Emulating the SS, Nottingham City Council have taken it upon themselves to snatch a child away from her mother because, in Nottingham City Council's eyes, the mother is too stupid to look after the child.Welcome to ZaNuLabour Britain, where the state dictates who may or may not bring up their own children!
Rachel (24), who for legal reasons can be identified only by her first name, has been told by a family court that her daughter will be placed with adoptive parents within the next three months, and she will then be barred from further contact.
Is Rachel really that thick?
According to a psychiatrist Rachel has no learning difficulties and "good literacy and numeracy and [that] her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range".
Her daughter was born prematurely and Nanny's "officials" decided that Rachel didn't have the brains to cope with her complex medical needs, as such the baby was "fostered out".
It should be noted that the medical issue has now been resolved, the baby now needs little or no day-to-day medical care.
So why the fark is Nanny still taking the child away?
There is a rather nasty added twist to this sad story, Rachel's attempts thus far to fight Nanny have been scuppered by the fact that her case was taken over by the official solicitor.
Guess who the official solicitor works for?
Yes, that's right, Nanny!
Nanny brought her own man in because Nanny decided that Rachel wasn't bright enough to instruct her own solicitor.
Good game this isn't it?
Nanny skews the result in her favour by putting her own man in the defence team.
Can you guess what Rachel's (sorry, Nanny's) solicitor did?
Yes, that's right, he declined to contest the council's adoption application, despite the fact that Rachel wanted to fight it.
This sounds more like some third world dictatorship, rather than a "democratic" first world country.
Does Nanny not see how bad this looks?
Answer: she does, but she doesn't care!
After the psychiatrist's assessment of Rachel, the court acknowledged that she does have the mental capacity to keep up with the legal aspects of her situation. However, it has refused her attempts to halt the adoption process.
Rachel is now going to the European Court to fight this.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there seems to be more than handful of slackjawed, dribbling, knuckle scrapping morons in this country who breed like rabbits and are allowed to keep their children (even though they allow them to roam the streets like packs of feral vermin).
There have also been a good few cases of appalling cruelty inflicted upon children (eg baby P), yet Nanny stood idly by. In this particular case Nanny is not even pretending that Rachel will deliberately harm her child.
Given the above obvious contradictions in state policy, why have the SS in Nottingham City Council acted in this way?
Nanny's behaviour in this instance is pretty loathsome as far as I can see. My gut tells me that there is something else here that Nanny does not want disclosed, ie Nanny is covering something up that will damage Nanny (not Rachel).
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Beyond scary stuff!
ReplyDeleteWhen is your election? Your last post said 21% would vote for labour. Is that enough? How many non-fringe parties do you have? I know labour, lib-dem, tory.......and Ive heard speak of green, independant, nationalist but dont know if they are anything more than fringe. And yes I kinow its a parlimentary system, but if the race was held anytime soon, who will win?
Debbie
If the facts are as reported by Ken, then I agree, this is a very sinister development by Nanny and her local bouncers.
ReplyDeleteCould someone please advise me, since when was it a crime to be stupid? What gets me, in this case, is that the state seem to have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner.
ReplyDelete"Rachel is now going to the European Court to fight this."
ReplyDeleteGood for her - and I hope she gets more justice from Europe than she is likely to get from Nanny's minions here.
And if she does, perhaps there will be less wittering on this site from the rabid anti-EU UKIPPERS who groundlessly blame all Nanny's follies on Europe.
There doesn't have to be any particular specific reason for this. Power is nothing if it is not exercised. Nanny is saying "I can do this, so I will - any time I choose."
ReplyDeleteIt is a form of intimidation designed to entrench existing iniquities and level the ground for the next.
They quite often put carers in to situations where the mothers are not fully able to handle the issues a child has so why has this situation been different.
ReplyDeleteDoes someone have the article? I wonder if it shows any other issues in the past like a previous child at harm or something?
I can't believe they are being this stupid about it. Also the mother should be pursuing charges against the solicitor from the information we can see at the moment.
Found the only article that seems to exist:
ReplyDeletehttp://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6396039.ece
Nothing else in there that sheds light why the state are doing this.
Another article: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6396039.ece
ReplyDeleteThe reason the whole invesigation started:
"They [the social workers] were 'concerned' that she initially only visited the baby for one or two hours each day. "
Ridicious!
The child was born very prematurely. The child was in intensive care for a long time and was wired up to life support. The hospital staff were happy with the way the mother fed and bathed the child however, a midwife expressed concern over the mother's ability to care for the kid due to her intelligence or lack off. The mother was interviewed on ITV news this evening and it was shown at 18-00hrs, she came across as very normal. It was reported that the mother had an IQ of 81, low yes, but not too low to cause major problems.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the local authority was unable to comment on individual cases and hid behind that excuse.
A very sad case. I saw the original artical in the Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189836/They-stole-little-girl-says-mother-judged-stupid-care-baby.html
It is of course a class issue. They would never dare to do this to middle class parents under suspicion of child neglect.
ReplyDeleteI can think of at least one such medical couple who were blatantly neglectful of their little daughter and who have occupied acres of media time and space posing as victims while still retaining control of their twins.
But of course they belong to the professional Nannying class and are treated with kid gloves by 'authority'.
I stick to my original claim that this is an unmotivated display of power (unmotivated beyond that motive, that is) - but if there is one thing it definitely isn't it's a class issue, surely? Nanny is at war with the middle class above all.
ReplyDeleteThis of course also has the potential to destroy confidence in the adoption and fostering system. If Nanny clogs the system up with the offspring of less intelligent parents, the typical middle aged, middle class childless couple who might adopt will soon get wind and go down the surrogate birth path instead.
ReplyDeleteThis is all well and good, but then the kids out there that really need a new adopted family or fostering will not have the chance and instead get stuck in some Nanny hell-hole of a children's institution where they can learn to be career criminals by the age of 7.
Well done Nanny, law of unintended consequences anybody?
I don't want kids in this country. I'm moving to Switzerland.
ReplyDeleteSecond thought for the day-is this something to do with Government adoption targets?
ReplyDeleteI've got kids in this country and despise what nanny is doing to it. I also despise the fact that the highest court in this land is subservient to an EU one, does that make me a 'rabid Ukipper?' or a Brit concerned about laws emenating from outside our borders and thus outside of our control?
ReplyDeleteanticant said...
ReplyDelete"It is of course a class issue. They would never dare to do this to middle class parents under suspicion of child neglect."
Nor would there have been a squeak from them, if the mother in question had been related to Lord so and so!
"Nor would there have been a squeak from them, if the mother in question had been related to Lord so and so!"
ReplyDeleteGood grief!
What planet have you people been living on for the last thirty years???!!!