Monday, 27 June 2011

The unreported 'crime' perpetrated by the state

Within his column in the Sunday Telegraph Christopher Booker has reported time and again on what would appear to be 'high-handed' actions carried out by children's social services in what Richard North, EU Referendum, calls "stolen children". Regular readers of the Sunday Telegraph will be well aware of the cases that Booker, under great restraints imposed by the courts, has featured in an attempt to bring matters into the public domain.

Christopher Booker is a journalist who is, I think all would agree, renowned for the provenance of the facts encapsulated within his writing and I find it incredible that MPs have remained silent on what must be one of the most glaring defects in our democracy; that children's social services appear to have such arbitrary powers - powers that would seem to go unchallenged by our judicial system.

Dick Puddlecote posts on an alarming trend in the United States and one has to wonder, with the 'free reign' that social services would appear to enjoy in this country, how long it will be before what is happening in the US makes its appearance over here.

Parents in this country would be well advised to beware the 'helpful arm of the state', one that is becoming more draconian by the day, where the rearing of their children is concerned - Big Brother is most definitely 'alive and well' in this area. Where children are 'removed' from within their family environment, the question has to be asked how are they being 'reared' and exactly what 'values' are they being taught - matters one can be assured that social services will be  'controlling'.

Just saying.............................


Ian said...

I'd just like to add that 4 out of 5 children in England and Wales are stolen under the pretext "risk of future emotional abuse" - emotional abuse never having been defined, in court or anywhere else.

I believe the judges play safe because they don't know what emotional abuse means - besides, if they made the wrong decision they would get the blame if anything went wrong.

SS have numbers to make up to please the county councillors, and to make matters worse they are now on targets, too.

No evidence exists to show that SS protects children. But barren middle class families have a desire to harvest working class children, all the same.

Both family court judges and SS throughout England and Wales have been resisting the campaign to allow the press and public into adoption hearings, even though total child anonymity would be guaranteed under the proposals.

James Higham said...

Mentoring is the other aspect of it too. The State is getting uncomfortably involved now.

The Gray Monk said...

It is my considered opinion, from my encounters with the 'products' of SS interference, that the greatest abusers of children in the UK today are the Social Services and the so-called "Child Protection" charities.

This has become an 'industry' and like any industry now has to meet targets and 'prove' its productivity - so they steal children from ordinary families and persecute law abiding parents for taking normal disciplinary measures while allowing the real problems to go unattended in the "Too Hard" tray...

Are your readers aware that, in complete defiance of the principle of law that a defendant must have access to all the evidence against him/her - an accused is denied access to certain prosecution 'evidence' to 'protect the child' - a situation which creates an impossible task for the defence and leads to many miscarriages of justice.

It is the use of this loophole - in which the accused is (again in defiance of legal principle!) deemed guilty until 'proved innocent' - which allows the Social Services to get away with stealing and abusing children unchallenged. Much of the 'evidence' presented in so-called 'family courts' does not even meet the most fundamental requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and would be rejected as inadmissible in an adult court.

I have personally witnessed a social worker using suggestive questioning of a young witness - a process forbidden in criminal investigation - and when I objected to this blatant coaching and leading of a witness, I was told it was quite normal and perfectly acceptable in such a case. It merely confirmed for me that the UK has lost its marbles - and justice is certainly not to be found in any such court!

WitteringsfromWitney said...

I, JH & TGM: (forgive the combined response) You all make valid points with which I agree. I despair with our MPs who spend time debating 39 animals in circuses (something they can do nothing about) yet refuse to stir themselves to investigate what amounts to child abuse, an abuse of the legal system and results in them abusing their position as MPs.

For their disinterest in this matter guarantees the position on lamp posts!

PeterCharles said...

This is an example of the two legal syndromes that have developed over the last 40 years. These are 'guilty until you prove yourself innocent' which applies in regard to sex offences, family courts and the plethora of regulatory crimes. The other is 'better ten innocent men be convicted than one guilty man escape justice' so beloved by the tabloid media and the BBC and embraced by every Home Secretary since Michael Howard.

One example of the first is totally unbelievable outside of a soap opera. If I hadn't met the person and seen the documentary evidence for myself I wouldn't have believed it either. A man was accused by his ex wife's lesbian lover of sexual assault on his 14 year old daughter, claiming to have accidentally witnessed the 'assault', basically inappropriate touching, as she passed the girl's bedroom through the open door. The ex wife said she didn't believe it and had seen and heard nothing, the daughter insisted nothing had happened, the man denied anything happened yet he was convicted and sentenced to 5 years gaol.

The regulatory 'crimes' are the things like the change in law so that as well as being illegal to use an unlicensed motor vehicle on the road it is also now a 'crime' not to complete a SORN declaration if you are the keeper of an unlicensed vehicle. There is no fine, as such, but you must pay all the licence costs during the period not declared under a SORN plus an 'administrative' fee, now around £80 I believe.

I have also had personal knowledge of SS excess and their disgusting 'investigatory' methodology as a young couple among our in laws fell foul of 'shaken baby' accusations, by a single doctor. It took five years and a great deal of money before the issue was finally resolved and even then it took a court order before SS were forced to accept there was no case. In this case the damage to the two children involved was somewhat contained as the children were placed with the grandparents, but it was still significant in terms of subsequent emotional and behavioural problems.

What it all comes down to is simple, if you want the state to be a provider or be responsible then you agree to give up any freedom you have in that area and accept whatever methods and procedures the state bureaucracy implements.

SS workers are not allowed to use common sense, they must make a decision in line with set procedures. If the tickbox count says 'take into care' that is what happens, regardless of whether it is the best option. Then there are all the other bureaucratic imperatives; first protect the interests of the bureaucracy, second, protect your own interests, third, keep outsiders out and insiders in, fourth, never admit error, fifth, avoid change at all costs, sixth weed out anyone prone to independent thought.

Bureaucracies always put their own interest above the service they provide.

Anonymous said...

Just thought I'd bring up the state murder of civilians in Lybia.

Anonymous said...

As the Blessed Margaret Hodge said, many years ago, "Raising children is too important to be left to the family.". (I paraphrase.)

WitteringsfromWitney said...

PC:What more can I say? You are soo right in your comment and I can but repeat that I have nothing but shame for the silence of our elected representatives who claim the right to speak with or without our consent on matters of conscience! All I can say is: some conscience!

A (1): Off topic, so must ignore - sorry!

A (2): There spoke a true statist!