Tuesday, December 03, 2013

The British State owns all EU babies

Imagine a pregnant British national journeying to Italy for a few months, falling ill, having her baby forcibly delivered by caesarian section and then being put up for mandatory adoption. She has no say, and her family's wishes back in the UK are not even sought. Her British passport would no longer guarantee "in the name of Her Majesty" that the woman may "pass freely without let or hindrance" or that she may be granted "such assistance and protection as may be necessary". Because that "assistance and protection" would be that which is deemed necessary by the Italian State. And the Italian State views the woman and her child not as British nationals, but as citizens of the EU. So all that archaic 'Britannic Majesty' nonsense can safely be set aside: EU citizenship trumps historic rights and national liberties.

That must be how Essex social workers viewed the Italian woman who had to endure this very treatment in the UK. According to a a senior judge in Milan, the woman’s treatment constituted an unprecedented "act of extreme violence" (adding that it could not never happened in Italy). Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, said: "At first blush this is dystopian science fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares that those responsible will struggle to defend in courts of law and decency."

At first blush?

This is the 'Court of Protection' we're talking about.

A secret court that meets behind closed doors to determine what happens to those who are deemed incapable of making decisions on their own behalf. The court can nullify a marriage without the consent of both parties (yes, really), and determine which parent gets which child with what visitation rights (if any at all), with draconian restrictions on all media reporting. And this court can also apparently force a foreign citizen to have an invasive medical procedure and seize her child against her will - because she is not foreign at all: she is an EU citizen.

This didn't take place last week: it occurred 15 months ago, and has only recently come to light.

His Grace wrote about these secret courts three years ago. Nothing has changed. Except that the wider world is gradually becoming more aware of them. He wrote back then:
There is a tendency, developed or made more palpable over the past 50 years, that our children are first and foremost a state acquisition. The belief has perhaps been in greater evidence nowhere more than in the state education system, with its national curriculum designed to inculcate whatever values a passing government stipulates, and teachers trained in accordance with a prescriptive code which none dare abjure and no headteacher dare repudiate, lest they fall foul of the Gestapo at Ofsted. Any parental assertions of ownership, as with homeschooling, are increasingly viewed with suspicion, with such parents made subject to a level of monitoring usually reserved for suspected paedophiles. And the absurd belief that a parent ought to be informed about their child’s acquisition of contraception or their 14-year-old daughter’s application for an abortion is viewed as an unacceptable incursion into the child's 'right' to privacy, of which the state is now the self-appointed guardian.

...We see here a perfect example of the systematic abuse of state power. If the mother speaks out, she risks prosecution and faces the certainty of losing her child forever to fostering or adoption. Every instinct for natural justice wants to name the woman and assist her, yet the local authority bullies, in partnership with inept social workers and private adoption agencies, would exploit the transgression and submit it as evidence that they and they alone are acting in the best interests of the welfare of the child.

Ultimately, of course, it is the rights of the child which are violated. His or her right to a family life is subsumed to the state’s definition of what that life ought to consist. The social workers are no longer pastoral, caring or compassionate: they have become agents of the state, programmed to implement social legislation in accordance with the demands of the state.

The Marxist-Stalinist ideology persists.

..It is a topsy-turvy world indeed in which we are obliged to grant prisoners their ‘right’ to vote; in which we may not deport convicted foreign-nationals because of their ‘right’ to a family life or their ‘right’ not to be tortured in their own country. And yet a British mother who has been convicted of nothing has her child forcibly removed by the state and is then denied natural justice and all means of legal redress because of the labyrinthine bureaucracy of an evil system intent on nothing but its own survival.

...Questions must certainly be asked in Parliament about this crypto-Soviet madness. The Family Courts are out of control and a law unto themselves. It is time for us to reclaim our children from all forms of state oppression.
It is clearly time for all European states to reclaim their children - and, indeed, their adults - from the foreign courts of their EU partners. And there is obviously only one way to achieve that. In the meantime, secret courts have no place in the modern liberal democratic state. They can lead to manifest injustice, and must be abolished

105 Comments:

Blogger john in cheshire said...

YG, Hear, hear. Let's hope this disgusting turn of events serves as the spark that burns down the whole edifice of socialist brutality.

3 December 2013 10:37  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Certainly brushes that we and various friends have has with the child protection Mafia have convinced us that they can't be trusted.
Most recently, a friend of ours had numerous problems because their hyperactive 5 year old kept bumping into things, falling over and generally hurting himself. I've watched him myself, he simply doesn't have any fear of anything. The social workers were convinced that the damage was being done by the mother in spite of all the neighbours telling them about what had happened, indeed they even suggested one of the neighbours was colluding with the mother.
Such are the closed minds of those involved that they can't see anything except what they want to see.
Meanwhile the real child abusers carry on with it because they have plausible stories or simply slam the door to visitors; tell the truth and they don't believe you.

3 December 2013 10:47  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

I hear the case is now in the hands of Your Grace's friend James Munby. Apparently he is a very intelligent judge, according to Heresiarch.

I just remember the quote below from October, and am interested to see what happens.

"Happily for us," Munby avers, "the days are past when the business of judges was the enforcement of morals.."

Concern for the wellbeing of mother and baby is of course greater than interest in James Munby's performance.

3 December 2013 10:48  
Blogger bluedog said...

Magnificently Orwellian, Your Grace, a Court of Protection that is really an Office of State Abortion and Kidnapping. Why not give it its proper name for Pete's sake, what are they afraid of?

With the introduction of same sex adoption, business will be brisk. Parents who transgress and incur official sanction can be stripped of their little mites by Ofstabkid whence they will be reallocated to approved couples of the same sex, preferably atheist, in order to benefit from an upbringing that reflects progressive values. Muslim sourced children will of course be returned to the Muslim community in a spirit of cultural empathy and sensitivity. Under no circumstances will white or Christian children sourced children be re-allocated to Christians in view of the homophobic bias of that sect.

One can imagine Cameron embracing Ofstabkid as a flagship policy initiative of the Big Society.

3 December 2013 11:13  
Blogger Martin said...

Secret justice isn't justice at all.

3 December 2013 11:17  
Blogger Woman on a Raft said...

I could not agree more with YG's assessment but elsewhere you also wrote disparagingly of Judge Munby, quoting Justice Mostyn's opinion of him.

Please note that it was the Catholic Mr Justice Mostyn who signed the court order mandating the forced Cesarian and it is Sir James Munby, in his capacity as President, who has ordered the forced adoption to go back to the High Court and be heard before himself.

3 December 2013 11:45  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Dear Woman on a Raft,

It is perfectly possible to write disparagingly of someone one day, and then to do so approvingly the next: people are not pantomime characters.

3 December 2013 11:52  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack felt very upset reading this and the paper stories. This poor lady could have been returned home to her family when she became sick and looked after by them. Instead she was placed in a hospital among strangers. She must have been scared. And why can't she have her baby back now? Surely people who are bi-polar can be good parents too and her mum would help her. Jack is sad for her and for her baby.

3 December 2013 12:42  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

I agree that this case is both horrific and symptomatic of the disaster area that the family courts and social services have become, and appreciate your efforts, YG, to get this to the front of public consciousness and keep it there. God bless.

3 December 2013 12:49  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Happy Jack,

Essex social services are notorious for their willingness to remove babies from vulnerable mothers and have them adopted.

I have witnessed first hand a case in which an underage mother with mild learning disabilities pleaded with social services to help her raise her baby, rather than take it away; it did no good. The social worker even physically intervened to stop her breastfeeding the baby, to make sure it didn't bond before adoptive parents were found. If you have disabilities or any health problems, DO NOT get pregnant in Essex.

New-born babies are much easier to get adopted, as they are much more desirable. An older child will most likely end up spending a long time in care, costing money and stopping children's "services" departments from meeting their adoption targets. That's why social workers are usually much quicker to take a new-born away than a grown child; they know adoptive parents for a new-born can be found at the drop of a hat.

