by Sharp, Janis
We periodically fostered children for respite and on an emergency basis during this time, but we were at a crucial point in Gary’s case and this debate could be momentous.
However, one of the social workers clearly wasn’t giving up, as finding foster carers, especially for siblings, is not easy. So our phones continued to ring.
We were transfixed listening to Gary’s MP, David Burrowes, giving a riveting speech that deserved an Oscar.
We usually describe debates of this sort as timely, but, although this evening’s debate is timely in the context of the government’s current consideration of the Baker review, it would be hard for my constituent Gary McKinnon, who has been living a nightmare and who now faces his tenth Christmas awaiting extradition, to see it in those terms, especially given that the outcome for him will be determined not retrospectively through the reform of extradition laws, which I support, but by medical evidence that is before the Home Secretary as we speak.
Parliament has given time to debate the issue of Gary McKinnon and extradition. We had a vote on forum in 2006 during the passage of the Bill that became the Police and Justice Act 2006. We have also had urgent questions, Opposition day debates, the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and Westminster Hall debates – and here we are having this debate today. What has not been in short supply is parliamentary attention. What has been in short supply is responsibility – responsibility for the plight of constituents such as Gary McKinnon, and for the injustice that has been done to them. The motion, which is welcome, seeks the restoration, at long last, of responsibility where it should lie.
I want to tell the House about an individual who was blamed for causing the biggest computer hack to hit the United States with an electronic attack on America’s biggest port, Houston, in 2001. He was a young British man with Asperger’s syndrome. He was not Gary McKinnon, but Aaron Caffrey. He was not extradited to the United States, but was tried in this country and found not guilty.
Then there was the man who was said to be doing ‘more harm than the KGB’ and to be the ‘no. 1 threat to US security’.
He had UFO posters on his wall. He broke into the United States defence and missile systems. He too could have been, but was not, Gary McKinnon. He was prosecuted in this country, and was fined £1,200. And there was the computer virus that inflicted an estimated $5.5 billion worth of damage and controlled 50,000 machines, hijacking sites run by a United States department. Again, that was not Gary McKinnon. It was Andrew Harvey and Jordan Bradley. They were prosecuted here and received six and three months’ imprisonment respectively.
Why then is Gary McKinnon being pursued remorselessly by the United States authorities? I believe that one of the motivations is instructive to the debate. The US ambassador on a number of occasions has made his position clear on behalf of the US government. Indeed, several years ago, I asked him directly why the US authorities were doing that. When he replied, he recounted the alleged damage to US naval systems – he went through that in some detail – but then his voice and emotions rose, the severity of his tone increased and he said, referring to the comments left by Gary McKinnon on various websites, ‘He mocked us.’
Many of us would think that Gary McKinnon should be praised for exposing flaws in US systems by typing in passwords and getting through systems, as a terrorist could have got through their systems, but that comment, ‘he mocked us’, shows that, whether we like it or not, politics plays a part in extradition.
Look at WikiLeaks. Just before President Obama came to speak to us, the US Attorney General demanded that Gary McKinnon be extradited. Today, the Right Hon. Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough [David Blunkett], a former Home Secretary, talked about how he tried to arrange a TV link for Gary McKinnon’s trial. I understand that that had no legs because video conferencing is illegal under US law. It requires live cross-examination of witnesses.
… The Baker review, then, has done nothing to give that proper safeguard. Tonight we can do something important. We can make Parliament’s views abundantly clear. The reform of extradition law is needed to stop more cases like that of Gary McKinnon. The US ambassador felt mocked by Gary McKinnon’s words that were left on US systems, but what about these words and the medical evidence that is before the Home Secretary from Professor Jeremy Turk? He said that ‘suicide is now a real probability and will be an almost certain inevitability should he experience extradition’.
Does not this disproportionate extradition of a suicidal and sectionable person, Gary McKinnon, make a mockery of our extradition laws? Are not the life-threatening effects of extradition avoidable by prosecuting him in this country? As I said in 2009, how ill and vulnerable does Gary McKinnon need to be in order not to be extradited to the United States? Tonight, Parliament can say that it will not be mocked, and that it continues to demand proper judicial safeguards. I support the motion.
As David Burrowes was ending his speech we felt proud of him. It was moving and uplifting, one of the best speeches we had ever heard.
We were still transfixed on the screen when our doorbell rang and I jokingly said to Wilson, ‘That will be the social workers with children.’
We answered the door and there stood two young social workers with a baby and a toddler who had been taken into care.
‘It’s completely impractical, Janis, we can’t do it right now,’ said Wilson worriedly.
‘Look at them, Wilson, we have to take them.’
‘We can’t.’
‘We have to, Wilson, look at them. We’re not going to let those two little things be carted around or split up and they’ll most likely be split up, you know they will. Of course we’ll look after them,’ I said.
The social workers smiled with relief and brought the children inside. Wilson’s look of concern disappeared as little Tommy ran around the living room exploring every corner while baby Chloe lay fast asleep in her crib.
