 March 2015 at 03:00

Hello COLLEGE X Legal Team. Thank you for communicating with me. You are a lawyer and you know something can only be libellous, i.e. written defamation if the statement is not true. It is true that COLLEGE X have ignored 6 months of complaints about J’s mother abusing my son’s defenceless incapacity by falling short of her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 whilst J has been resident at COLLEGE X. Indeed J’s mother began offending under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws when she, for no reason at all, changed her phone number, made herself incommunicado and commenced to deprive J of his video calls with Baby Si and Daddy two months prior to my son’s placement at COLLEGE X.

B’s very early morning email proved that beyond all reasonable doubt that she has ignored 6 months of reports of abuse of my son at COLLEGE X by his mother. My only insinuation that B was complicit in my son’s abuse was when she came of the neutral line in this email she had kind of toed since September and began to utter words that could have come straight out of J’s abuser’s mouth and indeed I have an email from J’s abuser containing those words. As far as I can see this is what I refer to as COLLEGE X participating in my son’s abuse because by abandoning their neutral line they have actively supported his abuser therefore I do not believe this statement is libellous because it is, indeed, true. This is what I refer to as B turning renegade.

This is why it is absolutely paramount that COLLEGE X send me a note on headed paper that they fully recognise how J’s mother has fallen short of her obligations under Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws.

This statement is for COLLEGE Xs own protection because J’s Mother is the polar opposite to me. Where I am a completely honest almost open book, J’s Mother has a very, very, deceitful and fraudulent personality and will tell anybody anything if it forwards her aims and brings her closer to her goals. And when she libels me to the professionals in my son’s care she easily take takes them into her confidence. I believe, in hindsight, she was complicit in stirring up the “Disability Discrimination” my son suffered at Reynalds Cross School. Whilst J was at Merstone School the school stood up to J’s mother and she wasn’t allow to make any mischief.

Therefore if COLLEGE X do not recognise J’s mother falling short of her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws they will be putting themselves at risk of participating in J’s mother’s abuse of my son if they did not already last Friday. Also, ignoring my cogent reports of my son’s abuse by his mother on COLLEGE X property – COLLEGE X is making the same mistake Stoke Mandeville made in ignoring reports of abuse because the abuser has such a deceptive personality. J’s mother shares Savile’s deceptive personality even though her abuse is completely different to the abuse Savile inflicted on his victims. Instead of grooming victims J’s mother has groomed Solihull Social Services and College X to inadvertently abuse J’s incapacity.

Recognition of J’s mother’s falling short of her obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws and taking seriously my 6 month backlog of complaints of my son’s abuse is very important and the subject of ignored complaints of abuse dominated last night’s news and people who fail to report known abuse of vulnerable individuals could be sentenced to five years in jail. I cannot afford to be jailed because I have very young family who depend on me and, as my 6 month backlog of complaints was proven to have been ignored I have a duty to maintain J’s 5 support websites until the 6 simple points detailed at the end of yesterday’s email are met. They cannot be men in the absence of contact between I as J’s legal representative and J’s mother’s solicitor representing the serial abuser of J’s incapacity.

As far as complaints go I’ve complained until I’m blue in the face only to be ignored for 6 months and finally brushed off altogether by B last Friday.

I’m happy for yesterday’s email reply to your message to form my complaint and I would appreciate it if you pass it to the relevant authority yourself as it will carry more weight coming from a solicitor.

As you are cooperating in my investigation as to what went tragically wrong in the two months prior to J’s placement at COLLEGE X in the following months I will amend the point of COLLEGE X’s participation which, as explained above, is not libellous so that it paints COLLEGE X in a slightly better light.

Amendments made:

Therefore B you cannot use J saying he does not want to Skype baby S as an excuse to deprive him of his liberty to maintain his contact with his younger siblings as you know will one day be all that J has to look after him and protect him from abuse by people like his mother in the future.

I’ve change from people like you to people like his mother to paint B in a better light.

Also

I’ve removed this line

“The general tone of your email suggests that you are now not only aiding and abetting M to abuse my son’s incapacity but you are now a willing participant in the abuse.”

You have the power to nip this in the bud and stop aiding and abetting M now (by ignoring his father’s complaints of his mother’s abuse).

I’ve added in the bit in brackets above

You have the power to nip this in the bud and stop aiding and abetting M now (by ignoring his father’s complaints of his mother’s abuse). If you still think its ok for J’s incapacity to be abused by denying his fortnightly Skype to his loved ones – that he would not be denied if he was not totally incapacitated and severely disabled then the whole catalogue of emails will be published so that the public can make up their own minds.

I’ve removed ” on whether COLLEGE X is abusing my son’s incapacity or not!!”

Only dealing with the 6 points raised in yesterday’s email, in a satisfactory manner, will render the matter resolved sufficiently for the 5 websites to be permanently powered down.

Yours sincerely

J’s father

Hello COLLEGE X Legal Team. This is JAHF (J’s) Legal Team. We are very pleased to meet you and feel it an honour to finally receive a reply from a member of COLLEGE X Staff, albeit a defamatory, aggressive and totally untrue reply.

