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.

I don't think anyone doubted you Spero.

It's the people reading and not commenting I worry about.

The commentators are 100% on the ball!

But when he says 'I never said that' despite me repeatedly citing HIS OWN WORDS I worry someone will believe him and foolishly I carry on.

I can only hope anyone who might be influenced by him has read enough now or is thoroughly bored with him.

He seems to live in a world where what he wants to be the truth is the truth, even if it's manifestly nonsense; and if there's any doubt about that at all, then he thinks repeating it again and again makes it the truth. The Bar Council no doubt worked that out very quickly.

But it's very worrying indeed that he's an MP. Roll on May 2015.

In general it is better not to personalise threads and postings.

Juliet, can we take it that you accept that coming on here and telling a direct untruth about another poster, as J H has done, is very personal indeed?

But when he says 'I never said that' despite me repeatedly citing HIS >OWN WORDS I worry someone will believe him and foolishly I carry on.
You should be able to cite a reference. The internet has these things called "links". I am sure someone will be able to explain to you how to do this.

Section 1(5) of the BNA is your friend. As it was mine all those years ago, when I worked at the Home Office.
That may have force in the UK, but does not have force in Italy. If the Italian's don't recognise the adoption then they don't recognise the loss of Italian Nationality.

So we have the Italian courts deciding that a baby has been taken unlawfully with a court order that they don't recognise.

The Slovaks on the other hand are investigating proceedings in the UK courts for crimes against humanity.

There is a meeting on Monday about another international case that has the possibility of causing additional high level international stress. (A different nationality).

I have asked for an update on the list of countries that have complained about the family courts. I do think, however, that the Alessandra case sticks out.

Inter alia, it shows how the system here deliberately breaks the bond between mother and baby to facilitate adoption.

@Spero I believe you, I support you and... Please don't take my toaster! I have just one, DH would be pi$$ed off if it disappeared....
Someone who believes what JH says, about anyone or anything is:
a) an idiot
b) a conspiracist idiot
c) a zealot with too much time on his/her hands

I am Italian but I don't think that equals being an idiot, I hope not.

JH reasoning seems Berlusconi's. All people against him are communists or imbeciles or they have a personal agenda. Of course, he is always at the centre of a worldwide conspiracy of bad people trying to get rid of him.

The key part says

There is no "key part" when it is in isolation from the whole. Without the entire motivazione for the sentence it is impossible to judge the context. The partial extract you posted contained no reference to "principio della territorialetà del diritto è in vigore in Italia, non il principio della personalità" (which may contain spelling and accent issues) which means that In Italy the principle of law is applyed based on where the case is, not who is in the case. In other words Italy recognises the right of other terriroties to apply their legal processes to Italian citizens abroad.

And there is no getting past that. Italy does not extend the right for forign citizens in Italy to be excused from Italian law because of differences between an individuals's nation's law and those of Italy. Likewise Italy recognises that Italians overseas will be subject to the laws of the territories where they are at the time.

Can you please say which paper published the extract so I can find it. That way I can find the original motivazione of sentence and we can all look at it in context. I strongly suspect this is a sentence from the first degree of tribunal. Which means it has two more degrees to travel through so even if the orginal sentece failed to address principle of territorial v personality, the next level would, and if they didn't the supreme court certainly would

Where the mother and child originated from is iof little relevance when compared to where they were when events took place. Italy cannot challenge the right of Britain to appliy its own laws to Italians when they are in Britain..... without opening up a huge can of worms and contradicting the principles of Italian law in the process.

So in this case John do you think that it is in the best interests of the child to stay with a severely unwell mother who has a history of not taking her medication, especially given the fact her previous children have been negatively affected?

@johnhemming

Do you know that Italy is n. 73 on the most corrupted countries list, right? That order could end up with tarallucci e vino, if Uk pays its bribe.

Wake up, you are speaking of a country whose most successful international business is called mafia.
I say this with no pride at all, but it is the truth. Take it or leave it.

Magistrates has spent twenty years to lock the most corrupted politician ever at his home. Honestly... Last word will be spoken by the embassy I guess.

I don't even see your reason to cherish about it because the baby won't be with the mother... the document was clear: in case the baby goes back to Italy, the court of minor will decide what to do with her. And given that we know what happened to the other two...
It means you are a person without any compassion or humanity, who deliberately ruined a mother for his own personal agenda.

Poor toddler will be an "unconvenient" package for the next twenty years

Carpe- is it not the final bit of the post he got deleted last night? I only skimmed it last night, but it looks to be the same.

