For The Record

"He followed the long, S-curved sidwalk through the maze of trees. A rush of wind stirred the waxy ficus leaves overhead. He reached up for hiscar keys, stopped, and glanced over his shoulder. He thought he'd heard footsteps behind him, but no one was in sight. Up ahead, the sidewalk stretched through a strand of larger trees. The old, twisted roots had caused the cement sections to buckle and crack over the years. It was suddenly darker, as the lights along this particular segement of the walkway were blocked by low-hanging limbs. Again he heard footsteps."
James Grippando, Beyond Suspicion.

Here's a rave that was never published:

CHRISTMAS DAY. A POLICE STATION CAR PARK.
Malcolm has not seen his nine year old son and six year old daughter
for more than a month.
The children don't get out of the car. Their father pushes presents at
them through the car window, tries to talk to them. After five
minutes, the children are driven off. Malcolm has only seen his son in
sessions with a Family Court appointed psychologist since.
Malcolm is one of an estimated 326 Australians, primarily fathers,
accused of sexually abusing their children each week - the atomic bomb
of custody disputes. Like thousands of other fathers; his life has
imploded into an expensive nightmare of litigation and conflicting
experts.
A senior public servant with special security clearance, he can be
trusted with the country's secrets, but not with his own children.
While a female child protection worker found no evidence of abuse and
condemned the mother's behaviour; it is the crucial family report by
the court appointed psychologist, who recommended the father have
minimum contact, that Malcolm will have most difficulty overcoming.
Despite their notoriety amongst father's groups for their bias,
innacuracy and unchanging nature over a quarter of a century the
Federal government has refused to acknowledge any community concern
over their veracity.
These reports, the evidentiary bedrock of Australian family law, are
written by court counsellors or court appointed psychiatrists and
psychologists, who normally interview each of the parties for an hour
each. Research shows judges rely almost totally on them to make their
judgements. Many of these ``experts'' spend longer in the witness box
than they ever do interviewing the families involved, yet there is no
scientific evidence to suggest that interviewing people is the best
way to determine a custody issue.
The widespread hopes held by many community groups that the Liberal
government would move promptly to reform family law, and the family
reports on which it is based, have been dashed.
The divorce industry is now worth an estimated $5 billion a year, an
industry as big as beef, sheep or horse racing. That the present
Attorney General has no intention of seriously tackling this cash cow
for his fellow lawyers is evidenced by his choosing personnel from
deep within the industry for his new Federal Magistracy and for the
so-called Family Pathways Advisory Group. The dirty little secret, the
secret that these lawyers have no intention of blowing the whistle on,
is that this industry rests on spurious, often blatantly dishonest
reports from Family Court Counsellors, psychiatrists and
psychologists. This is perjury on a grand scale - and the legal
profession is entirely complicit in it.
The newly created $26 million Federal Magistrates Service, up and
running around the country since July, has shown no signs of
differentiating itself from the Family Court. It has turned for
magistrates to people who have a long professional association with
the much reviled family reports and who's biases are for the main part
well known. The government has refused to deny that the magistrates
have all received the approval of the Family Court.
One newly appointed magistrate, Judith Ryan, former head of the Family
Law unit of Legal Aid, was responsible for the repeated use of
Sydney's ``big three'' Drs Peter Champion, Brent Waters and
Rikard-Bell, all favourites of DOCS as well as the Family Court.
Ms Ryan took it upon herself to seek the silencing of National
President of Dads Peter Vlug after he appeared on a radio show Life
Matters on Radio National.
She requested one of her employees listen to a tape of Radio National
in which National President of Dads Against Discrimination Peter Vlug
highlighted the issue of false sexual abuse allegations in the Family
Court. That Legal Aid employee was then requested to write an
affidavit claiming she recognised the voice of Mr Vlug.
He regards the actions taken against him by Legal Aid as blatant abuse
of public funds.
``I was asked to go on the program,'' he said. ``False allegations
occupy a considerable amount of the court's time and therefore
taxpayers money. It was a matter of public interest.''
The Liberal government's move to consult ``key stakeholders'', the
Family Pathways Advisory Group, submissions for which close this
month, has become the Royal Commission that never was. The Group does
not have a single father's group on it despite ample representation
from heftily funded feminist advocacy groups, academics and
institutional heavyweights. The ``Group'', set up in the wake of an
