Oh look what we have rediscovered: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3061606/after-baby-p-the-crisis-in-child-foster-care.thtml

Wilt Portfolio
This article in the Spectator in 2008 reads like a fairy tale, of wonder woman ‘Sarah’ (Elizabeth Calleja) in her battle against injustice! Absolute and utter tosh.
As usual, Calleja only tells half truths and slips in a few untruths – she is dissembling like a good politician.
You will of course note that the Spectator Assistant Editor (Mary Wakefield) did not trouble herself in checking out the story before going to print. What did Tom, Dick and Harriet have to say; or Madge for that matter? What were the views of the police, NCSC/CSCI or Ofsted? Could they offer a more balanced appraisal? The answer is of course yes, but it was inconvenient to do so – otherwise there was no story, or fairy tale. An inconvenient truth might emerge.
Now, you would expect that a publication such as the Spectator would publish evidenced research – would you not? They neither do justice to the case of Calleja (not that she has one), to those accused of serious professional misconduct or to journalism.

Wilt Portfolio
What of course is fact is that Calleja considers herself to be and promulgates the idea that she is an innocent victim. She is neither innocent nor a victim, but the inconvenient truth is that she victimises others – has anyone else been arrested by the police and placed on bail for several months under suspicion of harassment? Now that is a very inconvenient and arresting fact, is it not? See this: http://regulatorwatch.co.uk/2011/03/infamy-infamy/
Oh, and that big black file that Calleja/Wakefield have – we know of a police officer who would like to see it, together with the High Court in Birmingham who were told by Calleja that she held no records that could be disclosed in a defamation claim. Unlike Calleja who routinely claims to be a lawyer herself, we are not lawyers but we think that, in light of that big black folder, it might emerge yet that Elizabeth committed perjury in her signed Court statement (and not the draft version she sent to the GSCC). And such offences tend to carry fairly heavy prison terms, do they not Lord Archer? See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1424501.stm

Wilt Portfolio
Callejia will, putting it mildly, create fictional documents, although not in any way that the police cannot instantly detect.
It is also very odd that a woman who the Spectator (and other publishers) choose to award anonymity to, is probably the best known litigant/vexatious pain in the arse known to central/local government and a multitude of Quango. For gawd sake, we all know who she is and why try to protect her? The public have a right to know which Dorks cause massive deployment of publicly funded resources in examining ‘non-essential’ and irrelevant issues – for goodness sake Calleja is irrelevant, her cause even less so. Even so, she spares no blushes when it comes to naming and shaming others from her ‘Big Black File’ ( and several more like it we are adsvised) – that is why we have no reservation about naming the TWAT.
In UK law, you face your accuser – face up Elizabeth or desist from your pathetic, stale and sorry efforts to be the Fairy Queen – no glass slipper would fit your fat foot, honest. An inconvenient fact, we think, princess.

Wilt Portfolio
If readers wish to further identify Calleja go here for a PUBLIC record: http://www.192.com/atoz/people/calleja/elizabeth/
Wilt