Meanwhile, in other perverse and vindictive applications of the law

Christopher Booker highlights this case:

Mother in court over a birthday card

Next Wednesday, Maureen Spalek, a spirited and loving mother, will be in Runcorn magistrates’ court to face a criminal charge of having sent a birthday card to her eight-year-old son – having already been arrested and held in a prison cell for 24 hours for the same offence.

Mrs Spalek is charged with breaking a court order forbidding her to have any contact with her three children, even though she has an order from another judge explicitly permitting her to send them birthday and Christmas cards. Yet a few days after she sent her younger son the card, on April 15, she was visited by two police officers who threatened to beat down her door unless she gave them entry. She was then taken to one of Runcorn’s 30 police cells where she was held in very unpleasant conditions for 24 hours.

Mrs Spalek, the former wife of a naval officer, lost her children some years ago after one of her sons was taken to hospital with a broken leg from a bicycle accident. When she complained about the attitude of a doctor who was treating her son, social workers were called in. When she then, in turn, complained about the “hostile” attitude they had shown to her, the affair escalated to the point where her three children were taken away, on the grounds that she had “problems working with professionals” – even though it was agreed in court that she was an “excellent mother”, that the children were well-behaved and well-looked-after and that they had suffered no physical or emotional abuse. Two were adopted, one lives with their father.

One of the many serious issues not raised in the recent election campaign, because all three parties have agreed not to discuss it, is the growing scandal of the abduction by social workers of children from responsible and loving parents. In too many instances, this gives the impression of a tightly closed system, in which the social workers, who have in the recent past been set “adoption targets” by central government, are aided and abetted by the police, by certain family court judges and even by those lawyers supposedly acting on behalf of the parents. I shall return to this very disturbing issue after Mrs Spalek’s case this week.

A video made in support of Mrs Spalek:

What kind of Kafkaesque hell have we brought upon ourselves in this country?



Suicide watch…

Eamonn Butler is the head of the Adam Smith Institute – a free-market think-tank.

But I’d not be surprised to hear that the Dignitas marketing folk were keen to retain his services.

I say this because, ever since I started reading this:


I’ve been increasingly curious about their services.

It’s an unceasing catalogue of the things that Gordon Brown and his coterie of bastards has done to our country.

Oh sure, there’s not much in there that you couldn’t find on most libertarian blogs, but the sheer scale of their destruction wrought upon the fabric of our economy, society, liberty, privacy, justice system and democratic protections is breath-taking.

I may, in fact, never finish this book, because I decide that I want to live. On the other hand, I may neck a fistful of vallium and get it over with. The book, I mean.


No harm, no foul?


Okay… my title seems out of place with the Times’ headline, but bear with me…

Teenage girls wanting to join violent male gangs are being forced into having sex and ferrying guns, knives and drugs, police and charities have found.

The girls, some as young as 13, want to join gangs to raise their own profile or to seek protection. Often they are swayed by the status given to the senior members of the gang.

When they first join they are told they must have sex with one member of the gang — and then find several of the gang waiting for them.

Now, this is all more than a little seedy, and does sniff of rape… but not to the girls involved, apparently.

What has shocked welfare workers is that the girls accept the situation as normal and do not appreciate that they are being violated.

Errr.. okay.. so.. as young as 13 you say?

In a recent raid by police targeting violent youth crime, 25 females aged between 14 and 39 were arrested in connection with assaults, drug offences and carrying weapons.

Oh.. maybe not then.

Superintendent David Chinchen, who deals with youth violence, said: “Young women are being dragged into the fringes of male criminality and gangs. We are seeing more elements of violence from girls within gangs.” He also said that officers had seen signs of girls becoming involved in sexual violence.

So these same girls who are ‘being violated’, though not, apparently, against their will are also colluding in sexual violence. They don’t sound like victims to me.

Let’s face it, the papers are awash with stories of girls aged 11 and up getting pregnant, pissed, shagging strangers, whatever.

So it’s not clear if the above rape assertion is based on statutory rape, or something more like:

Social Worker: So you had sex with all these boys?

Yolanda: Yeah.. whatever.

