Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511609&in_page_id=1770)

How social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoption
By SUE REID

....

The number of babies under one month old being taken into care for adoption is now running at almost four a day (a 300 per cent increase over a decade).

In total, 75 children of all ages are being removed from their parents every week before being handed over to new families.

Some of these may have been willingly given up for adoption, but critics of the Government's policy are convinced that the vast majority are taken by force.

Time and again, the mothers say they are innocent of any wrongdoing.

....

And how many of the mothers that claim they are innocent of wrongdoing _are_ actually innocent of wrongdoing?

Daily Mail is a British tabloid.

And how many of the mothers that claim they are innocent of wrongdoing _are_ actually innocent of wrongdoing?

Isn't 1 too many?

Any baby knowingly left with a high risk parent is also 1 too many.

Any baby knowingly left with a high risk parent is also 1 too many.

Guilty until proven innocent? How very unconstitutional of you.

Guilty until proven innocent? How very unconstitutional of you.

I don't live in a country with a constitution. It's also not in anyone's interests for a child to be left with a parent when there is identifiable high risk to the child. There is a clear problem in waiting until a baby is beaten, scalded, or otherwise mistreated before acting to protect it.

Furthermore, the taking of children into UK social care is based on authority from a court order. There is a judicial stage where evidence can be produced to show the capability of the child's guardians. Does this satisfy you or do you feel the need to assign guilt in every legal process?

Guilty until proven innocent? How very unconstitutional of you.

He does not have a constitution.

Nice job spin doctor. I guess we should just arrest people for crimes they may commit later. I think we should arrest you now actually, seem like a heartless butcher to me... Be glad I'm not one of the one deciding who looses their baby/freedom.


"social workers seize the newborn, sometimes within minutes of its first cry and often on the flimsiest of excuses."

"But over the five years since I began investigating the scandal of forced adoptions, I have found a deeply secretive system which is too often biased against basically decent families.

I have been told of routine dishonesty by social workers and questionable evidence given by doctors which has wrongly condemned mothers."

Why would they do that? You put a bonus on parking tickets and I'm 100% sure police will find additional violations like being an inch to far from the curb.

"Blair promised millions of pounds to councils that achieved the targets and some have already received more than £2million each in rewards for successful adoptions.

Figures recently released by the Department for Local Government and Community Cohesion show that two councils - Essex and Kent - were offered more than £2million "bonuses" over three years to encourage additional adoptions.

Four others - Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Cheshire and Hampshire - were promised an extra £1million. "

"But the reforms didn't work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, social workers began to earmark babies and cute toddlers who were most easy to place in adoptive homes, leaving the more difficult to-place older children in care.

As a result, the number of over-sevens adopted has plummeted by half. "

More chillingly, parents have been told by social workers they must lose their children because, at some time in the future, they might abuse them.

One mother's son was adopted on the grounds that there was a chance she might shout at him when he was older.

**** ... you didn't even read the article.. did you?

Swiftfox!

It is a tabloid piece.

From England.

You can't do anything about it if were true. They don't even have the same laws that we do.

And honestly, if this were happening in this country, I would support it. I live in an otherwise well-todo city, with a very good community spirit. Streetcleaners, no cars on blocks. Yet, in our hospital, 10-20% of the babies born are born with drugs in their system.

If your baby, newborn, tests positive for Meth, or THC, or alcohol, or any other drugs, you should lose custody right then and there. We should have an onsite judge at each hospital, gavel smash, "Bitch, Hit the street empty handed, NO BABY FOR YOU!", Judge Joe Green style. "Dirty rotten slut<read cunt>, yu lucky we don tie your rotten tubes for yu on yo way out!"

And we don't even have a NICU, like County, where MOST of the babies are drug addicted at birth.

Don't believe all those figures Swiftfox. It is very expensive for local authorities to look after children taken into care. It causes many long term problems. Authorities don't want that cost and responsibility. Social workers can obviously be overzealous but that is why there is meant to be a judicial stage for each case.

I think it was the Victoria Climbie inquiry that called for stronger intervention from UK social services. Read the background to the case and see if you still oppose all state intervention http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1102191.stm

If you want to argue about the details of any particular cases then I'm sure we could agree some improvements to the system. We can probably argue for a long time about the severity of risk needed to prompt the authorities to intervene. I don't think you'll persuade me though that courts/authorities should always stand aside when they can clearly identify children at high risk.

One of the places she went was the Mission Ensemble de Christ in south London. Pastor Pascal Orome says they offered prayers for the child to cast out the devil.

Now he says he understands the role that Kouao was playing.

"[Victoria] was used by another force, another demonic force. It cannot be her but maybe the mother, who was using her... She doesn't behave like an eight-year-old, she behaves like a 40-year-old person."

The last church that Kouao went to was the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God in north London.

The child was so ill that the pastor who saw her insisted she should be taken to hospital. She died the next day - the day the church was planning to hold a service of deliverance for her, a service to cast out the devil.

This is absolutely obscene.
Even more than the evil of the social workers.
YOU people actually allow exorcisms to take place in your country?

How, so First Century of you.

Anyone who believes in Christianity should believe in the possibility of demon possessions. It's spoken of a few times in the Bible. You can't believe in angels and God without also believing by default in the devil and demons. I don't really agree with it their actions but I'm for freedom of religion as well.

I don't disagree for a second there are unfit parents but I know for certain there are also unfit(corrupt) "authorities". There should never be a cash prize for taking peoples children.

Fyyr your definition of tabloid is fairly broad. Until you show the names and numbers are fabrications, it's entirely within reason to accept the probability of the statements within. I'm fairly certain a couple of the organizations presented would be more than willing to sue for slander if untrue.

I don't disagree for a second there are unfit parents but I know for certain there are also unfit(corrupt) "authorities". There should never be a cash prize for taking peoples children.


Without knowing anything about the details, the reason why the government offers additional money is not because they want to encourage social workers to 'abduct babies', but simply because it was found out that local governments refrained from interfering in abusive family situations because they did not have the budget to care for the children. By offering to compensate, or at least reduce, the cost, the British government made it more possible for the social services to help. It is simply a way to better fund those services based on how much money they actually need instead of simply giving each of them some money and hope for the best.

Yes, that does open the doors for abuse and ideally the judicial involvement before social services can interfere will cut down on that. It is no garantuee that mistakes are not made, but the intention is that fewer children who need help are denied it because the social services or local government ran out of money.

And personally, I would be really really careful with believing anything that is written by that particular piece of used toilet paper. It consists of equal amounts of pseudo **** and scandals twisted so as to be as hurtful as possible. Facts are omitted, glossed over or outright lied about when they do not support the political views of the owner, and everything in it is written to support those views. Right now those include painting the current government as black as possible.


Eri

While I am not in the conspiracy crowd and England is England with their own problems to work on on their own....

I guess we should just arrest people for crimes they may commit later.

There are people who would like to do just that. Luckily they are currently in the minority.