Stolen Children

Were Social Services right?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
This sorry tale actually came to light back in May of this year, but is rightly getting a lot of airtime right now.

It's the story about the 'idiot parents' who are too thick (apparently) to care for their children. A very good synopsis of the affair is here.

Their two children, a girl of four and a one-year old boy were taken into care after social workers judged that the mother did not have regular routines for her son and daughter, and that she left the girl to play alone, could not cook simple meals and took too long brushing her teeth. The father was bizarrely, said to have too many routines.

The parents had not hurt their children or let them go hungry. There was no sign of abuse or cruelty and, sitting in secret, a family court judge told the couple they had done nothing wrong, but still ordered that the children be put up for adoption to give them "a better life".
I'll nail my colours to the mast at the outset - I think this is deeply wrong and smacks of exactly the strange sort of 'experiments' the Nazis were conducting over 60 years ago. This is wrong on so many levels.
Totally agree with you DD - Im fed up of these smarmingly smug social workers who, due to some personality crisis or whatever, seem to have the need to fcuk up good people lives. Taking into account of all the stories we hear about where they have hounded some poor individual only to belatadly realise they have fcuked up and issue and 'apology'.

They all need a collective kick up the proverbial!!!!
I can't remember the exact story.

But something similar happend with a worse ending.

A mother was deemed unfit to care for her kids, despite never harming them or in anyway mistreating them.

The kids were taken away, the foster parents killed one of them.

The poor mother was not allowed by doctors to be at the bed side of the dying child (her child incidently) but allowed the murdering scum foster parents to be there.

The mother has still not been allowed to see her remaining children that the so called social services took off her.

Disgusting if you ask me. If a mum can't look after her kids but is clearly doing the best she can, she should get help. Not some smarmy tit from the SS come and steal the kids.

Especially if they are going to hand them over to a pair of murdering scum.

I'm trying to find the information now. It was from a couple of months ago.
So a mother with a low IQ who stays at home looking after her kids is a poor parent but one who has a high flying job, working 40 plus hours a week, leaving the kids with a childminder and seeing them for less than two hours a day, based on travel time and bed times, who spends Saturday with them and Sunday getting ready for the week ahead is a fit parent... Hmmm

This is such a loaded case.

On the one hand my natural liberal conservative views tell me that it is inherently wrong for the 'state' to interfere in matter such as this, when there is no obvious or not so obvious damage being done to the child.

On the other hand, i also feel that if these parents were not raising their kids right, then it would be either one more pair of chav kids with no respect for others, or one more pair of crackpot loonies who don't know how to live in the real world.

Altough, a single question does keep coming to mind.

Who defines wether these kids were recieving a "decent life" (and if so who then defines "a better life").
Perhaps we should consider another perspective?

Child neglect

From personal experience, as someone who works in education, is a volunteer in a youth organisation, and whose parents have been foster carers for nearly 20 years, there are children out there who are being neglected by their parents. If you were a social worker, where would you draw the line?
My son has no routine, his eating and sleeping pattern are different every day. I try and set him good routines, early to bed and fixed time for feeds. Mrs skjold knows exactly when hes tired and when he needs to eat. The meals she prepares are simple but substantial.( so are mine)

Now then, if any one would like to come and try to take our son away from us you will die trying.

The Christian Blewitt case is not as open and shut as beebs' link suggests.

Angela and Ian Gay

Again, we have a case dependant on "expert" witnesses. Reminds me of Roy Meadows.


That’s just disgusting.
I was going to make a joke about how mongs shouldn’t be allowed to breed etc, but by the time I’d finished reading that page I don’t think I could in good conscience.

This would have to be one of the more disturbing paragraphs for me:

"A quarter of the parents we talked to voluntary mentioned that they had been, or were going to be, sterilised as a result of having been through care proceedings. There may have been others. It is not possible to tell how far these decisions were taken on health grounds, under the pressure of professional "advice" or from a consuming desire to avoid having to face the same trauma of loss with yet another child.
Sterilisation of the disabled is exactly what used to happen in Nazi Germany until they decided that it was easier to simply put them to death.
Didn’t we win that war???

What gives social workers the right to pressure the disabled into sterilisation?
What gives social workers the right to take children away from loving parents?

If a child is being fed, clothed, sent to school for an education, and loved and cared for; what right is it of the council to stick its nose in a decent families business?
We have a welfare state for a reason, to protect out weakest members of society.

I really hate what is happening with our welfare system.

