Wednesday, 17 August 2011

The shame continues.....

Regular readers of Christopher Booker, whether that be in the Sunday Telegraph, the Mail or on-line, will be aware that besides writing on global warming/climate change and the EU, he also writes extensively about childen being taken into care by social services - very often on the most flimsiest of reasons, which invariably are proven incorrect. I have posted on this subject previously, the latest occasion being only last month.

The latest example comes with this story in the Mail, one that is also repeated in the Daily Telegraph, however that paper's article does not appear to be available on line. Both stories contain basically the same facts, with one important difference - the Mail story does not indicate that the separation of the couple involved was permanent and that Miss Garland has met someone else, nearer her own age and has a further child by her new partner. On the other hand, the Telegraph story does not inform its readers that Mr. Crummey has recently lost his job with the Ministry of Defence - and one wonders whether that was because of poor work performance as a result of his ordeal.

That the judiciary appear complicit in the scandal of what can only be described as child abduction by the state is apparent from the writings of Christopher Booker - and there is another element to this that would seem to be rarely mentioned. On the basis that our politicians are now telling us that a stable family relationship is the core to children behaving properly, one does have to wonder what effect on a family relationship and on the children the actions of childrens social services is having. I think that Paul Crummey and Amy Garland's experience demonstrates that only too well.

It really is time that the so-called guardians of our society decided to take an interest in this scandal - yet the only time anyone has raised the matter in Parliament (John Hemming) he was vilified and 'slapped down' by that giant of politics - Bercow.

All bloggers have what might be termed 'pet crusades' and in so doing do publicise wrong-doing by the state. Perhaps all bloggers - especially those with a wider readership than I - can unite and begin expressing outrage at yet another unacceptable action by the state...........?

Just saying.........................


Update: Excellent article from Christopher Booker in the Mail today (18/8/11) - please read and raise your voices against this dispicable practice.

3 comments:

banned said...

I read a Telegraph online article by Chris Booker on this subject this weekend though, as he does not usually name names, I don't know if it is the same one. It involved a lady who is with her child in Eire being surrendered by that country to officialdom in the UK and a 14 year old boy being forced to live with his 'abusive' father and returning to his mum on the very day of his 16th birthday.

DP111 said...

Big Brother is watching British children

Children in Lancashire, northern England, are being monitored for any hint that they might be influenced by "right-wing extremists."

From the Lancashire Telegraph (tip of the hat: Gates of Vienna):
Police said the ground-breaking counter-terrorism programme Channel, which has so far concentrated at Islamic extremism, has been widened to take account of the rise in right-wing extremism in the county.

Parents, teachers, community leaders and police officers are referring children and young adults who they feel may be at risk of being radicalised by groups such as the English Defence League.

http://reflight.blogspot.com/

One needs to think twice before considering to support increased powers of the state. This can occur quite naturally, such riots and looting.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

b: No, different case entirely - plus reason Booker doesn't name names is that envarialy the cases he writes about are still sub judice or there is a court order banning names..

DP111: Had a quick look but could not find - can you provide link to the post in question please?