SW: But you’re 14 years old.

Yolanda: Whatever. Me dad left when I was a baby. Mum’s been an alcoholic for the last ten years and I’ve been raising my little brother all that time. 14 ain’t a time for playing with dollies in my world Mrs Doogooder.

SW: You were gang raped.

Yolanda: Yo, I got those boys eating out of my hand now. I don’t get no trouble on the street. They didn’t hurt me. No more than my mum does anyway. Or my P.E. teacher. Or the priest.

SW: But… [Ticks ‘RAPE’ box, 5 times.]

Hmm.. Harriet should be pleased.



… on yesterday’s news.. Dundee Council have taken the rest of their kids.


In the comments on the previous post, Angry Exile alluded to a post he’d written on the same sort of theme. Well worth a read.



I can’t make my mind up about this one…


Social workers have moved to take into care a baby born to an obese mother.

The mother — who cannot be named in order to protect the identity of the children — gave birth by Caesarean section last week in a Dundee hospital but was told within 24 hours that she would not be allowed to keep the baby.

She has already had the youngest of her six children, aged 3 and 4, removed from her care because social workers feared that they were at risk of becoming obese. The 40-year-old mother weighed 23 stone before falling pregnant.

The parents originally contacted social workers themselves to seek help with managing their children, one of whom has developmental problems.

So one the one side, we have an inexcusably fat woman, who hasn’t taken personal responsibility for her wellbeing. So what? Whose business is that but hers? If she dies, she dies. Her husband would have to take on the kids.

And who the fucking hell to social services think they are?

Ready for the twist?

At that time they had a toddler who weighed 4 stone and a 13-year-old boy who weighed more than 16 stone.

Ah… so actually, it is child abuse.

So in one corner we have a humongous biffer who is severely endangering the health of her children. One must, for that matter, assume the husband to be complicit too.

In the other corner, we have the self-righteous social workers, eager to stick their oar in, break up a family and thrust several children into a care system that has notoriously disastrous outcomes as the norm.

Were the parents offered a deal regarding weight and diet? Is there a hereditary genetic explanation for the weight of these people? Have they been given help, support, advice and medical attention? The answer appears to be a qualified ‘yes’:

The married couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were warned last year that that they had to bring their six children’s weight under control.

But the parents do apparently care in some what or another…

Speaking to The Times today the father of the baby, aged 54, said that the whole family was “heartbroken” at the loss of their baby.

And every cloud has a silver lining:

“I can’t sleep, I can’t eat. I can’t tell you how powerless I feel. The other children are devastated too,” he said.

Collectively, the family has lost 12 stone in the last week and the local kebab van has relocated to Dumfries.

Anyway, back to the socialist workers, for some smelliness:

The father said social workers had assured him last week that they would not go near the hospital and that he believed an interim report by Dundee Families Project recommending intensive support for the whole family was to be acted upon. He said he was “shocked and traumatised” that social workers had come into the labour ward and attempted to serve papers on his wife.

A hearing tomorrow will discuss a social work application to remove the families’ remaining three children.

The family has already made two legal attempts to have the two children already taken from them returned and they were due to make a third appeal against the decision today.

ANd here come some weasel words from the council:

A Dundee City Council spokesman said: “Local authorities who are involved in the welfare of children have a legal duty to ensure they are protected from publicity that may have a serious effect on them and the council takes seriously this responsibility.

Now to imply that there’s something more sinister afoot:

“We have made it clear on numerous occasions that children would not be removed from a family environment just because of a weight issue.”



It’s finally dawning on them…


Detective Superintendent Graham Hill works at CEOP, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Agency. He heads the Behavioural Therapy Unit and interviews female sex offenders. He believes that as many as one in five of all cases of sexual abuse may involve female perpetrators. “I don’t think there’s a police force in the country that isn’t currently dealing with a female child sex offender,” he tells me, adding that this was just the “tip of the iceberg”.

According to Hill, ten or fifteen years ago most crimes involving accusations of child sexual abuse that the police dealt with were always examined on the premise that the man was the guilty party.