A 16yr old chav girl gets herself pregnant and obviously has no intention of getting a job to support her child, what happens? The council says “there there, you poor girl”, gives her a council house and about £20k a yr for the rest of her life, then leaves her to get on with it. The baby grows into a worthless chav like its mother and the cycle starts again.

A loving couple have a baby, they do there best to care for it, even going so far as working for a living to support themselves, and what happens? The council decided their IQ is too low and instead of doing everything they can to help (which they do for chav families), they decide to take the easy option and take the child away from its parents.

Can someone please remind me why I bother to pay my taxes? All they seam to pay for is the support of worthless chavs and the victimisation of the needy.
Jango_Fett said:
The Christian Blewitt case is not as open and shut as beebs' link suggests.

Angela and Ian Gay

Again, we have a case dependant on "expert" witnesses. Reminds me of Roy Meadows.
Not convinced, every one harks on about the salt poisoning but what about the fatal head injury and other injuries this child suffered?
Its going to be discussed on BBC Radio 2 NOW! (When theyve finished about A levels)

Also that child is the one I was on about.

He was forceably removed from a loving mother, marion, and given to these freaks.

Something is very wrong in the world when someone can remove a child (3 in this case) from someone and give them to complete strangers. The SS made a promise with Marion that day (though they probaly didn't know it and would never admit) that they would look after and care for her children. Give them a better future. What happens? One is dead and she still can't see the other two.

Shocking. The SS in question need to be thoroughly investigated and the reasons why the kids were taken, given to a couple who had no experience of children (the gays had none) and then one had died. Why did the Mr gay phone saying such things about a child who had been pulled away from his mum.

This raises a lot of questions, that I am sure the SS will just dodge and if pushed just wring their hands and whimper about how they did their best!!!

Also what rights the mother. Whilst her child was dying, she was not allowed to see him, whilst the Gays were allowed in to be there when he died.

Christian Blewitt

Experts could not agree about how Christian sustained the head injury from which he died, despite the wealth of medical evidence in the case.
Post-mortem examinations discovered 11 areas of "sub-scalp" bruising and the cause of death was given as blunt force trauma.

Home Office pathologist Professor Helen Whitwell said the fatal brain damage could have been caused by an impact, or forceful gripping.

Prof Whitwell said there was "nothing specific" to indicate the bruising to the brain had been caused by too much salt and there was no evidence of a weapon being used.

Home Office pathologist Dr Peter Acland, who conducted a second post-mortem examination and appeared for the defence, said he did not consider the head injury was caused by a deliberate impact.
Whatever happened to "beyond all reasonable doubt"? The Gays were obviously not perfect parents, but who is. I know I'm not.


Darth_Doctrinus said:
I'll nail my colours to the mast at the outset - I think this is deeply wrong and smacks of exactly the strange sort of 'experiments' the Nazis were conducting over 60 years ago. This is wrong on so many levels.
I agree with you totally, except to say that you are wrong to suppose that this kind of Eugenic balderdash was solely the preserve of Nazi Germany. The truth is that Eugenic sterilisation/adoption was as much an obsession of the 'progressive' left as the Fascist right: the lefties - such as, for example, the egregious Sidney and Beatrice Webb - didn't like the idea that the 'working classes' weren't all cheery, muscular Stakhanovites and thought that they were becoming degraded and polluted by allowing the 'worst' specimens to continue to breed. In fact, along with Nazi Germany a number of other European countries and US states adopted sterilisation and compulsory adoption laws of one sort or another during the 1930s. Most of these were quietly swept under the carpet at the end of WW2, but Sweden continued to enforce compulsory sterilisation until the 1970s and, as this case shows, the basic impulse to do it is still there. The problem seems to me to be that we are allowing aesthetic value judgements about peoples' lifestyles to justify profound and intrusive interventions, and to my mind, that represents a fundamental breach of human rights and natural justice.
social workers deal with shades of grey all the time there training is PC ed to the max. I've met good socail workers and I've met crap ones never met anyone who's said my child was taken Off me because I basically can't cope its always the evil social workers.
withouyt seeing the case notes I would'nt comment its not easy to take people children away
CP - exactly what I would have said, had not my microscopic IQ prevented me from summoning the correct words.

Gosh - if it were down to Essex County Council, I wouldn't even be here... :evil:
Social workers, Health visitors i hate them all. The children were not abused in any way so wtf is the problem.

Take to long to brush your teeth, since when has there been a time limit on that???

There are kids out there who are being abused in a lot of ways yet social services seem oblivious to these people.

Maybe there is more to it.


Similar threads

Latest Threads