3 December 2013 12:59  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The Court of Protection was recently castigated for paying next to no interest on funds of the vulnerable who have alternative but are forced to have all their assists "managed" by the Court. The whole thing is a scandal.

Most insidious to take 'the ownership' of children from parents and usurp it by the State. Very Frankfurt School.

3 December 2013 13:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Why the rush on the Caesarian? The Court must have decided that this woman was an unfit mother - that she could never be trusted with children. Was she therefore held for five weeks simply to allow the pregnancy to come to term? I can't believe her condition took that long to stabilize.

The reports simply state she had a panic attack. How did she present herself to the police and courts such that she was institutionalized? What was the basis of the court's decision? This is an important aspect that has not been revealed

Where was the guardian ad litem and whose interest was he serving? What role did he play? Why did he not involve the woman's family?

There are more questions then answers. I will say however that I could create an alternate set of facts that would create outrage if the child had not been removed. It is easy to move public opinion by selective framing.

Of course there are no answers because of the secretive nature of the court. That is the root of the problem that should be addressed.

carl

carl

3 December 2013 13:11  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

I wonder whether infants display genetic markers or neurological indicators for the potential to develop inappropriate political opinions in later life?

Perhaps social workers should screen all neonatals for predictive factors, and either post-natally terminate them and sluice them away (if this is environmentally acceptable in terms of effluent treatment), or separate them from their parents and send them to intensive re-education facilities from their earliest years.

3 December 2013 13:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

YG

If you would kindly permit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10485281/Operate-on-this-mother-so-that-we-can-take-her-baby.html

Where there is the fullest description of the event Ernst has come across to date.

After reading the article on Sunday, I genuinely had to go over the first paragraph details again as they were scarcely believable.

A foreign national detained by British police for panicking about passports of her two children, who were still at home with the detainee's mother in Italy, so she didn't have the passports but was unnecessarily panicking (she has bi-polar))!

The police then take her against her will to have her sectioned despite speaking to her mother in Italy regarding her forgetting to take her medication with her...Then her child is removed against her wishes by a court order. IN BRITAIN!!!

I am so angry I want to throw a Brick through the window of the police station, court, psychiatric unit and social services windows to show my utter disgust and for the contempt that they have placed our country in on the world stage for all to see.

British Justice...A thing of the past.

Blofeld

3 December 2013 13:31  
Blogger gentlemind said...

If the British State owns all EU babies, and if Britain is in the EU, then the British State owns all British babies. This is (legally) correct.

Given that Britain is in the EU (rather than the EU being in Britain), then the EU owns all British babies. This is (legally correct).

The State no longer legally recognises the physical reality of our familial relationships, and instead regards those relationships as being legal contracts. "Big Brother" is now "Big Mother".

3 December 2013 13:41  
Blogger Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh said...

Those with at least passive fluency in French may find the following two (15 min) vimeo clips of interest. They are part of a series in which Québec speaker Réal Gaureault traces the development of the modern humanist state. In the first link (to number 4 of series) Gaureault notes the key role of the French Revolution in the presumption of State ownership over children, with (humanist) education viewed as a means of "rescuing" children from the "superstitions" of their parents. The second (number 15) suggests the 19th century eugenicist ideas of Francis Galton (Darwin's cousin) are still gaining influence in our own day over human "rights" (particularly in regards to medicine), thus favouring mass-community over individual, and, in effect, strong over weak.

http://vimeo.com/59341534

http://vimeo.com/62721235

3 December 2013 15:05  
Blogger IanCad said...

There must be big money in the ownership of kids.
Countless attorneys, facilitators, counsellors, snatch squads, shrinks, quacks - all feeding one another.
Kill the beast.
Homeschool!!

3 December 2013 15:34  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

‘The British State owns all EU babies’

In so far as there is much to object regarding the usurping of British sovereignty within the EU, can this OP title be in danger of being construed a little misleading or more as I take it as HG’s little jest? If I am correct, I am hen left to wonder if the UK’s neutering by the EU is really a suitable joking matter. Either way, I am glad to see this day his return to the fray.

Surely it is only correct that Courts of Protection must operate with due regard to an individual’s right to privacy and thereby necessitate that they operate in camera)? Today’s media-mob can’t be trusted to report matters ethically, intelligently or sensitively and matters reaching these courts are not always those requiring the wider public interest.

There also seems to be much floating ‘information’ that may be deemed contradictory now this has case has resurfaced, which seems to be at odds with what some reporters hold as 'on the record' but none as far as I am aware, make the link to some form of Brave New World parallel.

Essex CC have this posted on their site-

The Health Trust had been looking after the mother since 13 June 2012 under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. Because of their concerns the Health Trust contacted Essex County Council's Social Services.

Five weeks later it was the Health Trust's clinical decision to apply to the High Court for permissions to deliver her unborn baby by caesarean section because of concerns about risks to mother and child.

The mother was able to see her baby on the day of birth and the following day. Essex County Council's Social Services obtained an Interim Care Order from the County Court because the mother was too unwell to care for her child.

Historically, the mother has two other children which she is unable to care for due to orders made by the Italian authorities.

In accordance with Essex County Council's Social Services practice social workers liaised extensively with the extended family before and after the birth of the baby, to establish if anyone could care for the child.

http://www.essex.gov.uk/News/Pages/Essex-County-Council-responds-to-interest-in-story-headlined-Essex-removes-baby-from-mother.aspx


Who knows for certain what is the truth?; we would surely be better waiting for the deliberations of Justice Munby before suggesting this issue is part of some ‘euro-commie plot’ or that the UK is acting as the EU’s Child-Snatcher.

3 December 2013 15:50  
Blogger gentlemind said...

IanCad said "Homeschool!!"

That ought to be the answer and, in reality, it is. But when the State replaces the legal recognition of familial relationships with a purely legal model for everybody, the State no longer recognises natural rights (such as the right of parents to be the educators of their children). The State must dictate the child's education since, in the eyes of the State, the child is the State's child.

3 December 2013 16:39  
Blogger Owl said...

Dreadnaught,

If you read the statements from the Essex CC again, you will see that they don't actually say anything.

"Because of their concerns the Health Trust contacted Essex County Council's Social Services"

What concerns? Why did thay contact Social Services?

"for permissions to deliver her unborn baby by caesarean section because of concerns about risks to mother and child"

What Concerns? What risks? Did they ask the mother her opinion?

"Essex County Council's Social Services obtained an Interim Care Order from the County Court because the mother was too unwell to care for her child"

Now it's Social Services NOT the Health Trust. Did Social Services decide that she was too "unwell", whatever that is supposed to mean.

"Historically, the mother has two other children which she is unable to care for due to orders made by the Italian authorities"

Did the orders of the Italian Authorities (whoever they are) make the mother unable to look after her children? This is what they have written.

"In accordance with Essex County Council's Social Services practice social workers liaised extensively with the extended family before and after the birth of the baby, to establish if anyone could care for the child"

Did they find anyone? Where did they look? Do they even speak Italian?

What they have written is pure bullshit.

I would have thought that you, of all people, would have seen that immediately.

3 December 2013 16:45  
Blogger David B said...

This case had been brought to my attention previously, by one of my Co-admins on our secular discussion board, and with the same sort of outrage.

It is pointed out there that there is already case law against this sort of behaviour.

I found it as shocking as everyone else, though Dreadnaught's post above reminds me that sometimes initial reports of events that have caused some or all of us to be outraged have on occasion been misleading.

I shall make an exception to my usual practice of not posting links to link to the report of the case law mentioned above, and link this discussion back to my board.

http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm

David

3 December 2013 16:53  
Blogger JW said...

The woman was obviously deeply disturbed and behaving irrationally. It seems that she came to Britain carrying a baby with the intention of having the child and allowing it live. Had she come here to destroy her unborn child we could have placed the full resources of the NHS at her disposal and there need have been no controversy

3 December 2013 17:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 December 2013 17:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

But wait, His Grace has made no mention of the fact the Italian woman of whom he writes about is of questionable sanity, and that she has two other children she is unable to care for.