‘Tea, anyone? And what would you like, Tommy?’ said Wilson with a smile as his familiar kindness shone from his eyes.
Now we were at the height of our fight for Gary but with two little ones to look after. Crazy maybe, but children and animals always fit right in with us.
After putting the kids to bed I wrote to David Burrowes to thank him and to congratulate him on his amazing speech. I then sat writing to politicians and to newspapers about the extradition debate, then fed the baby again and crawled into bed at 1 a.m. I fell asleep instantly until I was awoken at about 4 a.m. by baby Chloe crying. Sleepily peering into her cot I thought how tiny she was.
Walking downstairs to make the baby’s bottle I thought there was something comforting about having a baby in the house. Tiring but comforting. Although waking up every three hours to feed and change her took some getting used to as we hadn’t done this in a while.
Apart from that Chloe slept most of the time but little Tommy was a bundle of energy from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
What Wilson and I found the most wearing was having to drive a forty-mile round trip to take the children to see their parents five days a week. While totally understanding that any parent would want to see their children as often as possible, it makes you realise why local authorities might be finding it difficult to find foster carers and why younger carers aren’t prepared to do this. It leaves little room in your life for anything else and we had endless other things to deal with.
• • •
There was another, even bigger, debate on extradition due to take place in the House of Commons, and Trudie Styler’s two-page spread on Gary and on extradition was in the Big Issue on the same day.
When we saw the piece in the Big Issue we were impressed – the interview really highlighted what Gary had been going through for almost a quarter of his life. The article was very professionally presented and the photographs of Gary were artistic and powerful.
In another section of the magazine they had interviewed the Big Issue sellers themselves, and this was an inspirational piece accom
panied by the most amazing photographs.
On 14 December, someone sent me a large, beautiful bouquet of flowers. The colours were amazing and the scent filled the house. I looked at the card and it was from Michael Seamark and James Slack of the Daily Mail. I couldn’t believe that they had remembered my birthday.
Pinksy, our little white cat, rubbed herself against the flowers, covering her face in yellow pollen. She looked incredibly cute, but I found out later that lilies are highly toxic to cats, so it was extremely lucky that there were no lilies in the bouquet.
The bell rang again and it was a large hamper from Trudie and Sting. It included organic oil and honey and wine made on their estate in Tuscany. To know that you are in people’s thoughts when you are going through a difficult time is just so nice and so appreciated. To complete the day Wilson made a fantastic meal – and I had a great birthday.
In February 2012 we arranged to go to 10 Downing Street to mark Gary’s tenth year of being on bail. It was also Gary’s birthday on 10 February and we were handing a letter in to the PM to remind him that Gary was still waiting while his life was passing him by … and to remind the politicians that we weren’t going away.
David Cameron had arranged for me to meet with Damian Green in the House of Commons later that day, as he was one of the ministers dealing with extradition for the Home Office. I believe that my MP, Grant Shapps, and Gary’s MP, David Burrowes, were partly responsible for this meeting. The importance of having a good MP on your side when your back is against the wall cannot be overestimated. Gary and I were fortunate to have two MPs who fought with all their might to keep him in his own country.
We left the children with our good friends Pauline and Steve, award-winning foster carers who had recently adopted their son Christopher. Tommy and baby Chloe had been in their home lots of times so we didn’t have to worry about them while we were in town for a few hours.
When Trudie Styler discovered that I was going to No. 10 she dropped everything and flew in from New York to offer her support, as she had done so often before.
We took a huge number ten to Downing Street with a signed letter from lots of eminent people, but we weren’t allowed to take the number ten through the gates. Lord Maginnis and our MPs, David Burrowes and Grant Shapps, negotiated with the police until they eventually allowed us in with our huge number ten.
I handed in the letter to the Prime Minister.
It was a freezing cold day and after leaving No. 10 Trudie drove several of us back to her house in the centre of London, where we were treated to warm home-made soup and hot drinks. I’d been there several times before and Sting’s sister Anita Sumner was there too.
I chatted to Trudie about Gary and told her about the two little ones we were fostering. Trudie said that she could do that but probably wouldn’t be allowed to foster because she travelled a lot.
‘Do the newspapers know you do this?’ she said.
I told her they didn’t as my fight was for Gary and that I hadn’t spoken about other aspects of my life.
I explained how children were often underweight when they arrived and that Tommy didn’t talk and didn’t know or answer to his own name when he arrived. But in the space of just weeks he was answering to his name, and within months had learned lots of words and even a few very short sentences. He had also started experimenting on a grand piano belonging to friends of ours, and seemed naturally very musical. Both he and baby Chloe had put on weight and were happy.
Trudie smiled, a really warm, I-can-empathise-with-that kind of smile.
Trudie genuinely cares about people, is serious enough to be interesting but has a sense of humour that had us falling around laughing when she put on a convincing Irish travellers’ accent in the car when she was taking off the character that Brad Pitt had played in the film Snatch. Trudie was executive producer of Guy Ritchie’s film Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and the follow-up Snatch.
