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.

It should have the same status as Godwin's law.

When you start hemming on a thread, you automatically lose the argument.

You don't claim to have seen all the court papers?

Careful. Don't "provoke" him. Remember his track record with court papers.

My hard drive can't cope with many more screen shots.

Maybe you could provide John with a kind of document cloud, back up for when he 'loses' information.

Only if I'm allowed to police it with a big black pen for the purposes of redacting.

Oh I like that!

We can have

Thread deleted by MNHQ for Hemminging.

oh, I think redacting for him is above and beyond the call of duty. Let what he needs to publish stand as he sees fit to publish, as it were.

Well, it looks like that's just the latest in a long line of questions he won't bother to answer before repeating the original imaginary allegation again.

I think the question is whether or not I have seen all the court papers. The answer is that as yet I have not.

So, yet another assertion made in the knowledge that you have no idea whether it's true or not.

F
? 3:27? 3:27
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d_HD89ZlJE
11 Mar 2013 - Uploaded by AlunaGeorgeVEVO
Body Music -- the debut album is OUT NOW: po.st/BodyMusiciTunesDeluxe Follow ...

A song for John

So, yet another assertion made in the knowledge that you have no idea
whether it's true or not.
No. All the evidence points in one way. There is evidence (the hearing transcript, the judgment, the comments from the "protected" person.

Actually all the evidence points in the other way.

The problem is that you're trying to make it fit YOUR way.

Sand castles usually crumble down.......

There is evidence (the hearing transcript, the judgment, the comments from the "protected" person.

Please don't start posting the above.

Not with your track record.

I am "the other one". See no reason to deny it one way or the other. I am not sure how ooohkittens decuded it and I don't really care but as John was unaware of it before I think it was a little unfair of her to out me as she did

If you've noticed I do not generally get involved in John's many political spats and campaigns. I don't know where he finds the time or energy for so many. Thus if he and Spero want to argue that's between them I'm uninvolved. Its a shame really. They are both obstinate, principled, intelligent and have a view about what is right - only from opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet I've seen them both post views about the system that are in some ways similar. If they could only find a way to work together rather than attacking each other all the time they could probably achieve a lot. (John will probably never talk to me again now I've said he and Spero have similarities!!)

However this case has affected me as it would affect any normal caring member of the public. It seems horrific. Reading the court transcripts saddened me and I wanted to seek a variety of opinions on the issue before forming my own view (MY OWN VIEW .... not John's view) I am actually grateful to Spero and Nananina for taking the time to tell me their professional view on the matter. It does help put something I found very confusing in some prespective. I'm not sure I'm entirely comforted but at least I can see what Mr. Lock may have been thinking and why

See no reason to deny it one way or the other.

Well .... apart from when you presented yourself originally as "just another poster" specifically to engage Spero.

I think people are very rude to and about JH on here. I am sure he realises there are thousands of parents who are very grateful that he is one of the few who is prepared to bring publicity to some of the cases.

On the more general topic 1 in 20 families in some areas being looked into by social services - yet more state interference although that is not the Times' slant on it:

"Up to one in twenty children in some parts of England are the subject of investigations into whether they are victims of neglect or abuse, according to figures.
The number of inquiries into youngsters who are thought to be at risk has risen over the past three years as social workers react to the case of Peter Connelly, who died with more than 50 injuries despite being on an at-risk register.
Some experts suggest that the recession has fuelled an increase in the ill treatment of children.
Ray Jones, Professor of Social Work at the University of Kingston, told Sky News that economic pressures were linked to abuse and neglect.
“I think we’re aware of the dangers more than we were before and I think we’re more determined to act on them,” he said. “But I do think that there are some families who are getting into difficulty now who wouldn’t have got into difficulty before because of increasing deprivation and, indeed, destitution.”
The figures show that local councils in England initiated 127,060 high-level investigations into youngsters thought to be at risk of neglect or abuse in 2012-13. That is the equivalent of 1 per cent of England’s population of under-18s and is a 42.3 per cent increase in cases since 2009-10.
However, in some parts of England the figure is much higher, with 4.5 per cent of children in Blackpool being investigated, 2.6 per cent in Doncaster and 2.1 per cent in Peterborough.
Neglect is the most common reason for a child to be the subject of a child protection plan or on a child protection register in the UK, according to the NSPCC.
Richard Scorer, a solicitor who specialises in child abuse cases at the Pannone law firm in Manchester, warned that many cases end up being ignored by social services.
“Cases involving chronic neglect and physical and emotional abuse tend to fall by the wayside or tend to be ignored,” Mr Scorer said. “The other thing that comes out is the difficulties that social services have in monitoring and keeping track of children who are part of a shifting population.”
He also warned that cuts could make the situation worse. “If we want to take child abuse seriously and we want to deal with it properly then we have to make sure social workers and others have the resources to deal with it properly,” he said.
A survey by Action for Children in 2012-13 said that the most common reason for the rise in cases of child neglect, given by 78 per cent of staff working in schools, was declining parenting skills.
The other main reasons included greater poverty, which rose from 44 per cent in 2009 to 66 per cent in 2012 as a factor, according to all professionals working with children."