In the good old days, such a sad case would be repatriated to country of origin and thus to the care of her family, though of course being heavily pregnant compounds the issue as in ability to travel.

The vagaries of mental illness are best left determined by those on the ground, and gentlemen, that is not us…

There are plenty of opportunities out there with which to attack the soviet system under which we now find ourselves living, and this man will be right behind you all, but this is NOT an occasion - It appears to be a one off. We should however comfort ourselves with the knowledge that this kind of behaviour still makes it into the public domain and no one looks set to be prosecuted as a public nuisance over alerting us – for now, at least...

3 December 2013 18:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Owl

Ernst is in full agreement.

It is especially vague and all things you would expect to follow from the statement are missing...The Who's, Why's, What's, etc, that given reason to the statement of action taken by them.... All very non committal and 'Not us Guv'.

It allows for all sorts of conjecture whereas only the police, court and social service know why they took this unbelievably controversial action against a foreign citizen.

It appears that the EU not only owns our offspring but it can swing the powerful mechanism of detention by government bodies into place to hold adults in questionable circumstances also.

As shocked as you by the sloppy approach taken by Dreadnaught..must be an off day or just wanted to front any sort of argument as (forgive the pun) Devil's Advocate. * Sniggers and Titters*

Blofeld

3 December 2013 18:01  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I'm thinking, that if the woman had threatened to kill her baby whilst under section, that would be similar to a situation aimed at stopping the same person, had she been a likely 'jumper' atop a high building, from killing herself and her late-term unborn child. I reckon it would have been absolutely right to stop her.

Where is the woman now? Where is the child? Is she/has she claimed the return of her child? and why has it taken so long to come to public notice?

If she is fit and well and back in Italy (and even if she isn't) then surely fostering here or there, rather than a UK adoption would have ameliorated the current situation.

Is it just me or can anyone else smell the possibility of a fat cheque compo-claim on the wind?

3 December 2013 18:37  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

In practice "the rights of the child" means the rights of the social workers who supposedly speak for the child's interests. To the judges of the secret court, they are the sole professionally credible witnesses.

In several fields of law, Council officials can assert that they are "satisfied" that such and such is the case and give legally enforceable orders as a result of their own judgement. A court of law is the only recourse against a capricious or malicious use of the power. But if that court meets in secret and cannot itself be held to account, then it is no safeguard - just a rubber stamp for the actions of the officials.

This sort of thing happened to me and my business in an alleged breach of environmental regulations. We had 200 site visits by officials (never less than two at a time) over two years. When I asked one official why he was behaving so unreasonably , he said "because I can".

It was only the prospect of the case coming to court - with attendant press publicity - which led them to drop the case at the last minute and pay my lawyer's bill. Of course, that did not compensate me for my own time or the diversion of energy from my business. Without the support of a determined wife and adequate funds to pay a good lawyer and technical witnesses, my business would have been destroyed.

In the secret courts, there would have been no chance of redress.

3 December 2013 18:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

About ten years ago, had a visit from an acquaintance who was known to be bi-polar. She looked ill and was invited in. She was indeed ill, she had stopped taking her medication. Why had she stopped she was asked. Because it made her ill came the reply. This apparently, is a very common loop sufferers experience.

She did the talking, I did the ironing.

After she said her piece, and nearly ninety minutes later, I escorted her to the door. In the lobby, she complained about being very thirsty. There’s some bottled water in the kitchen somewhere, I said, won’t take a minute to get you one.

When I returned, she had gone leaving the door open. I closed the door, and was shocked to see the telephone stand behind it on fire ! She’d only gone and put a lighter to loose papers on top...


3 December 2013 18:51  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

'Nowt so strange as folk' as they say.

3 December 2013 19:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack wonders what President Putin would do if this was a Russian baby. He wouldn't agree with adoption of a Russian baby in Britain. Jack says the baby should return to her own country and not stay in England.

If this woman was not able to make decisions and a normal birth was not possible, perhaps the doctors were right to do what they did. Who knows?

Jack still thinks she should have been helped to go home to Italy and not have been kept against her will in England in a mental hospital. And when she was well enough to go back to Italy her child could have gone home with her and the people in Italy could have decided what was best.

Jack is not sure all these hearings should be in public. They would be like Jeremy Kyle shows and people who are mentally ill and children would not be anonymous and everyone would get to know their private business. Perhaps reporters could be present but can they be trusted not to give out names and addresses or take photographs? Everyone should have a good lawyer with them though and the child too, to look after them.

3 December 2013 19:21  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, Happy Jack says that's what you call a 'hot date'. *chuckle* Did you report the lady so she could get help and not hurt someone?

3 December 2013 19:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Rather a sad tale Jack, so forgive this man for not laughing with you...

It’s of relevance because if the subject of todays post had not been taken into state care and harmed herself, unborn baby, or existing children, the baser press would have crucified all and any involved...

3 December 2013 19:33  
Blogger IanCad said...

Gentlemind @ 16:39 wrote:

"---State no longer recognises natural rights (such as the right of parents to be the educators of their children). The State must dictate the child's education since, in the eyes of the State, the child is the State's child."

I was pleasantly surprised when after returning from the USA, where homeschooling is booming, to learn that local councils are actually quite helpful to those who elect to give their child a better education than that provided by the state.

Dare I say, almost encouraging?

A search of your council's website may reveal a more enlightened attitude than you expect.

To those contemplating such an endeavour: Grab it while you can.

3 December 2013 19:36  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack apologies, Inspector. Jack agrees the pregnant lady from Italy needed help. He's just asking if what happened was best for her and her child.

3 December 2013 19:42  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I was deeply shocked when I read about this. Whilst like many others I have been aware that the state has become very bossy, intolerant and illiberal I had not realized the depths to which it could go.

What a deep lack of morality, an absence of common humanity and decency this EU monster has created. Hate is a destructive emotion but it is difficult not to hate the powers from Brussels downwards that would do this.

3 December 2013 21:12  
Blogger deimos said...

Dear heretic
This is truly a case that surpasses my frail intellect.

3 December 2013 21:38  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Good point Inspector @18.51. There is such a thing as insanity and while giving way to no-one in my detestation of Big Sister, I am reluctant to pile in on this one until I know rather more.

Hoping for a mother and childcreunionbif possible.

3 December 2013 22:59  
Blogger Frater minor said...

Happy Jack:

>>If this woman was not able to make decisions and a normal birth was not possible, perhaps the doctors were right to do what they did. Who knows?


There has been no reason given for the Caesarean section, or why a normal delivery was not attempted. She may have had a previous section, which would usually bring a recommendation for a section at 38 weeks



Frater minor

3 December 2013 23:04  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Child stealing by the state has been an ongoing and growing problem for years. Brian Gerrish of the UK Column has been studying this problem and following cases.
The first video is from an interview with Mr Gerrish about child abduction by the state and the horrors of social services and private courts, (from 10:40 mins )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx01abIKSWg

This second video is an individual giving details of how his children were taken off him and his wife by the social workers for no proper reason at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezEJ6WjgcxA

3 December 2013 23:17  
Blogger Johnnyrvf said...

Ultimately I would not be surprised if the Social Services at all levels were making cash out of this child abduction scam, a good way to make a bit of cash on the side and when questioned they will give the ' I was following orders ' text book do not go to jail response.

3 December 2013 23:38  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Yes money is an incentive, large amounts of money are circulating around the family courts.
It has been known that councils have rec'd very large sums of money for putting children into care.
Often with children going into care social services play parents one off against each other in order to undermine and destroy families.
If children are free of parental influence the state can claim them as we are seeing. It has to be stopped. These secret family courts need to be exposed along with the whole social services' evil practices.

4 December 2013 00:10  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Hello Frater Minor, Happy Jack agrees no full reason has been given to the public but will have been given to the judge. The lady should have had her embassy there protecting her or a lawyer, or both. We just do not know enough and should not think the worst. We do not know how ill this poor woman was at the time or if she
and her baby would have come through a normal birth. Imagine the outcry if she and her baby had died.