“It was always the case that the female in the family was treated as a potential witness,” he says. “One of our messages to law enforcement officers now is that, when you investigate a serious sexual offence against a child, you should always look at how complicit the female is in that kind of offending.”

And not always just complicity. Hill believes that the public’s perception that female sex offenders usually operate alongside a controlling and manipulative man is often false. He dismisses that stereotypical image as a societal cliché born out of a reluctance to believe that a woman could act so heinously alone and for her own sexual gratification.

Dr Michele Elliott knows all about challenging accepted beliefs and trying to expose what Bill calls that “dark world”: she runs Kidscape, a charity set up to support the victims of childhood abuse. In the 1980s, when the issue of sexual abuse by men had only just begun to receive mainstream acknowledgement, Elliott was one of the first in this country to raise the possibility that women could sexually harm children. She was pilloried for it.

“I vividly remember talking at an RAF base about the sexual abuse of children,” she tells me. “I never said anything about women abusing; I didn’t even think that was possible. Afterwards a man came up in his uniform standing very straight and he said, ‘You know, it isn’t only men who do it. My mother did it to me.’ Then he walked out and I was left so shaken that I started to think maybe I should ask questions." Elliott began to talk about the issue on radio and TV and the response was immediate: “It was like a floodgate had opened.”

Among those who contacted her was a woman who had spent 40 years locked in an asylum after reporting that she had been sexually abused at school by a nun. More than 800 victims have now been in touch with her because of female sexual abuse. But Elliott says that she often feels like a lone voice.

So Plod seem to be reasonably enlightened on this matter.

And yet, alarmingly…

“No one really wants to talk about it. But the professionals are the ones who really annoy me. I’d say that 75 per cent of them are in denial — a mental block. I think there are professionals working in the field who have staked a career on a certainty that it is men who do the abusing. They are very threatened by the idea that that might not be true.”

Read the whole thing.

Now, I’m not trying to promote some damned paedo-panic. I’m just trying to show the perverting influence that radical feminism has had, through many channels, on justice and fairness.

Next time you get some harpy ranting that all men are evil, remember this.

And, on the not unrelated topic of false rape allegations, Ambush Predator recounts a selection of sorry tales on that.

Just open, honest and reasonable, please? Ditch the dogma.


And we trust the state why?

Vote Labour! Yay!

Three social workers suspended over abuser placed with children

Three social workers were suspended today after a youth with a history of sexual offences was placed in a home with two young children.

The parents were not told of the teenagers’ troubled history and only discovered that he had been carrying out repeated sexual assaults on their two-year-old son and nine-year-old daughter months later.

The 19-year-old was jailed indefinitely earlier this year after admitting raping the boy and sexually assaulting the girl.

Vale of Glamorgan Council in South Wales today apologised “unreservedly” to the family for placing him with them.

Oh… right.. that’s okay then. Stunning.

An investigation overseen by the NSPCC found that social workers had been aware of his history but the information was not passed on when he became an adult. He spent several months living with the family under an adult placement scheme after becoming homeless.

The social workers were suspended? From the Severn Bridge using piano wire, I would hope.

Remember things like this before entrusting anything regarding you, your family, your friends or belongings to a representitive of the state.

Oh and while we’re on the subject of children, that old bird who’s had IVF and is having a kid at 66? It’ll all be fine as she doesn’t end up at this hospital

Two mothers died of same infection after childbirth on the same day

Two mothers died within days of each other after giving birth on the same day at the same hospital, an inquest heard today.

Teachers Jasmine Pickett, 29, and Amy Kimmance, 39, both gave birth at the Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester on December 21, 2007.

But after they were both discharged, Mrs Kimmance, who delivered a girl, died on December 23 and Mrs Pickett, of Colden Common, who had a boy, died on December 24.

Mrs Kimmance developed fatal toxic shock syndrome as a result of a group A streptococcal infection, while Mrs Pickett died from a sudden onset of severe pneumonia, likely to have been caused by a group A streptococcal infection.

Human misery and the state’s gross ineptitude aside, who’ll be paying for those kids now? We will, that’s who.

Jesus fucking wept.


%d bloggers like this: