Were I to tell you that there is a country in the world where people can have their children taken away from them by the state, without a public hearing and where the protagonists are instructed by the state not to talk publicly about it to even their MP; what would you think?You would, I assume, think that I was talking about some far off foreign country.
Unfortunately, if today's piece in The Times is anything to go by, this "foreign country" is in fact Britain.
Here is an extract:
"A 56-year-old man had helped his pregnant wife to flee from social workers, who had already taken her son into care and were threatening to seize their baby.
Most people had no idea why. For the process that led this couple to such a desperate act was entirely secret. The local authority had warned the mother not to talk to her friends or even her MP. The judge who heard the arguments from social services sat in secret.
The open-minded social workers who had initially been assigned to sort out a custody battle between the woman and her previous husband were replaced by others who seemed determined to build a guilty case against her. That is how the secret State operates.
A monumental injustice has been perpetrated in this quiet corner of England; our laws are being used to try to cover it up."
This is patently wrong, aside from the damage being done to the family and the children, people cannot have confidence in either the state or the law if the state and its lackeys act in secret.
These people clearly have "parenting issues" and Nanny must immediately dispatch more social workers to help them deal with the "issues."
ReplyDeleteSocial work is one of nanny's favoured professions as the wooly minded Grauniad readers who 'work' within the 'service' are more pc than the pc expert at PC World during the PC sale.
This means, of course, they slavishly follow Nanny's every diktat, believe they know what is best for 'those on the margins etc etc' and of course achieve absolutely bugger all in the real world - now must dash I have to attend my 'transgendered of different heritage multicultrual awarenss seminar - that report of a kid battered black and blue at the local hosptial will have to wait until I get back and have filled in my attendance form over a nice cup of herbal tea.'
Makes you proud to be British doesn't it.
ReplyDeleteWhy would any sane person choose to become one of Nanny's anti-social workers?
I heard on the news this week how Nanny's social workers have failed a child beaten to death....I wonder if Nanny's social workers go for the soft or easy targets just like Nanny's police and other agencies, such as the CSA etc do.
Tonk,
ReplyDeleteI can speak from personal exprience on the social workers and thier abiliity to take the soft option. A close friend of mine left Nanny's chosen bestest profession after being told to call off a case of a kid (of African descent) who she knew was being abused, in this case severely beaten with hospital visits etc, as it was "a cultural issue(that word again) in that the uber white middle class socialist to a person social workers would decide what constituted 'acceptable to cultural norms' beating to an African kid.
She said the option was to take the route of least resistance, ignore cases that would result in the big 'R' word being thrown at you, complete with Human Rights lawyers baying at the door, and mark time till the pension.
At least she had the morality to see she was misguided in Nanny's service and left.
There are thousands still there, attending seminars, filling forms, looking 'concerned' at the right times for the 'right people eg their ultral pc bosses' while real children get hurt.
As with all of Nanny's 'services' dealing with the real and messy issues is just too much to bear. Just attend the seminar, fill in the form and file it and all is well.
When it all fxxxx up say "lessons will be learned"
What happens if someone says "Bollocks to you, I'm not only seeing my MP but the newspapers as well"
ReplyDeleteI would think that anyone wishing to take issue would have to do so in open court, where it would all come out.
Even a sentence for contempt is subject to habeus corpus and review in an open court.
Robert the Biker
tonk asked,
ReplyDelete"Why would any sane person choose to become one of Nanny's anti-social workers?"
Just read the multitude of job ads. in the Grauniad; look at the qualifications required, then consider the salary (and pension).
So long as you have no conscience it's money for old rope.
This is a natural consequence of feminism. Women don't want or can't have pregnancy but they do want children. (They were called maiden Aunts in WW2)
ReplyDelete- so they find a way of seizing the children of others.
Soon childbirth will only be an option as the state will run vast nurseries.
My Maiden Aunt didn't want children. But she was a wonderful sisterly companion to me, and I learned as much from her [even more, in some ways] than from my own parents. And although she never married and remained a 'spinster' all her life, she was broad-minded and worldly-wise. She had no time for man-hating feminists!
ReplyDeleteWhen I was younger - I'm 80 now - family disputes such as those described in the article were the business of those concerned, unless one of them sought legal advice. This postmodern tribe of bossy officious 'social workers' didn't exist then, thank goodness.
The late. great Barbara [Baroness] Wootton wrote a pioneering book called "Social Science and Social Pathology" which contains the typically astringent comment that judging from the way some social workers treat their clients, it's a wonder they don't get their faces slapped twice daily. That was half a century ago. I tremble to think what she would have said today.
Thanks Anticant.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame you don't contribute to this site more often. You seem the type we youngsters could learn a lot from.
You're welcome to browse around Anticant's Arena
ReplyDeletehttp://anatarena.blogspot.com
"This is a natural consequence of feminism." No doubt in my mind that the enhanced role of women in public life has contributed to the Nanny state. I'll be accused of being sexist but a good friend of mine, a woman, always said that she hated working for female bosses because they were so prone to allow personal prejudices and jealousies to colour their judgement. I'm sure the growth of hysteria over "issues", the zealotry and the desire to control what everyone does are essentially female traits. I know that this is a generalisation of course and that there are some very splendid and principled women in public life but generally the trend is towards emotion and the heart ruling rather than reason and the mind. Women can be more determined and vociferous than men over "causes" but of course there is a whole generation of thoroughly feminised "men" who now join them.
ReplyDeleteRemember the 'Hitler Youth' and its sort of 'prep school' where suitably blonde/blue-eyed maidchen were mated with a series of similarly blonde/blue-eyed military men in order to produce the Aryan Nation of the future?
ReplyDeleteThe product of such romantic liaisons were whisked away to be properly indoctrinated in the State's way of thinking.
Obviously we are too civilised to organise baby farms nowadays, but, other than that, the two processes sound remarkably similar; Nicht War?