Too stupid to get married or have a baby

Doc

A council in Scotland have told a woman she’s too stupid to get married or have a baby.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6365363/Social-services-to-take-baby-from-teenager-deemed-too-stupid-to-marry.html

Last month Miss Robertson was prevented from marrying her fiancé Mark McDougall, 25, after council officials claimed that she “did not understand the implications of getting married”.

She has now been warned that she will only be allowed a few hours with her baby, which is due in January, before it is taken into foster care.

I know some Irish people who I think should be told this but God I never actualy thought that anyone would!


Edit: found another one -> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5417283/Social-services-in-Nottingham-claim-mother-is-too-stupid-to-bring-up-child.html

seanybiker

jaysus thats a bit mental alright. Surely at 25 she should be allowed get married if she wants.

TestTransmission

seanybiker wrote: »

jaysus thats a bit mental alright. Surely at 25 she should be allowed get married if she wants.

She's only 17,her fella is 25

seanybiker

ah well thats different then. I didnt go to link I only read the quote in post

Mahatma coat

could this happen in I reland?

isnt there some part of the constitution that enshrines the right of the family?

and more importantly


HOW THE FVCK ARE PEOPLE LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS.

brendansmith

seanybiker wrote: »

ah well thats different then. I didnt go to link I only read the quote in post

Yeah, i never bothered following the link either. Just read the quote. Good quote though.

[Jackass]

While I think this is brilliant and ground breaking and wish there was some sort of vetting system or exam people should take here to be allowed raise children / claim welfare for having them, she clearly is simple. Why doesn't she just go to another borough or even down to England or Ireland where we have no such requirements for marriage as long as you are the legal age, but a marriage in Ireland / England is recognised in Scottish law...then the pops can take full custody of the child.

But don't tell them, it's probably for the best.

Jesus Wept

They should confiscate her vagina.

Overheal

Only in Amer- oh wait...

brendansmith

Overheal wrote: »

Only in Amer- oh wait...

You are off the hook this once dude.

me_right_one

Mahatma coat wrote: »

could this happen in I reland?

isnt there some part of the constitution that enshrines the right of the family?

and more importantly


HOW THE FVCK ARE PEOPLE LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS.

You're thinking backwards man. It's about time this happened

Kernel

[Jackass] wrote: »

While I think this is brilliant and ground breaking and wish there was some sort of vetting system or exam people should take here to be allowed raise children / claim welfare for having them,

How can you control who has children without mass sterilisation or forced contraceptives? Nightmare to implement. As for child welfare, why should the child in the equation suffer poverty because of having scum parents? It's a difficult problem, social engineering.

REXER

Great, an Irish solution to a Scotish problem.

Forced removal and adoption of the child.:(:(
This when the extended family are willing to take resposibility.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Overheal wrote: »

Only in Amer- oh wait...

You say that way too much, I am afraid it has lost it's "mojo"?


Well, she might be stupid, but still... you don't need to be smart to look after a kid. If a thicko can do a good job, then why not? There are more doctors, lawyers and scientists out there that wouldn't know one end of a baby from the other. Since when is intelligence a factor in having a child?

The authorities are scum... pur scum.

Cool Mo D

[Jackass] wrote: »

While I think this is brilliant and ground breaking and wish there was some sort of vetting system or exam people should take here to be allowed raise children / claim welfare for having them, she clearly is simple. Why doesn't she just go to another borough or even down to England or Ireland where we have no such requirements for marriage as long as you are the legal age, but a marriage in Ireland / England is recognised in Scottish law...then the pops can take full custody of the child.

But don't tell them, it's probably for the best.

That's funny, I think I recall a large programme supported by the state to take away 'unfit mothers' children. Seem to remember some sort of controversy about it - something to do with cleaning clothes? Was it such a great idea?

biko

Or she can do a "Theresa Winters" and keep getting preggers until they let her keep one.
Up to 14 kids now, prev 13 in care.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/mcintosh/2009/08/02/let-s-put-a-stop-to-this-baby-factory-115875-21563999/

Procasinator

It says she has "mild" learning difficulties... is "mild" learning difficulties enough to take away a child?

