Womans' children taken into care because of her political beliefs.

[InsaneApache]

I thought that stuff like this only happened in the Soviet Bloc or the other lot a bit to the west. (Not a Godwin in sight :wink:)


You hear the things the social workers say, and you just bang your head against a brick wall and think, “Am I actually hearing this? Is this real?”’

Toni McLeod is an eight-month pregnant 25-year-old mother-of-three based in Durham in the north-east of England. Her three existing children – one daughter and two sons – are currently in care and she can only see them under supervision. She now fears that her imminent fourth child will be taken away from her by Durham County Council’s social workers as soon as she gives birth. Why? Because, she believes, of her political beliefs, or, to be more specific, her association with the right-wing English Defence League (EDL). A report by a Durham social worker seen by spiked seems to corroborate McLeod’s claims. It states: ‘Toni needs to break away from the inappropriate friendships she has through the EDL… in order that she can model and display appropriate positive relationships to the baby as he/she develops.’

McLeod agreed to talk to spiked about her predicament. She first hit the headlines over the weekend when the Sunday Express reported on her plight. The Express said: ‘Social workers fear [her] child would become radicalised with EDL views and want it put up for adoption immediately.’ She confirms the Express story is pretty much true, although she did notice some minor mistakes. ‘I have never owned a pitbull’, she says. Her case has also been raised by Lib Dem MP John Hemming in the House of Commons.

She tells me that the day she was reported to social workers for being an EDL supporter, her life started to unravel. A social worker visited her home and was not exactly sympathetic. ‘I may as well have been Satan reincarnated’, says McLeod. She says she has never made any secret of her support for the EDL. ‘I’m honest enough that if you ask me an honest question, I’ll give you an honest answer. So [the social worker] asked me and I said “yeah, I am involved with the English Defence League”. I haven’t been since 2010, but previous to then I was.’

Although social workers now apparently accept that McLeod no longer supports the EDL, she says they still aren’t happy. Apparently they fear she might still have ‘the ethos of the EDL beliefs’. The Express said social workers are also worried about McLeod’s ‘previous alcohol and drug misuse, her ‘“aggressive behaviour” and her alleged “mental health issues”’. But McLeod insists that it is her support for the anti-Islamic EDL which has caused her to lose her kids, and the social worker document seen by spiked certainly suggests that it was at least a factor.

One of the things that bothers her most is that the decision to take her future child into care is based less on what McLeod has actually done than on what she might do in the future: ‘There doesn’t need to be any actual proof of anything. It can all be based on possible risk in the future… Like in my case, it’s the likelihood of emotional abuse through radicalisation. The baby’s not even born!’

She is determined to appeal her case and take it to the High Court. As a result of what she calls the ‘brilliant support’ of MP Hemming and the Justice for Families campaign group, she is now getting offers from legal professionals who are willing to take on her case. She is clearly determined not to take any of this lying down.

McLeod prides herself on having a near-photographic memory, and she is frank, articulate and not afraid to ask challenging questions. But she fears her forceful approach has done her no favours with social services. ‘I do genuinely think that if I had been quiet, if I’d bent over backwards for social services, I probably wouldn’t have this problem.’ Despite her toughness, she says the whole drama has been ‘emotionally, physically draining’.

‘It might not be this year, it might not be the year after, but even if I have to wait until all my children are 18 years old, they will, eventually, be coming home’, she says. She worries that other parents might end up going through the same thing as her, and is therefore keen to raise awareness of her case and what she sees as its injustice. ‘Where is it going to end?’, she asks. She wonders what will happen ‘if I get a social worker that happens to have a disliking of Labour, or the Lib Dems, or the Conservatives. It’s like, hold on a minute, please don’t say I’m going to have my kids taken away if I don’t agree with your political views?’

