EDL critic defends EDL mother when social services wants to take child

biko wrote: »

This is a weird one.

In short a UK council wants to take a yet unborn baby from the mother Toni McLeod because they claim to be concerned about the mother’s violent links to the English Defence League and also some convictions for other violence. Not an angel by any means.
Documents seen by the Sunday Express reveal social workers are worried about Mrs McLeod’s previous alcohol and drug misuse, her “aggressive behaviour” and her alleged “mental health issues” .

Durham County Council told Mrs McLeod on Friday her unborn baby was being placed on its child protection register. Last month, a judge ruled that her three other children, who have different fathers, should be permanently removed from her care.

But, a LibDem MP has raised the question about why social services goes after Toni McLeod. He contrasts her treatment with that of the extremist Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was allowed to remain with his ­children when he was briefly remanded on bail earlier this year as the Government tries to deport him. He said: “It raises a curious question as to why Abu Qatada is allowed to radicalise his children but the state won’t take the chance of allowing Toni McLeod to look after her baby in case she says something social workers won’t like.

She now wants to move to ­Ireland for the birth to avoid England’s social services. Rifleman McLeod, 31, plans to request a transfer to Northern Ireland so he can be with his child.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/327086

I can understand why social services would be worried about history of drug abuse but tbh to take a child at birth for what appears to be political reasons does not sit well with me. perhaps there is more to this story than meets the eye but it does seem to be differential treatment.

EDIT by biko:
Title changed from "EDL mother wants to move to Ireland to keep child" to
"EDL critic defends EDL mother when social services wants to take child"

Ah Desmond, the man who launched the EDL on the first page of The Star strikes again with more bull****.



Have you stopped to consider why she isn't considered fit to look after a dog? Is that because of her beliefs? Or is it because she is a Facist with a history of alcohol, pschyiatric problems, violence, prison terms and drugs?

This is reportedly the "victim" pre-marriage:
Police initially went to the aid of Antonia Claire Evans, who was suffering a suspected broken arm after a scuffle during the demonstration, in November last year.

However, Durham Crown Court heard that a stand-off developed, before the officers tried to lift Evans out through the crowd.
Rachel Masters, prosecuting, said Evans shouted and swore and, despite her injury, lashed out at the officers with her injured arm

She punched another officer in the groin and headbutted a third after they tried to pin her to the ground.
Amid efforts to put her into a police van, to remove her and place her in a cell at a police station, she continued to struggle, biting a custody officer’s index finger.

Miss Masters said the officer had to hit her three times to make her release her grip.

The officer’s finger was cut by the bite, while another officer lost clumps of hair grabbed by Evans during the struggle.
Miss Masters said the arrest at the rally, in Preston, Lancashire, was the culmination of a series of incidents involving Evans

It included biting a security guard in the chest on June 3 as he tried to detain her outside the Tesco shop in Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, on suspicion of shoplifting.

In a further incident, in October, she set a Staffordshire bull terrier and an alsatian on her then partner as he left her home in Newton Aycliffe after a row.
Miss Masters said both dogs attacked and bit the man several times, while she landed several punches.

Evans, 24, of Mellanby Crescent, admitted four charges of assault causing actual bodily harm, three of common assault and being the owner of a dog dangerously out of control.

Julie Clemitson, for Evans, said she has spent 123 days in custody, during which time she has progressed with psychiatric assistance.
Judge John Evans said that because of the time she had spent in custody, he could pass a prison sentence of 51 weeks, suspended for two years.
She must undergo 12 months of probation supervision, to include sessions addressing alcohol misuse, while continuing to receive psychiatric help.
She was also banned from owning dogs for seven years. http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9041017.Woman_bit_police_officer_after_arrest/

I was going to post a picture from her facebook page that shows her proudly posing semi-naked with her police ankle-tag-bracelet-thing but it's too early in the morning and I am sure you get the point already.

Would you let this woman mind your kids? If not, would it be the documented history of violence or her "views"? The answer shold be as obvious (minus the Express spin) to you now as it was to Durham Social Services.

==========================================================

As for the Muslim extremist - I don't suppose you've stopped to consider that his children are adults? It reminds me of Alan Partridge trying to convince his solicitor to demand custody of his grown child after a divorce. Abu Qatada has a lot of children, 1 at most I believe is under 18.

SeanW wrote: »

@Brown Bomber, if she is such an unfit parent,

"If"?

She is an unfit parent (assuming the report of her arrest and detention is true). Due to her documented history of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, rage, violence and prison terms.

My own mother grew up with a violent and abusive alcoholic father and the trauma still lives on with her.

SeanW wrote: »

why did the social workers report focus so heavily on her links with the EDL and/or splinter groups? Surely all this evidence of violence etc. would have been sufficient.

You see this is where it pays to be highly sceptical of any article from the gutter press that tries to portray Muslims and/or Islam in a negative light.

For good reason the innocent children involved in these cases are protected by the courts and the details of the case are wrapped up under confidentiality. Therefore, the Express hack and the mother are free to make whatever claims they desire unchallenged. There is no confirmation from the Social Services that their "report focused heavily on the EDL".

These are the two most important points in the article:

The Sunday Express is unable to give details of the judge’s explanation for legal reasons.

and

The council said it was unable to comment.

SeanW wrote: »

Why give the impression that EDL membership is reason to take someone's baby if that is not the case, and why give the impression that they're concerned about the baby's ability to learn how to make "positive relationships" when clearly there are any number of other reasons (known gangsters, islamic extremism etc) that such a concern might apply?

Sean, who is giving this impression? Is it A- The Sunday Express or B - Durham Social Services?

We haven't seen "B" so therefore it must be "A" The Sunday Express. As for "why" - you tell me.

SeanW wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, there's clearly some evidence that she might not be a good parent. I just wonder why the EDL came into it, as it was reported that her membership of the EDL featured heavily in the social workers report.

The EDL came into it because she was arrested at an EDL demo was subsequently tried and convicted of multiple assaults carried out in a haze of violent rage.

According to the report the mother needs to distance herself from the EDL for the sake of her children due to "inappropriate frienships" not due to the ideology of the EDL.

If it was found after a thorough investigation that a mother-to-be with a history of violence, alcohol and drug abuse was continuing her "inappropriate friendships" through any other form be it a bible studies group, local chess club or any other medium then it would equally be a factor.

Clearly the Sunday Express has abused this ignorant woman and it's readers to spin this run-of-the-mill Jeremy Kyle story to whip up gullible British "patriots". The angle is to highlight the supposed abuses of what Anders Breivik would refer to as "cultural-marxists" and to do this they have to cherrypick quotes from the report to portray a false scenario where white British are punished disproportionately to immigrants, specifically Muslms. Us and them.