Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

999 replies

LakeDistrictBabe · 13/12/2013 20:20

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.

OP posts:
Spero · 19/12/2013 22:41

Just wondering also, how likely it would be for the State to organise and sanction plans to 'snatch' babies from loving and happy homes and then publicise this on LA websites?

For, as JH repeatedly points out, such actions by the State would not only be utterly immoral but also completely unlawful - contrary to both domestic and international law.

I hope you are hot footing it with those stats straight to the European Court JH. You've been there a few times already haven't you? So you should know the way. Off you go. Take your time.

CarpeVinum · 19/12/2013 22:48
Spero · 19/12/2013 22:49

I hear Strasbourg is quite charming at this time of year.

CarpeVinum · 19/12/2013 22:51

And they have cake.

johnhemming · 19/12/2013 23:03

Will Spero now accept that at the time the adoption decision was taken that Essex County Council had an adoption target. This is contrary to her argument that the adoption targets did not exist.

I have already given the spreadsheet from which the excess figure is calculated.

However, we are at a position where Spero has said that the adoption targets are "non existent", but in fact I have proven that they exist. (ed)

If the discussion is going to make any progress then Spero needs to accept that I have proven that on this particular aspect of the debate she was wrong.

Spero · 19/12/2013 23:07

Adoption targets exist for children already in care.

There is no such thing as targets to take babies from loving families, simply to have them adopted as you assert.

Please explain how the figures you post prove your assertion, particularly with regard to figure of 10,000 children.

MurderOfGoths · 19/12/2013 23:10

Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us? Because I've only seen spero say that targets exist to get children in temp placements adopted, I haven't seen her say that no targets exist at all. She denied that targets exist to snatch children from their families, and you haven't proved otherwise.

johnhemming · 19/12/2013 23:10

Yes, but you were claiming that there were no targets for increasing adoptions.

The formula is calculated based upon the number of children in care rather than those who might be adopted.

We actually hit around 63% of the potential adoptees (young children) so this can only happen by having more babies taken into care.

Hence we have the rape victims whose children are taken for adoption, women who are to be deported without their babies and general attacks on vulnerable families in order to satisfy the targets.

An expert witness wrote to me this week and told me of two women who had committed suicide because of what has happened to them. Those are not the first suicides that have resulted from this evil policy.

Without children that people are willing to adopt no adoptions can occur.

MadameDefarge · 19/12/2013 23:15

NO she wasn't.

Babies are taken into care because they need care. Not to free them up for adoption.

Do you have any information in writing at all that supports this assertion?

Secret memos? unpublished govt docs?

All you can prove is that babies and children are still being taken into care.

Your point is what?

They should be left with their birth families to abuse them?

Honestly John, you are not covering yourself in glory here.

Spero · 19/12/2013 23:16

Ok. Let's try another tack.

JH - are you saying AP's baby was taken from her so that Essex could meet their adoption targets?

If yes, are you also saying the doctors who performed CS knew about this ?

MadameDefarge · 19/12/2013 23:16

As a matter of interest, John, were you in the chamber today during the debate on food banks?

YoniMatopoeia · 19/12/2013 23:32

Do doctors have adoption targets JH

Spero · 19/12/2013 23:34

And if you are saying that AP's baby was taken to meet Essex's adoption targets, then I assume you must also be asserting that all the published judgements we have been reading over the past couple of weeks, are a carefully constructed tissue of lies?

Spero · 19/12/2013 23:35

Are you in fact asserting that HHJ Newton, Mr Justice Mostyn, Mr Justice Charles and the President of the Family Division are liars?

claig · 19/12/2013 23:36

"Do you have any information in writing at all that supports this assertion?

Secret memos? unpublished govt docs?"

Are there any documents setting out what these targets are? Who is responsible for setting these targets and are they the same for all LAs? Are they based on government guidelines or targets and do documents exist for those?

What happens if these targets are not met and are there any documents that specify that?

Spero · 19/12/2013 23:38

Are you in fact asserting that HHJ Newton, Mr Justice Mostyn, Mr Justice Charles and the President of the Family Division are liars?

cestlavielife · 19/12/2013 23:39

People commit suicide because they have a serious mental health problem. It is not as simple as to say x happened to them therefore they committed suicide.

Have you ever been in the presence of some one in extremis mental health wise ?

Spero · 19/12/2013 23:40

Are you in fact asserting that HHJ Newton, Mr Justice Mostyn, Mr Justice Charles and the President of the Family Division are liars?

CarpeVinum · 19/12/2013 23:40

Yes, but you were claiming that there were no targets for increasing adoptions

This is what he did with the unredacted legal doc he sent Spero .. just chopped the end off the sentence and moved the full stop.

As if by slicing away the bit of the sentence that proves him wrong...it is magically disappeared from everybody's memory and we won't notice the convienent edit.

It's like this

John Hemming says he named the baby by accident but got sent to prison anyway

Change to suit preference, by slice edit. And then assume collective memory loss.

CarpeVinum · 19/12/2013 23:41

Add message | Report | Message poster MadameDefarge Thu 19-Dec-13 23:16:23
As a matter of interest, John, were you in the chamber today during the debate on food banks?

""""

Yes he was and some people are furious with him becuase of how he voted.

I know, cos they are tweeting my tweets.

Spero · 19/12/2013 23:42

i guess I will never get an answer to my question as Parliamentary privilege doesn't extend to mumsnet

Devora · 19/12/2013 23:45

I just don't know what to say anymore. There truly are no words.

HollyHB · 19/12/2013 23:47

JH - are you saying AP's baby was taken from her so that Essex could meet their adoption targets?

I believe he is saying that AP's baby has not been repatriated (as contrasted with returned) to Italy and still is not being repatriated even today so as to help Essex meet their adoption targets.

The baby is being wrongly deprived of her country and her culture. If she is to be adopted it should be by Italians in Italy. The baby has done no wrong but is being wrongly detained in a foreign land that is harmful to her. At this rate she is in danger of acquiring the burden that is British Citizenship.

As Edward Snowden has shown, secrecy is fast becoming a thing of the past. People had better stop doing things they want kept secret.

nennypops · 19/12/2013 23:49

I'm completely bemused by JH's insistence on beating Spero about the head with the allegation that she denied that there were adoption targets, when we can all see for ourselves the fact repeatedly demonstrated in many places in this and the preceding threads that she absolutely does not deny that there are or have been adoption targets. He goes to a lot of trouble to prove something that no-one denies, but then makes a ludicrous leap into saying that this proves that councils fulfil adoption targets by wrongly targeting babies for adoption who should not be adopted - when we can all see that it proves nothing of the sort.

I'm increasingly reminded of that quote from Alice in Wonderland -
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

I hereby rechristen JH Humpty Dumpty.

Spero · 19/12/2013 23:57

I love the way this baby's Senegalese culture is just being completely skated over.

This baby will be demonstrably mixed race. She probably has a much better chance of both her European and African heritages being reflected in a UK placement.

I am told by those who live in Italy that it is rather in the 1970s in so far as cultural diversity goes.