When I skimmed it then it was just protocol here statute there Ave Maria piena di grazia etc etc until the very last paragraph which actually started to give an actual judgement. I have just been on google and despite wasting another hour of my life and putting all kinds of search terms in, but have yet to find it. Even La Repubblica just continues to quote the Mail and the Telegraph.

There is no apostrophe in plurals John.

Good lord, what do they teach those Mps these days.

The child wouldn't have to lose its Italian nationality even if your scenario came to pass, (which we know won't, but anyway) because both Italy and the UK recognise dual nationality.

Or I wouldn't own a daughter with 2 passports.

Obviously adoptions are different as the child will henceforth be deemed to have been born under law to the adoptive parents. The apposite word there being deemed.

@Carpe

Yes, absolutely right. That is what I tried to explain in one million of comments here and elsewhere.

Whether you are visiting or a resident, you are subject to the same laws as the locals, in every country you are at the moment.

@Drank sent you a PM.

I strongly imagine that the rest of the document which he didn't copy and paste went on to say exactly that Carpe. That above and beyond making a few enquiries to ensure that nothing untoward happened (and there was in fact, no forced c-sec or baby snatching) the Italian judiciary (not the rent-a-voice lawyers with their snazzy suits and boots and tv appearances) (apologies to Mr. Carpe and Spero, but YKWIM wrt Italian lawyers and shiny suits and the telly) is happy to leave the case in the hands of the Brits.

I mean, to give a fairly irrelevant comparison (as Mr H seems to like them) it would be like the American government deciding that Amanda Knox was in fact guilty and must therefore go to the chair, despite the fact that the incident happened in Italy, was tried and decided and wrapped up (well, I say wrapped up) in Italy and that she was found (at least for the time being) not guilty. See? A daft comparison to trump your daft assertions.

O god. Someone just shoot me.

JH I have now on I think 3 separate occasions on 3 threads copied that section of my complaint letter which sets out your very own words and provides you with a link to where I found those words.

Either respond or don't. But don't pretend the evidence hasn't been clearly set out.

Defend yourself if you can.

Or I wouldn't own a daughter with 2 passports

nor I a son who is most deffo half British genetically and legally

I haven't got a copy of the original Italian text that was posted so can't compare what was posted in English today to the post in Italian yesterday, but will not fall over in shock if cherry picking of paragraphs is happening.

I think some people perhaps don't understand that it's not just in the context of "naughty crime" where you can't appeal to have your own coutnries laws applied here cos "I'm not Italian!"

All non Italians, including any children who are not Italian ... are subject to ALL the laws and normativi supported by law when they are in Italy. If you peek inside children's homes and sneak a look at the register of children placed in non kin fostering here....... a good number of those children are not Italian. And in some of those cases the parents are no longer in Italy.

There is no principle of "so what would happen in your country ? OK we'll have to that then cos you are foreign!" in terms of child protection here .

.. just like Britain.

Ok I have paid my daughter £10 to hide my phone and not give it back until Sunday.

I am sorry to leave you but for the sake of my own sanity I must leave this now. It is horribly discombobulating to try and reason with someone so devoid of any reason or integrity.

@Spero Sent you a PM.

I suspect mumsnet is not too happy when posters say another poster lacks integrity. Better to stick to discussing the issues, not the people.

Juliet, come off it. JH accused Spero of going back on an undertaking to the Bar Council. That is an incredibly serious accusation, and if true would certainly mean that she lacked integrity. Why are you not complaining about that?

And do you seriously think JH has demonstrated integrity on this or the previous threads? He has repeatedly made serious accusations for which, when challenged, he has been unable to produce any evidence?

I'm really bemused that you say you are a lawyer. I just can't understand how anyone with legal training could interpret JH's efforts in the way you seem to.

juliet I would normally whole heartedly agree with you but to me JH is part of the issue at hand.

I mean if IDS went on a benefit cut thread would you not expect him to be held accountable and would you not want people to point out his actions are negatively effecting the vulnerable which is the same in this case.

Better to stick to discussing the issues, not the people.

Before a person stands for elction and seeks the responsiblites confered by a postion of power, they (and the people close to them or sharing a strong opinion with them) need to get their head around the concept that they aren't just "a person" anymore. They are an elected offical. Ergo their actions, statements, values are one of the relevant issues when they seek to further a pet belief and/or agenda.

I believe that questioning the integrity of an elected offical when their conduct is percieved as being far below reasonable expectations is not only appropriate, it is one's civic duty. Scrutiny and "dogged determination to insist on accountability" have to be part of the package of power... for everybody's sake, and for the sake of the nation.

Unless you facey a Berlusconi-esque PM ?

In which case, we have the orginal going spare should you wish to import.