Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Pregnant? Don’t visit the UK then!

“A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers. Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.”

Telegraph (link)

As usual, these draconian actions were carried out in secret almost 15-months ago, supported by the UK’s much maligned Court of Protection. The unbelieveable behaviour of Essex social working scum has only been revealed due to the parliamentary privilege of John Hemming MP, one of the few parliamentarians that seems prepared to stand-up for families caught in the judicial nightmare of dealing with the UK’s predatory social workers and the Court of Protection.

I wish Anna Raccoon were still well enough to comment as she would be even more scathing.

Year in, year out, we read of social workers behaving in a manner that would shame the Gestapo and yet despite all of the bland mutterings about “Children being our primary concern” or “The council cannot comment on individual cases”, such abominations continue.

As my Malaysian wife often says of the UK, “…and you call this the first world?”. Too bloody right.

The Court of Protection needs to be either stripped of it’s power to hush-up such matters or disbanded entirely. This sort of reprehensible behaviour by social workers will continue until we remove the veils of secrecy behind which they hide. The only way to stop such abuses is to shine the light of the media in the dark recesses and throw social workers in jail.

Obviously, none of this will ever happen as social workers are a fundamental pillar of the leftist collective. Indeed it is fear of them coming in and seizing “young Tarquin” on some pretext that keeps a lot of the middle class in line and compliant.

Words fail to express how angry I am at this…

Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato (“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”)

Benito Mussolini in his address to the Italian Chamber of Deputies 26th May 1927

21 Comments

  1. single acts of tyranny says:

    I wonder what (if any) right to reply the woman had?

    Quite unreal.

  2. NickM says:

    When my my Gran was diagnosed with Alzheimeier’s she was almost had to legally chew the furniture to get her placed under a different settlement – basically giving my mother – her only child and therefore next of kin – her husband – my gramps was dead – power of attorney. The solicitor was iffy on it because my Gran was well mental by this stage – I mean seriously three stops from Dagenham mental. But he was persuaded otherwise. My mother can be very persuasive. Much the same occurred when my wife’s Gran went mental. My Father-in-Law, her only child again, had to fight tooth and claw to avoid CoP for his mother. Quite why da State believes it provides better care than your nearest and dearest is beyond me. It really pays to be (a) middle-class and (b) have a good family solicitor.Otherwise you might as well be stuffed.

  3. John Galt says:

    “I wonder what (if any) right to reply the woman had?

    Given the circumstances, it is most likely that she will have had legal representation appointed for her from the Court of Protection’s own list of approved solicitors. Does that sound like any guarantee of independence of legal representation? I should coco!

    Because of the secretive nature of this court, it is almost impossible to get any information from them unless it is revealed by one of those attending to an MP who can reveal details of the horror without threat of prosecution, provided he/she follows the protocols laid down by the speaker to ensure parliamentary privilege.

    This sort of thing needs shouting from the rooftops.

  4. single acts of tyranny says:

    Secret justice, like fresh frozen or military intelligence, a tremendous oxy-moron. I have a hard time believing even MP’s don’t get this.

  5. CountingCats says:

    How this is not common assault is beyond me.

    Was the woman arrested and held first?

  6. John Galt says:

    I think the problem remains uncorrected because the establishment prefers to believe the myth of an independent judiciary, so by avoiding interference in judicial matters publicly they keep up the pretence.

    Of course, when they actually need something to happen in a specific way, they just visit Lord Justice Cocklecarrot at his club rather than his chambers, as happened with the Great Train Robbers.

    The only way the Court of Protection will reform is by public castigation and a desire for reform within judicial circles, this abuse can only be resolved from within. Disappointing, but true…

    REFORM OF THE COURT OF PROTECTION – THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS

  7. John Galt says:

    “How this is not common assault is beyond me. Was the woman arrested and held first?”

    The Court of Protection is almost invulnerable as are the minions who carry out it’s actions. The woman was subject to their charge because she was sectioned under the mental health act, hence she was under the courts “protection” (much good it did her)

  8. Tom says:

    No lawyer was appointed because she was deemed to lack the mental capacity to instruct one.

  9. “As my Malaysian wife often says of the UK, “…and you call this the first world?””

    Reading this, my ongoing plans to move to Medellin in Colombia are looking more & more sensible. Even the narcolords on their estancias would blanch at this sort of treatment being handed out.

  10. Sam Duncan says:

    Nick, the trouble you had there was that powers of attorney have to be granted by someone with the mental capacity to do so. It was something my dad used to run up against all the time, trying to convince old folks that if they thought they might become unable to deal with their affairs in future, they had to grant someone powers of attorney now, because it was no use waiting until they were really needed. There are ways to get them afterwards, but they’ve always involved the courts – even before this secretive CoP nonsense was brought in – and, contrary to popular belief, lawyers always try to avoid the expense and bother of court work whenever possible. It could be quite difficult to talk about, let alone convince them of.

