Is the state guilty of child kidnap?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Blogg, Jul 5, 2009.

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. This is a really shocking and grotesque affair that shows once again that stupid petty officials in Nanny State, when vested with huge power and shielded from the consequences of their actions, really do tend to dull evil.

    "Until six weeks ago, Mr and Mrs Jones, as I must call them under reporting restrictions, lived happily with their three young children, two sons and a daughter, aged under 13. Mr Jones, a business consultant, is related to various European royal families and his brother is a senior Army officer seconded to the UN. If he has one weakness, as he admits, it is to refer to these connections, as he did to the heads of the schools attended by his two older children, saying that he was particularly concerned for their security. He asked that he could be allowed to drive into the school grounds when picking up his daughter, because he did not want to leave her waiting, potentially vulnerable, in the road outside.

    The headmistress agreed to this, but, concerned about other children's safety, contacted the local police, who in turn passed on their concerns to social services. The result of this was that, on May 18, when Mr and Mr Jones, accompanied by their younger son, arrived at school to pick up their daughter, they were met by a group of strangers, one as it turned out a female social worker. She asked, without explaining why or who she was, whether he was Mr Jones. When she three times refused to show him any ID, he was seized from behind by two policemen, handcuffed and put under arrest

    He was driven by a policeman to a nearby mental hospital where he was told that, because of "a number of concerns", he was being detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and "sectioned" under S.2 as of "unsound mind". His wife, it turned out, had been similarly arrested, for loudly protesting at the handcuffing of her husband and the forcible seizing from her arms of her young son. The three children had been taken into care by social services.

    Mrs Jones was allowed to return to an empty home that evening. Mr Jones was permitted to attend court two days later, to hear the magistrates grant an interim order for the children to remain in the care of social services. Because he was "sectioned", he was not allowed to speak. The chief magistrate, it later emerged, was chairman of the trustees of the mental hospital in which he was being detained.

    On May 28, Mr Jones appeared before a mental health tribunal which, after hearing all the facts relating to his case, gave him a complete discharge. He returned home to his wife and immediately contacted his MP, a local MEP, lawyers and others he thought might be able to help, one of whom set in train the investigation by Lord Monckton that led to this story appearing here.

    Despite the finding of the tribunal, the social workers have remained determined to hold on to the children, with a view to their care being determined in a county court on Wednesday. "




    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5743419/Is-the-state-guilty-of-child-kidnap.html
     
  2. It's a newspaper, and they're (all) increasingly unreliable.

    Have the police released any statements? Are there any other angles from which more might be revealed?
     
  3. Agreed, that is shocking if true. Why would the social worker refuse to show ID? Why would the coppers arest him for refusing to give personal details to an unidentified stranger? Why do social workers still insist on holding the children? etc. etc. etc.

    But most important, why are individuals hardly ever held to account for actions such as these?
     
  4. Read the story, fcukwit

    "Details of yet another shocking case, which comes to its climax in a county court in eastern England this week, have recently been placed in the House of Lords Library. This follows a comprehensive investigation carried out on behalf of the family by Lord Monckton of Brenchley,"
     
  5. Absolutely discracefull!! - Its in these cases where the social services get on their stool and all high and mighty that makes my blood boil.
     
  6. Sounds like a bit of a walty twat
    Mr Jones, a business consultant, is related to various European royal families and his brother is a senior Army officer seconded to the UN. If he has one weakness, as he admits, it is to refer to these connections, as he did to the heads of the schools attended by his two older children, saying that he was particularly concerned for their security. He asked that he could be allowed to drive into the school grounds when picking up his daughter, because he did not want to leave her waiting, potentially vulnerable, in the road outside.

    though how the police and social services managed to add 2 and 2 and get 33456666 must save the kids :roll:
     
  7. Read the story fcukwit? My, we're particularly angry this morning aren't we?
     
  8. Nothing will be done, because of a. the secracy. and b. it will all be "within the guidelines".

    What should happen at the very least is the "kidnapper" who refused to show ID should be called to court to explain their actions. and then sacked. It should be an unbreakable rule that ID should be shown by those stealing your children, even in the cases where it is right to do so.

    The Police should also be called forward, to explain their actions.

    As should everyother person, including the teachers and the person who signed the papers to have the "Jones" sectioned.

    Followed by mass sackings where neccesary.

    And an investigation in to the "interests2 of the magistrate/director of the nut house. Surely there should be ruling that prevents that sort of caper.
     
  9. Doesn't ring true.

    Despite the talk of Lord Monkton's Investigation (which adds nothing to this account) It really comes over as a one sided damage-limitation exercise done with a view to influencing the coming court hearing.

    Sectioning is an action which the police do not invoke lightly and very few people who are sectioned agree that they might be deserving of it.

    The fact that a section order may be subsequently lifted does not indicate that there wasn't a need for it in the first place.

    I believe the headmistress would have called the police because she had serious doubts about the man's behaviour, causing her to have concern for the children's safety.

    Let's leave the bus garaged until a more even-handed account comes out
     
  10. So it is acceptable for an unidentifible person to meet you at the school gates and seize your child(ren)?
     
  11. Not sure about this story
    Did Mr Jones ask at his sons school could he come inside to pick him up?
    Why did the daughters head ring the police in the first place, any good head should already have their pupils safety at the fore? Was this purely because of how Mr Jones came across?
    Are we talking private school here? if so, they would be used to having children of the well to do at their school and therefore have measures in hand.

    The police cannot section a person, only a doctor can do that
     
  12. Yes, all that is necessary is for the attending police officers to be satisfied as to the identity of the person (in this case, the social worker) that is authorising that the children be placed in care.
     
  13. B011ocks to that mate.

    Take my child, I want to know exactly who you are, and whom you represent, and why you deem it neccesary to take my child. Police presence be dammed.

    It would also be the point where I informed the "child snatcher" that I would be holding them personally responsible for the safety, wellbeing and health of my child.

    Girl dies in car crash whilst in Social "Care".

    Foster parents have a party, and miss the bit where their 17 month old foster child drowns in their pool.

    "Ideal" Foster dad is secret nonce.
     
  14. Seconded. Police, IIRC, have to provide ID if requested and circumstances allow. So why should social workers be different?

    There have been cases where criminals have used false Police ID etc. So in a situation where one's children are being taken, a request to check the person claiming to be a social worker's ID is perfectly reasonable.
     
  15. Under sec.136 the police can 'remove' someone and take them to a place of safety but only a doctor can actually implement section 2, their detention