A fine example of such hypocrisy can be seen in a recent decision by Nanny's chums in Durham County Council to remove a yet to be born baby (when it is born) from its mother Toni McLeod, because they believe Mrs McLeod would pose a "risk of significant harm" to the child.
What kind of risk does Nanny think the child will be exposed to?
It seems that Mrs Mcleod has violent links to the English Defence League (EDL), and that Nanny does not wish the child to become "radicalised". Nanny has also told her husband Martyn that he would be unable to care for his child, because he is a full-time soldier just back from Afghanistan (are soldiers not capable of bringing up children then?).
Please now compare and contrast this to Nanny's approach to the children of extremist Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was allowed to remain with his children when he was briefly remanded on bail earlier this year as the Government tries to deport him.
Lib Dem MP John Hemming is unimpressed and is quoted by The Express:
“It raises a curious question as to why Abu Qatada is allowed to radicalise his children but the state won’t take the chance of allowing Toni McLeod to look after her baby in case she says something social workers won’t like.
I am very strongly opposed to the EDL, which I believe to be a racist organisation, but I do not think we should remove all of the children of the people who go on their demonstrations, however misguided they may be.Nanny is a hypocrite, and should be kept well away from children!
This case is one where the ‘thought police’ have decided to remove her baby at birth because of what she might say to the baby. I wonder what the baby’s father is thinking when he fights for a country which won’t allow him to have a child because of what the child’s mother might say.
Toni now accepts she was wrong to have gone on EDL demonstrations but freedom of speech means nothing if people are not allowed to say things that are thought to be wrong.”
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"
Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Yes, we live in a free society, where we can say and do what we like.....Well as long as it is what Nanny says is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteCultural Marxism has destroyed our country and many others.
It would appear that the English Defence League cannot manage to defend one of its own members.
ReplyDeletePerhaps they do not recognise who the true enemies of the people really are; but if they ever do come to the realisation that the enemy is in fact within, then they can count on my support and, I suspect, the support of many others.
I can foresee that it is only a matter of time that new born babies of smokers, drinkers and those that are deemed to be obese are also snatched away by the State.
Saw this on Prison Planet but cannot now find the link
ReplyDelete"Tommy Robinson: State threatens to take away EDL supporter's baby"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUS6MBWdi3k
This is utterly appalling! What makes it even worse is that it is the family of a soldier serbving in Afghanistan, risking death or maiming for his county. Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the beliefs of the EDL this is an unwarranted act. I suppose the next step will be to arrest people and sentence them to life imprisonment, provided they are White British heterosexual males, because they 'might' commit a crime at some time in their lives.
ReplyDeleteThere may be a bit more to this story than first meets the eye………
ReplyDeleteFamily courts do not take children away because of their parent’s political affiliations, and all hearings are in private. There are also confidentiality rules that prohibit the courts and the Councils from commenting on cases. Therefore Mrs McLeod can give whatever reason she wants and make whatever outrageous claim that she wants without the courts being able to reply.
I don’t know what the truth might be about this particular case. Newspapers are claiming that she has had three other children taken into care previously and that she has history of violence and mental disease; they are also claiming to have a statement made by Durham Council that backs up their story about her support of the EDL. But with confidentiality in place I really don’t see how they could have come up with any of this information from anyone other than Mrs McLeod herself.
The press are in the business of selling newspapers but this case is so bizarre that I am not prepared to take this woman’s word for it.