Jack feels sad about all this and still thinks she could have gone back to her home and family in Italy where she would have felt safer and where people knew her. She must have been terrified and confused about what was going on especially if she was paranoid and no one was telling her what they were doing. And even if she couldn't travel she could have gone home with her baby when she was born.

4 December 2013 00:11  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

It is remarkable how quickly Dr Marietta Higgs has been forgotten. During her reign of terror in Middlesb orough many children werectsken into care as a resukt of her zealous hunt for hidden sex abuse based on a test called reflex anal dilatation. Theclocal MP Stuart Bell documented events in a book 'When Salem came to the Borough'

One innocent man wrongly labelled an abuser was driven to suicide and a woman aborted a wanted bsby as she was told cit would be taken into care at birth.

Look the case up. Collusion and cover up.

Nevertheless, some mothers are incapable and as Inspector further commented a bad outcome after non intervention would have led to crucifixion.

4 December 2013 07:44  
Blogger Mr. Morden said...

The return of the 'Star Chamber', or should we rename it, 'The RED Star Chamber' ?

4 December 2013 08:41  
Blogger Len said...

Somewhat fightening that the State claims 'ownership' of its Citizens from birth.We are beginning to see the real nature of the Beast?.
We are born into a system which stamps us, which marks us as 'belonging'.
This 'ownership' is as much spiritual as physical we all start off belong to this 'World system'.
I see this very much as being slaves as the captives of Rome in Caesars day We serve the system.Some liken this to being in 'the Matrix'.You may think this view extreme but it is true and a Biblical Truth.
Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this World "[system]and the only way to get out of this corrupt World system is to die to this corrupt World system and be born into His Kingdom.This is a physical and a spiritual reality.
Meanwhile [much like the Titanic] this 'World System'steams 'full speed ahead' towards its
encounter with God.

4 December 2013 08:51  
Blogger CSPB said...

@len
"Somewhat fightening that the State claims 'ownership' of its Citizens from birth"

Not just from birth. Commodification of persons has increased since the introduction of artificial reproductive practices. Surrogacy, and IVF have dehumanized pregnancy, converting it into a service and babies into a product. As in commercial deals, customers specify their conditions before purchase. Moreover, as frequently happens in commercial dealings, an unscrupulous merchant may take advantage of naive or desperate customers, employees, or other parties. In many countries, baby harvesting and abduction-adoption are widespread. This has changed the attitude of society towards children resulting in cases such as the one under discussion.

When an item is exchanged for money it is called a commodity. When a person is commodified it is called slavery.

4 December 2013 10:49  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Spot on, Len.

The extremeness of your view flows from the fact that it is held in relation to extreme deception (which can only exist in relation to extreme truth). The Matrix analogy is useful (especially for the younger generations), but those films were themselves beastly, since they inverted the truth about reality.

4 December 2013 10:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Happy Jack

As always, my boy, you raise some very probing questions.

"Happy Jack felt very upset reading this and the paper stories (Ernst too...Especially that this atrocity had occurred in old Blighty and not somewhere on the continent). This poor lady could have been returned home to her family when she became sick and looked after by them. Instead she was placed in a hospital among strangers. She must have been scared (We also have no idea how good her english was as regards explaining to the police and others what her thoughts were and any questions she had). And why can't she have her baby back now?(The law has overriding rights, it appears!).
Surely people who are bi-polar can be good parents too (Indeed and Ernst has met several who struggle with this disorder...During a depressive mood they tend to get panicky and forgetful but only need reassurance from a third party to calm down after their panic is rationally explained as unjustified. She was hardly an undiagnosed bi-polar suffer so knew her condition and would have responded to compassionate reassurance that all was OK) and her mum would help her. Jack is sad for her and for her baby (Ernst too).

Happy Jack wonders what President Putin would do if this was a Russian baby (Perish the thought lad. It wouldn't have been solely verbal like Italy's has been I guarantee). He wouldn't agree with adoption of a Russian baby in Britain (*shudders at the reaction*). Jack says the baby should return to her own country and not stay in England (Absolutely right!).

If this woman was not able to make decisions and a normal birth was not possible, perhaps the doctors were right to do what they did. Who knows (The lady should never have been put into this predicament in the first place?)

Jack still thinks she should have been helped to go home to Italy and not have been kept against her will in England in a mental hospital (The police failed in their duty to contact her employer who have a duty of care for their employees...Utter failure by our guardians of justice but who is surprised)). And when she was well enough to go back to Italy her child could have gone home with her and the people in Italy could have decided what was best.

Jack is not sure all these hearings should be in public. They would be like Jeremy Kyle shows and people who are mentally ill and children would not be anonymous and everyone would get to know their private business. Perhaps reporters could be present but can they be trusted not to give out names and addresses or take photographs? Everyone should have a good lawyer with them though and the child too, to look after them (The lawyer should be of the choice of the defendant and NOT the one appointed by the prosecuting parties. AN UTTER DISGRACE AND TRAVESTY).

The lady should have had her embassy there protecting her or a lawyer, or both (The British citizen would have demanded this so why not the foreigner?). We just do not know enough and should not think the worst. We do not know how ill this poor woman was at the time or if she
and her baby would have come through a normal birth (This should not have been our concerns but Italy's. She was only confused at the initial start of the problem. Good old British authorities deemed it only right to exacerbate the situation)). Imagine the outcry if she and her baby had died (She should never have been detained in the first place).

She must have been terrified and confused about what was going on especially if she was paranoid and no one was telling her what they were doing (EXACTOMONDO!). And even if she couldn't travel she could have gone home with her baby when she was born.(You are as sharp as a surgeons scalpel...and why Ernsty admires you and sees your potential, my boy)."

Blowers

4 December 2013 11:19  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

His Grace's concluding words:

In the meantime, secret courts have no place in the modern liberal democratic state. They can lead to manifest injustice, and must be abolished.

Which of our political parties will be the first to put this in its coming General Election manifesto?

4 December 2013 11:48  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

David Hussell

it is difficult not to hate the powers from Brussels downwards that would do this.

"From Brussels downwards", David? Is this an instance of a British court acting in accordance with EU directives?

Judging from the reaction in Italy, I would tend to suspect the opposite. For all I know, the mother might even be able to call on the support of the European institutions against British "justice". If so, I'd say good luck to her, and to them.

By the way, what is the current situation? Where is the mother now, back in Italy? And did she get her baby back, or is the child still held hostage by the untamed tribes of Essex bureaucrats?

4 December 2013 11:59  
Blogger Whispering Mum said...

We've had four new families attend our homeschool since the start of term. A growing and necessary counter cultural movement!

4 December 2013 13:35  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Len,

Spot on ! Once the anthropology is wrong, and we forget that we are all made by God, formed in his image, "commodification " creeps in.

And as "gentlemind" brings out very clearly, once the law ignore natural blood links we all become children of the state.

4 December 2013 13:36  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Uncle Brian,

My hunch is that the laws that allow the Essex bureaucrats to do this are "Human Rights", EU derived. A lawyer could clarify this, and I concede that I may be wrong, but I can't see how this would square with the Common Law.

4 December 2013 13:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

There is too much assumption of malignant intent on this thread. It is well settled that the state has both the ability and the responsibility to remove children from dangerous situations. Not one single poster on this thread would disagree - despite all the grousing about 'state ownership.' If this woman presented what the court deemed was a reasonable mortal threat to her child then its actions become somewhat comprehensible. To evaluate the court's decision you would have to understand the woman's mental state.

Alter the situation just a little. What if a woman in her manic state had grabbed her own toddler and held a knife to his throat. Would there be great cries of outrage if the toddler was removed from her custody? Who would be comfortable returning that child to her care? Ever. Just because she goes back on her meds doesn't mean she won't stop taking them in the future. If such a child was returned to her care and she killed it there would be hell to pay.

There is more to this story that a evil malignant court acting in an arbitrary and high-handed fashion.

carl

4 December 2013 14:19  
Blogger Len said...

So who decides if a Parent is' a fit' parent'?.
The State ?
So supposing the State decides that Christians are unfit parents..Do we go along with that?.

