Social workers really are power mad thugs, aren’t they?

So, baby doesn’t have a name until the Hindu equivalent of a baptism (hmm, probably christening is a better word there). social workers and a Family Division judge insist that this could be emotionally harmful and therefore off into foster care the wee mite goes.

Daddy gets upset at the social workers:

Mrs Justice Parker decided that the baby should be taken into care after being told how his father assaulted one social worker and threatened to kill another.

The father appeared to have become frustrated by what he saw as an “invasive” approach by social services staff, and the judge said she thought he could be “dangerous”.

Yep, complaining about what the thugs want to do is what allows the thugs to do what they want to do.

Hang the lot of them. And, of course, have all Family Division cases heard in public. Shit like this simply wouldn’t happen with that disinfectant of sunshine.

27 comments on “Social workers really are power mad thugs, aren’t they?

  1. If you resist having your kids abducted, you are dangerous. If you don’t, they’ll probably get you for neglect!

    And the last bit – the ‘independent’ expert being paid by the council. Fucking hell. In a murder trial shit like this from the defence would get the trial stopped. Why is this any different?

    +100 to the idea of public trials. They are private to protect the social workers, not ‘the chiiiildren’

  2. I’d also like to see the level of proof that it was “emotionally harmful”, as it sounds like bullshit to me. Babies get called all sorts of pet names. If a baby understood what it’s name was it would probably think it was called ‘babby’ or ‘dear’ or whatever.

    If we are going to allow these people to break up families can we set some barriers they have to overcome first, rather than on a whim inspired by new age bullshit?

  3. What Rob said.
    Plus there’d be some sort of temporary name on the birth certificate, surely.

  4. Amen to the thuggishness of social services & obscurity of family courts but worth considering the backstory to this.
    In the UK we’ve the custom of naming our sprogs. They’re regarded as individuals with rights. And by virtue of place of birth, the kid’s a card carrying Brit. Want a bet this father’s not claiming all the usual UK benefits on behalf of said sprog? Would be citing the kid’s citizenship in a deportation attempt?
    When in Rome?

  5. What’s surprising about this is that one imagines that social workers are generally of that political tradition which ‘celebrates diversity’ and is keen to make allowances for different cultures mm’kay?

    Or, as JuliaM said, it’s about making allwoances for any other culture as long as it’s the Religion of Peace(TM).

  6. Hmm, sounds a bit like the one about the guy who couldn’t be deported ‘because he had a cat’, where the cat was just a bit of trivia thrown in, not the reason for anything.

    The aggression of the father seems to be the motivation behind this, not the naming decision. Whether the aggression caused the invasive social working, or vice versa, is impossible to gleam. I’m not sticking up for social services, and I agree with all the point being made re. secret hearings etc, but there’s nothing to suggest that the naming of the chiled was a key factor in what happened.

  7. As little time as I have for the RoP they have it right about this–stick together and fight. If this guy turned out a hundred Hindus and coppers/social workers went to the hospital you can bet there would be a very different outcome. TPTB will squash you up to a certain threshold then–esp with lots of publicity–they will turn their arses on it. The next threshold is where they consider their continued rule in danger–then they will get very nasty indeed. But that is not at issue here.

  8. @Mr Ecks: the same goes for the ‘travelling community’. Social services wouldn’t go near them, they’d be too afraid to do anything for fear of a riot.

  9. When social services stray from protecting physically abused or neglected children, they do it with alarming enthusiasm. Cut their budgets and remit and open the Family Courts!

  10. Here‘s the BBC report.

    [Mrs Justice Parker] concluded that the combination of the father’s hostility and the mother’s vulnerability created a high risk of the boy suffering significant emotional harm, and a possibility of him being caught up in violence.

    She said the couple’s two-year-old son had been taken into care last year after another judge raised similar fears…

    Right or wrong, the decision wasn’t about the child’s name.

    The Telegraph story itself has:

    He had punched a male social worker in the face a number of times at a court hearing last year and had been convicted of threatening to kill a female social worker

    That’s not “complaining about what the thugs want”, it’s thuggishness. It’s reasonable to consider the possibility that a parent who loses control and punches people may in some circumstances be a danger to his family.

  11. Paul>

    You’re far too kind to the social services and judge, here. The non-naming was a result of the baby being seized within days of birth – a child of Jewish parents wouldn’t have been named yet either at that point, nor many Christian children awaiting Christening – and the judge made it quite clear that she took the ’emotional harm’ it had done into account in making her decision.

    There’s no suggestion that the father has attacked anyone other than the social workers, and while I don’t entirely condone his actions, I’m not at all sure they’re not absolutely justified under the circumstances, even if counter-productive.

    There’s also no suggestion that we routinely take away the kids of anyone convicted of assaulting an adult, and yet in this case it’s being given as justification.

    It is clearly just yet another example of the extremely common phenomenon of social workers acting criminally rather than admit to even the slightest error, and being allowed to get away with it by a hoodwinked judge.

    They don’t call honest, hard-working, caring social workers ‘pig pilots’ for nothing.

  12. “It’s reasonable to consider the possibility that a parent who loses control and punches people may in some circumstances be a danger to his family.”

