1464
Post by: Breotan
Because apparently social services there can do just about anything they damned well please.
Colin Freeman wrote:Child taken from womb by social services
Exclusive: Essex social services have obtained a court order against a woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and for her child to be taken from her womb by caesarean section
A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.
Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.
• Torment of woman who had baby taken from womb
• Child taken from womb by social services: 'It's not always wrong'
The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.
The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.
The case has developed into an international legal row, with lawyers for the woman describing it as “unprecedented”.
They claim that even if the council had been acting in the woman’s best interests, officials should have consulted her family beforehand and also involved Italian social services, who would be better-placed to look after the child.
Brendan Fleming, the woman’s British lawyer, told The Sunday Telegraph: “I have never heard of anything like this in all my 40 years in the job.
“I can understand if someone is very ill that they may not be able to consent to a medical procedure, but a forced caesarean is unprecedented.
“If there were concerns about the care of this child by an Italian mother, then the better plan would have been for the authorities here to have notified social services in Italy and for the child to have been taken back there.”
The case, reported by Christopher Booker in his column in The Sunday Telegraph, raises fresh questions about the extent of social workers’ powers.
It will be raised in Parliament this week by John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP. He chairs the Public Family Law Reform Coordinating Campaign, which wants reform and greater openness in court proceedings involving family matters.
He said: “I have seen a number of cases of abuses of people’s rights in the family courts, but this has to be one of the more extreme.
“It involves the Court of Protection authorising a caesarean section without the person concerned being made aware of what was proposed. I worry about the way these decisions about a person’s mental capacity are being taken without any apparent concern as to the effect on the individual being affected.”
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is an Italian national who come to Britain in July last year to attend a training course with an airline at Stansted Airport in Essex.
She suffered a panic attack, which her relations believe was due to her failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition.
She called the police, who became concerned for her well-being and took her to a hospital, which she then realised was a psychiatric facility.
She has told her lawyers that when she said she wanted to return to her hotel, she was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
Meanwhile, Essex social services obtained a High Court order in August 2012 for the birth “to be enforced by way of caesarean section”, according to legal documents seen by this newspaper.
The woman, who says she was kept in the dark about the proceedings, says that after five weeks in the ward she was forcibly sedated. When she woke up she was told that the child had been delivered by C-section and taken into care.
In February, the mother, who had gone back to Italy, returned to Britain to request the return of her daughter at a hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court.
Her lawyers say that she had since resumed taking her medication, and that the judge formed a favourable opinion of her. But he ruled that the child should be placed for adoption because of the risk that she might suffer a relapse.
The cause has also been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which has questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.
Lawyers for the woman are demanding to know why Essex social services appear not have contacted next of kin in Italy to consult them on the case.
They are also upset that social workers insisted on placing the child in care in Britain, when there had been an offer from a family friend in America to look after her.
An expert on social care proceedings, who asked not to be named because she was not fully acquainted with the details of the case, described it as “highly unusual”.
She said the council would first have to find “that she was basically unfit to make any decision herself” and then shown there was an acute risk to the mother if a natural birth was attempted.
An Essex county council spokesman said the local authority would not comment on ongoing cases involving vulnerable people and children.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
To start off, is there any other source or do I have to take the Telegraph's word for it?
That said, Jesus H. Christ, WHAT?!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Italy should immediately declare war over the kidnapping of its citizens. No true Roman will rest until The Legio X Equestris is marching on the Londonium barbarians.
For Rome! For Caesar!
61774
Post by: Somedude593
Jesus..... the other side of the pond is scary
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
I've never heard anything good about social services here in the UK. Ever.
But this takes the cake...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Can a Brit check to see if this is for reals?
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Let's just sweep all the good work that social services do under the carpet for a few bad stories.
I think we need more details than this inflamatory article.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
I've seen it repeated on other news services - I think I first saw it on the BBC - usually pretty good for fact checking.
