fascist state after all

[DH1875]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/327086


Am I reading that right? She might be a muppet but how can they take her baby from her for her beliefs :confused:.

[Future17]

This story screams of having been sensationalised and the involvement of John Hemming does not serve to add any credibility.

I obviously don't know the details, but an educated guess would be:

- Social services have removed three children from her custody for good reason, based on actual events which have taken place relating to her "previous alcohol and drug misuse, aggressive behaviour and mental health issues".

- As the new baby has not been born yet, they obviously can't remove him/her from her custody. Rather, they will closely monitor her behaviour and her relationship with the baby after it is born and they have advised her of this in the hope she will get her act together.

This seems like sensationalist journalism to me. I can't see any evidence of social services wanting "to seize a baby as soon as it is born". In fact, the quoted section of the social work report provides an opinion on how the mother can change her behaviour to "model and display appropriate positive relationships to the baby as he/she grows and develops". That's not based on her opinions about race or anything else, it's based on "inappropriate friendships" linked to these radical groups.

Based on your thread title DH, I don't think you have read this correctly, although you probably have read it the way the journalist wanted you to.

[Beefster]

If the story was as reported, it would be outrageous. The story won't be as reported - Social Services don't take kids from birth mothers for pissy, trivial reasons.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I heard about a woman who had a baby taken from her because of her beliefs. She believed she could walk across the Firth of Forth without drowning. Typical drivel from the Daily Express this story.


I've seen the poison letters of the horrible hacks
About the yellow peril and the reds and the blacks
And the TUC and its treacherous acts
Kremlin money - All right Jack
I've seen how democracy is under duress
But I've never seen a nipple in the Daily Express

I've seen the suede jack boot the verbal cosh
Whitehouse Whitelaw whitewash
Blood uptown where the vandals rule
Classroom mafia scandal school
They accuse - I confess
I've never seen a nipple in the Daily Express

Angry columns scream in pain
Love in vain domestic strain
Divorce disease it eats away
The family structure day by day
In the grim pursuit of happiness
I've never seen a nipple in the Daily Express

This paper's boring mindless mean
Full of pornography the kind that's clean
Where William Hickey meets Michael Caine
Again and again and again and again
I've seen millionaires on the DHSS
But I've never seen a nipple in the Daily Express
phone

JCC

[--------]

"Mrs McLeod, who is 35 weeks pregnant, is a former leading member of the EDL, in which she was notorious as “English Angel”. The 25-year-old has a string of convictions for violence, including butting and biting a police officer after an EDL march in 2010 and she has been banned from owning dogs after setting a pit bull on a former partner ....

Mrs McLeod has posted racist abuse on social networking sites but denies being racist. She claims she is no longer active with the EDL and has never been charged with violence against children ....

Social workers have told her husband Martyn he would be unable to care for his child because he is a full-time soldier just back from Afghanistan."


Seems to me that there are plenty of reasons why the bairn should be on the "at-risk" register. She has a history of alcohol- and drug-abuse; she also has a history of violence towards people she takes a dislike to; she once set a pit-bull on a guy she'd broken up with; and she claims she's not racist though she has in the past posted racist abuse on the Internet.

What is there not to like about this lady? :rolleyes:

I have no particular liking for the way some social-work departments operate. I have known social workers to be aggressive, judgemental, and arrogant. I've known them to be doctrinaire in their approach to people whose values they don't share - if you don't share their soft-left perspective on life you're a Danger To Society and need to be locked up and either castrated or lobotomised (or both) immediately.
(In my experience they're usually women of the Vinegar Annie School of Thought. :devil:)

I've known them to do some monumentally stupid and damaging things to families, presumably for what they thought was a good reason, but the logic of which will always escape me. I've known them tell lies in court, I've known them display blatant bias in favour of one parent against the other, I've known them behave in ways that were clearly detrimental to the welfare of the children they were supposed to be protecting, and I've come to the conclusion that it's a wise parent who makes sure he or she has competent legal representation in any dealings with social workers - they can't get away with lying to a family-law specialist like they can get away with lying to a lay person. (They'll try, but they won't get away with it.)

But in this instance, I have to say, I do see their point.