    When the sole cause of such ‘loss of control’ is the defence of his family? Logic fail.

  13. A case of Hello Perverse Incentive, do meet Supply and Demand?
    There’s a queue for adoption. The younger the baby the better, and being slightly brown is OK.
    Government wants to reduce numbers in care / fostering but demand for FU’d six year olds is not strong.
    So let’s snatch some from the cradle to make up the numbers.

    Could be wrong of course. But as with the Seacole / Flo debate, fresh air and transparency is the best disinfectant.

  14. BiF>

    No, I don’t think it’s quite that. Something arguably worse, though.

    Child protection is the worst area of council run services for a very simple reason: if your bins aren’t emptied, you can complain; if the pavement is dangerously uneven, you can complain; if the council doesn’t meet standards for any other service, you can complain; if the council doesn’t meet standards for caring for kids with no responsible adults, who can complain? Certainly not those kids. Short of a Baby P scandal or similar, no-one pays any attention at all.

    It’s not all that many years ago that Waltham Forest told me that there was no system for complaining about their child protective services department. When I asked how this could be, they told me they didn’t need one because they never got any complaints… (Of course the drone I spoke to also wasn’t well-read enough to understand my immediate reference to Captain Yossarian.)

    These kids are so woefully unequipped to fight back against bullying social workers that mostly they don’t even know enough to know when something being done to them is absolutely outrageous. There’s far less sexual abuse of the kids than there used to be, but exactly the same techniques the paedophiles used are in daily use to compel the kids to go along with things that are not in their own best interests.

    Or, to put it in much simpler terms, it’s the principal-agent problem to the nth degree, because effectively the agent is also the trustee in charge of the principal.

  15. Dave
    I think you’re probably right, but let’s compromise.
    1. Secret courts are bad, but better than no courts at all.
    2. Slightly brown new borns are the blood group O of children needing adoption.
    3. People respond to incentives. Social workers do too.
    4. I know nothing more about this case than I have read in the MSM. My concern is the wider population of babies untimely ripped from their mothers’ breast.
    5. Well known fact that council care homes are shite.
    But to get to this pass there must be perverse incentives.

  16. IMO lumping a social worker or two shows eminent good sense, and commitment to protecting ones family.

  17. BiF>

    There are indeed perverse incentives – particularly, the near total lack of oversight or accountability. CPS, by its very nature, won’t generate aggrieved voters if it’s screwed-up, because none of the victims are old enough to vote.

    What we see with these adoption cases is just the tip of the everything-horribly-wrong iceberg. CPS is basically an object lesson in what councils would look like in all departments if they were entirely unelected.

    Generally, CPS is literally unbelievably bad, to the extent that honest description sounds like lunatic ranting to those who haven’t run across them themselves.

  18. What’s needed is a few skilled and determined men who kill state workers when they exceed the bounds or reason or authority. You’d just need a few dead before every single one of them would think long and hard before claiming the rights of a king to do what they pleased.

    They behave like this because they know they RULE us and they cannot be touched by any means. They need to fear us to be good servants.

  19. Amen to that. Perverse outcomes occur when actions are divorced from consequences.

  20. When children are not taken from bad parents there is an outcry against social workers – “why wasn’t X taken into care?”

    Child protection laws are meant to shield the children, not the social workers. Is this a bad thing? Probably not. Should there be more reporting -especially in cases where social workers have overstepped the bounds? Possibly.

    Matters are not made better by threatening to kill public servants. Far better they should be fired with no compensation and terrible references. There should be terrible consequences for abusing the power of the state – but it hardly need be capital. I’d consider life sentences for any public servant abusing the surveillance powers that the authorities have granted themselves. Pour encourager les autres.

  21. When children are not taken from bad parents there is an outcry against social workers – “why wasn’t X taken into care?”

    Terrible isn’t it. And the justice system is expected to punish the guilty, but not the innocent too.What unreasonable expectations we have eh!

  22. ChrisM

    The justice system is weighted in favour of letting 10 guilty men go free lest one innocent suffer (blackstone). The problem with social work is that they are on the horns of a dilemma – either society puts too many or too few in care. Which one is worse? And given finite resources, we cannot achieve perfection.

    Do I think there may be social workers who go too far or are drunk on power? I think they may exist. But, social workers are egged on by demands that we put children into care if they are at risk. Then we hear from others that we have gone too far.

  23. Ken,
    Your logic (go too far to protect the child/dont go far enough) is perhaps too kind.
    An example from my own experience might help. I adopted a child, and afterwards I was reflecting on the process with a Social Worker (friend of my mother) who works on ‘the other side of the fence’ in CPS.
    Anyway, after a glass or 2 of wine it transpired that her logic was strongly driven by the biscuits served when she came the house. No really, we challenged her, but she was serious – she goes do tons of houses, and eats lots of biscuits and drinks lots of tea. The adults should focus on good quality biscuits. These things really matter.
    The child was nowhere in her logic. Welcome to CPS.

  24. Maybe they are on the look out for chocolate biscuits now Gary. I seem to recall one of the excuses given for not spotting the injuries to baby P was that ‘They rubbed chocolate on his face to hide the bruises’.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.