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

[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]

I'm sticking with the social workers here,

You obviously haven't met any.

[HoreTore]

You obviously haven't met any.

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

[InsaneApache]

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

What table would that be then?

[HoreTore]

What table would that be then?

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]

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.

[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!!!

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.