Baby joy for couple forced to flee the ss

[atlantis]

The mail are reporting that the couple forced to flee the UK after their first daughter was forcibly adopted and plans were in place to do the same to their new child have had a baby boy, good luck to them.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251801/Pregnant-Briton-fled-Spain-prevent-social-services-taking-c hild-gives-birth-son.html

Oh god - the Daily Mail, Atlantis and John Hemming - who could ask for anything more when it comes to thinking in terms of protection for the adults rather than protection for the child

Careful Nina, one of them will but your posst in "quotation marks" and post it right back at ya!

"Oh god - the Daily Mail, Atlantis and John Hemming - who could ask for anything more when it comes to thinking in terms of protection for the adults rather than protection for the child "

Isn't it 12 months paid leave a sw gets when they take a kid home from the child pool?

Maybe if sw's were actually worried about protecting abused children re; doncaster, baby Peter etc instead of snatching kids from decent parents there wouldn't be such a rash of stories in the national newspapers now would there?

"Careful Nina, one of them will but your posst in "quotation marks" and post it right back at ya!"

Ya think ?

Oh yes all the SW's I know so it for the money

I am surprised that nananina does not think that removing a child wrongly from its family is a problem for the child.

Frankly I would want a lot more evidence than an article in the Daily Mail that the child was removed wrongly. It's not that easy to remove a child permanently from its family.

It depends upon the definition word "easy", but when a judge will agree only to hear evidence in favour of one side and refuse to hear evidence from the other side the outcome is obvious.

There may be a lot of paperwork, but the cases are made deliberately easy to win.

Not all judges do this, however.

Well, if you give us some real facts to work on then we might be able to give an informed opinion. As it is, all we have is a Daily Mail article and some veiled comments from you.

You should know that the law prevents me giving too much detail as that would be contempt of court.

yeah, right. But they are wholly innocent and the victims of a miscarriage of justice and we should just accept your word for that. Oh, and the Daily Mail as well.

"But they are wholly innocent and the victims of a miscarriage of justice and we should just accept your word for that. Oh, and the Daily Mail as well. "

That's right, all parents are guilty of abuse and no miscarriages of justice ever happens because all social workers are always right (least we forget Angela Cannings, trudie Patel, sally clark, the waltons, Fran Lyon, etc, etc, etc, etc..).

I didn't say that.Actually several of the people were wrongly convicted by the criminal court rather than of mistakes by social workers.

But without evidence to the contrary I am not prepared to say that these people are innocent and should be in charge of their own children. Social workers do make mistakes, certainly. But these mistakes are infrequent, and usually result in a child staying with the family when they shouldn't rather than the other way round.

Perhaps social services are taking away children incorrectly - I don't know. But please don't claim this couple were fleeing the SS. It makes you look stupid.

" It makes you look stupid. "

Oh well.

Pot-kettle-black.

"But these mistakes are infrequent, and usually result in a child staying with the family when they shouldn't rather than the other way round."

And your evidence for this is..?

Nice response, atlantis.

Baby P.

Victoria Climbie

To name but two.

Your evidence to the contrary is?

"Nice response, atlantis."

As nice as your posting.

And your answer to my post?

"Baby P.

Victoria Climbie

To name but two.

Your evidence to the contrary is? "

Well lets see I already named 5, so that gives you three down.

But you know we aren't allowed to publise cases when they have court action on them which is why the sw's always get awy with not providing any evidence to show these families are actually in danger of harming their children.

I could write a nice long list of case names, but I don't want to be held in contempt (I have so much to do for the next two years).

Lets open the courts to public scrutiny then we will see how often ss is wrong.

"And your answer to my post? "

Gosh i'm not jet propelled.

atlantis - I was perfectly civil and simply pointing out that your thread title makes you look stupid. It does you no favours at all.

Godwin's Law

"I was perfectly civil and simply pointing out that your thread title makes you look stupid. It does you no favours at all."

Firstly, it's not civil to tell people they look stupid- 'hi how are you- do you know you look rather stupid?'- not very polite.

Secondly, the word flee rather sums up the situation, they didn't slowly walk, they didn't take a holiday and decided to stay, they didn't advertise the fact that they were going, they fled the country.

And lastly I was echoing the report in the daily mail which says;

Pregnant Briton who 'fled' to Spain to prevent social services taking child gives birth to son.

and looking at the comments below the story no one else seems to have a gripe with the word 'flee', so that makes you the only person who choose to comment on the use of the word flee instead of plight of the child and family.

Godwins law does not apply to the word flee.

Oh come on atlantis - are you telling me you wrote "flee the ss" with not the slightest intention of making some comparison to the Nazi regime? Really?