Primetime 07/05/14 : Uk residents fleeing to ireland

Flippyfloppy

I'm a bit late with this! Been thinking about this all day and was surprised this thread hadn't been done yet. Maybe people were watching the Eurovision last night?

The show last night covered expectant UK parents getting the boat to Ireland in order to have their babies without UK social services taking them into care and putting them up for adoption.

This sounds a bit extreme, or magdalene laundry-esque, but supposedly some of these couples are ear-marked by social services as addicts, at risk, sexual abusers etc. They would have had kids taken off them before, and upon getting pregnant again, flee to ireland, where some guy called Brian puts them up and maybe arranges delivery of the baby, I'm not too sure.

Supposedly since the Baby P case social services in the UK operate a very strict policy regarding child's rights coming first, rather than families rights first.

What's the general view on this? Should these couples have an advocate in Ireland (this guy Brian) or should they face up to their own country's social services, and abide by the recommendation that they are unfit parents and can't be trusted with children?

Boombastic

addicts, at risk, sexual abusers ..children taken off them already


seem like ideal parents, what's social services problem?

Flippyfloppy

Boombastic wrote: »

addicts, at risk, sexual abusers ..children taken off them already


seem like ideal parents, what's social services problem?

True- I know what my view is! I think I'm just shocked that there is a guy being their advocate. Don't get how he thinks he's doing good- there must be good money in what he's doing? It was never mentioned whether/how much he gets paid!

HeidiHeidi

There was something vaguely.....tabloidish.... about the programme last night.

That couple who mainly featured seemed reasonable enough - but then a child of theirs had been injured (they claimed accident, social services claimed the father was a suspect) and was taken from them. Which is why they were on the ferry to Ireland.

Hard to adjudicate without all the facts, which we the viewers/general public will never be party to.

I thought the programme screamed for a proper communications system to be set up between ourselves and the UK/NI - as it stands it seems that the couples can't be prevented from travelling before the baby is born.

Flippyfloppy

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Hard to adjudicate without all the facts, which we the viewers/general public will never be party to.

Even the guy who helps them doesn't get all the facts. He takes them at face value/ whatever documents they present.

As for the couple, they said their child had injured herself off the cot. The child must have hurled herself with the strength of an adult at the cot to have sustained an injury that could be mistaken for that of a man.

Nodin

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Even the guy who helps them doesn't get all the facts. He takes them at face value/ whatever documents they present.

As for the couple, they said their child had injured herself off the cot. The child must have hurled herself with the strength of an adult at the cot to have sustained an injury that could be mistaken for that of a man.

Who is this "guy"? Does he have a website you might link to?

Boombastic

I think their action of avoiding rather than engaging with social services speaks for itself.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/british-mums-give-birth-here-to-avoid-forced-adoptions-29332259.html

Flippyfloppy

Nodin wrote: »

Who is this "guy"? Does he have a website you might link to?

Just looked on rte player, his name is Brian Rothery. Couldn't find much on google about him, except this 46 minute video I don't really want to watch that he appears in! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLqtvccvME

LynnGrace

I happened to see that programme as well. I genuinely don't know what to think. It was made to sound as though it is an everyday occurrence. I was unclear as to what happens really, once they come here, apart from that guy who acts as their 'advocate', presumably helping them out.
I think they said something about them not always engaging with maternity services here, or did I pick that up correctly? I also wondered do they then return home after the child is born?

Kermit.de.frog

Just what we need in the country. More scum.

Boombastic

http://www.philosphere.com/foundation.html
the Shannon grace program
Brian

Nodin

Boombastic wrote: »

http://www.philosphere.com/foundation.html
the Shannon grace program
Brian

Well intentioned but clueless. He'd be better off running an advocate program for them in the countries they reside in,


On second thoughts, no, he'd be better fucking off entirely
http://www.ectopia.org/children.html

Kermit.de.frog

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Should these couples have an advocate in Ireland (this guy Brian)

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/Brian%20Family%20Guy.jpg

diveout

http://victims-unite.net/our-cases-as-stories/social-services-stealing-children-all-over-the-country/

Food for thought.

