Two "takes" on the same problem - this one from Alasdair Palmer and this one from Christopher Booker. Which one would you go for? And Booker is back on the case with stolen kids as well – and no help from a Tory minister. Why am I not surprised? Did I tell him he was wasting his time seeing him? Do bears do things in woods?

View full article here

Richard,

I think the "tickling stick" link* is wrong. I guess you mean this one:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/th ... html?ino=3
with the final character now being a '3', not a '2'.

It seems each new day's cartoon gets "pushed onto the stack". Sunday's is now the new number 1, pushing your's to number 3. It's good too, and rather surprising to see in the Independent.

The times are clearly changing. Ha ha.


* Here's a possibly permanent link for you: cartoon. I've added a copyright stamp to acknowledge The Independent's ownership but whether that's good enough...?

The children thing is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. How can the British government be acting to support a judicial system and social services that has fallen into the control of a paedophile network? The shadow government we suffer from which brings unwanted wars, false flag terror, and financial collapse is supportive of paedophile activity? It is the worst aspect of the sickening people we have lost control of our country to.

Those who serve to protect, abuse.
The parallels between the social services here and the TSA in the US are intriguing.
Both are a result of trusting government.

Those who serve to protect, abuse.
The parallels between the social services here and the TSA in the US are intriguing.
Both are a result of trusting government.

Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... istry.html

In the header photo
"Children's Minister Tim Loughton with children from a family in Lambeth"

Exactly what is he doing with that Teddy bear?

And in front of the children, too....

Certainly, there is a parallel. But please, the is a difference of scale between a gross invasion of privacy by the TSA and actual stealing of children.

I am constantly amazed that I have not seen reports of seriously threats, assault or worse on the social workers involved. If the government line appears to be that 5% of social work cases involve central-target-driven kidnap, I strugle to express my outrage. As Steinbeck said

Oh, and I should point out some of the major differences between the SS and the TSA:

The TSA are driven by a mission to protect the people of the state.
The SS are driven by government targets.

The TSA are reasonably open about what they are doing, even to the point of a slightly shoddy blog (http://blog.tsa.gov) where apparently >90% of comments get through.
The SS are the most secretive arm of the state, threatening journalists who cover their area with prison.

The TSA apparently have problems with staff morale due to the clear knowledge that they're doing something unpopular.
The SS? Who knows how staff morale is?

If were ever I to come into a position of political power, I'd write a law to retroactively introduce the death penalty for those who had the power to stop wrongful child custody cases which end in removal of children. And I'll write it like the drug laws so that social service, police and child court staff involved in these cases have to prove they never had the power to stop this travesty. By Christ, there would be a full reckoning. I wonder if that would have an effect on staff morale?

Thanks John.

A difference in scale, yes, but a difference in cause? Both stem from the same assumption that the government has the right to do what it pleases. On top of which, there seem to be enough examples of TSA agents getting caught perving or otherwise "enjoying" their activities to make the difference in scale almost moot.

Richard,
You're very welcome. Anywhere, anytime.


Well said, Joe.
You'd get no opposition from me.

Like you, I'm surprised no social worker, judge or other official involved has been killed yet. This stuff goes straight to that fundamental ancient primitive pre-mamalian part of one's brain — one's response to it is pure animal. Everything changes when one becomes a parent — 'rationality' doesn't get a look-in. It has no more place here than it does in determining one's sex drive, another one of those raw, primitive, pre-rational, animal, in-built impulses.

With respect, yes, a difference in cause. TSA can reasonably think that they are protecting people, "standing a post" to protect against terrorism.

Lying in court papers to hit an adoption target, threatening journalists with injunctions, encouraging a family to use a solicitor who is "tame" ... I cannot under any interpretation that I can muster, assume good faith for social services in these cases. The only interpretation I can muster is that either there is an underlying class-hatred, underlying race-hatred, or people are motivated to hit budgets. None of these people are familiar with a clean conscience, or a good night's sleep.

I don't on balance support capital punishment for murder, for goodness sake, yet I'd happily see them hang the harridans involved in these cases. There isn't even any doubt about the identity of the guilty.

Having worked within the system for a brief period (worked at ASBAT for manchester city council, but that's all I can say without breaching the official secrets act the gits made me sign) I can tell you that they actually do believe they're working for the good of society. They really believe that what they do is going to make things better. In that they're no different from any other government worker - including TSA agents - who believe that what they're doing is for the good and protection of society at large. They aren't working from class hatred, or race discrimination, or any of that. They really believe that they're right, true and just. This is why I say it's the same cause. They assume that they are right, that they have the right under that assumption to act in ways that appear evil in order to bring about justice.

TSA agents believe that they're protecting the US from terrorism (they aren't) and that this gives them carte blanche to treat people horrendously in pursuit of that goal - to the point of molesting children in front of their parents, abusing innocents and subjecting people to public humiliation.

Social workers think that they're protecting society from "evil" parents and abusers, and that this gives them carte blanche to steal children away from their parents in pursuit of that goal, regardless of circumstance. They're right and that's it; you can't argue with them because they have assumed justice and the betterment of society on their side.

In both cases, the assumption is that they are doing something necessary to pursue a just society. In both cases, the assumption is wrong. The outward expression of this seems different because the stated goals are superficially different, but the assumption in both cases is exactly the same: that they have the right to do unjust things in the pursuit of justice and the protection of the social good.

Now lets say you run a business , a factory say (for those under 15 , a factory is where production of items are mass produced to make such items cheaper, very often exported . Now only done in China ).
If in said factory you had a safety risk , however small, you must eradicate it . Not to 99% safe, but to 100% safe . Otherwise Health And Safety will prosecute and punish you.
If you have a violent villian , on the other hand , and you can decide his fate, you can ignore the 100% rule/law and release him into society no problem.

Over in India they are searching for a Leapord that they suspect of killing three humans . Now will they catch him and release him later, on a British probation officers recommendation.?

Archonix, I will accept for the purpose of this discussion your assertion that social workers believe that they are acting for good, although I find it difficult. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that we need to get the actors in these cases out of their comfort zone.

Perhaps we need to start using Allinsky's Rules for Radicals in these cases? Let's personalise it.

Is the identity of the probation officer(s) involved in Chindamo's case in the public domain? Is the identity of the social workers involved in any of the child snatching cases in the public domain? You don't have to go all Huntingdon Life Sciences on them. Merely broadcasting the name and putting posters on lamp-posts saying "Danger: child snatcher" or "Danger: murderer's accomplice" with name and preferably photos could be most educational.