Too Stupid to Marry

[Zingari]

While our attention has been focussed on the prospect of the BNP's Nazi UK , Have we taken our eye off the ball ? because it seems some Nazi ideology is already at work

Is this a return to eugenics , Or am I looking too deeply into this ?

Social services 'to take baby from teenager deemed too stupid to marry'

A mother-to-be, who was banned from marrying after social workers said she is not intelligent enough, is to have her baby taken away immediately after giving birth.

full story here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...d-to-marry.html

[Zingari]

ok it seems no one is interested

but just thought i'd let you know they are coming for you next fatso !!

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/131742-dundee-...ll-now-in-care/

[Guest]

ok it seems no one is interested

I read it but didn't post as I would be called a heartless cow.

We don't know what assessments have been carried out, and we don't know the reasoning behind the decision. We have only the girl's side of the story. She could be a lovely person, but the authorities may be doing the right thing. They may not. I don't really know about the legal side of things, as Scottish law differs from English. It may be the same, in which the grandparents ought to be able to have the child. I really don't know.

What I do know is that people wouldn't complain if it prevented another "Baby P". Family law is so grey, and you can't do right for wrong half the time.

[Thracian]

ok it seems no one is interested

but just thought i'd let you know they are coming for you next fatso !!

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/131742-dundee-...ll-now-in-care/

By what right would social services be deemed suitable to judge? Wasn't someone responsible for an appointment like this? Very bright I must say. And didn't another put a rapist in the same house as a family with a teenaged girl. Etc etc. Talk about the dumb leading the dumb.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-...dal-702598.html

[BoneDog]

I think it's another social worker fook up. This couple have done nothing wrong. If there were any criminal record for either of them then I'm sure it wouldn't be a secret.

It seems to me from what I've read over the years that children that really need help are normally the last to get it, while other families get ruined by what seem like rules from a Hitler type regime.

Stopping a couple who love eachother from getting married because one of them is deemed not clever enough is un-fricking-believable. Then on top of that telling them that you will allow them a few hours with their soon to be born child before you take him away 'for his sake' is just plain sick and demented.

What a mess Britain is in. I don't pay taxes to have my country run by shitheads who make decisions like this.

If they really wanted to help this baby and the parents then they could give them help as a family for a few years and keep an eye on how they are doing. Instead, they have chosen a route which will most likely mentally destroy the lady involved and possibly the father aswell.

[Lillehamring]

wow! i'm amazed there are any married couples in scotland if that is the rule...

[Nationwider]

With respect to Zingers, this is a non-starter for debate because, as Lisa has pointed out, no-one here knows even the basic facts - it's news, but doesn't bear any further comment.

[Zingari]

wtf social services take children into care even after parents are cleared

British baby siezed in Ireland after parents flee social workers over custody row

A three-day-old girl is at the centre of an emotional custody battle after a British couple fled to Ireland to have their baby only to have it siezed by social workers in the Republic.

On the advice of an MP, the heavily-pregnant woman and her partner gathered belongings into their car and left the UK for Ireland last week after British social workers told them their child would be taken into care within hours of birth.

However, within 24 hours of the birth of their daughter on Thursday, weighing 7 lbs 10 ozs at Wexford General Hospital, the baby was instead seized by Irish social workers in the town. Tomorrow her parents must begin what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle in Ireland for their right to bring up the child. It is understood that social workers may seek to have her adopted.

The couple have already had their first two daughters taken into care in Britain, and later adopted against their wishes, following an incident in which one of the girls was found to have been hurt. Although the parents were later cleared of any offence, their children were never returned and they have remained under the scrutiny of social services.

They were advised by John Hemming, an MP and an expert in family law, that they were unlikely to get a fair hearing at a British court. He put them in touch with a contact in Ireland, where they hoped they would be outside the jurisdiction of the British family courts. But the Wexford hospital learned about the family's troubled past when they contacted a hospital in Essex to obtain the pregnant woman's medical records.

Mr Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, said: "I am embarrassed that I have to say to people that they won't get a fair hearing in the family courts in England and Wales, and the best thing for people facing removal of their child at birth is to emigrate." He still believes the couple are likely to get a fairer hearing in Ireland than England in what may prove to be a test case.

even the MP believe you can't get justice in the UK

full story here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ustody-row.html

[Thracian]

With respect to Zingers, this is a non-starter for debate because, as Lisa has pointed out, no-one here knows even the basic facts - it's news, but doesn't bear any further comment.

Just because Lise cannot decide what's right or wrong (not for the first time) doesn't change the fundamental fact that the kid is to be removed from its parents by people who seem to cite no other reason than a person's intelligence.