The social services in the UK have been through quite a few rough patches over at least the last 10 years (probably the last few decades if we are being honest) but this is certainly something new as far as I am aware.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Social Services in the US has some pretty outlandish powers as well, also with poor or nonexistent oversight. While this specific example was from the UK I wouldn't call it a UK problem specifically, either. There have been some wild ass cases here where they have overreached, but no one wants to make a mistake if a child might get hurt, so... overreach.
Additionally - and I'm not victim blaming here - I think there are elements of the story not reported. She had a panic attack, and was in the mental facility for at least 5 weeks previous to the C-section. 5 weeks for a panic attack? Something is fishy here.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
JESUS......I cant even try to play devils advocate for this one, it is just too horrible. Im sorry but "Panic Attack" does not equal being sectioned, it equals talking to a doc for a bit
47598
Post by: motyak
 hotsauceman1 wrote:JESUS......I cant even try to play devils advocate for this one, it is just too horrible. Im sorry but "Panic Attack" does not equal being sectioned, it equals talking to a doc for a bit
True, but "panic attack" doesn't land you 5 weeks in care if there is anyone at all competent with regards to mental health in the location you are being treated. So while I agree this is awful, there must be more to it.
23
Post by: djones520
 motyak wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:JESUS......I cant even try to play devils advocate for this one, it is just too horrible. Im sorry but "Panic Attack" does not equal being sectioned, it equals talking to a doc for a bit
True, but "panic attack" doesn't land you 5 weeks in care if there is anyone at all competent with regards to mental health in the location you are being treated. So while I agree this is awful, there must be more to it.
It's possible that the same system that decided to forcibly operate on a woman and steal her child, had overblown her issues in the first place.
At any rate... if she wasn't a British citizen, then what grounds did they have to do this in the first place? If this had happened to an American citizen, I hope our State Department would be raising no end of hell over this.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
 djones520 wrote:At any rate... if she wasn't a British citizen, then what grounds did they have to do this in the first place? If this had happened to an American citizen, I hope our State Department would be raising no end of hell over this.
You go somewhere, you liveby their rules. However silly they may be, or how badly applied. Given the very limited amount of information that there is about this case it is hard to know how much was going on in the background both with social services and with the woman's mental health.
If it turns out that the social services and so on acted against the law then I very much hope that those responsible get the book thrown at them. If it looks like everything was done properly, well... it is a horrible situation still but they acted within the law and following all the appropriate guidance...
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
Having been a Registered Nurse serving patients in a locked mental facility, I can speak from experience here....
1) panic attacks should not require 5 weeks of treatment
2) if she is bipolar and off her meds, it could take a few weeks to get her re-regulated (depending on how long she was off, the severity of her bipolar, etc).
3) bipolar disorder is a very treatable mental illness, provided the person takes their meds and family/friends know what signs to watch for that may indicate medication non compliance or that an adjustment is needed.
I suspect that she was kept there for the express purpose of getting her closer to term so that the child could be delivered and taken.
28305
Post by: Talizvar
Well, at first blush, it looks like it could be real:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/social-services-forcibly-remove-unborn-child-from-woman-by-caesarean-after-she-suffered-mental-health-breakdown-8975808.html
"Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: “At first blush this is dystopian science-fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares.”
A spokesman for Essex County Council said he could not comment on ongoing cases."
Every surgery has risk, being put under for any reason has some risk of death so I am surprised of the disregard of the patient's health as well as removing the baby prior to coming to full term.
Typically if a patient is unable to decide for themselves, immediate family is to be involved: what of the rights of the father? Or grandparents?
This is the point where a serious "slap-down" of overreaching civil servants operating beyond the scope of their job or of humane thinking in general.
I would suggest making such an example of this that no-one would ever think of doing this again: loss of job, loss of tenure, possible arrest for disregard of basic human rights.
Why does this typically happen in Britain? (Police being a bit cavalier of law interpretation has been newsworthy as well).
Canada should not be all that different with some of our systems, I will look into it (taking guns from houses after flooding is our latest).
18698
Post by: kronk
Even good social service programs can feth up royally from time to time.