Although, I still don't see why they don't go elsewhere to wed as [Jackass] suggested. At least then the father can get custody.

caseyann

So before she has even given birth because she has learning difficulties,they have made a judgment on her ability to rear a child because she isn't intelligent enough:rolleyes:.She would have been married to the father of the baby and they are removing the child from her and the father That is stupid she hasnt even been seen with the child:(


In answer to the question to people saying sterilize and take more kids from people who aren't fit.The problem with that is they go after majority of times people who are fit parents and leave the unfit alone.



Only if a child is under threat not fed out running the streets and been left alone or abused physically hse should not be allowed to intervene.


You are not smart enough you aren't allowed to have kids.Plenty of intelligent people i know who shouldn't be parents :rolleyes:

wyndham

I have investigated and she is not hot:

http://hurricanevanessa.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/article-1212867-0664297d000005dc-941_468x520.jpg

/thread.

caseyann

wyndham wrote: »

I have investigated and she is not hot:

http://hurricanevanessa.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/article-1212867-0664297d000005dc-941_468x520.jpg

/thread.

So now not hot and unintelligent people shouldn't be allowed get married or have kids :rolleyes:

shoegirl

Kernel wrote: »

How can you control who has children without mass sterilisation or forced contraceptives? Nightmare to implement. As for child welfare, why should the child in the equation suffer poverty because of having scum parents? It's a difficult problem, social engineering.

You could make receipt of certain welfare benefits conditional on long term contraceptive use (like Norplant II which lasts up until 5 years and is implanted in the arm so there is little opportunity for human error in taking it) in certain circumstances. I'd certainly suggest that lone parents who want to remain on welfare in the long term be sterilised or implanted with Norplant every 4 years as long as they remain on welfare after they've had 2 children.

Up to 2 children on welfare doesn't cost all that much to the state (about 500,000 for the first child, but not that much for the 2nd) though. The costs are largely related to housing. If that could be heavily reduced actually the cost of paying lone parents is quite small relative to the enormous subventions paid to farmers and the banking and NAMA bailouts.

shoegirl

Cool Mo D wrote: »

That's funny, I think I recall a large programme supported by the state to take away 'unfit mothers' children. Seem to remember some sort of controversy about it - something to do with cleaning clothes? Was it such a great idea?

They were not "unfit mothers." They were ANY woman considered to be a bit "dangerous" (to their families "pride" or Irish societal "purity"). I know of a case where a woman in rural Cork was placed in a laundry simply because she started practising and teaching yoga.

Long Onion

Problem is easily solved if you ask me, have an older family member go guarantor (preferably mammy or daddy), if the kid turns into a looney, make the guarantor deal with it.

No guarantor, no babby, no welfare.

Oh yeah, ban Burberry too.

cruizer101

caseyann wrote: »

So now not hot and unintelligent people shouldn't be allowed get married or have kids :rolleyes:

Funny enough this is the way it worked for thousands of years, human are the first species to really mess with good old natural selection meaning we have kinda stopped evoling.

But anyway, ridiculous, they should definitly let her keep the kid some of the most caring people around are crap at traditionally academic subjects, give the couple a chance.

Gran Hermano

They could at least give her a job in a laundry as well as taking the baby off her.

stovelid

Doc wrote: »

Too stupid to get married or have a baby

There is something clearly wrong about this hypothesis...

Evidence A

Evidence B

wudangclan

this is absolutely disgraceful.
how can they take a womans' baby without seeing first if she is capable of caring for the baby?
the report says she 'has mild learning disabilities',it doesn't sound like she is completely incapable.unless there is another underlying story i don't see how the state could be permitted to take such action.

marco_polo

It is disturbing the number of people who think that this sort of thing positive development in society.