The question here is not ' is it right to save a child to be saved from a deranged parent' but who decides who is fit and who is unfit.

(This is not working well in our Country Carl tragedies happening almost weekly ( UK) how about yours?.)

4 December 2013 15:58  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, Happy Jack agrees: "There is more to this story that a evil malignant court acting in an arbitrary and high-handed fashion." He also thinks all these conspiracy theories are a bit daft too. Where's the evidence?

Jack's is bothered about the actions of the police, doctors and social workers and what they then told the judge and if this lady had good legal support to argue against their opinions. We just do not know. If her family want to look after her baby, then why can't they? Blowers made a good point too about the employers of this lady too and their responsibilities. These are all "confidential" matters, and not "secret" matters.

Jack also thinks this baby's future really should be decided in Italy. How would you feel if an American person had a baby in England and the courts over here kept her? Is this baby an Italian citizen or not?

4 December 2013 16:19  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Len, Happy Jack asks if any baby or child that you know of has ever been taken away from his or her parents just because they are Christian? Jack thinks this would have been in the news by now if it had ever happened. And who would you want to make the decisions about whether parents will harm or injure a child? And how would you want them to make them?

4 December 2013 16:25  
Blogger Mike Stallard said...

Christopher Booker has been going on about the secret courts and the catastrophic state of the Social Services for about eighteen months - ever sine the Climate Scare began to abate.

He needs a lot of credit for this.

4 December 2013 16:55  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Mike Stallard, Happy Jack thanks you for naming Christopher Booker. Jack looked him up and has now read some of his awful stories and says there is a big, big problem. If he is right social workers are behaving very badly and wrecking families and spoiling children's lives.

4 December 2013 17:31  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Mike Stallard,

Yes for years Christopher Booker, on his occasional Telegraph column, was to my knowledge virtually the sole journalistic voice exposing and lamenting the actions of over mighty state, secret state in fact, in behaving in a very Orwellian, if not Hitleresque, way. That along with the "warmist" obsession were his main campaigning points.
He is a truly morally brave and dogged journalist. Let's start a Christopher Booker appreciation society on this blog shall we ?

4 December 2013 17:58  
Blogger Flossie said...

Happy Jack, you ask if any Christian parent has ever had a baby or child taken away from them because they are Christian. Let us not forget foster parents Owen and Eunice Johns, who are no longer allowed to foster because of their views on homosexuality.

If the state decrees that foster parents who oppose gay marriage are not fit to look after children, then why should this not be extended to natural parents?

4 December 2013 18:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The reader will notice that many commenters on this thread are not discussing the specifics of this specific case. They are instead using this case as a platform for discussing their own fears about child custody and the state.

carl

4 December 2013 18:16  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

You know you just want to wind everyone up with your Social Workers are really nice people line.

The trouble is in the UK we have very little evidence that they are an asset to society. If they were all gone tomorrow, would anyone really notice any difference?

Indeed would their removal from the list of non-jobs that this country seems so keen on be a net benefit?


Phil

4 December 2013 18:25  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

This case is symptomatic of what is wrong with society. That is why we do not need to comment on the specifics.

Phil

4 December 2013 18:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Carl

Nonsense, my old fruit.

we have stated that their is incompetence and failure of duty initially from the police to handle the matter properly.

The lady was put up for two weeks on a training course by Ryan Air and they have a duty of care for their employees. They would know that she was on medication and her condition or this would result in gross misconduct by her. Why did the police take action solely at their discretion and not seek counsel from her employer who was paying for her visit to our country. It then cascaded out of control through the police's actions to involve a psychiatric unit who then involved social services, who 'gallantly' stepped in to muddy the waters. THE CHILD HAD NOT BEEN BORN YET!!!

The courts then take a decision against the lady based on the actions of the police, enforced incarceration by a psychiatric unit and a social services team determined to flex it's muscles.

The court should have ensured the lady was escorted to Italy on a flight by her employee, Ryan Air, to have her child in her own country and on her own terms. She had forgotten to bring here medication and as we all know this presents problems that the police should have ensured that the lady was taken to hospital A & E by them for re medication by Doctor rather than straight into a strait jacket and medication she may not have been taken in Italy. Medications for bi polar can have different side effects so this is crucial she is supplied with the correct one for her!

How is any of this NOT discussing specifics.

Blofeld

4 December 2013 18:32  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

So who decides if a Parent is' a fit' parent'?.
The State ?
says Len

Using the term 'The State' in a lame attempt to infer that life here in the UK is comparable to anything imposed by German National Socialism to Maoist Chinese Communism.

If we are discussing failure in the functioning of Social Service delivery then say so.

Of course there are faults, there always will be in such a massive public undertaking and also some lousy social workers; but to make out that the UK, even under some the various crazy EU diktats we have to suffer, is far from the extreme images inferred by 'The State' as some demonic dictatorship. We are as a nation still sort of proud when we refer to something like 'The State' Opening of Parliament don't we? We should not lose a realistic sense of proportion when something happens that we don't necessarily agree with. We live in a social democracy, hence the involvement of the Lib-Dem MP whose name escapes me for the moment and Munby's enquiry.

Not all parents should be parents and some should even be sterilised. People like Mick and Miread Philpot, Fred and Rose West, Baby P's mother and sire - should we have applauded the social services who did not intervene?

The press won't report when the the social workers ('The State') get it right and get the kids far from abusive and vile parents; it doesn't even register as newsworthy. While I think on what do you recommend would have been the appropriate action (had they existed) in the case of wacky whiskery old Abe and his intentions towards his son on that remote hill-top? Or, closer to home, why should 'The State' on our behalf, tolerate those immigrant parents who marry their children off to wealthy old relatives back in wacky-Paki-stan? What about the Somalis with their rusty razor-blades - Who we gonna call - not Ghost Busters; but you get my drift?

There are reasons aplenty why 'The State' should get involved, and at times go in hard, to protect children from their parents. They seemed to be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Virtually any male and female together can create a child - this does not mean they equally will make good parents.

4 December 2013 19:22  
Blogger Len said...

Dreadnought,
You seem to presume what I mean when I mention' State'.
This presumptive attitude of yours illustrates my point perfectly as to the presumptions of the 'State'.

Your illusions about the EU are quite naive?.

4 December 2013 21:43  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Your illusions about the EU are quite naive?

Is that a question or a presumption?

4 December 2013 21:48  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Phil Roberts, Happy Jack sees you say: "This case is symptomatic of what is wrong with society. That is why we do not need to comment on the specifics." That is not an answer at all.

And Jack doesn't think Carl was saying: "Social Workers are really nice people." He was asking who protects those who cannot look after themselves like children or the mentally unwell? The state has taken over caring for people and Happy Jack agrees this is not good. But you ask: "If they were all gone tomorrow, would anyone really notice any difference?" Jack thinks we would notice. Jack certainly would. People would be on the streets. More children would be harmed. More ill people would have to go into hospital and stay there.

Jack says until you have some other way of looking after the old, the disabled, the mentally ill and children you cannot just get rid of social workers. That's plain silly. Will the churches do it? Will voluntary groups do it? Will communities do it? Will families start looking after themselves again?

Jack has had many social workers in his life and some were good and some not so good. Nowadays they are often too scared to take risks and are very nervous. They are very young too and over worked and some just don't know right from wrong.

Jack says the problem is not social workers. The problem is our society that depends on them and looks to them to solve all our problems.

4 December 2013 23:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Do commenters here not remember Andrea Yates? She was the woman who was several Lucky Charms short of box of cereal. She killed her five children in her bathtub and was ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity. If she was pregnant at the time of killing her children, what would you have done with that unborn child at the time of its birth? Would you ever trust her with any children ever again?

This specific case has to be judged on its own merits. You can't just scream "injustice." You can't infer injustice from experiences with other cases. You can say "The system is broken" but that doesn't say anything about the circumstances of this particular case. You have to understand the basis of the court's decision. You have to understand her mental state. Perhaps this was a case of injustice. However, simply removing a child from an adult's custody because of mental illness is not a prima facia case for injustice.

carl

5 December 2013 01:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

carl jacobs said...