Australian Law Reform Commission report which found overwhelming
disquiet with the Family Court and its processes, comes at a time when
there are mounting questions over the level of public confidence in
the court. One of its founders, Gogh Whitlam, has declined the
opportunity to defend the contemporary court.
Yet virtually no one on the group is even remotely critical of the
Family Court; one of its members, Cathy Argall, has been publicly
denying the Child Support Agency's role in the 20 suicides a week
committed by men after separation and another academic, John Dewar,
who's faculty has just received $500,000 in funding, has suggested the
broad push to shared parenting is detrimental to women's interests.
Despite their importance and the millions of dollars of funding
flowing to groups such as the Australian Institute of Family Studies
and the Family Law Council, there has never been an audit or academic
study of family reports. Both the government and the AIFS have refused
to offer an explanation.
National President of Whistle Blowers Australia Dr Jean Lennane says
the same misuse of psychiatry occurs in the Family Court as other
courts, but its secrecys mean it is less well documented and it leads
to ``some very bad miscarriages of justice towards children who are
deprived of access to one or other parent on the basis of ... very
dubious psychiatric evidence. They are relying on spurious reports and
misinformation. The secrecy has allowed enormous abuses ofp rocess to
develop.''
President of Lone Father's Barry Williams says the failure to include
fathers on the Family Pathways group is blatant discrimination. ``If
this government was listening to the people who are hurting they would
abolish the Family Court,'' he said. ``It hasn't changed in a quarter
of a century, it seems to be a protected species. It has to be
replaced by a Tribunal.
``The court is bringing the entire legal profession into disrepute. We
get 22,000 calls a year. People are committing suicide as a result of
court decisions.''
Mr Williams said father's can lose any relationship with their
children based on ``very biased'' reports by court counsellors made up
of ``inuendo or make believe'' which they may not even be permitted to
see.
``When a man wants to see his children they say he is trying to
control the woman. It is not true at all. They want to see their kids
because they are part of their life.
``The reports are ill written, foolish and irresponsible.''
Malcolm's case comes at a time when there is scathing media attention
on family courts throughout the English speaking world. Prominent
feminists in the US have come out recently supporting father's groups
position that shared parenting liberates everyone involved, adding a
twist to the ideologically driven vortex.
The quarter of a century since the establishment of the Family Court
of Australia has been characterised by a potent mix of feminism,
psychology, psychiatry and the law, but it may well be money and the
law which ultimately unravel the system.
The European Human Rights Court recently awarded a father $40,000 in
compensation for breach of his human rights after the father was
denied access to his child in the German courts.
Equally in Australia there are signs of an impending wave of
litigation. Fathers for Family Equity have commenced a project to
initiate a wide-ranging class action against the government and the
Family Court over bias, discrimination, injustice, abuse of power and
damage to children. With more than 20 men a week killing themselves
post-separation, simple arithmetic shows such an action could cost
taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
In a landmark case, Blue Mountains solicitor Hal Ginges was recently
awarded an undisclosed sum and a public apology from the Department of
Community Services over false allegations of sexual abuse of his
children involving DOCS officers. Illustrating their close
connections, the investigation by DOCS led to orders in the Family
Court that the father's contact with his children be restricted and
supervised. ``Ultimately the children found their own way back,'' Mr
Ginges said, who practices in the Children's Court and the Family
Court. ``Things haven't changed. Fathers are still being falsely
accused and undertrained officers of DOCS are still taking children
away and relying on untested allegations.''
Former President of the NSW Family Law Reform Association Max King has
recently began a $1.4 million dollar compensation test case which in
the NSW Supreme Court, naming Chief Justice of the Family Court
Alistair Nicholson as a defendant in his role as administrator of the
Court. He hopes the case will expose the practices of the Family Court
and the nature of the family reports to public scrutiny.
Any discussion of the role of psychiatric evidence in the Family Court
leads straight to the question of false sexual abuse allegations.
For Malcolm, he is caught up in a maze of conflicting affidavits and
legalistic complexities. An affidavit from a baby sitter, who notified
the police, reports the mother dropping off the children, claiming
they had been sexually abused, and then promptly going out on a date.

Malcolm has never been charged or found guilty of anything, but like
many many thousands of other fathers, if the matter ever goes to trial
the war of contradictory experts, many of whom may spend more time in
the witness box than they ever did interviewing the family, may well
be enough, despite the lack of medical evidence, for a judge to
entertain ``lingering doubts'' sufficient to deny him any contact at
all with his children until they turn 18.
Very few of those accused of sexual abuse of children are ever
convicted; but the allegations prompt a cascade of events from The
Child Abuse Industry, to quote the title of a 1980s American book
warning that the self referencing and ideologically driven child
protection bureaucracy was out of control.
As forensic psychologist Yolande Lucinde wrote in a recent paper
presented to the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences, the child
abuse epidemic ``has all the characteristics of mass hysteria, now
called moral panic...driven by hysterical beliefs, unvalidated and
untrue.''
Dr Lucire says that in terms of the numbers of people and resources
involved we are in the greatest moral panic since the Salem
witch-hunts.
She regards the ``so-called substantiation'' recorded by welfare
departments as nothing more than assertions and notes that in reality
child sexual abuse is ``very very rare'', and only found amongst
``very disordered people in disordered families.'' ``It is quite
improbable,'' she says. ``The allegations arise in the context of
custody battles. Some studies indicate 80% of the accusing parents
have massive personality disorders...probability analysis indicates
that any one report is many times more likely to be false than true.
``The terror that an innocent person might be found guilty, which has
traditionally and rightly been the foundation of our justice system,
has been replaced by the terror that a guilty man might go free.
``In a moral panic, hysterical beliefs short-circuit reasoning and an
illusory paradigm governs perception. Judges, juries, social workers
and doctors fear offending against the newly imposed values, and
suppress their own common sense.''
With the most draconian secrecy legislation in the country centred on
The Family Court and closely linked welfare departments, the richest
sources of information on the operation of the court and the nature of
the reports is coming from whistleblowers.
One former Family Court officer, who worked in the Sydney Registry for
14 years, Bill Sheridan, says: ``Whoever pays the piper calls the
tune. Some of these reports are almost in the word processor, it is a
matter of changing the names around.
``One will describe every parent that comes before them as a
`dysfunctional personality', others will have different quirks. If you
went to six different psychiatrists or psychologists you would get six
different views.
``By the time they get over their lengthy CVs you will probably find
the reports are all on the same lines. From my personal experience
watching the `experts' being cross-examined, I did not think these
reports were a good method of determining custody issues.
``The report writers can't help themselves but to twist things, and
they get the information supplied to them wrong. They will
misinterpret.
``It is verballing. They do it for the money. There are great
financial rewards for their behaviour, in the millions of dollars per
year.
``Any false allegation by either parent can be reported as fact.
Without any testing at all to gather the truth they will embark on
some campaign, such as that the father is oppressive or abusive.
``They will twist and manipulate the facts. They embellish the evidence.
``The family reports are not expert evidence, simply opinion. They are
doing nothing to assist anyone in any shape or form.''
Another retired court officer, so distressed by what he witnessed,
wrote a book, ``Child Sexual Abuse Allegations in Australia'', which
has been placed on an international web site outside Australian
jurisdictions.
He notes the death of the premise of ``innocent until proven guilty''
to be replaced by ``groundless suspicion, ad hoc accusations,
arbitrary judgements and premature condemnation''.
``It is my opinion that, in the past 15 years, the insidious invasion
of a child's suggestibility by inept child sexual abuse interviewers
has been instrumental in more children becoming victims of
manufactured `sexual abuse' than actual instances of this abuse,'' he
writes. ``A witch-hunt mentality emerged in earnest during the mid-80s
as Australia literally became a Little America overnight - a nation of
accusers and litigants - adding to the coffers of the legal
profession, while depleting the self esteem of thousands of innocent
children and adults. Too ready access to Legal Aid and the lure of
victim's compensation further smothed the way for this litigious
onslaught, aimed mainly against males, as the spectre of child sexual
abuse appeared ad nauseum in the media. The dissemnination of child
protection misinformation by misguided child protection zealots
resulted in chaos and confusion, as parents started notifying
thousands of alleged cases of child sexual abuse in all States. The
reluctance of courts to enforce harsher disciplinary action against
inept welfare workers is unconscionable...''
The former court officer, who spent much of his final months as a
court employee at the photocopy machine, in his chapter Child Sexual
Abuse and the Family Court, breaks down in detail the original ``M&M''
and ``B&B'' cases which led to the notion of ``lingering doubt'' and
the ``capricious'' judicial reasoning that went on behind them. Under
this tenet, to deny a child any contact with their father after the
allegation of sexual abuse has been made, it is not necessary to prove
that the child has been sexually abused or that the child may be at
risk if access were granted. All that is required is for a trial judge
to have ``lingering doubts'' as to whether access would or would not
expose the child to an unacceptable risk.
As the author says, in the family reports, many of which sit on the
fence such allegations are raised, it can be not what is said so much
as what is not said that leaves the father damned and the children
without a male parent.
Exploring the situation in NSW, he looks at the estimated 35,000 cases
of allegedly ``confirmed'' child sexual abuse in the last decade and
asks why not one investigative reporter has asked the obvious
question: ``Why is it that, of the thousands of alleged cases
classified ...``Actual - Confirmed Child Sexual Abuse'', less than 3%
result in convictions''.
He says that after many years in the court room he has formed the view
that the treatment of sexual abuse allegations has created a
``kangaroo-court mentality'' that is a blatant denial of natural
justice which leaves thousands of children the subject of
interrogation and unwarranted sexual abuse therapies. He is left in
despair at a system which has degenerated ``at the expense of
vulnerable children and innocent adults''.
He notes as proof that most sexual abuse allegations coming before the
court are mischievous the fact that the alleged abuse is never claimed
as the reason for the breakup of the marriage.
Fed up with what they perceive as outrageous behaviour by the Family
Court and family report writers, increasing numbers of men are posting
virtually everything to the internet.
One senior academic, accused of molesting his children over a decade
ago, has already been threatened with jail for publicising his case.
Along with other outraged litigants he has been ordered by the Family
Court not to contact the United Nations. He recently posted his entire
case on the internet.
Although denied access to his three children, the academic was never
found guilty of anything.
Last year's Family Report criticises the father for becoming obsessed
with clearing his name, quoting approvingly another report criticising
him for his ``lack of appreciation, if not disregard'' of his former
wife's feelings and the emotional consequence the father's persistent
publication of his plight might have on her.
As in so many other cases, the counsellor concludes that there is
``considerable potential for emotional risk'' if the children were to
see their father and ``regardless of the veracity of the sexual abuse
allegations...one questions the benefit to the children of resuming
any form of contact with their father...''
Transcripts of court proceedings also posted to the internet show the
father struggling with ``Her Honour'', finally pointing out to the
judge the irony that if he had actually been found guilty of sexually
abusing his children the affect would be the same: denial of any
relationship with their father for more than ten years.
There is no apology forthcoming from the court.
Ordered to stand back from the bench, the father's final words: ``It
just seems so unfair''.
Campaigner against the abuse of psychiatry in courts Stewart Dean
recommends that anyone being interviewed by a court appointed expert
should take a support person such as himself to act as independent
witness.
``The biggest use of these reports is when the mother wants custody
and she alleges paedophilia against the husband. They got away with it
for a long time. The women's groups have been coaching women in the
steps to take. In that way they were more or less assured to get
custody of their children. The cliches are the same. That has been the
biggest misuse in the Family Court.
``Psychiatrists in general have overplayed their hand and have come in
for such criticism they are not carrying the same weight.
``Lawyers and psychiatrist feed off each other. The lawyers more than
anyone know how crook the psychiatrists are, but they use them to win
or create cases. Cases should not be judged by psychiatrists, but by
evidence. ''
The close if not incestuous relationship between psychiatrists,
psychologists and the legal profession was clearly illustrated by the
judgement of the Psychologists Registration Board of Victoria which
deregistered cocaine addicted psychologist and Family Court favourite
Timothy Watson-Munroe. The Board receives more complaints over Family
Court reports than any other matter, and as they are largely prevented
from investigation by secrecy provisions, has written to the Court
over the matter.
In a sad forerunner to the 44 page judgement, newspapers reported a
man's taking the psychologist to the Board after he was denied any
contact with his son as a result of orders made by the Family Court on
recommendations by Watson-Munroe - who was deregistered for being of
poor character.
Five QCs went as character witnesses for him. He procured his cocaine
from a solicitor who gave him briefs. Some of the evidence shows him
watching videos of police interviews for the purpose of writing court
reports while sniffing cocaine, dealing with drug-dependent clients
while under the influence. Police tapes record him, referring to lines
of cocaine saying: ``There's nothing like the joy of waing up and
realising that contrary to...every urge in your body not leave one,
you have in fact left a small one for the morning.''
The lobby group Men's Rights have called on the government to fund a
review of all custody orders made as a result of recommendations by
Watson-Munroe and urged all fathers who lost their children as a
result to consider compensation actions.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights, which made its name in this
country campaigning for the deep-sleep Chelmsford Inquiry, has just
released a guide to dealing with psychiatric and psychological
testimony in the Family Court and social welfare departments.
CCHR advise that no one should submit to such an interview without an
accompanying witness, without the interview being videotaped and
without clear legal advice on their rights.
National President Lyn Cottee said the inaction of professional
bodies, medical boards and health care complaints bodies actively
protected corrupt psychiatrists and psychologists. The protection of
psychiatrists in the Family Court spills over into other arenas such
as DOCS in NSW, Human Services in Victoria and Family Services in
Queensland.

``Psychiatrists and psychologists are employed in particular
jurisdictions because they produce the answers that are desired or
that fit into the prevailing ideology of the court. The have become a
new power elite. Everything they say is taken as gospel no matter in
some cases how preposterous.
``In the case of the Family Court, psychiatrists often become the
trier of fact rather than the judge. Character flaws of the preferred
parent are often overlooked in favour of magnifying and sometimes even
fabricating the flaws in the other parent. These unscientific, biased,
opinion-based pronouncements are often sufficient for parents to lose
any contact with their children.''
One of the ironies of the nature of Family reports, and the enormous
weight placed upon them, is that it is well recognised amongst social
scientists that interviewing people is a most unreliable form of
evaluation, and that there is no evidence that interviewing people is
a good way of determining whether they are a good parent.
As former academic Tom Benjamin says, behavioural science literature
has shown interviewing to be an unreliable form of investigation, and
there is no evidence to indicate it as an appropriate form of
determining the better parent.
As Sanford Braver author of ``Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths''
says: ``There is no evidence that there is a scientific valid way for
a custody evaluator to choose the best primary parent. Instead there
is convincing evidence that their recommendations merely follow the
evaluator's own gender biases.''
There has been scathing worldwide media attention focussing on family
courts throughout this year. The Observer newspaper in London just
completed a three month expose into the British Family Court,
concluding that the custody evaluation procedures were utterly flawed.
They found ``a shocking culture producing routine misery on a vast
scale for both children and parents''. The paper continued: ``We have
found wide ranging inadequacies in the legal system, ill-trained
professionals, badly prepared judges and decision making which is
often a lottery.''
One recently retired family report writer declared the service he left
as haphazard and ``a hell of a mess''.
In the US, Margaret Hagan, author of Whores of the Court: The Fraud
of Psychiatric Testimony, has embarked on a new book on custody
litigation. In her chapter ``In the best interests of the Child'' she
notes the shock that psychoexperts' contributions often provide to
parents; and notes that a psychological professional who has never met
you the children or the parent can hold their future in his her hands.
One mother lost custody of because she shirked her duty to have her
parently fitness assessed by a psychologist. ``It is no step at all to
turn...personal value judgements into professional opinions to support
the case of a parent making claims...'' Ms Hagan writes.
The Spectator, in a cover story The Rape of Justice, describes the
``spurious'' if not ``incomprehensible'' reasons for father's losing
contact with their children: ``...there was the father whose overnight
contact with his five-year-old was stopped because `the child had many
mile-stones ahead of him'; another who was denied contact because he
`had to prove his commitment'; another because `this is the mother's
first child'; another because he was `over-enthusiastic'; yet another
because `the child fell asleep in his car on the way home'....And so
on and so, appallingly, on.''
A similar litany of disaster and denial of relationships with fathers
or less commonly mothers is true of Australia. A father's close
relationship with a son is described as ``unhealthy''; another parent
is described as having a psychiatric condition of unknown name
immutable to treatment, another as having a controlling and intensive
intelligence, another as being too involved with his children's
schooling.
In one report a famous Sydney DOCS/Family Court psychiatrist Brent
Waters states that the most disturbing thing is that the parents can't
see that there is anything wrong them. They lost all four of their
children. In another the mother, who hated the welfare authorities was
and admittedly no saint, is described by Peter Champion, another
favourite of DOCS and the Family Court, as being arrogant and unable
to admit that she was wrong. She lost her two children.
One father, who consulted a string of psychiatrists and psychologists
in his battle to rescue his kid from an allegedly abusive situation,
only got one good report: from the disbarred Watson-Munroe.
Another father lost any chance of custody when Watson-Munroe
misinterpreted the father's plans for accommodation of his young son.
There was no retraction, no apology.
One father lost any contact with his child after a report from a
women's health centre, Gunedoo in the Blue Moutnains, suggested that
the son had no worthwhile relationship with the father. He was never
interviewed. Another accused the father of harrassing his son at
school without any evidence at all. Another suggested the father
should not be granted shared parenting because it might give him hope
of reconciling with the mother. Another psychiatric report states he
can't understand why the father is putting the mother through the
stress of a trial he cannot win.