Nodin

diveout wrote: »

http://victims-unite.net/our-cases-as-stories/social-services-stealing-children-all-over-the-country/

Food for thought.

Nuts to go with the fruit.

Boombastic

diveout wrote: »

http://victims-unite.net/our-cases-as-stories/social-services-stealing-children-all-over-the-country/

Food for thought.

I read that. Even overlooked david ikes name in the first line, I love a good conspiracy theory.

the comments are hilarious at the end along the lines of

they stole her kids, she's a great mother

yeah she had her other kids taken from her, beat up the social worker and went to jail, but so what, who hasn't?

maringo

It appears that our State services are handing over the fostering of vulnerable children to private agencies. It seems to be a profitable business for these agencies. History repeating itself - have we learnt nothing from the scandals of the past? Hiving off the care of children to profiteering private agencies is totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated by this society. Was any consultation with the public undertaken on this important issue?

To be honest after hearing about social over there having a foreign woman on holiday there forcibly restrained, non consenting c section performed, and then stealing the baby a and giving it to a UK resident without her or her family getting a look in, I'd be fcuking running away too

diveout

bluewolf wrote: »

To be honest after hearing about social over there having a foreign woman on holiday there forcibly restrained, non consenting c section performed, and then stealing the baby a and giving it to a UK resident without her or her family getting a look in, I'd be fcuking running away too

Yeah.... natter on about the benefit of the children and the state can get away with anything.

It's impossible to fight child protection in the UK or the US. They are outside the courts and even if go through the courts the judges back them up. And many of these families just don't have the money for that. The clandestine nature of family courts facilitate this state abuse.

Historically, the notion of "protection" has often been used for the state to take more and more micro controls and aggression against the individual [Patriot Act for example] and social workers in these instances are the finer instruments of facism.

FactCheck

bluewolf wrote: »

To be honest after hearing about social over there having a foreign woman on holiday there forcibly restrained, non consenting c section performed, and then stealing the baby a and giving it to a UK resident without her or her family getting a look in, I'd be fcuking running away too

Just FYI, that isn't what happened at all: theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/15/pacchieri-baby-adopted-forced-caesarean-case-uk (unfortunately as a new user I can't link properly).

She wasn't on holiday, she was sectioned for several months following a very serious breakdown, she had older children already removed from her care, she didn't object to the adoption, and her parents (who already care for her older children) were not overlooked as potential carers.

All the rulings in the case have been published and are available online.

There are lots of excellent law blogs out there about UK family law and social services by barristers who are actually working in the system. Barristers can be representing the state one day and a parent the next. Pink Tape and Suesspicious Minds are just two - there are absolutely loads. They do a really good job of fighting the crackpot PR machine which is unfortunately rife on the internet.

Really? Cos I went off and read it again before posting, and the results which gave the kid to someone in the UK and refused consideration from the family

Media for ya
I'll try read actual case stuff so

FactCheck

bluewolf wrote: »

Really? Cos I went off and read it again before posting, and the results which gave the kid to someone in the UK and refused consideration from the family

Media for ya
I'll try read actual case stuff so

I'd start here: pinktape.co.uk/cases/update-on-the-essex-c-section-case/
And here: suesspiciousminds.com/2014/04/15/italian-c-section-case-the-final-chapter/

Both of those have links to the actual judgements. In the past couple of years the UK family courts have become excellent at publishing anonymised judgements. Supposedly Ireland is following suit...

Unfortunately, Googling mainly seems to bring up the initial headlines and trial-by-Daily-Mail rather than the more accurate later reporting.

It's shocking how getting one sensationalist headline out first sets the tone for what even informed news readers take away from a case. Pretty depressing, honestly.