For legal reasons, it isn’t possible to reveal the judge’s reasons for reaching his decision about McLeod’s children. But given McLeod’s account, her defence by Hemming (who opposes the EDL), and most importantly the social-worker document which explicitly lists her involvement with the EDL as one of her ‘problems’, it seems she is justified to be concerned about state intervention into families on the basis of the parents’ political beliefs.

What if social workers decide that Marxists or libertarians don’t make good parents? Would those kinds of people start to lose their children, too? McLeod says the reason she cut her ties with the EDL is because she wanted to get her children back. If this is true, we must ask: should a mother have to forgo her democratic freedom to engage in politics for fear of losing her kids?

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12563

I'll say it again, Blair wasn't kidding when he said back in '97, give me ten years and you wont recognise the country was he?

New Labour. New Britain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What exactly does "support the EDL" mean anyway?

It's one thing if she's standing in the middle of a shopping centre throwing rotten fruit at the darkies and screaming at them - quite another if she's a lower-class white woman in Northern England feeling disenfranchised.

[HoreTore]

Bah, social cases always have more depth than newspapers can get to as they can only get one side - we never hear from the social workers themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, this is about an aggressive, drugged up mental patient, and as such I entirely trust the social worker who is worried she can't raise a baby by herself. I don't really care about the mother at all, what matters is the kids rights.

[InsaneApache]

Just what I expect to hear from a socialist.

[HoreTore]

This a great story for all abusive parents out there though: just claim affiliation with a far-right political movement, and you'll get oublic support for abusing your kids! Win-win for everyone! Except the kids, of course, but who cares?

[HoreTore]

Just what I expect to hear from a socialist.

Yeah, I love nothing better than to snatch kids away from their parents to indoctrinate them into young proletarians!

No wait, it was Franco and the Catholic church who engaged in that... Never mind then, move along, nothing to see here...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As far as I'm concerned, this is about an aggressive, drugged up mental patient, and as such I entirely trust the social worker who is worried she can't raise a baby by herself. I don't really care about the mother at all, what matters is the kids rights.

Source?

[HoreTore]

Source?

IA's article.

[Centurion1]

PVC you have to remember alleged means verified.

[rory_20_uk]

Ah, the "kid's rights". Exactly what was used to stop me seeing my son for 8 months. Evidence? No - we have accusation and that's good enough apparently.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

PVC you have to remember alleged means verified.

And you have to remember that all we have are the words of a mother who doesn't want her kids taken away.

Alleged certainly seems to mean verified for you as well...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And you have to remember that all we have are the words of a mother who doesn't want her kids taken away.

Alleged certainly seems to mean verified for you as well...

Well "previous" certainly means... "previous".

So lets drop the druggy bit and just look at the "agressive" and "mental health" bits.

I have parents who can be verbally aggressive, it's not the best axample but nor is it child abuse.

Likewise, plenty of parents with confirmed mental health issues get to keep their kids.

It does look suspiciously like the EDL connection was the deciding factor, which follows the pattern set by the foster parents disqualified for believing homosexuality is wrong.

[HoreTore]

Well "previous" certainly means... "previous".

So lets drop the druggy bit and just look at the "agressive" and "mental health" bits.

I have parents who can be verbally aggressive, it's not the best axample but nor is it child abuse.

Likewise, plenty of parents with confirmed mental health issues get to keep their kids.

It does look suspiciously like the EDL connection was the deciding factor, which follows the pattern set by the foster parents disqualified for believing homosexuality is wrong.

Ever known a druggie? "Previous" rarely means "previous"...

As for EDL being the deciding factor, we only have the mother insisting on it, as well as a document the newspaper can't say does anything more than "suggest it was a factor". I'm sticking with the social workers here, and say that it's likely an unfit mother who needs some help from the state. But then again, I don't buy into the whole "Governmentz gonna brainwash our childrenz!!!111" conspiracy, and I actually believe we live in democracies and not totalitarian dictstorships... Yeah, I'm a sheeple in need of an awakening...

