What kind of society do we live in, when [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2517239/CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER-A-terrible-act-inhumanity-shows-justice-secret.htmlThis[/url can happen in 21st Century Britain?



Given that these nonentities are usually only seen at a press conference apologising for yet another total cockup in their proceedures and promising "lessons will be learnt," the question must be asked, why should any Court accept, without a rigorous investigation, anything they say?

Probably because that is their job.



The police turn up at the airport to find a woman in some mental angst (according to the Daily Mail story) and are then told by her mother that she has a serious mental health problem and has not taken her medication, clearly she can't be allowed on an aircraft (would you be happy to be on the same plane if the police had ignored such advice) and so under the provision of the law she is taken into the care of the local authority.



In that story the Mail reporter asks why the police "collude" so easily and quickly with social workers - because that is what they have to do is the simple answer, that is how it works.



The Mail reporter then skips the next five weeks (rather conveniently) and so we do not know what the womans mental state was when finally a court order was sought to protect her unborn child, acting on behalf of her unborn child.



Clearly this isn't a rubber stamping procedure, clearly the social workers involved would have refered this to their senior management, clearly its still not their judgement as it has to go before a court - clearly there is a lot more to this story than a gang of nazi's ripping an unborn child from a womb and sending the woman on her way, clearly the Mail don't want to or aren't capable of filling in those missing FIVE WEEKS when its so much simpler to present a story that will enrage their own readership in a way that they so desire every morning.

When I first read of this story (in the torygraph), I too felt a sense of outrage but decided to do a little more background research. If you had done the same instead of swallowing the cock & bull that Christopher Booker is famed for writing, you might have happened upon some rather less emotive and more legally constructed reasoning, like this:



[url=http://pinktape.co.uk/cases/never-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-story-eh/Never let the facts get in the way of a good(?) story[/url



Or [url=http://www.essex.gov.uk/News/Pages/Essex-County-Council-responses-to-interest-in-story-headlined-Essex-removes-baby-from-mother.aspxEssex County Council statement of facts[/url. Please note the use of the word "facts", a word that has little relevance to The Torygraph, even less to The Dally Wail and virtually zero to Christopher Booker



So, far from social workers "ordering" that the child be ripped from the mother's womb, th decision was made by clinicians, with the best interests of both mother and child in mind.



But please don't let facts get in your way of a good right-wing rant

Is that what they did, then? Just a quick question, do you include Italian society and the Italian courts in this, given that the unfortunate lady concerned applied to the Italian Courts for an order to return the child to Italy in May 2013, but the Italian courts ruled that the child should remain in England?





Why are you seemingly confident that [ithis[/i child would have been just fine, and why are you better placed to judge than the court?

I'm not expecting him back anytime soon

[url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2013/20.htmlOoh look, the judgement[/url



The final comment would soften even the hardest of hearts:



[iIf in later life P reads this judgment, as she may well do, I hope that she will appreciate that her mother in particular loved her and wished for her to return to live with her and to bring her up. It is not her fault, nor P's that that was not possible and that a predictable home could only be secured by way of adoption. P should know that the mother very much wished to parent her and bring her up and I hope that that is some small comfort both to the mother and also to P. [/i

Funny, isn't it, that the stories centre on the social workers and not, for instance, the judge who okayed the moves (or the clinicians who called for it)?



Same with the baby P case: social workers got it in the neck from the bulk of the media and the imbeciles who believe what they print, but it was lawyers who blocked the removal of the child from his abusive home.



You could be forgiven for thinking that there was an agenda going on somewhere ...

Just as soon as the good [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517144/Explain-snatched-baby-girl-birth-Judges-order-social-workers-forced-caesarean.htmlSir James[/url gets to the bottom of this story, which was incidently, picked up by most of the media. A fact which seems to have escaped the notice of the more excitable types on here.



Oh, and I'm not sure that a blog is neccessarily the fount of all knowledge either.......

Is that it?



Typical of the right-wingers on here: you quote from a known rag and when the errors of that rag are pointed out, you resort to quoting another article from the self-same rag, this time using (very) selective quotes.







A blog from a very respected Family Court barrister

Like that's an indication of veracity