Re: Womans' children taken into care because of her political beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoreTore
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?
Re: Womans' children taken into care because of her political beliefs.
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:
Re: Womans' children taken into care because of her political beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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:
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.
Re: Womans' children taken into care because of her political beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PanzerJaeger
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.
Re: Womans' children taken into care because of her political beliefs.
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:
Re: Womans' children taken into care because of her political beliefs.
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.
Re: Womans' children taken into care because of her political beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
