Monday, 6 July 2009

Child Snatching - It Really Happens

Plato highlights this utterly astonishing move by the police and social services to remove a couple's children because their father was concerned about possible danger of kidnap and had requested that their school allow him to drive into the school grounds to pick them up:
He was driven by a policeman to a nearby mental hospital where he was told that, because of "a number of concerns", he was being detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and "sectioned" under S.2 as of "unsound mind". His wife, it turned out, had been similarly arrested, for loudly protesting at the handcuffing of her husband and the forcible seizing from her arms of her young son. The three children had been taken into care by social services.
So, that's teachers, social workers and police, all utterly ignorant of the fact that this man was indeed who he claimed to be - related to various European royal families and with a brother who is a senior Army officer seconded to the UN - and who regarded his concern for his children as grounds to lock him up!

But surely, you say, there are safeguards in the Mental Health Act, and the magistrates wouldn't allow this? Well, yes. And no:
The chief magistrate, it later emerged, was chairman of the trustees of the mental hospital in which he was being detained.
And that isn't considered a conflict of interest?

The mental health tribunal heard his story and gave him a complete discharge. However, the SS weren't about to give up so easily:
Despite the finding of the tribunal, the social workers have remained determined to hold on to the children, with a view to their care being determined in a county court on Wednesday.
Heads should roll for this.
The only reason offered in these documents for the abduction of the children is Mr Jones's "delusional belief system" that special care should be taken of his children because of their elevated family connections.
Excellent!

That gives us ground to lock up and remove the children of all those MPs who voted for their children, and the children of celebrities, to be exempt from the child database then, does it?

13 comments:

  1. Julia,

    Posted about this Saturday evening - what is amazing is that having been cleared of 'delusional belief system', ie not guilty, the social services still believe they can win a court hearing????

    As Mark W commented on my post, Jones may well be 'delusional' in respect of his self-importance, however that is not the point!

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is a seriously disturbing story. Well done to you and the others for highlighting it, but where is the outrage among the populace?

    I really can not believe that the authorities can behave in this way in Britain - in a banana republic, yes - but Britain!!!

    I really do fear for the future of this country.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr Melvin T Gray6 July 2009 at 11:24

    Thank you for keeping your eyes peeled for yet another disturbing example of the police state, Julia. My only other comment is confined to the word 'despair'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While I don't seek to diminish what you've stated, Julia, there seems a lot more to this than meets the eye.

    If he was indeed completely innocent, with no prior, then there needs to be an enquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "there seems a lot more to this than meets the eye."

    Evidence, please. Don't assume that just because the SS and police acted like, well, the SS, that "there must be a lot more to it than meets the eye".

    There doesn't. Not any more.

    ReplyDelete
  6. WFW has beaten me to it. Mr J appears to have been delusional, but unless it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to harm his kids in some way (which the article does not suggest is the case), that is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As usual, the state is again over-reaching it's authority over our children. How dare they deny ANY parent the right to collect their children when they are concerned for their safety.

    We know what the state thinks of parents though as this story attests :
    Parents were banned from attending their children's school sports day to protect pupils from potential child abductors and paedophiles.

    Parents are now assumed to be paedophiles and the state will do anything in their power to take charge of our kids. "More than 270 pupils from four primary schools in Bedfordshire took part in the East Beds School Sports Partnership Athletics Day.
    But there were no spectators present because the organisers said allowing them would make it impossible to prevent "unsavoury" characters from attending".

    ReplyDelete
  8. "...the social services still believe they can win a court hearing?"

    Don't forget the court hearing will be held in secret, with everyone concerned being forbidden to repeat anything they hear there, and no appeals allowed.

    So yes, they probably can win the case.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "...the social services still believe they can win a court hearing????"

    Anon at 14:36 may well be on to something in his analysis.

    "...where is the outrage among the populace?"

    Difficult to say - are they all out of outrage? Or just distracted by Wimbledon/Michael Jackson/business as usual?

    "..there seems a lot more to this than meets the eye."

    That seems to be a reflex action - as Rob points out, it's not like the people haven't got a hell of a lot of previous for this kind of overreaction, yet we aren't even allowed to know the real names of the hapless parents to make any other kind of judgement.

    "As usual, the state is again over-reaching it's authority over our children."

    Get 'em young, and train them up to be good little future compliant voters..

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yet ANOTHER example of a Britain where "raising your voice" will get you a caged bed or a prison term whilst CRIMINALS are running your streets and Parliament.

    I think the answer is obvious. What have you got to loose if you turn criminal?

    Von Brandenburg-Preußen.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I think the answer is obvious. What have you got to loose if you turn criminal?"

    Your self respect and dignity?

    Still, looking at the up and coming generation, I think that's on the way out too...

    ReplyDelete
  12. With Mrs M putting family photo's on the interweb friendface thingy clearly all the nutters will be after her family, and everyone else will be safe. (Must be some very clever James Bond type entrapment type scam - because surely they can't be that stupid and in charge of keeping our country safe. )

    But joking aside the story is truly disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Von Spreuth. said...
    Yet ANOTHER example of a Britain where "raising your voice" will get you a caged bed or a prison term whilst CRIMINALS are running your streets and Parliament.

    I think the answer is obvious. What have you got to loose if you turn criminal?

    Von Brandenburg-Preußen.

    06 July 2009 17:43


    (Immerwunderbar to savour the advice of an intellectual heavyweight.)

    ReplyDelete