Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
OP posts:
darleneoconnor · 08/05/2011 19:30

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8485742/Vicky-Haigh-flees-the-babysnatchers.html

I assume you cant elaborate on any other details of this story?

She certainly doesnt seem typical of the other women who have been reported to be in this terrible situation.

Original poster
johnhemming · 08/05/2011 21:32

Angela Wileman was an estate agent.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1206625/This-mother-went-run-Europe-social-workers-tried-snatch-son-Her-crime-Letting-husband-shout-.html

Vicky is unusual in that she already has some form of media profile.

I cannot elaborate on the part that is not in the newspaper.

OP posts:
Maryz · 08/05/2011 21:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CFSKate · 14/05/2011 21:05

There are comments about this on twitter now.

drivingmisscrazy · 14/05/2011 21:14

I kind of agree with Maryz; the stories as reported seem to me to be one-sided in the extreme (the state is a nosy busy-body) and actually, there is nothing great for the vast majority of children at risk in living in a state which states in its constitution that children are the property of their (married, biological) parents for them to do with as they wish. And the consequence of this assumption which Maryz outlines so much more eloquently than I could do.

oohlaalaa · 03/06/2011 08:38

I have only just heard about this, and am utterly horrified. I think this needs more attention, and social services should not be taking out injunctions. Well done John Hemmings for bringing it up in parliament.

DuelingFanjo · 03/06/2011 08:45

John, were you on any way behind the recent revelations on Twitter?

DuelingFanjo · 03/06/2011 08:46

...and will you be mentioning it in parliament?

DuelingFanjo · 03/06/2011 08:48

Ah, you already have.

is this part of a campaign to make what goes on in family court, public?

Original poster
johnhemming · 03/06/2011 17:31

As to Q1 (8:45) No.

I don't think that approach is a good idea.

OP posts:
psiloveyou · 03/06/2011 17:53

As usual though we only have one side of the story.

SS do not just pick on random mothers to be and steal their newborn babies. There will be a lot more we don't know about this case. If Vicky Haigh has done nothing wrong no court in the land will allow her child to be removed. Lets not forget it isn't SS that decide the outcome of these cases. That will be a highly experienced judge in court.

CoteDAzur · 03/06/2011 18:08

If is woman is dangerous to children under her care, why did SS not object to her being a step-mother for many years to the three children of her partner?

CoteDAzur · 03/06/2011 18:10

" If Vicky Haigh has done nothing wrong no court in the land will allow her child to be removed."

Because that has never happened before? Hmm

Northernlurker · 03/06/2011 18:21

A very quick google reveals at least some of the rest of this story. Unsurprising she has fled to Ireland.

Original poster
johnhemming · 03/06/2011 21:23

What happens in secret courts in England is really bad. Read my speech on Tuesday last week about how people on the receiving end of these injunctions feel.

OP posts:
hester · 03/06/2011 21:44

Presumably some people read that Telegraph story and are scandalised. Others read it with growing frustration, thinking, "What is the other side of the story? Even if it's a terrible miscarriage of justice, there must be some issue or incident that the social workers misinterpreted or overstated or misunderstood". So what is it?

Love the faux-chivalry of "not an acceptable way to treat a pregnant woman". That kind of depends on whether she's a risk to her unborn child, doesn't it?

Look, I don't know anything about Vicky Haigh and am completely open to being outraged on her behalf. But don't insult our intelligence: if you want to whip up our indignation about what is happening to her, please give us better information.

DuelingFanjo · 03/06/2011 22:45

presumably SS, the court, the judge thought that this woman was making up something and that was emotional abuse. They would need a strong basis for this belief, no.

CoteDAzur · 04/06/2011 09:15

You seem to have an astonishingly high number of mothers who are a danger to their unborn babies in the UK.

Original poster
johnhemming · 04/06/2011 15:57

please give us better information
This is where court secrecy comes in. For me to give you better information, other than speaking in parliament, is contempt of court.

OP posts:
hester · 04/06/2011 22:13

Well, that makes this thread a bit pointless, doesn't it?

Original poster
johnhemming · 04/06/2011 22:15

Actually no the thread isn't pointless. The articles are not misleading. I may not be able to give more information, but they provide sufficient information in themselves.

OP posts:
hester · 04/06/2011 22:26

No, they really don't.

maypole1 · 05/06/2011 14:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

Original poster
johnhemming · 05/06/2011 20:51

likes to tell mums with mental health isssues not to o to the doctor
and where have I said this?

OP posts:
hester · 05/06/2011 20:56

Blimey, so it's not just us who are blessed.

John, where do you get the TIME to hang out on mumsites like this? You must be very busy, with your campaigns and your constituency and your social life. I have small children and no babysitter, what's your excuse?