I've seen so-called intelligence in action and might argue that a good many kids would probably be better off with someone thick than someone enlightened.

And considering the notably flawed people making decisions on behalf of social services - who we've all read about on countless occasions - I'd say the very idea of removing a kid from its mother is monstrous without exceptional and compelling reasons.

Just get down any town centre if you want to see kids in the company of parents with sub-standard intelligence. Why is this mother's unimpressive IQ so different?

Properly monitor the kids development by all means and advise with sensitivity if necessary but taking kids from their family should be a last resort and is itself fraught with potentially harmful consequences.

[Dr The Singh]

Basically ive beaten them, i've already found somebody stupid enough to marry me!!!

[Thracian]

Basically ive beaten them, i've already found somebody stupid enough to marry me!!!

Perhaps you should be "The Negotiator". We might get all United's young stars! :thumbsup:

[Dr The Singh]

Perhaps you should be "The Negotiator". We might get all United's young stars! :thumbsup:

It depends on how stupid Fergie and his youngsters are, I think your persuisive skills at a bar or pub should be more then a match for em!!!

[Guest]

Just because Lise cannot decide what's right or wrong (not for the first time) doesn't change the fundamental fact that the kid is to be removed from its parents by people who seem to cite no other reason than a person's intelligence.

Lisa prefers to have all the facts and having an informed opinion rather than making knee-jerk reactions. It's not all black and white.

[Thracian]

Lisa prefers to have all the facts and having an informed opinion rather than making knee-jerk reactions. It's not all black and white.

There are two sides to everything but fair decisions still have to be taken and there would have to be some extraordinary "unrevealed information" for this to be right and fair.

And while, yes, we might have reacted to the information put before us, the courts only do the same. And some of the bullshit they are fed has to be wondered at, even assuming the relevent people are even awake to listen and understand.

In fact I wonder how often any court hears all the facts anyway. And if they do, as you imply, how come they make so many far-reaching cock-ups?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in...iscarriages.stm

[Guest]

There are two sides to everything but fair decisions still have to be taken and there would have to be some extraordinary "unrevealed information" for this to right and fair.

And while, yes, we might have reacted to the information put before us, the courts only do the same. And some of the bullshit they are fed has to be wondered at, even assuming the relevent people are even awake to listen and understand.

In fact I wonder how often any court hears all the facts anyway. And if they do, as you imply, how come they make so many far-reaching cock-ups?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in...iscarriages.stm

That's the thing, Thracian, the courts can only act on the information put before it, yes, but they will have both sides of the story. With Zingari's OP, we haven't been given the reasoning behind such a decision. And as I pointed out in this thread already, people wouldn't moan if it prevented another Baby P.

Miscarriages happen because the courts are human, just as the people going through them are human. Are you telling me that you have never made a mistake in your professional career? And for every miscarriage that happens, there are thousands of cases that go through the system without any problems at all. You just don't hear about them. I don't know what the percentage is, but I would imagine the number of successful appeals is a very low percentage of the cases that go through the courts systems in this country.

But if you think that you can do better, and given your constant attacks on the English, and now British, legal systems, you should contact the Department for Constitutional Affairs, as I am sure that they would welcome your cast iron system of ensuring that the courts won't ever get it wrong in the future.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

By what right would social services be deemed suitable to judge? Wasn't someone responsible for an appointment like this? Very bright I must say. And didn't another put a rapist in the same house as a family with a teenaged girl. Etc etc. Talk about the dumb leading the dumb.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-...dal-702598.html

Agreed. :thumbsup:

[Thracian]

That's the thing, Thracian, the courts can only act on the information put before it, yes, but they will have both sides of the story. With Zingari's OP, we haven't been given the reasoning behind such a decision. And as I pointed out in this thread already, people wouldn't moan if it prevented another Baby P.

Baby P has nothing to do with this and I am surprised you would even consider using an emotive "pull on the hearstrings" argument to justify a point.

There will always be another Baby P situation but nothing in the link below suggests the reasoning behind the decision relates to defensible concerns about potential violence towards the child, or the likelihood of serious neglect.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...d-to-marry.html

The reasoning quotes only "minor learning difficulties" and her being "not intelligent enough (to be allowed to marry)" as the reasons behind social services' thinking.

On that basis a good proportion of children across the world would grow up without their rightful parents.

The intelligentsia really is so smug - forever giving the impression that they know best when not a day goes by without the world sees the consequences of their misguided thinking. In politics, in social services, in our courts of justice....