Here is the other case from Nottingham mentioned in that article. While of course there are times when it is nescessary to take a child into care, because the council says so is not one of them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5417283/Social-services-in-Nottingham-claim-mother-is-too-stupid-to-bring-up-child.html

Miss Pullen's attempts to fight the council have been hampered after her case was taken over by a Government funded solicitor who declined to contest the adoption application despite his client's wishes.

..........

John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who is campaigning on Rachel's behalf, said: "We have got experts saying she hasn't got learning difficulties and is quite capable of looking after a child. They are really abusing her."

General Zod

For the people who haven't read the article

Under Scottish law, a registrar may refuse to marry a couple if they believe one or both the parties lack the mental capacity to understand what the institution of marriage is about.

In a highly unusual step, Dunfermline Register Office refused to sanction the marriage after Fife council wrote a letter of objection. Miss Robertson was brought up by her grandmother from the age of nine months because her parents were unable to look after her and her welfare has since been overseen by the council’s social workers.

So. The Council workers who have been supervising her upbringing since she was 9 years old don't believe she is mentally prepared or in a proper environment to raise a child.

I'll take their word over the Telegraph or a 25 year old artist who picks up 17 year olds with "learning dificulties".

marco_polo

General Zod wrote: »

For the people who haven't read the article



So. The Council workers who have been supervising her upbringing since she was 9 years old don't believe she is mentally prepared or in a proper environment to raise a child.

I'll take their word over the Telegraph or a 25 year old artist who picks up 17 year olds with "learning dificulties".

While we do not know the full fact of the case, the burden of proof needs to be far higher the councils social word that she is unfit.

Would you be in favour of banning of dyslexic people from having kids for example?

Long Onion

marco_polo wrote: »

Would you be in favour of banning of dyslexic people from having kids for example?

They shouldn't be driving in icy conditions in the first place.

AnonoBoy

But these people are Scottish.....








.....who cares?

5starpool

caseyann wrote: »

So now not hot and unintelligent people shouldn't be allowed get married or have kids :rolleyes:

You should legally have to be one or the other. It would eradicate half the scobies around the place if this was law for the last 50 years.

Long Onion

5starpool wrote: »

You should legally have to be one or the other. It would eradicate half the scobies around the place if this was law for the last 50 years.

Right so, by law you legally have to be 1) Hot or 2) unintelligent

Que ..........?

Smart Bug

Humans have evolved beyond the confines of natural selection (the fit, i.e. smart survive) hence the profusion of stupid fugly welfare sponges prevalent in all 'civilised' first world countries.

For me, the answer is simple. Weigh the cost of these degenerates against that of a bullet. Shoot 'em all I saw, shoot 'em all.

Riddle101

What's the legal age to have sex in Scotland? if she's 17 and he's 25 then wouldn't that be Statutory rape? even more so if she was pregnant she would have had sex with the guy when she was 16 or something like that. Does it say if the guy was being questioned or charaged?

buckieburd

16 is the age of consent in Scotland.

In fairness there has to be a lot more to this story than what's in the article.

Why would the council go to all that bother, just if she's a bit 'simple'?

Maybe it's something to do with the father? Who knows?

Cool Mo D

Smart Bug wrote: »

Humans have evolved beyond the confines of natural selection (the fit, i.e. smart survive) hence the profusion of stupid fugly welfare sponges prevalent in all 'civilised' first world countries.

No, we most certainly have not evolved past natural selection, and it totally wrong to say that natural selection means smarter, bigger, stronger and faster creatures will survive. You clearly don't have the first clue how natural selection works.
Natural selection means that individuals that are best adapted to their environment will survive to pass along their genes. It is perfectly possible that being smarter, bigger or stronger than average would reduce your chance of surviving in certain situations. Think about it.