First let me refute in the strongest possible terms that I have defamed anybody in any way. I never tell lies!!! You are talking to a man who never lies and has never felt the need to lie and I’m sure you’ll see that this comes across most clearly in J’s support websites. Exposing the abuse of a severely incapacitated and vulnerable young adult son is a very valuable public service and the public have a right to know how your client has treated the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Disability Discrimination laws with utter contempt and as nothing more than an inconvenience rather than a legal obligation to abide by.

Your client’s admission on Friday that she has not listened to a single word of intense complaint that I’ve made during the last 6 months about how J’’s mother repeatedly abuses his incapacity and now the college are speaking words that could have come straight out of his J’s abusive mother’s mouth and failure to connect my son’s belated video call on Friday while I was in tears both Thursday night and Friday afternoon left me with no choice but to put the matter into the hands of the court of public opinion. The bottom line is that the public have a right to know about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws and how your client is falling short in their obligations to comply with these laws.

I notice that you, just like J’s mother, are too cowardly to challenge me on substance of my allegations, which I’m legally obliged to make, for the protection of my son to ensure his contact with his loved ones takes place in a timely manner without let or hindrance. because of his severely disabled, totally incapacitated and utterly defenceless reliance on others to connect his fortnightly 10 minute Skype video calls with his father and beloved brother baby Si who J has renamed baby Ki and his new sister when she’s born at the end of the month. It is also very cowardly for you not to identify yourself so that I can expose you for aiding and abetting the abuse of my son’s incapacity because if I do as you ask it will make it easier for J’s mother to trick COLLEGE X into abusing J’s incapacity. B has made it clear that she has been taken in by J’s mother and its J’s mother’s libel of J’s father at COLLEGE X that was probably, based on circumstantial supposition, responsible for J’s father’s frosty reception at COLLEGE X that has subsequently led to my 6 month nightmare that has culminated in where we are today and whereby your client appears to be feeling some of the pain they’ve been inflicting on J’s father over the last 6 months.

It’s an absolute travesty that your client has waged such a war of abuse against J’s family particularly whilst his step mum Cherma is pregnant. Your client had me in tears last Thursday evening after they gave their third in a row ridiculous excuse why they are depriving J of seeing baby Si and again while I was begging the receptionist arrange my son’s video call with baby Si. It is your client’s actions that are causing my son hardship and it is his courageous father’s actions that are going to end his hardship once and for all!!

I urge you to read in full the preliminary (there is much more to be published) content of the 5 support websites below set up to support J and ensure that after 6 months of COLLEGE X sitting on the fence as his Romanian mother has left no stone unturned to abuse my defenceless son’s incapacity by taking advantage of his incapacity to deprive him of his loving family who raised him to the age of 13 during his waking hours and have spent every other weekend with him until 3 years ago when my parents died for 3 years prior to their death J’s grandmother setup J’s video calls and J’s mother made them herself until she commenced, completely out of the blue to harness J’s incapacity to deprive J of his video calls to his father and brothers.

Your letter contains a lot of nit-picking distraction to distract away from the fact that your client has been making it increasingly difficult for J to Skype his family and only now, after 6 months, finally listening  to my reports of abuse of my son at COLLEGE X by his mother J’s Mother.

If you make any more of your libellous unfounded threats about me and against me you will make me even more distressed and the more distressed I get the more support websites I have to publish to let off the pressure from J’s family and put the pressure on your client to do their job, comply with the law and stop libelling J’s family and abusing J’s incapacity and do their job and connect my son’s 10 minute video calls just two times a month.

Re Legal Action

It is I who will begin legal action if this matter is not resolved once and for all and it is your client who will pay my legal bill on top of my compensation. I have proof that I told B back in September that my barrister informed me that living abroad for 10 months of the year is not a barrier to to J video calling his family for a modest 10 minutes twice a months and there is not a judge on the planet who would disagree with that yet B told me that part of her excuse for depriving my son of his Skype video call, already a week late,  was that his family live abroad. Words that could have come straight out of J’’s abusive mother’s mouth which caused not only J hardship but hardship for his father and hardship for baby Si who sat by the computer like a very good boy for half an hour to see J for absolutely nothing. He was very upset.

I have a 100% court case record. 15 years ago a client sued me and I won the case. Nine years ago I sued a client and I won the case. I also won a SENDIST tribunal against Solihull LEA and Reynalds Cross School because they blamed and punished J for behaving like a naughty 12 year old when I was the only one who could see he had a mental age of two at the time, exactly the same as his brother Sasha who’s now 10 and they both threw terrible twos tantrums. The reason court cases are no problem for me is the mighty combination of a very powerful set of verbal reasoning skills and my honesty that exudes from the core of my very essence. You’ll waste your time if you go down that path.