    And yes, Cats, what John said. It’s not common assault because the law says it isn’t. Same as taxation not being theft.

  11. RAB says:

    One of the main reasons I resigned from the Lord Chancellor’s Office back in the 80′s was that I could no longer stomach clerking the court for the Family Division and the Court of protection, and watch travesty after travesty being played out before my very eyes. Not the public’s eyes though…

    Invariably held in camera… lying incompetent Social workers covering their backs, compliant buddy cops to do their heavy lifting, complacent Judiciary, expert witnesses who had never even met the subject of their reports but were treated as Gods and sacrosanct… I got into Law because I had this naive belief in Justice, and that I could genuinely make a difference, for the better, to people’s lives. The family Courts disabused me of that notion forever.

  12. Lynne says:

    I joined the police because of my naive belief in justice. The belief didn’t last very long and was ultimately the reason why I quit.

    What happened to this woman is monstrous. It was nothing less than premeditated malice and legally sanctioned cruelty. Just when you think the State and its minions can’t possibly sink any lower they discover new depths of cold-blooded and sadistic scumbaggery they can’t wait to plumb.

    It’s a deeply worrying abuse of power. It’s beyond comprehension. It’s beyond reason. It’s beyond the pale.

  13. John Galt says:

    “…even before this secretive CoP nonsense was brought in…”

    Although the current incarnation of the Court of Protection was created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the function it performs has existed since the middle ages albeit in slightly different forms.

    The legal justification under which it operates is that of “parens patriae” (literally: “Parent of the Nation”), which is the power of the state to intervene to protect from harm those who have insufficient mental capacity.

    So this poor woman has been abused by the state, with a power it has granted itself and has no recourse against the state or it’s agents because they were acting in “her best interests and the interests of the child”.

    Kafka would have been horrified.

  14. This woman has been treated in an utterly disgraceful way.

  15. Woman on a Raft says:

    Social services have got targets to meet, you know. Now a nice white newborn is easy as you like to place – probably with someone like Elton John even as we speak – and the social workers who find the babies are also those working for adoption agencies.

    It is baby harvesting. We probably would not even know about it if she had not been an Italian. BTW, did you notice they had no trouble getting her forcibly on a plane back to Rome after the theft but apparently couldn’t manage that in the five weeks they had her in prison (and I’m using that word deliberately).

  16. Edward Lud says:

    Common assault, my foot. GBH, morelike

  17. Anonymous. Theyŕe not getting a handle on me. says:

    ¨WHO PROFITS FROM THE ADOPTION RACKET?
    Local Authorities(stars,beacon status, and financial rewards under public service agreements .(see above)
    Very highly paid “professionals” presume to “assess” the parenting skills of distraught mothers who have had their children taken into care.(around £3000 per 2-3 hour session ),”legal aid lawyers” (a case in the family courts costs an average of £70,000 per day so total legal costs of over £500,000 for one case are not unusual! ,)Therapists, psychiatrists , and counsellors who are paid around £3000 for a few hours work eagerly predict that parents might “emotionally abuse” their children at some time in the future. Tame medical experts somehow always side with social services against the parents.(They also receive around £3000 for one afternoon session plus a report)
    Foster parents(up to £400per week per child plus allowances for Xmas and holidays)Special schools charging up to £7000 per week per child(as shown on tv channel 4,) Adoption and fostering agencies charging up to £18,000 per placement¨

    http://www.forced-adoption.com/social-workers.asp

  18. Sam Duncan says:

    Scotland, John. :) But yes, I know.

    (TBH, I don’t know whether this comes under the Reserved Powers or not. All I can say is that when an aunt of mine ran into this a year or so back, my dad had never heard of the Court of Protection, and was horrified by how it operates. It seems to be very different to what went before up here.)

  19. John Galt says:

    My reading of it is that “parens patriae” is a reserved power as it resides with the crown, however this may be overridden by the “Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000″, but difficult to say given the fundamental differences between Scottish and English/Welsh law.

  20. Special courts, meeting in secret, and with people forbidden to publish their doings in the press.

    And before Americans scoff – have a look at the “family courts” in many States.

  21. John Galt says:

    It seems that moves are afoot to make the child a ward of the Italian state (her being an Italian citizen an all), which would seem to set the cat amongst the pigeons, especially since in the multicultural UK, quite a lot of those subject to child theft by the SS would also be citizens of foreign nations under jus sanguinis.

    Since both the UK and Italy would be using “parens patriae” as justification, we would appear to have a nice little pissing contest / diplomatic row over who has the greater rights over the child.

    Meanwhile the child and the parent are ignored.

Leave a Reply