Free clue for the Cameroonatics: when your policies are to the left of the moonbats on the bench, it's seriously time to think about calling yourself something other than 'conservative'.
Yep - we've found another judge who doesn't understand what social workers 'actually do':
Again, as I said last time, this isn't about bad judgement. The social workers didn't make a bad call. They knew full well the evidence wasn't there:
Seriously, can you imagine this kind of evidence being accepted anywhere outside the bizzaro world of social work ? Can you imagine what would happen if the prosecution put a guy on the stand to testify that he couldn't match a fingerprint the first seven times, but the eighth time: BINGO!
The case would be tossed so fast the clerk of the court would have to duck to avoid a ricochet. More to the point, can you imagine what would happen to a police force that tried that sort of thing ?
That's the bottom line here, and at least m'lud almost gets it - which is more than the weasel Loughton does:
Yep - we've found another judge who doesn't understand what social workers 'actually do':
A girl aged ten was taken from her parents by social workers for no reason, a High Court judge has ruled.Well, quite.
But, the judge said, the children had been damaged by the intervention of the doctors, the social workers and the state.
Again, as I said last time, this isn't about bad judgement. The social workers didn't make a bad call. They knew full well the evidence wasn't there:
Doctors found small amounts of blood in several examinations and subjected the girl to eight examinations.I'm all for double-checking, but after the third time, you're no longer checking the evidence, you're trawling for it.
They decided that the girl's condition meant she had been abused.
Seriously, can you imagine this kind of evidence being accepted anywhere outside the bizzaro world of social work ? Can you imagine what would happen if the prosecution put a guy on the stand to testify that he couldn't match a fingerprint the first seven times, but the eighth time: BINGO!
The case would be tossed so fast the clerk of the court would have to duck to avoid a ricochet. More to the point, can you imagine what would happen to a police force that tried that sort of thing ?
That's the bottom line here, and at least m'lud almost gets it - which is more than the weasel Loughton does:
Mr Justice Holman said that the case was a warning that the lessons of the Cleveland child abuse controversy of the 1980s have gone unheeded by doctors, social workers and the courts...No, of course not. Why should they be ? There are never any consequences. You can have quacktavist doctors conjure up bogus medical evidence and use it to persecute the innocent without risking so much as missing lunch if it all goes horribly wrong. Hell, if you can keep it in the family courts and out of the real ones, you'd need not even face public scrutiny. Like I said, why shouldn't we hate them ?
"Even 20 years after the Cleveland inquiry, I wonder whether its lessons have been fully learned," the judge added.
No comments:
Post a Comment