Along with the contradicting experts, Malcolm and his ex-wife's
affidavits also contradict each other. Amidst the sad horrific battle
of contradictory experts, one of the father's affidavits reports the
child saying: ``Mummy said that you touched my fanny, but you didn't,
did you Daddy?'' For him and for his children, as for hundreds of
thousands of others, the agony of Australian family law will never be
over.



THE BIGGER STORY:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/earth-hour/please-take-a-bow-sydney/2008/03/30/1206207512977.html

LAST night, during Earth Hour, Mother Earth hosted a candlelight supper for a few million close friends.

Natalie Imbruglia was one of many famous Australians who flicked off the lights at 8pm as a commitment to fight climate change.

The British-based singer-actress joined an estimated 30million people in 35 countries, inspired by the movement launched in Sydney last year.

"We hear so much doom and gloom about the environment, it's really pleasing to hear such a simple and positive way for people to take part," Imbruglia said, "And let's face it, I'm sure people can think of plenty to do in the dark for an hour."

At the inaugural Earth Hour, an initiative of Fairfax Media and WWF Australia, on March 31, 2007, more than 2.2million Sydneysiders and 2100 businesses turned off the lights and non-essential appliances. The city's energy consumption dipped by more than 10 per cent - a 25-tonne reduction in carbon dioxide emissions - and a powerful symbol was born that resonated with many other countries, cities and communities.

EnergyAustralia last night reported a drop between seven and 12 per cent in energy consumption in Sydney's CBD during Earth Hour. On a typical Saturday night the city would use 231.8 megawatts of electricity. Last night's figure was 212.4 megawatts.

At Sydney's official launch, at the Fleet Steps on Farm Cove, Lord Mayor Clover Moore described Earth Hour as a call to action.

"One inspired idea that began in Sydney just 12 months ago has now become a world movement," Ms Moore said. "Its immediate success and its swift adoption around the world shows that people are not only alert to the threat of global warming but they're engaged and they're ready and willing to act.

"Global warming is the critical challenge of our times," she said. "It's the only show in town. We are on the cusp of a green revolution. Just as the industrial revolution transformed the 19th century, a new green economy is set to transform the 21st century."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5Z6bJwtN_roGSIUQiQnfbf2NkhgD8VN87D81

BEIJING (AP) — Fresh protests broke out in the Tibetan capital Lhasa on Saturday as foreign diplomats wrapped up a tightly controlled visit organized by Beijing, a radio broadcaster and Tibetan activists reported.

A protest began Saturday afternoon at Lhasa's Ramoche monastery and grew to involve "many people," said Kate Saunders of the Washington-based International Campaign for Tibet.

Citing unnamed witnesses in the city, Saunders said the situation calmed down after a few hours. She had no information on injuries or arrests.

People also protested at the Jokhang Temple, a major Buddhist site in Lhasa, the government-in-exile of the Tibetan Buddhist leader, the Dalai Lama, said on its Web site. The India-based government gave no other details.

Several hundred people took part in the protests, the U.S.-funded broadcaster Radio Free Asia reported.

The Ramoche and Jokhang monasteries and other sites were sealed off by security forces, Saunders said. Ramoche was the original site of protests that spread earlier this month and led to a crackdown by the Chinese government.

The reports of new protests came as a 15-member group of diplomats from the United States, Japan and Europe returned to Beijing after a two-day visit to Lhasa.


My grandmother Sarah Audrey Higginbottom; who has now passed away. She was a very sweet old soul.