After all, this is meant as good advice, but it should also be given as a dire warning:
A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.
Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.
The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.Read the full details at Autonomous Mind blog. There are no words...
Wait, there are!
If only, AE, if only...
Essex SS do, of course, have form for this sort of thing. John Galt and Longrider are right - this needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
H/T: AngryExile via Twitter
Do you know what incenses me even more than the interfering, know-what's-best-for-us pecksniffs within the Social Services machine?
ReplyDeleteFirstly that a judge or court officer signed off on this, and secondly that the story has been sat on for as long as it has - I suspect that, had the woman not started legal proceedings to get her child back we would never even have been made aware of it. No doubt the burying of the story was all sold as in the best interests of the child.
Meanwhile we have yet to hear of a drug-addled teenage chavette being forcibly removed of an unborn child, although with this story it makes you wonder how many more have been hushed up.
The first step to solving this whole nightmare will have to be to break apart the secrecy system. They are justified as protecting the children (or, rape victims) but it's nothing of the kind, it's a means of protecting the system and isolating people trapped in it. It has all got to go.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point of the Common law was that it was meant to be done in public, so that us hoi polloi could observe that it is functioning properly. Secrecy is directly in opposition to that. Any secrecy should be rare and very strongly justified on a case by case basis.
It is worth noting that this *form* of legal procedings is- like so much of the Proggie System- an American innovation. Interestingly, they came up with the idea that in this sort of thing, since nobody is "on trial", their constitutional protections did not apply. Having done that, they set up these "therapeutic" legal systems, and they have since been adopted by the likes of the UK.
Thing is, there is nothing really new about this. It has been going on with various degrees of intensity for a century. It has been considerably intensified over the past decade or so though as the Second Wave Proggies have got a firm grip. But really it's representative of an entire system developed by Progressive Era social workers and it's time we started taking the whole thing apart again. The whole system is an outrage.
What Ian B said.
ReplyDeleteThe background of social workers needs to be looked at very carefully because there are reported cases of baby selling particularly associated with Pakistan.
In this case a baby has been delivered by people who cannot identify the mother or the baby and taken away by third parties who claim to have the child 'in foster care'. Really? Show me these foster carers. Are they in fact the people who are posing as the parents? Show me the original birth certificate. The judge at Chelmsford court has not checked anything. He is just rubber-stamping adoption. Have the foster carers attempted to register the baby as their own? How does he know the social workers are telling the truth?
The c-section prevented the baby being identified with the mother at all. The whole thing is riddled with obvious potential for criminality.
Since the police now arrest on the basis that there might be a crime, I suggest they arrest the head of social services and the social workers on the case, then confiscate their computers and bank records to see if they have unaccounted-for wealth. The tell-tale signs of illegality will be if they prevented a true birth certificate being created and connived at a false one.
"... I suspect that, had the woman not started legal proceedings to get her child back we would never even have been made aware of it."
ReplyDeleteNo doubt of that.
But now, the publicity has even raised Shameless Chakrabahti into doing her job!
"The first step to solving this whole nightmare will have to be to break apart the secrecy system. "
Agreed. Tyranny functions best in the dark.
"The judge at Chelmsford court has not checked anything. He is just rubber-stamping adoption."
He doesn't need the huge salary we are paying him, then...
Send them an email.....here´s the head of e-sex un-social services:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.essex.gov.uk/Your-Council/Local-Government-Essex/ECC-Structure/Senior-Officers/Pages/Helen-Lincoln.aspx
Incidentally, a ¨fee¨ of just over £1500 is paid to the service when a child who has been taken into care is placed for adoption. Paid by the government.