Convict Edd Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 My bold. The social services are on a hiding to nothing. They can't win. if they leave a vulnerable child with a feckless or abusive parent, the screams are heard "Why didn't they take the child away!" If the child is taken into protective care, the screams that resound are "Why did they tear this child from its parents!" It doesn't matter if there are a million children in care, or just one, if the next child they encounter needs a place of safety order, then it should be taken into care to be protected. end of story. I agree they should be taken into care and protected but sadly its the second part of that (protected) that is all too lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Edd Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 Anyway, reading between the lines of the press report, I'd say the Social services are removing the child to protect it from the violence of the mother, not simply because she's EDL. The mother has a string of convictions for violence:- I'd have qualms about leaving a baby with this woman under those circumstances. That looks more like "reading what you want to read" as appose to reading between any lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Edd Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 "Mrs McLeod, who is 35 weeks pregnant, is a former leading member of the EDL, in which she was notorious as “English Angel”. The 25-year-old has a string of convictions for violence, including butting and biting a police officer after an EDL march in 2010 and she has been banned from owning dogs after setting a pit bull on a former partner. 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. 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” ". The title says the threatened removal is because of a worry about radicalism but it turns out that it's down to the mother's alcohol and drug misuse, her violence and her mental health issues. Funny how the OP failed to mention that. It's nice of the OP to show everyone that an EDL member is a violent druggy wino who's round the twist. As if we didn't know. I wonder how many people on here who'd normally be calling her a workshy benefits scrounger and to be sterilised will be supporting her because she shares their politics. All good reasons for this man to be in prison but not one of them is a good enough reason to rob this mother of her baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 "Mrs McLeod, who is 35 weeks pregnant, is a former leading member of the EDL, in which she was notorious as “English Angel”. The 25-year-old has a string of convictions for violence, including butting and biting a police officer after an EDL march in 2010 and she has been banned from owning dogs after setting a pit bull on a former partner. 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. 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” ". The title says the threatened removal is because of a worry about radicalism but it turns out that it's down to the mother's alcohol and drug misuse, her violence and her mental health issues. Funny how the OP failed to mention that. It's nice of the OP to show everyone that an EDL member is a violent druggy wino who's round the twist. As if we didn't know. I wonder how many people on here who'd normally be calling her a workshy benefits scrounger and to be sterilised will be supporting her because she shares their politics. as you say, maquis The title says the threatened removal is because of a worry about radicalism but it turns out that it's down to the mother's alcohol and drug misuse, her violence and her mental health issues. Funny how the OP failed to mention that. that's the exact point I made in my comment above Anyway, reading between the lines of the press report, I'd say the Social services are removing the child to protect it from the violence of the mother, not simply because she's EDL. The mother has a string of convictions for violence:- I'd have qualms about leaving a baby with this woman under those circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 All good reasons for this man to be in prison but not one of them is a good enough reason to rob this mother of her baby. I would have thought it quite right that Social Services have concerns about the children of a violent alcoholic and drug abuser. If they shouldn't be keeping an eye on a mother like this one perhaps you could tell us what a parent has to do to be watched by Social Services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 as you say, maquis that's the exact point I made in my comment above No doubt he'll be changing the title then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Edd Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 No doubt he'll be changing the title then. Why would you think that then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The implication of the article is that her politics are why she is losing the baby,but I see it different,its down to the fact she is not fit to be a mother at this time. If I thought it was due to her politics I would be very unhappy as I still believe in a free country and the right to hold any views you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 All good reasons for this man to be in prison but not one of them is a good enough reason to rob this mother of her baby. On the face of it she doesn't seem able to conduct herself in a proper manner let alone a mother and has some serious issues. Knowing the facts about the mother, If the child was abused at a later date how do you think the feverish element on SF would react? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Edd Posted June 19, 2012 Author Share Posted June 19, 2012 On the face of it she doesn't seem able to conduct herself in a proper manner let alone a mother and has some serious issues. Knowing the facts about the mother, If the child was abused at a later date how do you think the feverish element on SF would react? You know theres a few mothers at my kids school. 2 stick in my mind more than the rest as these two routinely hit their kids in the yard, on the way home and probably at home too. Ive reported them numerous times but nothing seems to be done. I wonder if its cos they is black? "Reading between the lines" id say yes. Their kids are violent thugs who must have hit every single child in the school at some point. They are animals and should be in a secure unit. Now take this story, the only reason this women is facing this situation is because she isnt black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.