"Do commenters here not remember Andrea Yates? (Are you seriously going to equate what happened with the Italian mother with Andrea Yates...Get a grip, man?)

She was the woman who was several Lucky Charms short of box of cereal (She had serious issues and was wracked with religious delusions of sin, guilt, Satan and that she was convinced she was lost to any sort of salvation and was involved with a Charismatic Pentecostal cult that emphasised demonic possession rather than the liberty in Christ. She had the view that human existence was continually "under the curse of sin and death.") .

She killed her five children in her bathtub and was ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity (The exact cause of the illness is vague and unsubstantiated as to postpartum or bi-polar disorder. It was clear that she was enthralled by delusions about her own sinfulness and lack of self-worth, and the immanence of demonic control in her life and being called a witch by her 'spiritual adviser the charismatic preacher Michael Woroniecki. "Woroniecki preached a stern and patriarchal doctrine. In letters and taped messages to the family, he claimed "all women are descendants of Eve and Eve was a witch. The women, particularly women who worked outside the home, are wicked." The trial also heard "Following her arrest, for instance, she told doctors that the deaths of her five children were punishment, and that only execution would free her from the clutches of the devil. She also wanted her head shaved so she could see the number 666 on her skull, the alleged "Mark of the Beast. Insanity or following corrupted devilish twisting of scripture).

If she was pregnant at the time of killing her children, what would you have done with that unborn child at the time of its birth (BUT SHE WAS NOT, WAS SHE AND THE LADY IN QUESTION HERE KILLED NO ONE, DID SHE!!!)?

Would you ever trust her with any children ever again (No..but what has this to do with the lady discussed here. You compare apples with stairs *pun intended*)?

This specific case has to be judged on its own merits (Rather than the vague inferences you create). You can't just scream "injustice." You can't infer injustice from experiences with other cases (Well you just did ridiculously without even a pause for serious thought. WE HAVE NOT!!!).

You can say "The system is broken" but that doesn't say anything about the circumstances of this particular case (It is and it therefore does).

You have to understand the basis of the court's decision (We have no BASIS as such to examine , have we, as it was SECRETIVE ?). You have to understand her mental state (It appears you do not even try but stand her with a murderess).

Perhaps this was a case of injustice (It plainly was as it should have been stopped from going down this path but the halfwits called police got involved and it naturally followed).

However, simply removing a child from an adult's custody because of mental illness is not a prima facia case for injustice (Good Lord. Ernst despairs. Is this an American's discernment of the few plain facts and his thoughts in action. Your analysis is more schlock than Sherlock, my American fella)."

lofeld

5 December 2013 02:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Blofeld

Prologue: What was the conclusion of my very first post on this thread at 3 December 2013 13:11? Oh yes.

Of course there are no answers because of the secretive nature of the court. That is the root of the problem that should be addressed.

I haven't actually made any claims about the adjudication of this case. Why? Because the secrecy makes judgment impossible. Should the courts be secret? No. That is a huge problem. But the mere fact that a judgment is secret doesn't make that judgment wrong. Those are two separate questions.

Are you seriously going to equate what happened with the Italian mother with Andrea Yates

No, Blofeld, I am establishing that a certain level of mental illness justifies removal of custody. If you once admit that general principle, then you must also admit that this case must be evaluated according to the mental state of the woman. You can no longer make a blanket accusation of injustice by the court. You have to prove this woman's illness does not cause a threat to the child in question. Does her illness rise to such a level that she should not be allowed to retain custody. Note that Andrea Yates is not the standard for this question but an example of this question. As it stands, you are effectively asserting she presents no threat even as you admit her mental condition is shrouded in secrecy. You can't say "She isn't a threat" while simultaneously asserting "We don't know."

(BUT SHE WAS NOT, WAS SHE AND THE LADY IN QUESTION HERE KILLED NO ONE, DID SHE!!!)

That's not relevant, Blofeld. It's a hypothetical situation intended to reveal your willingness to remove children from her custody. And you are so willing. You said so. If the court legitimately held this woman to be a threat then its actions become comprehensible and you are bound by your admission to agree that the court was right to remove the child.

Understand I never said the court was right. I said the secrecy of the court makes judgment impossible. Address the issue of secrecy, and find out what happened. Find out why it made the decision it did. Don't just assume the system is broken and that therefore every decision it makes will be wrong. Yes, a broken will produce wrong answers. But even a broken system produces right answers from time to time. Do this and you will be able to see clearly and judge clearly.

carl

5 December 2013 06:05  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Happy Jack

"If they were all gone tomorrow, would anyone really notice any difference?" Jack thinks we would notice. Jack certainly would. People would be on the streets. More children would be harmed. More ill people would have to go into hospital and stay there"


Yes Jack there is a price I agree. Some of us will have to step in to fill the gaps.

The price of continuing to allow the state to do these things and to run our lives for us is far higher. That price is freedom. America used to understand this concept, I'm not sure they do any more, Britain lost its freedom a long time ago.

A few weeks ago we debated the sacrifice that people had made to keep us free in the various wars. We now willing give up these freedoms that were bought at such cost because someone might suffer. Yes they might, but in the long run I am saying the suffering and damage to society that these servants of the state are inflicting is far worse.

My view is on balance we would be better without them

5 December 2013 07:36  
Blogger Donalbain said...

http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/

5 December 2013 09:05  
Blogger Len said...

There seems to be an attitude amongst some here that the State knows best and can decide what is right and what is wrong (morality) for all of us.

This is' the wider issue' not whether it is right or wrong to save the lives of Children.

The State is intervening more and more into the lives and the freedoms of people.(all in the name of 'protecting the public 'of course)'Political Correctness' is a case in point.
The 'reasons' for bring in more and more control over our lives and liberty is not the issue here but the 'motives'.

Our child protection schemes are not working very well(to say the least)and those children who really need protection seem to be 'invisible' to the system.

Perhaps the child protection system needs a thorough overhaul to make it work properly than the draconian measures which it takes on occasion.

The EU started as' the common market' a trading arrangement in Europe
Now the EU are taking decisions on Global matters with no
authority from any of the population of the Countries in the EU.
The EU' assumes'to speak for all of Europe on matters on which we(the population( have no say at all.
I dont know what others call that but I call that a Dictatorship.

5 December 2013 09:17  
Blogger Len said...

How about this for an exercise in 'logic' with no absolute moral code to work by?.
Do a survey calculate those who would make an 'unfit parent' and compulsively sterilise them.

Problem solved.

This is the problem we encounter when we reject God and make up out own moral code using' reason' as our 'moral compass.'

5 December 2013 10:06  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Blofeld

I haven't actually made any claims about the adjudication of this case. Why? Because the secrecy makes judgment impossible (The sparse facts are sufficient to see if the incident can be reconciled to lawful intentions by those involved, Police, NHS Trust, Socila Services and the Family Court.). Should the courts be secret? No. That is a huge problem (INDEED). But the mere fact that a judgement is secret doesn't make that judgement wrong (It does if the person being accused is not granted independent legal assistance of her choice but, most fortunately for the authorities concerned she was ‘non compus mentis’ under the mental health act. How very unfortunate for the accused?). Those are two separate questions. (But they influence the validity and veracity of the proceedings, do they not. We as the citizens of our country need to establish that justice is SEEN to be done and not taken as a given away from our scrutiny. This may sound an outrageous statement but ‘They are rewarded handsomely and are supposed to work for US, not to operate judicially, Ex Cathedra’)

Are you seriously going to equate what happened with the Italian mother with Andrea Yates

No, Blofeld, I am establishing that a certain level of mental illness justifies removal of custody. (So a mass murderer of her own children is equated alongside a foreign lady that suffered an episode that thousands of sufferers do daily, on medication or not? You have gone to one extreme case to justify the removal of an unborn child because A did this then B must be also likely) If you once admit that general principle (That was your general principle, was it, merely A versus B), then you must also admit that this case must be evaluated according to the mental state of the woman. You can no longer make a blanket accusation of injustice by the court (I can make an accusation that due to secrecy Justice was not seen to be done with a foreign national). You have to prove this woman's illness does not cause a threat to the child in question (Do look on the internet or health documents and reports and you will see that lots of women suffer from bipolar and have pregnancies despite the condition. Hardly Ipso facto, now is it? ). Does her illness rise to such a level that she should not be allowed to retain custody. Note that Andrea Yates is not the standard for this question but an example of this question (Then a most terrible example as Ernst has shown. It’s like comparing Charles Manson with a common house burglar). As it stands, you are effectively asserting she presents no threat even as you admit her mental condition is shrouded in secrecy (After reading the two available judgements from HHJ Newton and Mostyn it is clear that this lady has really received a deplorable service from the English authorities responsible for this fiasco, be that the police, family court justice system, Essex County Council, and possibly the Mid-Essex NHS Hospital Trust. The lady has rights not to have a caesarean section as many women, with capacity still choose normal delivery in spite of the risk of urinary failure during delivery of a child. Was this lady given the information she needed in order to help her to decide which a requirement of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is?).

