Child taken from womb? Truth into darkness....

[LakeDistrictBabe]

Ok, the old thread is nearly full. If you read the other three, I don't need to re-write everything again ;)

But you know I am referring to the case involving an Italian mother and the British social services.
Opinions welcome.

Sorry, momentarily speechless at the stupidity

Why would an email asking about reporting restrictions and whether naming the child was acceptable, have ANYTHING to do with 'wrongful adoption' conspiracy bollocks?

Sorry, this is the article from 2009

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4332865/More-neglected-children-should-be-taken-from-their-parents.html

Well I have given stats that demonstrates that 63% of the children that leave care under 5 satsify the conditions set in the adoption targets. Yet the government were implying in an Ofsted report that the maximum expected would be 25%.

To my understanding of mathematics 63 is quite a lot more than 25. You may have a different view.

Why would an email asking about reporting restrictions and whether
naming the child was acceptable, have ANYTHING to do with 'wrongful >adoption' conspiracy bollocks?
I have no idea. Perhaps spero can explain.

Further to Spero's post, I would like to add some details.

All three children were named in that post.

All three children have highly distinctive (potentially unique) names.

Not just in Britian, Italy too.

Children's dates of birth were included.

As was the full name of the grandmother who is the guardian of the two older children. They live with her.

Lake and I have found references to the case in online media. We have as yet been unable to find the extract published over here. Where the media have referred to the case we have yet to find an example where any of the children's identities were revealed. In one article the youngest child was referred to by a codename. Typically here in Italy minor's are not named in the media when cases involving them are reported upon. Their name is usually replaced by initials. The initials may or may not bear any relation to the child's actual name.

The only reference I have so far seen online that names the children, let alone idetifies dates of birth and the full name of the guardian of the two older children...is here on mumsnet. When John Hemming posted his now deleted post.

Regardless of legalities in Britian and Italy, in terms of publically identifying minors I strongly believe that the first and most important barrier to revealing identifying information of children, should be one's own conscience.

It's not determinism IMO. Saying that all children who have been abused will definitely x,y,z would be wrong, but that's not what I'm saying

IF social services had more resources....well it would be fantastic...but working on the basis of all probabilities, on the reality as it is now rather than on what would be ideal, the simple reality is that MOST children who have been seriously abused and neglected have emotional issues. It's not determinism but reality. This is how it is right now, and anyone who has worked with children who have suffered this kind of abuse could tell you the same...that most of the children have issues resulting from the abuse

If JH genuinely cannot understand the serious nature of his behaviour and the consequences it has for his credibility, I am afraid he is beyond my assistance now.

In fact the grandmother has been named in the UK media. It was, in fact, me that asked for the post to be taken down. I had not spotted initially in the Italian that there were details that I would not normally include in a post. I do speak a bit of Italian, but not well nor do I read it that well which is why the mistake was made.

Still Spero wants to try to burn me at the stake. Such is debate.

Regardless of legalities in Britian and Italy, in terms of publically identifying minors I strongly believe that the first and most important barrier to revealing identifying information of children, should be one's own conscience

Absolutely

I have no idea

Well then, why on Earth did you say that the email did not go into any detail about 'wrongful adoption'? If you acknowledge that that has nothing to do with it?

That wasn't the point of the email, which was solely about whether you should have named that child or not. Spero said nothing about conspiracy bollocks

@Lilka
Why would an email asking about reporting restrictions and whether naming the child was acceptable, have ANYTHING to do with 'wrongful adoption' conspiracy bollocks?

Nothing, for the simple fact that naming children has something to do with this thread and adoption conspiracy bollocks haven't

Lilka, there are people who were abused who campaign against abuse.

This is what Martin Narey said and I think the language and use of the term parasite and infest is almost disgusting. He doesn't know, he can't say and yet he is a czar.

"It saddens me that the probability is that had Baby P survived, given his own deprivation, he might have been unruly by the time he had reached the age of 13 or 14.

"At which point he'd have become feral, a parasite, a yob, helping to infest our streets"

It is entirely possible that more than one person reported a post. I am not saying that you did not report the post. However, I also reported it. It just took a bit of time for Mumsnet to remove it.

Interestingly another website has also made the same mistake. You will probably not be able to guess which website, but more people noticed it than two.

"Interestingly another website has also made the same mistake. You will probably not be able to guess which website, but more people noticed it than two."

It could be yet I dare to say that the owner of that website is surely not an MP. And as the owner of another blog, I can tell you that the consequences of naming children, abuse and rape victims, and people under court orders are usually serious, i.e. you get your blog/website shut down.

Well, you probably think you're above this, Parliamentary privilege again?

I do speak a bit of Italian

A bit ? In an early post by you on this thread it was "some" ... quantified as good enough to read and make comparisions with British judgements but not good enough for highly accurate translations of legal documents.

Even if we take you at your word, and for the sake of arguement you only speak "a bit" of Italian ..... it demonstrates extreme recklessness on your part to post an extract from legal proceeding in a public areana without getting qualified help to check the contents over first.

The other website was in fact the judiciary.gov.uk website which by mistake named the baby in the UK.

People do make mistakes even the judiciary. From time to time unanonymised judgments appear on bailii.

Spero I presume would also burn the judiciary website at the stake.

@Carpe
"Even if we take you at your word, and for the sake of arguement you only speak "a bit" of Italian ..... it demonstrates extreme recklessness on your part to post an extract from legal proceeding in a public areana without getting qualified help to check the contents over first."

