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

[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?

[InsaneApache]

Duuuuuude...

You just started a thread on how Pot cures Nazism.

Horetore =

[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?

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?

[HoreTore]

Can't you lot think beyond the state?

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.