5 December 2013 12:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

(BUT SHE WAS NOT, WAS SHE AND THE LADY IN QUESTION HERE KILLED NO ONE, DID SHE!!!)

That's not relevant, Blofeld. It's a hypothetical situation intended to reveal your willingness to remove children from her custody (Then a most terrible example as Ernst has shown. It’s like comparing Charles Manson with a common house burglar). And you are so willing. You said so (I did not). If the court legitimately held this woman to be a threat then its actions become comprehensible and you are bound by your admission to agree that the court was right to remove the child (Because it was deemed so in a secret hearing court does not make it legitimate as the lady appears not to have been appropriately represented to get a ‘quickie’ through).

Understand I never said the court was right (How sufficiently vague, should not your reasoning have been more structured then when posting a comment as Ernst has done?). I said the secrecy of the court makes judgement impossible. Address the issue of secrecy, and find out what happened. Find out why it made the decision it did. Don't just assume the system is broken and that therefore every decision it makes will be wrong (You can only know if something is broken by examining it but if the person examines it by removing it from your view, how do you know it isn’t only a fuse blown rather than a whole new motherboard being required and fitted as he walks back with the supposed item fixed but the discarded part now lost so you must take the technicians word for it). Yes, a broken will produce wrong answers (it will produce far worse. it will produce injustice! That’s why there are appeal courts). But even a broken system produces right answers from time to time (A law is meant to apply consistency in conclusions when dealing with matters NOT fortunate outcomes). Do this and you will be able to see clearly and judge clearly (Ernst does and he does).

Blofeld

5 December 2013 12:52  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Phil Roberts, Happy Jack is not is complete disagreement with you. Jack says until it is clear who will have to "step in to fill the gaps" vulnerable people need protecting.

Jack believes there has only ever been one world war and it is still going on in different parts of the world in different ways. In the West we worship the gods of sexual and material desire and we sacrifice unborn babies and other innocent people to them. This is not "freedom". It is another type of slavery. Jack sometimes wonders if man has ever or will ever be free.

Phil, you should live amongst the people Jack lives alongside and be the places Jack has been and seen the things he has seen before you say take all social workers away now. Jack agrees "servants of the state" can inflict "suffering and damage to society" but asks what is less evil? Do you lock up the mentally ill for ever and put all disabled and old people in hospitals and do you let violent men and women, who might be drinking and on drugs, harm and kill babies and children? Until there is another way, Jack cannot agree that "on balance we would be better without them."

5 December 2013 12:53  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Hello Blowers, Happy Jack thinks what's wrong with all this that these judges and lawyers do not know what the lives of ordinary folk are like. And neither do these social workers and doctors with all their fancy qualifications. How can they unless they have walked in the shoes of these people or experienced life as they have experienced it?

Jack says let ordinary people not on big salaries, wearing fine clothes and using big words to give speeches, make the decisions after listening to all these "qualified" people and talking with ill people, children and their parents. Better a wrong decision made in the right way, Jack says, than right decisions made in the wrong way.

5 December 2013 13:13  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Couple of points Blofet

Is it you contention that and unmarried mother of three by three still deserves the title 'lady'?

and

Using your A/B argument that historical profiling of type and pattern is invalid, is the very reason we can't use flight travel without first proving that we the ordinary westerners are not malcontent Muslim bombers.

5 December 2013 15:58  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Jack

"do you let violent men and women, who might be drinking and on drugs, harm and kill babies and children"

That one is easily reduced. No need for prisons either. What we need is an effective deterrent, not life meaning a few years stoned out your mind watching TV at my expense.

Oh and swapping tips about how to not to get caught next time.

How many who are mentally ill are mentally ill or are chemically poisoned due to their own efforts or NHS prescriptions.

Sorting out proper deterrents/punishments in this country evil acts would save a huge sum of money. Not enough of course to make up for the fact that we cannot be bothered to have enough children and so rely on immigration instead.

Phil

5 December 2013 16:59  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Phil, Happy Jack says you really have no answers other than hanging people or locking them up and throwing away the keys. And of course there are mentally ill people and people with low intelligence. At one time we just put them in big asylums out of everybody's way. And there are parents who are not criminals who sometimes harm their children because they do not know how to be good parents. What will you do there?

5 December 2013 17:13  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 December 2013 17:18  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Jack

"you should live amongst the people Jack lives alongside and be the places Jack has been and seen the things he has seen before you say take all social workers away now"

OK I live a privileged lifestyle, I admit that. But is it love to let people live their lives in a mess, with no incentive to improve themselves, no incentives to be married and raise healthy families, no incentives, to help the community and perhaps lastly no lasting punishment for intentionally ruining the lives of others?

So we continue to reward irresponsible behaviour Jack?

We are told to love our neighbours. So I say Give me some of the Billions currently wasted and I will offer all them a proper job and do everything I can to give them back their self respect. If they mess up and go back on the drugs etc then they starve. It is how the rest of the world works and how it should be. Read the book of Proverbs Jack

But of course I do not have the qualifications to comment because I do not live along side them like you do Jack.

So should we do nothing let the state be their nanny and they carry on living in misery?

Phil

5 December 2013 17:21  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreadnaught said.

"Is it you contention that and unmarried mother of three by three still deserves the title 'lady'?" No moral judgement is being made by Ernst but the rights and wrongs of a victim of our system and as the 'Lady' in question is unknown to us by name, this is how Ernst wishes to call her! Ernst is of a different, more genteel generation that refuses to call a woman a slut merely for the sake of it. Got God extracted morals now, have we? Called plagiarism to old Ernst.

"Using your A/B argument that historical profiling of type and pattern is invalid, is the very reason we can't use flight travel without first proving that we the ordinary westerners are not malcontent Muslim bombers." Think you will find the only reason it is done is because no one in authority has the guts to ask the only religion carrying out 'peace loving' suicide bombing to simply stay in their own lands and they would rather inconvenience all others rather than those who commit this 'type and pattern' of atrocity. Simples *Squeak*

Blofeld

Ps

Always nice to know you are still hanging around the blog like a down on her luck lady of the night and who is in desperate need of a punter.

5 December 2013 17:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 December 2013 17:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Happy Jack

"Hello Blowers, Happy Jack thinks what's wrong with all this that these judges and lawyers do not know what the lives of ordinary folk are like. And neither do these social workers and doctors with all their fancy qualifications. How can they unless they have walked in the shoes of these people or experienced life as they have experienced it? The average person is not a person but merely part of a remit/statistic. How can you harm one of them by your decisions?)

Jack says let ordinary people not on big salaries, wearing fine clothes and using big words to give speeches, make the decisions after listening to all these "qualified" people and talking with ill people, children and their parents. Better a wrong decision made in the right way, Jack says, than right decisions made in the wrong way. (Indeed. These people are paid to try and make sense of an E U Directive regarding many interlaced things, (that impact on one another like a row of dominoes if cocked up) and they cannot and it shows. Then they go home to their expensive lifestyles and homes whilst leaving the little people utterly devastated)"

Blowers

5 December 2013 17:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Jack

"you really have no answers other than hanging people or locking them up and throwing away the keys. And of course there are mentally ill people and people with low intelligence."