Oh I do like the sudden attempt to try and create reconciliation.

How timely.

Lakedistrictbabe:Actually all the evidence points in the other way.

What evidence is there that the official solicitors office spoke to Alessandra?

@Mary
"I am sure he realises there are thousands of parents who are very grateful that he is one of the few who is prepared to bring publicity to some of the cases."

Apart from when he trashes mental health patients and abused children lives to further his own agenda. Very compassionate of him.

@johnhemming
What evidence is there that the official solicitors office spoke to A.?

Am I not able to read English or it is you who wants to read only what he likes?
The only evidence missing in this case is the first police report, which strangely nobody mentions. Am I wrong?

Second missing point: Did A. or her parents contact the embassy/consulate after the police report and if not... Why not?

John Hemming: Lakedistrictbabe:Actually all the evidence points in the other way.

What evidence is there that the official solicitors office spoke to Alessandra?

You are the person who made a positive assertion that they did not. It is for you to produce proof. The "evidence" you have referred to manifestly does not constitute proof.

@thefuture

If they could only find a way to work together rather than attacking each other all the time they could probably achieve a lot.

Ahem.. to begin with, maybe you should tell him to give up on weird conspiracies and stick to the facts and evidence. If you want to meddle with everything in life, you need to detach yourself from such issues, it is easy to fall in such traps.

For instance, I can tell you that following rape statistics only about 7% of rape reports end in a conviction.
So look at it this way...

• if you a rape conspiracist, you could say that 93% of rapists are left wandering around freely and justice system sucks.
• if you're a rape apologist, you could say that you have 93% of women lying about it.

Of course, if you stick to facts and evidence none of the above is true.

Being obsessed with crusades does, usually, no favours to anyone.

Mary2010: I think people are very rude to and about JH on here. I am sure he realises there are thousands of parents who are very grateful that he is one of the few who is prepared to bring publicity to some of the cases.

The trouble is that, where there is publicity, it uses the standard tabloid tactic of one side of the story only being presented because social services are prevented from giving the other side. Therefore publicity in itself achieves at best a lot of hot air, because the courts have to work on the basis of the actual evidence before them rather than tabloid-induced hysteria. At worst, it tends to end up with the parents being further vilified if or when the full facts come out if they contradict the story first produced - the newsreading public doesn't take kindly to being conned. In even worse cases, you get situations where the parent has mental health problems which may be seriously exacerbated by all the pressures of publicity.

And at possibly the very worst end, you get a case like this one where the mother has mental health problems, the publicity has attracted a backlash, the names of the child and her siblings (also in care) have been released in direct contravention of court orders, and even if the publicity achieved what it is designed to do the outcome for the child would be a life spent in the care system in Italy where she would be further disadvantaged by reason of her race.

Thefuture - thank you for your measured and thoughtful response.

However, the difficulty I have in accepting there are similarities between myself and JH is that I am prepared to provide evidence for what I say and he is not.

Further he seems at the very least careless in how he handles information about other people.

I agree it is a shame that energies can't be directed to a better aim.

I made that assertion on the basis of speaking to her and the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

Actually proving a negative is essentially impossible. It is, however, relatively straightforward to prove a positive. That, however, needs some evidence that the conversation did occur. Lakedistrictbabe claims that this evidence exists.

Where is it?

if she was in thores of a MH episode/crisis there may have been little point in the official solicitor speaking to her; or perhaps medical advice was not to bring them in to speak to her; we dont know.

conversations with someone who has come out of their crisis is fine, but it is very hard to make assumptions about what their state of mind was during their crisis - the medical reports will give that.

during a severe crisis, the official solicitor is not going to be able to sit and have a rational conversation with that person... they may not be in fit state to converse with anyone and therefore appropriate only for trained medical people to be involved.

have you tried to converse with someone in throes of an(delusional, paranoid etc) episode about decision making and their views?

their view may well be something that just isnt approriate, given their state ...