I was meeting immigration minister Damian Green and his advisers later that day. Trudie’s car took us to the Palace of Westminster and we both attended the meeting, where I felt I was literally fighting for Gary’s life.
Damian listened as I put Gary’s case across. Trudie asked why Downing Street was now blocked off from the public when years ago we could walk right up to the door.
When the meeting ended Damian said I’d put Gary’s case across passionately and he was going to think about what I’d said and discuss it with Theresa May and her advisers. A senior Home Office adviser who was present shook my hand warmly, but no one knows what’s really in another’s mind. It later transpired that some government advisers wanted Gary extradited, so I fear a warm handshake can sometimes mean little in the corridors of power.
When we came out of the meeting Trudie, Wilson, Claire Simmons and I met up with Zac Goldsmith, who wanted to treat us to lunch on the terrace of the House of Commons. Unfortunately I had two TV interviews lined up so had to leave.
• • •
Wilson then told me that Rebecca, our supervising social worker, had been phoning us constantly, wanting to know who was caring for the children while we were in town. She said that our friend Pauline, who was babysitting for us, didn’t have an up-to-date CRB (Criminal Record Bureau) check. Rebecca had informed social services of this and said that social services were placing the children with other carers.
I informed Rebecca that Pauline actually did have a current CRB check which was still valid, as it had been required by the local authority when Pauline and Steve were adopting their foster child. Rebecca responded that they had to have a CRB check from the agency – a local authority CRB check wasn’t good enough.
I pointed out that Pauline and her husband had worked for and were award-winning foster carers for the same fostering agency for years and that the local authority’s own rules on their own website stated that friends who you would trust to look after your own children could be used to babysit your foster children, and that if you felt your friends needed to be CRB checked then you shouldn’t be using them in the first place.
It was clear that the children, who knew our friends well, were happy and being well cared for during these few hours.
We walked into the TV studios and Alastair Campbell was there. I had never met him before and we talked briefly, but I felt too upset to say much.
I was feeling tearful as I was worried about Gary and I was worried about the children. During the interview I was fighting to hold back tears as I’d had to do many times before and I managed it, but only just. Everything that was happening seemed so cruel and unnecessary.
I cancelled the next interview as Wilson and I had to get back home to say goodbye to the children. I had also lost a primetime BBC slot that would have helped Gary’s case.
Rebecca rang us again when we were on the train to tell us that the local authority might be collecting the children directly from our friend’s house. Not only might we lose our chance to say goodbye to the children, but Pauline and Steve would be upset about social workers possibly barging into their house when their autistic son was there.
When we got home after collecting the children from our friends, the social workers were waiting in a car outside our house.
I was dreading telling little Tommy that he was going to another house, as he was so settled with us and had been coming on in leaps and bounds. The young local authority social workers were nice, and sensitive to everyone’s feelings. They were uncomfortable about the unplanned removal of the children and didn’t seem to understand themselves why our friends, who had just adopted their autistic foster child and had a local authority CRB check, were deemed unsuitable as babysitters because their CRB check had not been commissioned by the very fostering agency they had worked for for years. Nothing was making sense to me any more. The unnecessary removal of the children from a very happy home resonated with the unbearable fear of Gary, our own son, being forcibly removed from his home and family to be locked up in a horrendous foreign priso
n thousands of miles away from everyone and everything he had ever known.
It was odd as, although we had never had a lot of money, we used to live a kind of charmed life – but suddenly, in a heartbeat, our lives were embroiled in a nightmarish reality.
Watching a usually happy and energetic three-year-old, who rarely cried, sitting quietly and completely still on the sofa while his lip trembled until he was physically sick was the saddest thing. I sat him on my lap to try and comfort him.
This totally unplanned removal of the children at their bedtime was difficult for everyone but our concern was the effect on the children, who everyone agreed had settled so well with us. They didn’t understand what was happening. Had the move been planned so that we could have introduced little Tommy and his baby sister to the new carers, it would have been so much easier on them. A sudden removal from a happy home usually has a detrimental effect on a child, and who really knows how deeply felt or how long-lasting this will be.
The local authority social worker called the agency social worker the following day to say she had not been happy about how the placement had ended the previous night.
No complaint was ever made against us.
Rebecca the social worker turned up at our home the next morning with her manager, and both appeared to be in superiority mode. I was sad and tired so was going to let it go, but when they came into our house, seeming to pull rank and attempting to treat us like wayward children, I decided I’d had enough. Whether it was US officials or agency social workers, I felt I had to fight this injustice. I didn’t want what had just happened to happen to other children and to carers less able to stand up for themselves.
I pointed out that current government guidelines said that using trusted friends to babysit was the preferred choice. They then responded by saying that the agency’s rules were of a higher standard than either the local authority’s or the government’s. Hearing someone try to justify the wrong that had happened by saying something that to me sounded so silly would have been embarrassing and laughable if it hadn’t been so desperately sad.