Notts social worker forces Aussie apology
THE Australian Prime Minister is to apologise to thousands of child migrants whose plight was revealed by a Notts social worker.
Aussie Premier Kevin Rudd will say sorry to those who were deported from Britain to Australia without the knowledge or consent of their parents.
-
Margaret Humphreys, founder of the Child Migrant's Trust.
Margaret Humphreys, a former social worker at Notts County Council, exposed the scandal after she was contacted by a migrant trying to trace her parents in the 1980s.
Many migrants, who were sent to bolster the white population in Australia, suffered horrendous abuse and lost their families and true identities forever.
However, Mrs Humphreys, who is described today as a "modern Florence Nightingale", founded the Child Migrants' Trust in West Bridgford in 1987.
Since then she has helped hundreds of people find their families and maintained pressure on the Australian and British governments to apologise for their roles in these events.
After years of campaigning, Mrs Humphreys will take her place in the Australian Parliament on Monday, to hear Mr Rudd's apology.
Harold Haig, of the International Association of Former Child Migrants, said: "There are not enough words to describe what a fantastic job Margaret has done over 22 years."
John Hennessey, 72, a former child migrant from Sydney, said: "I class Margaret as my second mother.
"Without her I would never have met my mum. She is the modern Florence Nightingale with the torch looking for people."
81 Comments
View all
by MadBadger, The Sett
Sunday, November 15 2009, 10:04PM
“I'm, like, really stupid.”
by MadBadger, The Real One, The Sett
Sunday, November 15 2009, 10:02PM
“Actually, 'MadBadger' is beyond the pale even for his fellow self-hating racists in ZaNuLabour. It's why he posts on here a lot, and why he keeps posting under MY name. He won't use his real name. I wonder why, ----?
Luckily, the sad Labour Party activist 'MadBadger' (the fake one that is) and his extreme left views have no effect on votes in the real world.
Only sad lonely, little racists use the word 'Pwned'.”
by Doc, Farnborough Road
Sunday, November 15 2009, 9:55PM
“Again we seem to think that we are talking about the dark ages.
The parent had rights but in most cases they chose to take the attitude that the Authorities knew best and it meant that in such cases the parent was relieved of the responsibility of the upbringing of the child.
No doubt the parent believed it was in the best interest of the child.
If children were told their parent was dead then again it would have been done in the interest of the child.
At this distance it does seem harsh and possibly wrong but again I ask how many of the children benefited in the long term?
Many would have suffered abuse here in Britain possibly at the hands of their parents or guardians.
This in no way excuses any of the harm done to individual children.
But an excuse at this point in time means nothing.
But again, if individual children feel better for an excuse then individuals should be reached out to and as long as they can believe it is some kind of reparation then it may lay a ghost or two.”
by Doc, Farnborough Road
Sunday, November 15 2009, 9:45PM
“I do not think it was quite that simple in those days Mr Sensible.
We are only quibbling because as in adoption throughout history there is abuse in some cases.
Sadly this happens in cases of fully legal adoptions too.”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Sunday, November 15 2009, 9:18PM
“Doc, the difference is that in order for an adoption to take place, a legal process has to be gone through, which has the full knollege of the parents.
Whereas in this case the parents were told their child had been adopted and taken elsewhere, and the children were told their parents were dead.
"Where in heaven's name did the parent think the child had gone?
And were they at all concerned at the time?"
I am sure they were concerned at the time; as I say in order for full adoption a full legal process has to be gone through.”