I have big ideas Jack. They include hanging people and locking some people up for a short time. However, they also involve giving everyone the chance to get back their self respect, by giving them a proper job, (regardless) a new start and crucially, this is something the state does not want at all, giving them clear boundaries and the discipline needed to achieve a proper life for themselves and their families.

What is your vision Jack? Lots of pity, secondhand clothes, our money for drugs and drink, our kids or theirs to abuse when they feel like it and a clean place to puke?

I have lots of pity for these people Jack. Intelligence is not the most important factor for an employer by a huge margin. Character wins every time and character they can do something about with help.

But my way offers them the one thing they lack.

Hope and the means to achieve it.

Phil

5 December 2013 17:42  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Looks like I've found my Tom.

5 December 2013 17:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Social Workers are / do what the extended family did a generation or two ago - aunts, and especially the grandmothers. There for support, you know.

For some, the low IQ types, estranged from their family, petty criminals, drug addicts and alcoholics, these professionals are absolutely essential.

For God’s sake, give the wretched children involved a break…


5 December 2013 17:55  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, Happy Jack agrees with you. Family life and local communities used to hold us together. Now look what's happened.

Phil, Happy Jack does not think you have a clue about how to go about introducing these "big ideas" of yours. And these "clear boundaries and the discipline needed to achieve a proper life for themselves and their families."? What is a "proper life" and these "clear boundaries" and "discipline"? Something you decide?

Jack does not know how you think he was offering "pity, secondhand clothes, our money for drugs and drink, our kids or theirs to abuse when they feel like it and a clean place to puke?" It is clear you do not know the people who social workers and doctors help and what they do.

Jack thinks you have a lot of prejudice and not a lot of understanding or knowledge.

5 December 2013 18:17  
Blogger Hannah said...

I dunno, it seems to me that Happy Jack and Carl Jacobs have the strength of the argument behind them here. what are the scores george dawes? I'd say 2-1, to Carl and Happy Jack.

As for the commentators here talking about this stuff about the 'power' of the state. The translation is : the state isn't reflecting my religious views therefore it is wrong. I guess if there was a government and therefore a state which sought to ban abortion, homosexuality and other such stuff, then posters here would cheer on such a government. The reality is that some people here are unable to grasp the fundamental concept that there is now a divergence between the law and the Victorian ('Christian') reflection of how that law used to be applied.

Get used to it folks. Your religion, until it became the dominant and state religion of the Roman Empire, was founded on the back of you guys being fed to lions etc...

5 December 2013 19:33  
Blogger Hannah said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 December 2013 19:42  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hannah

For once nobody has mentioned Gaystapo and Gay Marriage.

I will say one thing. It is by and large the rich Christians who are turning away from the Bible.

Go and preach the virtues of Gay marriage, heterosexual unfaithfulness, not honouring parents, or any other deviation from scripture in an African town if you do not believe me!

Also, go and preach as a woman.....that would really be interesting to watch!

The poor have no problem with Christian fundamentalism. Because they have no problem with loving God first.

Phil



5 December 2013 21:14  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hello Phil,

It depends upon what you mean by Christian fundamentalism- the Westbro baptist Church or 'love thy neighbor'. Loaded terms I know, but this is a loaded thread.

Anyways, I'm not the preaching type, least of all Christianity. I deleted that comment, on reflection, as I thought I was being a tad harsh and because I'd get a lot of negative comments, which I don't have time to deal with at present. But it is true my philosophy is one of paternalism, rather than rank individualism or privatize everything mantra of current conservative thinking.

5 December 2013 21:23  
Blogger Len said...

I suppose if the State is catering for your own particular need than that`s ok then?.
'The thin edge of the wedge' I am beginning to really understand what that means!.

Oh well we have gone full circle the Bible was right..... once again.

5 December 2013 22:25  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hello Len,

'I suppose if the State is catering for your own particular need than that`s ok then?.'

That is a good question and one that you need to ask yourself as well. Should the state ban abortion, stop sunday trading and criminalize homosexuality? These acts would be in line with conservative Christian thinking, but would require the state to have quite a lot of intrusive powers...

5 December 2013 23:00  
Blogger Len said...

The State already has a lot of intrusive powers Hannah especially here in Europe.
I think as we are moving into a pagan based society Christianity will eventually become 'crimalised.'
In a way this just shows how near the end of our society we are and how rapidly it is breaking down.The 'liberalisation 'of our Society is merely an indicator of its disintegration as we see from History.

5 December 2013 23:37  
Blogger Len said...

'criminalised'

5 December 2013 23:39  
Blogger Len said...

As we plunge further into disorder and chaos we will see more and more legislation needed to keep Society in some sort of order but conversely more 'liberalisation' to placate vocal minorities.
Good will become bad and vice versa.

'So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter'(Isaiah 59:14)

We are seeing a widening gulf between the rich and the poor bankers will millions of pounds of [unearned]income and people going to food banks trying to survive and to feed their children.

When a society turns from God it starts to turn inward and to worship man that is why we have the cult of celebrity.A society which turns away from God turns to idols and Judgement is never far away from that.

6 December 2013 09:00  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hannah

Perhaps the term Orthodox Anglican best describes my theology and indeed the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide.

Phil

6 December 2013 21:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dread nougat("nutcake,")

As Tom is a rhyming slang on "Thomas More" equaling "whore" and its usage is particularly prevalent in the Metropolitan Police Force., it would be Ernst that had found his tom, not you.

You appear to be more Tom Tit than Tom More!

It is you that is walking the blog, not Ernst, me scantily clad atheist.

Get your Euphemisms right fella or are you only out "Watching badgers?". *Humungous chortles and guffaws*

George Bernard Shaw was at a party once and he told this woman that everyone would agree to do anything for money, if the price was high enough. `Surely not, she said.' `Oh yes,' he said. `Well, I wouldn't,' she said. `Oh yes you would,' he said. `For instance,' he said, `would you sleep with me for... for a million pounds?' `Well,' she said, `maybe for a million I would, yes.' `Would you do it for ten shillings?' said Bernard Shaw. `Certainly not!' said the woman `What do you take me for? A prostitute?'
`We've established that already,' said Bernard Shaw. `We're just trying to fix your price now!' "


Blofeld


Aicordcng to a rseearch at Cabmridge Univeristy, it dseon't mtater in waht oedrr the leettrs in a wrod are. The olny imaortpnt tnihg is taht the fisrt and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit palce.

The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wihtout prbolem. Tihs is becuase the hamun mnid deos not raed eevry letetr by itslef, but the wrod as a wohle.

Bit lkie yuor bolggnig taht gievs ohtres scuh a pian in teh asre wehn tehy raed it.

7 December 2013 02:31  
Blogger Naomi King said...


I leave you with this quote:
"Certain segments of the population must be programmed to be robotic drones, incapable or unwilling to think on their own. In this scenario, the 'individual' is the enemy of the state. Individual thinking and choice are not conducive to 'peace and progress' and not permitted. Only by being part of 'The Team,' can the individual (follower) accomplish objectives or 'outcomes.' Of course, these 'objectives and outcomes' are directed by the bureaucracy. This phase of population training is currently being accomplished by the public school system with such programs as 'outcomes based education,' and the introduction of New Ageism into the classroom. One has to remember that Adolf Hitler pioneered a similar tactic with his Hilterjugend and state-sponsored school system. To quote the Fuhrer, "When an opponent declares: 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say 'your child belongs to me already. Who are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community.'"
~ Roberts, Craig; The Medusa File;

Original article at Namaste Publishing http://namastepublishing.co.uk/unmasking-common-purpose/

9 December 2013 16:21  
Blogger Naomi King said...


It's the creeping totalitarianism which folk are too naive to see for what it is.

9 December 2013 16:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older