We shouldn't even need to say this to him. Common sense comes to mind.

"The other website was in fact the judiciary.gov.uk website which by mistake named the baby in the UK."

Surely, if that was the case, it was not naming the two other children (under a court order of other nature) with their birtdates and birthplaces.

You provided immediate identification of two minors!! How do you know that tomorrow these two poor souls don't get bullied at school and nursery, or even only receive unwanted attention?

Again, you're above the law.. even the Italian privacy laws, it seems.

Mistakes are made out of simple incompetence, carelessness, stress etc.

We are all capable of making those types of mistake. I have made a great number of them, and no doubt will continue to do so. Because I am a human being and I am fallible.

What is different about JH is that these 'mistakes' of his stem from, in my view, a deep and unshakeable belief in his own 'rightness', so deep and unshakeable that no evidence from any source can ever sway him from his chosen path.

As I have repeatedly said, and I think this shows, this woman and her children are mere pawns in his game of being crowned King Right of Conspiracy Mountain.

His responses to this issue are breathtaking in their arrogance and stupidity.

Have you ever heard the phrase -once in a hole, best stop digging?

Interestingly another website has also made the same mistake. You will probably not be able to guess which website, but more people noticed it than two.

Will you please stop the childish deflection of "yeah, but.. they did it Too!"

Take responsibility.

And more then 2 noticed it here.

FYI Active posters are wildly outnumbered by lurkers. it's a reality of any online forum that the readers form the bulk of membership. High profile news threads attract readership from non members as the link gets spread out by email to family, firends, facebook, forums (like expat groups) who are invited to come follow the thread.

So nobody can say with any certainty how many people noticed it.

Or how many people screen shotted it and have the names of all three children in their hands, contained in an image of your post.

Claig - re Martin Narey, I agree with others that he was using deliberately inflammatory language to get people's attention. I think he is very and rightly frustrated with this attitude that we must protect the cute little babies, but we don't give a shit about them once they are grown up.

Almost all of my clients in care cases came themselves from backgrounds of chaos and dysfunction. Having this type of background does not of course inevitably mean you will mete out the same horrors to your own children... but it does make it a lot more likely.

Had Baby P grown up in the 'care' of his mother, he would have been 'nurtured' in a household with no sexual boundaries, where violence was an every day occurrence. His ability to grow up a healthy and well rounded young man would have been severely compromised and I have very little doubt he would have ended up fathering the next generation of children who needed to be taken into care.

"As I have repeatedly said, and I think this shows, this woman and her children are mere pawns in his game of being crowned King Right of Conspiracy Mountain.

His responses to this issue are breathtaking in their arrogance and stupidity. "

Totally agree. And now I'm really off because I gave 10£ to my husband to disconnect me from any electronical device 'cause this is actually damaging my studies.

Ciao ladies :)

Spero, I think Narey used that disgusting language to make his point and he exaggerated his point by doing so.

He was, at the time, as the Guardian says "Barnado's boss" and it seems he was speaking at the time of the release of the charity's report called "Breaking the Cycle", which in the use of the word "cycle" has implications of inevitability and determinism.

"In an attention-grabbing address, Martin Narey will attempt to refocus political concerns on the urgent need to tackle poverty and emotional deprivation .

"His hypothetical scenario and choice of language may jolt sensibilities in translating a powerless, real-life victim into a might-have-been offender."

www.theguardian.com/society/2008/nov/26/baby-p-barnardo-s

I think it was wrong to use such choice of language to highlight the political issue of poverty and deprivation.

This seems to me to be similar to the rhetoric of Broken Britain and seems to imply that poverty and deprivation are the root causes.

"Until we recognise that offending might in part be linked to levels of child poverty in the UK – levels which should shame a country of our affluence – we have to be resigned to that offending continuing ."

Barnardo's believes that children who start down a path of bad behaviour can be helped to change direction . The charity warns that expelling them from school or frequently locking them up does nothing to help them mend their ways."

I agree that children can be helped and should be helped and more effort should be given to that as I think that can be successful, and that is why I do not like the use of "cycle" and the language that he used to jolt sensibilities

Later on, as an adoption czar, we know that he has

"called for less effort to be directed at fixing families that can't be fixed and for social workers to be braver about removing children at risk ."

I think there should be more resources and more effort not less effort .

I am not sure that breaking up more families

"Many more children need to be taken into care at birth"

is the way to fix Broken Britain and break the cycle .

We urgently need a debate.

Because there are lots of people, like me, who work at the coal face of child protection work and we think there are some people who sadly, are too far gone to be helped, or would take years and years to show any benefit from any help.

But equally we see people who could make it, if they just had some nurturing and support for a little while longer. Or if there was some service they could access for a few months or a few years. Or if there was freely available therapy without waiting lists.

There have been three threads now where people have tried to get a debate going about what is needed but all that happened was the person who started the third thread simply popped up periodically to have a moan that we were all being so nasty to JH. I don't think she ever once engaged with anything that was being said.

So I am afraid I am very gloomy. I am afraid I think that the sexy- conspiracy -government- targets -to -snatch -children -brigade have sucked all the life and energy out of this debate and are turning child protection into some branch of the David Icke the Queen is a Lizard School of thought.

Such a shame. Such a shame that these energies are not merely wasted but corrupted. Such a shame that some people are able to hide their lunatic theorising behind bogus and hypocritical claims to want to help the children.

I don't think the queen is a lizard.