[InsaneApache]

Ah, the "kid's rights". Exactly what was used to stop me seeing my son for 8 months. Evidence? No - we have accusation and that's good enough apparently.

~:smoking:

You were lucky. It took me two years to get to see mine.

[InsaneApache]

I'm sticking with the social workers here,

You obviously haven't met any.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ever known a druggie? "Previous" rarely means "previous"...

As for EDL being the deciding factor, we only have the mother insisting on it, as well as a document the newspaper can't say does anything more than "suggest it was a factor". I'm sticking with the social workers here, and say that it's likely an unfit mother who needs some help from the state. But then again, I don't buy into the whole "Governmentz gonna brainwash our childrenz!!!111" conspiracy, and I actually believe we live in democracies and not totalitarian dictstorships... Yeah, I'm a sheeple in need of an awakening...

I lived with a girl - terrible mother (from a practical standpoint) but her social worker would rather she have the kid than her parents.

Maybe they were worse.

Have I known druggies - um, yes, I live in rural England.

[HoreTore]

You obviously haven't met any.

I have. Though from the other side of the table I presume you were on.

[Sir Moody]

the one point I think is key to this is right at the start...


Toni McLeod is an eight-month pregnant 25-year-old mother-of-three

she's 25 and is on her FOURTH kid and at no point does it mention a partner so I'm guessing that she is a single mother

so what do we have?

a young single mother with 3 (soon 4) children, a History of drugs and aggression with links to a radical racist organisation (think the British version of the KKK here)

I have to say I am with the Social Workers...

as to why the EDF link is relevant - it is a violent and dangerous organisation who preach hate - they are no better than the "radical" Muslims they claim to be against

[rory_20_uk]

Guess what she'll do if you take her kids? She'll have even more!!!

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

As far as I'm concerned, this is about an aggressive, drugged up mental patient, and as such I entirely trust the social worker who is worried she can't raise a baby by herself. I don't really care about the mother at all, what matters is the kids rights.

you just don't get our instinctive distrust of the state, do you?

and thus the price we are willing to pay (or others for us) in order that the state can't get its grip to tight on individual life.

[Furunculus]

as to why the EDF link is relevant - it is a violent and dangerous organisation who preach hate - they are no better than the "radical" Muslims they claim to be against

irrelevant, it is not an illegal orgnisation.

common law - free to do any thing that which is not specifically proscribed in law.

it's the way we roll baby!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entick_v_Carrington

Significance


If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.

The judgment established the limits of executive power in English law, that an officer of the state could only act lawfully in a manner prescribed by statute or common law.

I am exceptionally happy to agree with the judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States:

"great judgment, one of the landmarks of English liberty, one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution,"

This is the way i want my society ordered, and I am willing to pay the price (or see that other pay it likewise), in order to see my society ordered so!

[gaelic cowboy]

This is such a laugh england has bona fide convicted terrorists from IRA to the UVF and then there is all the Islamic loons and groups to numerous to mention, how come there kids aint taken off them.

I know why they dont take kids from IRA people cos of potential propaganda blowback but still the EDL is not a proscribed organisation yet so it should not be a factor.

[Vuk]

But Hore Tore, you always argue that drugs do not negatively affect people's behavior, and that that is all right-wing hate mongering! Suddenly they are evil when you need them to be...that is convenient.

[HoreTore]

how come there kids aint taken off them.

My guess would be something along the lines of "because they don't take children from parents based on their political affiliation."

[gaelic cowboy]

But Hore Tore, you always argue that drugs do not negatively affect people's behavior, and that that is all right-wing hate mongering! Suddenly they are evil when you need them to be...that is convenient.

:laugh4:

He has ye there

[HoreTore]

But Hore Tore, you always argue that drugs do not negatively affect people's behavior, and that that is all right-wing hate mongering! Suddenly they are evil when you need them to be...that is convenient.

Eh.......what?

I have never advocated in favour of drugs. Neither here nor anywhere else. You're mistaking me for someone else.

[Centurion1]

Eh.......what?

I have never advocated in favour of drugs. Neither here nor anywhere else. You're mistaking me for someone else.

uh huh. Might want to review your history on that subject buddy.

I remember you saying things like,

"Let all drugs be legal who cares. If people want to use them whatever. You can still be a functioning member of society even if you use drugs. If you think drugs are that bad you've probably never used them."

Ok bro.

[Fragony]

I don't like the EDL but this once again shows why I should despise the left

That false hatefull smile

[HoreTore]

uh huh. Might want to review your history on that subject buddy.

I remember you saying things like,

"Let all drugs be legal who cares. If people want to use them whatever. You can still be a functioning member of society even if you use drugs. If you think drugs are that bad you've probably never used them."

Ok bro.

Haha!

[Fragony]

Haha!

Laugh all you want but the joke's on you, her kids are taken away by the the state because she disagrees with leftist people. They can, and they do.

[Strike For The South]

Gutless

[Fragony]

Gutless

Not really, what can you do. The people who are stealing those kids because their parents disagree with leftist people carry guns, but you can't do such a thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh.......what?

I have never advocated in favour of drugs. Neither here nor anywhere else. You're mistaking me for someone else.

Duuuuuude...

You just started a thread on how Pot cures Nazism.

[HoreTore]

Duuuuuude...

You just started a thread on how Pot cures Nazism.

That was an attempt at being funny. Apparently it failed.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hore is right. Let's hear from the social workers before passing judgment. If there is one institution I trust less than the British state, it is the British media. This reeks of sensationalism.

[HoreTore]

Hore is right. Let's hear from the social workers before passing judgment. If there is one institution I trust less than the British state, it is the British media. This reeks of sensationalism.

We won't ever hear from the social workers though. The only indication we'll get is a judgement from a court, should it ever come to that. But even then, we won't get the details.

In short, social cases is every conspiracy makers dream. You can drone on and on and acuse social workers of every misdeed the world has ever seen, and noone will ever speak out against you.

[InsaneApache]

I have. Though from the other side of the table I presume you were on.

What table would that be then? :inquisitive:

[InsaneApache]

Duuuuuude...

You just started a thread on how Pot cures Nazism.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Horetore = :creep:

:laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently it failed.

Rather like your current argument.

The point is not so much that she may or may not be an unfit mother - it is that other manifestly worse parents get to keep their kids.

I also know that from people who have been on the educator's side of the table. Plus - the child will go into care, which is unlikely to be better unless the mother is genuinely abusive.

[HoreTore]

What table would that be then? :inquisitive:

The table between "accuser and accused" or whatever one wishes to call it.

Part of my job requires me to work with child welfare services from time to time.

[InsaneApache]

The table between "accuser and accused" or whatever one wishes to call it.

Part of my job requires me to work with child welfare services from time to time.

So please clarify when you made the comment about myself being "On the other side of the table".

[HoreTore]

Rather like your current argument.

The point is not so much that she may or may not be an unfit mother - it is that other manifestly worse parents get to keep their kids.

I also know that from people who have been on the educator's side of the table. Plus - the child will go into care, which is unlikely to be better unless the mother is genuinely abusive.

Yes, the main problem with child services is that too many abusive parents get to keep on abusing their kids.

How that is an argument in favour of letting yet another abusive parent continue abusing kids, is quite beyond me.

The case as I see it: the child services believe the mother is unfit, and that the children will be damaged should they reside with her in her current situation. So, they have decided to intervene. That decision is not one taken lightly, and I have no reason to second-guess them when they finally intervene. The rubbish about snatching kids from political opponents is something I disregard completely as utter nonsense. Child services do not work that way, and you have to be quite conspiratorial to believe it works that way. The mother is making desperate accusations, and as there is no evidence at all, it should be disregarded.

[HoreTore]

So please clarify when you made the comment about myself being "On the other side of the table".

