Blog

If Not ‘Colluding’, Then What?

‘Colluding’ is a strong word, not one to be used lightly. But I have consistently maintained that the agencies involved have colluded with the perpetrators who took Lizzie, isolated her, and subjected her to coercive control, effectively severing all her ties to her family and loved ones.

So, on what grounds do I use such a loaded term?

The Home Office Statutory Guidance Framework on Controlling or Coercive Behaviour makes this abundantly clear:

• “Police should examine whether the suspect may be making a false counter-accusation. A manipulative perpetrator may be trying to draw the police into colluding with their control or coercion of the victim by making a false incident report.”
• “A perpetrator may manipulate the victim or those around them to make the abuse less visible or undetectable altogether. Perpetrators may also be particularly adept at manipulating professionals, agencies and systems.”
• “A manipulative perpetrator may be trying to draw the police into colluding with their control and coercion over the victim; police officers must avoid playing into the primary perpetrator’s hands and take account of all available evidence when making the decision to arrest.”

This isn’t drawn from some obscure corner of the internet. It’s from the Home Office.

It’s not a list of suggestions or general advice. It’s a statutory framework.

Nor is it solely intended for police use. It is “primarily aimed at statutory and non-statutory bodies working with victims, perpetrators, and commissioning services – including the police, criminal justice agencies, and other agencies.”

That certainly includes Adult Social Care. I would argue it also applies to educational providers such as Linkage College. These agencies are all explicitly warned to guard against being drawn into collusion with a perpetrator’s control and coercion of the victim.

That is the word the framework uses: colluding.

It doesn’t have to be intentional. It would be a bold claim to suggest that the agencies have knowingly colluded with a manipulative perpetrator. But in practical terms, does it matter whether the collusion was deliberate or the result of being taken in by smooth talk and persuasive lies? The end result is the same: statutory agencies end up enabling the perpetrator to gain control over the victim.

When Lewis and Coral made grotesque and false allegations against me, and later against Lizzie’s uncle, the statutory agencies heard those lies, accepted them, recorded them, shared them and perpetuated them.

Yet not once did anyone have the courtesy or common sense to approach me to investigate or even corroborate.

If that isn’t collusion, what word would you use to describe it?

A Mountain of Lies

Nearly two years ago – how is that even possible? – Lizzie Gladwell was driven away from outside her home by Coral Wilson-Clark as part of a premeditated plot. We now know this was supposedly part of Lizzie “fleeing” her home – so urgent that she couldn’t even stop to collect a toothbrush.

A barrage of lies was fed to Linkage College, even while Lizzie and I were sharing Pringles and having an arm wrestle on a boat on the River Ouse in York the day before Lizzie was taken.

It was a plot. It was based on a mountain of lies. It was deliberate. It was predatory.

Worst of all, it came as a surprise even to Lizzie herself.

That night, Coral allowed her to call us. Lizzie said:
“I still want to visit the people I love. I was always gonna speak to you. I was even going to see you. I would still be in contact.”
I told her she could get in touch any time. She replied, “Every day.”

The next night, after we’d sent her own “pink” phone, she texted: “Night Mummy and Daddy, I love you xxx”

Three days later, on a phone call, she said: “No matter where I am, I will always be your daughter, you know? And I still want to see you, because you’re still my parents at the end of the day. I feel so sad because I still want to keep in contact with people.”

Two days before her pink phone was taken from her – likely destroyed – Lizzie sent several messages, including:
– “You are still my parents and I love you both.”
– “I do love both of you.”
– “I’m sorry for leaving. But I do love you both.”
– “I’ll message you on the pink phone. Love you both x”

That was the end of the pink phone.

This Must Not Happen Again

Gary Atkinson of Focus Adult Social Work later said the manner of Lizzie’s removal was irrelevant:

“The way that it was done is really inconsequential,” he argued in a phone call in January 2024.

I disagree. Vehemently.

Nearly two years on, having not seen our daughter for over a year and a half, I still say loudly and clearly: the way it was done is central to this crisis. It reveals so much – about Coral’s premeditated actions and manipulation, and about Lizzie’s innocence, lack of awareness, and heart-breaking vulnerability.

Lizzie had no idea what she was getting into when she went along with the plan devised by Coral and Lewis. None of this mess is Lizzie’s fault; she is the primary victim.

And given the utter lack of accountability or recognition of the safeguarding failures by Linkage College, Adult Social Care, or Humberside Police, I can only conclude this: if a similar situation were to arise again, they would respond in exactly the same way.

In other words, what is to stop this from happening again … and again … and again?

This is precisely why The Lizzie Gladwell Crisis campaign must exist.
I cannot, in good conscience, sit back and watch this devastation be repeated in another innocent family, with another vulnerable young person.

————————–

Thank you for reading. If you have any insights, comments or advice, please feel free to add them below.