Sunday, February 24, 2008

Hey, Timmy, Can We Call These People Scumbags ?

In so far as cringe-con Tim Loughton claims social workers are only criticised because us proles are too stoopid to know 'what they actually do', I'd love to hear his supa-sofistikayted explanation for this latest outrage.

And, no, Mr Liberal, this isn't just an isolated incident of a bad judgement call:
Meanwhile, the story of the mother begging for a lie detector test was reported in the local Press. By chance, the consultant radiologist who had treated Louise's baby girl at the local hospital on the very first day she was brought in, read the article and was appalled.

He remembered the case and the wide divergence of medical opinion, yet had never known that Louise was under suspicion or that she was to have been prosecuted. He was convinced then that the child was suffering from a rare form of cancer of the left kidney, called neuroblastoma, which could have caused the bleeding.
So one of the doctors who caught the original case was cut out of the loop and, who'd have thunk it ? Turns out he was sceptical of the Child Snatchers' case. What are the odds, hey ?

More to the point, the Child Snatchers were only able to get away with it because they were able to operate free of public scrutiny. If they'd hadn't tried to bring a criminal case, they'd be home free. It's not often (ever) I agree with a judge, but this is exactly right:
Furthermore, the judge, Mr Justice Gillon - in an age where children are removed from their parents by family courts sitting in secret - took the extremely unusual step of allowing Louise to be named, and for the tragic details of her case to become public.

In a statement he said: "The workings of the family justice system in this case are matters of public interest, and do merit public discussion. Public confidence in the process is necessary, and the emergence of the changing circumstances of this case merits an open discussion."
But even being cleared in a court of law isn't enough for these people:
Even though she had been acquitted, the social workers appeared to ignore the verdict...

In 2005, a year after she had been acquitted, Louise had became pregnant for a third time.

She is reluctant to talk about the father, or name him, although they are no longer together - but at Christmas time, when she was heavily pregnant, the social workers called and told her they planned to take the latest addition away from her at birth.

"I couldn't believe my ears," says Louise.

"I had been declared not guilty in a criminal court - yet they still had both my children and were wanting my new baby. It was torture."
Indeed. Contempt for due process seems to be something of a theme with these people.

So there you have it: suppression of exculpatory evidence, secret tribunals, lawless state officials - and all with the Nu Tory seal of approval.

No comments: