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

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:)

Quote:

---

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.p.../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.

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.

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.

Just what I expect to hear from a socialist.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Source?

---

IA's article.

PVC you have to remember alleged means verified.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm sticking with the social workers here,

---

You obviously haven't met any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

You obviously haven't met any.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

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

Quote:

---

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!

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

:laugh4:

He has ye there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Eh.......what?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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

That false hatefull smile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.