Here are J’s portfolio of support websites which were set up over the weekend – the last of which went live last night. They’re hosted, since last night on a free speech server offshore in Panama and the domains are registered by free speech registrars around the world – The Dutch registrar told me I had to redact names and email addresses + remove privacy protection (goes on by default on new domains) in order to comply with the laws of the Netherlands which was done within the hour:

http://www.mentalcapacityact2005.com

http://www.disabilitydeprivation.com

http://www.disability-discrimination.co.uk

NEGOTIATION IS GOOD

I’m going to ask you some questions that a judge would ask you if we go to court – we’ll get a much quicker resolution to this matter if you answer them now so that we can have a lasting solution that won’t require powering up the web servers a short while down the line. When I power them down I want it to be for ever! I never ever want to be put in the position again where an institution taking custody of my fails to act in an assertive manner with J’s mother when she is clearly abusing him and taking full advantage of his incapacity in full view of the college, the LEA and Social Services and all treating me as the villain when all I want to do is carry out my obligation as his father to keep J in touch with J’s brother S, Baby Si, and soon Baby Simone so that they can all keep strong bonds with each other and when J’s mother and I are no longer around he’ll have 3 younger siblings to make sure he’s ok. I’ve had to intervene for him 3 times, his mother misguidedly putting him on Ritalin drug I researched causes painful muscle spasms and J can get epilepsy already without the help of Ritalin. Sure enough the spasms came I got him off Ritalin. Reynalds Cross School discriminated against J because he was disabled according to the SENDIST Tribunal. And his mother abusing his incapacity to offend under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to deprive him of seeing his father and baby brother on Skype for two months leaving us not knowing where he was or if he was alive or dead. Once J was enrolled at COLLEGE X she waged a war, not content with blocking Skype she repeatedly emailed (HARASSED) B with excuse after excuse why J should be illegally deprived of his loved ones even when they came to England to see him for two months with the most pathetic excuses such as J’s brothers have more than one mother, Js is doing life skills and as such doesn’t have time to see his family that have travelled half way across the world to visit him for two months and link him up with Sasha.

J’s abusive Romanian mother left no stone unturned to defame and libel J’s father and brothers as unfit and unworthy to visit J at college and see him on Skype. I have the evidence to back up all of these facts.

The problem I believe is that J’s abusive mother libelled J’s father to COLLEGE X so much that B, who I told was my contact at COLLEGE X failed to Act decisively to bring J’s Mother into compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws and in doing this she let J down and things never got resolved. Its frequently stated that both teaching staff and social services are supposed to be able to identify abuse and report but J’s mother’s 6 month campaign of libel and abuse against J and his family came to a grinding halt on Friday when B came off the fence uttered words that could have come straight out of J’s abusive mother’s mouth.

I will not entertain any suggestions that I have libelled of defamed anybody. I’m the only person who has been libelled and defamed in this whole sorry affair and, I will indeed be claiming damages from COLLEGE X for letting my severely disabled son down and failing to protect him from his abusive mother who was abusing him and libelling his family in plein sight of everybody and it has gone on for the best part of 6 months and, as you can see B’s response to my desperate email on Friday to nothing less than a cruel piece of professional negligence worthy of compensation so please don’t threaten me as I and my sons are the victims in this matter and the public have a right to know what goes on behind closed doors at residential colleges for the disabled.

Steps to a mutually acceptable resolution

This matter could be cleared up with:

1   A simple commitment to set up J’s 10 minute video calls 2 x a month. It’s perfectly reasonable for a scheduled call to fail from time to time as long as there is a commitment to reinstate the next school day. I don’t believe any judge would consider this unreasonable. There are many computers at the college and we will fit around your schedule.

2   The college must recognise that J’s mother’s behaviour during the last 6 months has fallen short of compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws. I believe failure to recognise this will lead to further abuse of my son’s incapacity by his mother and cause to power up the web servers again. I also assert that failure to recognise such blatant abuse carried out in plain sight of everybody amounts to negligence.

3   Why was J’s father given such a frosty reception once he’d finally tracked his disabled son down after two months of not knowing where he was. An apology would be helpful.

4 Why did nobody listen to my repeated reports of J’s mother’s abuse??? There are echoes of Stoke Mandeville’s victims not being listed to here or in my case being brushed off. An apology would be helpful.

5   How do I report abuse other than emailing B as I was told to do and never receiving a reply or publishing it on the Internet in despair?

6 How do I ensure I’m kept in the loop so that J’s abusive mother is never given the freedom to wage such a hate campaign against J and his family ever again and I don’t have to spend two months tracking him down?

I do not believe any judge would consider any of the above points unreasonable.

Negotiation is better than a long legal battle you probably wouldn’t win.

J’s five support sites are hosted on free speech servers and they can only be taken down when his rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Disability Discrimination laws are fully adhered to. I have a duty to protect him from his abusive mother and anybody she takes into her confidence (grooms).

As soon as we can deal with the 6 points above to mutual satisfaction we can power down the web servers ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Please get them turned off tomorrow. – 6 simple answer will do the trick.

Yours sincerely

Simon Foden