You seemed to imply that you had been on accused by child welfare services for something.

[PanzerJaeger]

Rather like your current argument.

The point is not so much that she may or may not be an unfit mother - it is that other manifestly worse parents get to keep their kids.


You gleaned all of that from the article linked in the OP?

[InsaneApache]

You seemed to imply that you had been on accused by child welfare services for something.

No. You did.


I have. Though from the other side of the table I presume you were on.

[HoreTore]

No. You did.

I have no idea what your comment about not seeing your kids for 2 years was about, nor do I care. Leave the drama, puh-lease. To me it meant that child services had kept you from your kids, hence my comment.

[Goofball]

I have to go with HoreTore on this one. I justy Googled the EDL and they appear to be a nasty bunch of racists who believe that violence and intimidation are valid tactics to achieve political and social goals. I have a feeling that there is much more to the story than we are being told, and probably never will be told, as the government must respect privacy rules and can't come out and say "We took her kids away because on four out of five visits to her home we found her doing meth while having sex with multiple ex-convicts," even if it is the truth.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, the main problem with child services is that too many abusive parents get to keep on abusing their kids.

How that is an argument in favour of letting yet another abusive parent continue abusing kids, is quite beyond me.

The case as I see it: the child services believe the mother is unfit, and that the children will be damaged should they reside with her in her current situation. So, they have decided to intervene. That decision is not one taken lightly, and I have no reason to second-guess them when they finally intervene. The rubbish about snatching kids from political opponents is something I disregard completely as utter nonsense. Child services do not work that way, and you have to be quite conspiratorial to believe it works that way. The mother is making desperate accusations, and as there is no evidence at all, it should be disregarded.


You gleaned all of that from the article linked in the OP?

Basically the same point - so I'll cover them together.

I the article partial?

Yes, certainly.

Even so, neither of you know what it is like over here - I live in a deprived area of the UK where up to 33% of children have parents who are too poor to feed them, apparently, and they get free school meals. Fourth kid on the way at 25? Over here the verdict would be "not trying hard enough". There are dozens of children I know of in a much worse state, the kid with eight siblings, another on the way, an unemployed single mother and a two bedroom house. He's a child and his life is already over before it has even begun.

What I have gleaned from the article is that this EDL-supporting women has the support of her Lib Dem MP. That's litterally one step above a Jewish MP supporting an actual Neo-Nazi, or at best two steps. That tells me the MP doesn't think there are sufficient grounds for taking her kids away due to her character and he wouldn't get casually involved given her political affiliation. If it transpires she has been beating her kids or locking them in the chokey I'll happily withdraw my complaint but if that were the case I would suspect it would already be known locally and, again, the MP would not be supporting her.

If it transpires the deciding factor against her is a far-right political connection than that is a travesty - especially given the vogue for anti-Muslim feeling among the Middle Class in this country.

[InsaneApache]

So, I advocate we remove all the children of socialists and castrate their dads.

After all they've killed more in their pursuit of power than anybody else.

Does that work for you?

[HoreTore]

I have to go with HoreTore on this one. I justy Googled the EDL and they appear to be a nasty bunch of racists who believe that violence and intimidation are valid tactics to achieve political and social goals. I have a feeling that there is much more to the story than we are being told, and probably never will be told, as the government must respect privacy rules and can't come out and say "We took her kids away because on four out of five visits to her home we found her doing meth while having sex with multiple ex-convicts," even if it is the truth.

I feel like clarifying one thing: I of course do not in any way support taking kids because of extreme political beliefs(unless those beliefs pose a significant danger to the kid of course, like a suicide sect, but that's so rare it has no meaning). The reason I support the social workers here, is simple: I put no weight at all on the story that her EDL-affiliation is the cause of this. I see it as complete rubbish. So, I believe the social workers had valid grounds for aking her kids.

As for MP-support, well, people can be manipulated. There have been lots of cases where "upstanding citizens" have been duped into supporting very bad cases. Thus, I put no real weight on that either.

@IA: my first paragraph should answer your last post.

[InsaneApache]

I have no idea what your comment about not seeing your kids for 2 years was about, nor do I care. Leave the drama, puh-lease. To me it meant that child services had kept you from your kids, hence my comment.

Can't you lot think beyond the state? :inquisitive:

[HoreTore]

Can't you lot think beyond the state? :inquisitive:

It was in a thread about social workers, and following it was a reply indicating low enthusiasm for the competence of the workers.

But in all honesty, I don't give a damn. Stop being such a dramaqueen.

[InsaneApache]

It was in a thread about social workers, and following it was a reply indicating low enthusiasm for the competence of the workers.

But in all honesty, I don't give a damn. Stop being such a dramaqueen.

there you have it folks. The true face of socialism.

I know best now shut up and do as your told.

[HoreTore]

there you have it folks. The true face of socialism.

I know best now shut up and do as your told.

Oh for heavens sake...

Yes, what happened in IA's past is clearly of utmost importance for the political debate!! Any confusion on the subject must be discussed to death! Anything else is an attempt to silence IA!!

Djeezez....

[Goofball]

I feel like clarifying one thing: I of course do not in any way support taking kids because of extreme political beliefs(unless those beliefs pose a significant danger to the kid of course, like a suicide sect, but that's so rare it has no meaning). The reason I support the social workers here, is simple: I put no weight at all on the story that her EDL-affiliation is the cause of this. I see it as complete rubbish. So, I believe the social workers had valid grounds for aking her kids.

I'll clarify as well: I also disagree with taking peoples' children away because of political beliefs. My point was that if she was so misguided as to be a part of something like the EDL, to me that demonstrates a lack of good judgment that has likely led to poor parenting decisions which have proved to be valid reasons for removing her children.

[InsaneApache]

@ Goofball so you wikied the EDL. All that means is that you have read what the contributors ahve written.

AFAIK the EDL is a response by ordinary white working class Britons that they have had enough. I've heard it for years. Also I don't blame them.

I'm lucky.

[HoreTore]

@ Goofball so you wikied the EDL. All that means is that you have read what the contributors ahve written.

AFAIK the EDL is a response by ordinary white working class Britons that they have had enough. I've heard it for years. Also I don't blame them.

I'm lucky.

The EDL was founded by the Luton hooligan group. The entire world has had enough of those guys. Never before has any group of Britons worked so tirelessly to destroy Englands reputation.

Edit: except Millwall, I suppose...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have no idea what your comment about not seeing your kids for 2 years was about, nor do I care. Leave the drama, puh-lease. To me it meant that child services had kept you from your kids, hence my comment.

I expect it had something to do with his divorce and his wife making a stink - well known and publically acknowledged problem.

Oh, and you should be less of a dick about it - and generally.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll clarify as well: I also disagree with taking peoples' children away because of political beliefs. My point was that if she was so misguided as to be a part of something like the EDL, to me that demonstrates a lack of good judgment that has likely led to poor parenting decisions which have proved to be valid reasons for removing her children.

IA have to agree with IA, as nasty as the EDL is its support is a result of the white poor and working classes being abandoned, and assumed to be racists by the chattering classes (who bash Muslims plenty themselves).

People in this country are angry, even if they work hard their lives will still suck and if the higher-ups are going to spit on them for being racists they might as well live up to the label.

[HoreTore]

I expect it had something to do with his divorce and his wife making a stink - well known and publically acknowledged problem.

Oh, and you should be less of a dick about it - and generally.

Well known to you, I had no knowledge of it. Nor do I really care about it in a thread like this one.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well known to you, I had no knowledge of it. Nor do I really care about it in a thread like this one.

Well, I've also read IA's posts in the last seven years, and I'm pretty sure we've had a few threads about Fathers4Justice.

Still, if you don't know about that problem, what qualifies you to make sweeping judgements about the case in hand?

Presumably you know as much about our care system as our divorce courts?

[InsaneApache]

I did not and do not solicit sympathy on these forums.

A classic diversion tactic by a socialist. Attack the man, not the message.

There's some people I wouldn't even bother to punch on the end of their nose. :boxing:

[HoreTore]

I did not and do not solicit sympathy on these forums.

A classic diversion tactic by a socialist. Attack the man, not the message.

There's some people I wouldn't even bother to punch on the end of their nose. :boxing:

Nonsense. If you think any of that was somehow "an attack", you're wrong. Completely wrong. There wasn't even any argumentation going, just a simple statement of fact; that I indeed had worked with social workers. If you read anything else into it, well, that's your problem.

[Greyblades]

If there is one institution I trust less than the British state, it is the British media. This reeks of sensationalism.

The only thing in my mind on this that doesn't come off as half baked. Thank you for voicing it.

[Moros]

Who are we to judge the mother? Who are we to judge the social worker?
A single sensational article is what we use to judge people on?

Dudes...


One can claim there are problems with how this child protection agency (or whatever) is working. One could even argue against the need and existence of such an agency. But not based on this article. Personally I think there should be child protection agency's. I can't judge on how they work in the US, nor the UK. I can't really even judge how they are over here as I have little experience with them, nor knowledge of them.



"Are you all 20 watt lightbulbs?" :no:

[Husar]

What Moros said.

And IA, your attempts to ridicule HoreTore look incredibly childish, if your comment that you didn't get to see your child for two years was not meant in the eway he interpreted it, then please explain what it meant instead and how any other explanation would be relevant to the topic.

As it is you just appear to be trolling the socialist because you hate him and his views, hardly better than what you accuse socialists of doing here. And to get back from there to the topic, is it even correct to assume that all social workers are socialists?

Whatever the EDL believes, if opposing their views and opposing drug abuse makes you a leftist socialist scumbag, then I think the UK is even weirder than I previously thought. That said, child abuse cases, as was mentioned, are always great sensationalism, we've had several cases of child abuse here where the workers didn't do enough and were criticized heavily for it. For them it's a bit damned if they do, damned if they don't.

If they don't do anything about it now and the mother kills the children in a frenzy under heavy drug influence in two years, we'll get an article and a thread about how the child services should've done something long ago having had all the evidence and how they're useless because they only ever act when it's too late etc.

[Fragony]

What Moros said.

And IA, your attempts to ridicule HoreTore look incredibly childish, if your comment that you didn't get to see your child for two years was not meant in the eway he interpreted it, then please explain what it meant instead and how any other explanation would be relevant to the topic.

As it is you just appear to be trolling the socialist because you hate him and his views, hardly better than what you accuse socialists of doing here. And to get back from there to the topic, is it even correct to assume that all social workers are socialists?

Whatever the EDL believes, if opposing their views and opposing drug abuse makes you a leftist socialist scumbag, then I think the UK is even weirder than I previously thought. That said, child abuse cases, as was mentioned, are always great sensationalism, we've had several cases of child abuse here where the workers didn't do enough and were criticized heavily for it. For them it's a bit damned if they do, damned if they don't.

It's what happens if you let multiculturalists play with buttons, they lost the ability to doubt their believes, they are 100% sure

If they don't do anything about it now and the mother kills the children in a frenzy under heavy drug influence in two years, we'll get an article and a thread about how the child services should've done something long ago having had all the evidence and how they're useless because they only ever act when it's too late etc.

The position of the people who want her children is clear, she has to be 100% sure islam is an enrichment to Brittish culture, or else. Yes England is that whacky, you can get arrested if you don't want to make a school-project with pakistanis because they don't speak English (happened), can get detention if you don't want to get on your knees and pray to allah (happened), or even because you don't like curry. That also happened by the way, the four your old said 'yuk'. Kill it with fire.