And it is always other people suffering in consequence rather than they themselves. Look at good Christian Blair...now there's a desirable example of an intelligent parent if ever there was one. Probably illegal and certainly unjustified fatalities he's so far responsible for? Lots and still counting.

I often wonder where the intelligentsia would really like to draw the line. Ban anyone with an IQ of less than theirs from having kids?

Have all sub-standard kids brought up by the editors and staff of The Guardian or perhaps by Marxist, university-educated members of the NUT - one gay, one straight - to ensure the broad thinking necessary for rounded and flawlessly PC thinking.

And where would that get us I wonder. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians is one likely consequence. And very few mugs on the front line to spearhead our latest military assault in the absence of well-educated instigators.

[Guest]

I thought it was a pertinent point. On the one hand, the public moans that not enough is done to protect children, then on the other, the authorities are criticised for trying to protect children. If you think it's easy, they are crying out for social workers, haven't you seen the recent ad campaign?

[Zingari]

Baby P has nothing to do with this and I am surprised you would even consider using an emotive "pull on the hearstrings" argument to justify a point.

There will always be another Baby P situation but nothing in the link below suggests the reasoning behind the decision relates to defensible concerns about potential violence towards the child, or the likelihood of serious neglect.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...d-to-marry.html

The reasoning quotes only "minor learning difficulties" and her being "not intelligent enough (to be allowed to marry)" as the reasons behind social services' thinking.

On that basis a good proportion of children across the world would grow up without their rightful parents.

The intelligentsia really is so smug - forever giving the impression that they know best when not a day goes by without the world sees the consequences of their misguided thinking. In politics, in social services, in our courts of justice....

And it is always other people suffering in consequence rather than they themselves. Look at good Christian Blair...now there's a desirable example of an intelligent parent if ever there was one. Probably illegal and certainly unjustified fatalities he's so far responsible for? Lots and still counting.

I often wonder where the intelligentsia would really like to draw the line. Ban anyone with an IQ of less than theirs from having kids?

Have all sub-standard kids brought up by the editors and staff of The Guardian or perhaps by Marxist, university-educated members of the NUT - one gay, one straight - to ensure the broad thinking necessary for rounded and flawlessly PC thinking.

And where would that get us I wonder. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians is one likely consequence. And very few mugs on the front line to spearhead our latest military assault in the absence of well-educated instigators.

Well said Thracian , you've rather stolen my thunder , but put it much better than I could anyway

This "baby P" reaction thing is nonsense .

Its somewhat akin to chefs serving up burnt food because someone died from food poisoning from undercooked food

They don't seem to understand the concept of "getting it right"

They seem to have a siege mentality that cannot accept when it makes mistakes and trying to root out the usless ones , most of us would accept that . It would rather cover up these mistakes by endless doublespeak such as this

I know there are probably thousands of good social workers around the country doing sterling work , but why do they insist on covering up for the idiots that give them all a bad name . I doubt other professions would be inclined to do the same

I'm not going into the details , but I do speak from being close to someone who recently had an horrendous experience of dealing with some ludicrous box ticking social workers .

Thankfully it has been resolved now . but not after terrible suffering for the mother and her children .

And not one word of apology has been given to her , only the ridiculous mantra of " it's all because of the baby p case , what else could we do ?"

[Guest]

Hmm, I've seen it from the other side, Zin. A good friend of mine has been battling for months to have a child removed from its mother, and SS have done bugger all about it until the last minute.

[Zingari]

Hmm, I've seen it from the other side, Zin. A good friend of mine has been battling for months to have a child removed from its mother, and SS have done bugger all about it until the last minute.

sorry to hear that

but this is what i mean by "getting it right"

[Guest]

sorry to hear that

but this is what i mean by "getting it right"

Getting the balance right is a massive challenge.

[Zingari]

Getting the balance right is a massive challenge.

Yes of course and I accept in the majority of cases they probably do .

My concern is when they obviously get it wrong , no-one ever seems to be accountable ( that has been my experience anyway ,)

Did anyone seem accountable for the failings that your friend encountered ?

[Guest]

Yes of course and I accept in the majority of cases they probably do .

My concern is when they obviously get it wrong , no-one ever seems to be accountable ( that has been my experience anyway ,)

Did anyone seem accountable for the failings that your friend encountered ?

No. Neither has she had any explanation as to why it has taken so long to act. It's very frustrating.

[Zingari]

No. Neither has she had any explanation as to why it has taken so long to act. It's very frustrating.

she will probably get plenty of obfuscation and nothing more , i really can't think of any other organisation that closes ranks around it's members to cover up it's failings.

we would accept failings ,it is , as you say only human , it's the cover-ups that are so annoying .