Dudess

I'd rather a decent system of child protection, a guarantee of children being removed from homes where they are endangered, and given the exact type of home a child needs, rather than women forcibly getting their wombs removed/men forcibly getting the snip.

I reconsidered briefly in light of the Baby P case as I was so affected by it, but back thinking rationally: mass enforced sterilisation is ****ed up.

Just read the OP properly: that's a very sad story - they could at least give her a chance. Taking her baby from her after a few hours - the poor girl. Imagine how gut-wrenching that experience would be for her. It is indeed eerily reminiscent of The Magdalene Laundries.
Although as someone rightly pointed out, there's probably more to it than that.

Overheal

brendansmith wrote: »

You are off the hook this once dude.

Yes. Im sure its just once.

Myra Melodic Tuber wrote: »

You say that way too much, I am afraid it has lost it's "mojo"?

I don't think so.

caseyann

5starpool wrote: »

You should legally have to be one or the other. It would eradicate half the scobies around the place if this was law for the last 50 years.

What kind of education did Albert Einstein have? was born on March 14, 1879 in Ulm, Germany. His parents were Pauline and Hermann Einstein. It is interesting to note that neither of his parents had any knowledge in the areas of math or science. Even Albert, in his early years, was a very shy but curious kid that showed very little aptitude for anything. In elementary school, Albert was such an under achiever in all subjects other than math and science that his parents suspected that he might be retarded. As it turned out, Albert preferred to learn on his own and had taught himself advanced mathematics and science by the time he was a teenager.


Just because a parent hasn't excelled in intelligence levels of academic does not mean their children don't.:rolleyes:
I have seen some parents with schooling to level of 6th class only and their children excel because of the parents
Remember also intelligent and or good looking does not make you good parents.

Dudess

Yeah, and some educated people are ****ing dumb ("educated" as in, they have degrees).

Some of the smartest, most interesting people I know didn't do the leaving.

caseyann

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, and some educated people are ****ing dumb ("educated" as in, they have degrees).

Some of the smartest, most interesting people I know didn't do the leaving.

I agree

But because of class they come from that makes them the more accepted even if they are thick anti social idiots
And i note here,i am not talking about all in any class,because i don't consider richer people with degrees nor poorer with no education any different.All people.Scum parents and people are scum doesn't matter what education or upbringing they have.

pablomakaveli

wyndham wrote: »

I have investigated and she is not hot:

http://hurricanevanessa.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/article-1212867-0664297d000005dc-941_468x520.jpg

/thread.

Of all the posts in this thread this is the one i find to be the most controversial.

No right minded individual would find her hot. :eek:

Fad

caseyann wrote: »

So now not hot and unintelligent people shouldn't be allowed get married or have kids :rolleyes:

Gene pool cleansing FTW.

caseyann

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Of all the posts in this thread this is the one i find to be the most controversial.

No right minded individual would find her hot. :eek:

So i suppose you and your family and friends are all gorgeous :rolleyes:



Funny i know guys who would not date a girl who wasn't dressed up to nines,loads of make up and gorgeous looking.Now married,they married chubby normal looking girls majority of them.Remember this women nor yourself stay good looking forever.At least these girls know they are loved for been themselves

DarkJager

article wrote:

In May it was disclosed that Rachel Pullen, 24, had her three-year-old daughter taken away from her by social services when she was six months old after Nottingham City Council officials deemed her too stupid to look after the child.

I've re-read that part twice now and I'm still stumped. When was time travelling discovered??

hooradiation

And AH's love affair with social darwinism continues.

pablomakaveli

caseyann wrote: »

So i suppose you and your family and friends are all gorgeous :rolleyes:

Thankfully better than you and yours.:p

Dudess

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Of all the posts in this thread this is the one i find to be the most controversial.

No right minded individual would find her hot. :eek:

Wyndham said "I have investigated and she is not hot".

caseyann

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Thankfully better than you and yours.:p

You should leave this thread it is only for the ugly and unintelligent