council forces local spacker to be sterilized

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by TerryFukWit, Aug 19, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Council criticised by judge after they try to force low IQ woman to use birth control | Mail Online

    A judge has criticised a council for trying to force a married woman with a low IQ to use birth control, saying the move had 'shades of social engineering'.Social workers applied to the court for permission to forcibly remove the 29-year-old from her home, sedate her and prevent her from having children using a contraceptive injection.

    But Mr Justice Bodey said she and her husband - who also has a low IQ - might be able to bring up a child with the right support.

    And he warned contraception imposed by the courts would 'raise profound questions about state intervention in private and family life'.

    The ruling came in a case before the Court of Protection, which decides on individuals who suffer from mental incapacity such as severe learning difficulties or Alzheimer's.

    The woman, who cannot be identified, was diagnosed as having brain function in the 'extremely low range of intellectual functioning', but she also had 'very good verbal communication skills'.

    Her identity is protected by the court and she was identified only as 'Mrs A' from a small town in the Midlands.

    Court papers revealed she has already had two children, a girl and a boy, but both were adopted because it was feared she could not look after them.

    However, since their births she has married and settled down. She also volunteers locally and attends college.

    Her council applied for the order claiming her husband, who has an IQ of 65, was beating her up and forcing her to stop taking the Pill because he wanted a baby.

    One doctor examining the woman claimed she 'lacked the intellectual ability to look after a child of any age independently'.

    Her social worker admitted it would be a 'horrendous prospect' for her to have contraception while restrained.

    The judge refused even to order she be asked to use contraception voluntarily, and raised the prospect she and her husband could bring up a child.

    The judge said: 'It might be concluded that they could with much support bring up a child, or perhaps that a child might be able to be kept within the extended family.''Striking a balance of advantage and disadvantage, I do not see that any order at all is justified at this point about contraception.'

    'It is obvious from the facts of this case that any step towards long-term court imposed contraception by way of physical coercion, with its affinity to enforced sterilisation and shades of social engineering, would raise profound questions about state intervention in private and family life.

    'While the issue of the use of force has not been argued out at this hearing I cannot, on these facts, presently see how it could be acceptable.'

    The court rules on around 23,000 cases every year, involving those with learning difficulties or mental incapacity caused by accidents, illness, or old age who are deemed unable to take decisions for themselves.

    Concerns were raised after it emerged the court ruled on assets worth £3.2billion and had prompted more than 3,000 complaints in just 18 months.

    Until recently proceedings were conducted entirely in secret but a change in the law means judgments are now published but without details that would reveal the identities of those involved.

    In May the court ruled a cancer patient with a terror of hospitals should be forced to undergo lifesaving surgery.
  2. any phone numbers or pics??
  3. don't want to say anything too controversial buuut........
  4. The OP’s headline is “council forces local spacker to be sterilized”, and the actual headline is “Judge attacks council for trying to FORCE a low IQ woman to take contraceptive”.

    Do you know the difference between contraception and sterilisation? Can you say cont-ra-ception? Good boy.

    I know this is the NAAFI (so bum, big plops and all that), but when you have a go at a “spacker” at least don’t show yourself to share certain qualities such as reading comprehension and IQ.
  5. Won't someone please think of the children????

    Oh, you already are.
  6. “Oo! Oo! I’ll repeat something I heard elsewhere and be really popular!”

    In your righteous indignation you failed to point out where I wrote or even alluded to “the children”, or the fact that I don’t give a flying fuck beyond the OP’s lying headline. He’s a mong, but it’s always nice to see people supporting the more fuckwitted posters on here. Let him breed with your sister, I say. Or brother, it’s all the same to me.

    Next time you criticise at least say something original, or even try for funny.
  7. Just goes to show, you're never too thick to know what your dick's for.
  8. On the one hand, I think this lady should be forced to have a contraceptive injection to protect both her and any future children, but on the other hand this smacks of being immoral.

    Thank fuck I don't have to make decisions like this.

    I reckon the government should employ philosophers to make decisions on this sort of stuff.
  9. Any easy call to make. The decision, like the woman herself, is a no-brainer. In fact, this type of treatment should be far more widespread; Mongs, Junkies, good reason for allowing them to breed.
  10. Oh no. Now someone really is thinking of the children.

    Guards… seize him!
  11. its bloody wrong the council are trying to do this. police state anyone?
  12. God, no - that would be terrible! Why, then we might not have 90 year old WWII veterans killed for the £40 they were carrying!

    Democracy is not for the people...
  13. This kind of action could absolutely decimate RLC recruiting targets - despicable.
  14. You don't often post but when you do: Quality!