 Talizvar wrote:
This is the point where a serious "slap-down" of overreaching civil servants operating beyond the scope of their job or of humane thinking in general.
I would suggest making such an example of this that no-one would ever think of doing this again: loss of job, loss of tenure, possible arrest for disregard of basic human rights.
Agreed. 
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
SilverMK2 wrote: If it looks like everything was done properly, well... it is a horrible situation still but they acted within the law and following all the appropriate guidance...
And these guys....
Were completely within German law (at the time) when they herded their prisoners into these gas chambers....
47598
Post by: motyak
Talizvar wrote:being put under for any reason has some risk of death so I am surprised of the disregard of the patient's health as well as removing the baby prior to coming to full term.
Was she actually put under completely? I am always surprised when I read stories saying women have been put under, because they are either wrong or the hospital that I worked at was unique in how it did c-sections. And zingggg Godwin! (not my post, the one above). You may want to edit that though, at the moment you are attributing what you are saying to Silver
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
 TheMeanDM wrote:And these guys....
Were completely within German law (at the time) when they herded their prisoners into these gas chambers....[/color]
Yay! Godwin!
Oh, wait, we are talking about compltely different things - one being the actual topic - a woman who may have been mentally unable to take part in her own care and that of her baby having medical decisions taken for her with the baby subsequently being placed for adoption due to on going concerns about her ability to care for herself and her child. The other being the systematic elimination of entire races and ethnic groups...
65757
Post by: PredaKhaine
Since when should a godwin be on topic? 
There has to be more to this - as others have said, you don't get sectioned for five weeks for a panic attack.
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
No, actually, it's a comparison of following the law of the land.
You broached the idea that if everything was followed within the law...then the actions are legal and therefore "ok" (regardless of it being terrible).
The Nazi soldiers were following orders and the law of the German government...which in your original statement, makes their actions "ok" because they were legal.
Apples to Apples is all I'm comparing.
65757
Post by: PredaKhaine
TheMeanDM wrote: I suspect that she was kept there for the express purpose of getting her closer to term so that the child could be delivered and taken.
Yes, because obviously british doctors are coming to take all your children through unwarrented surgery. We must have a shortage of Italian dna for the anglo/italian cloning attempts or something...
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
TheMeanDM wrote:No, actually, it's a comparison of following the law of the land.
You broached the idea that if everything was followed within the law...then the actions are legal and therefore "ok" (regardless of it being terrible).
The Nazi soldiers were following orders and the law of the German government...which in your original statement, makes their actions "ok" because they were legal.
Apples to Apples is all I'm comparing.
No, you're comparing the laws put in place which sent millions to their deaths and millions more to flee to "safe countries", to one which aims to ensure safety for mother and child in cases where the mother suffers from mental health issues, and which, as far as I can see, has not caused any problems since it was implemented (the last major mental health reforms we had were in 1983).
Kind of like comparing a nuke to a pea shooter. Or a strawman if you will.
68355
Post by: easysauce
social services,
SS,
its not a coincidence.
jokes aside, SS's have many cases of this kind of overreaching actions...
dont EVER piss off someone who works with SS's, they can and will ruin your life if they are the slightest bit of a douche.
things like http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-misuse-and-abuse-of-social-service-agencies-out-of-control-power
http://justicewomen.com/tips_bewarechildprotectiveservices.html
http://amiablyme.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/cover-up-of-abuse-by-social-services-and-staff/
http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/p4p/heartbreaking_abuse_power.htm
are fairly common enough to raise serious concerns with the amount, scope, and use of SS's powers, and not just in any one country.
its like a new TSA, but one that is even more involved with your cervix.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Social Services; Bodly going where no one ever wanted us to be.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
motyak wrote: So while I agree this is awful, there must be more to it.
This. I see that Dakka has become predictably hysterical again though.
Essex social services obviously thought that there was grounds to do what they did and so did the judge who granted the court order to have this done in the first place. Newspaper reports, especially those based on the biased accounts of the mother, are not going to carry the full story.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Pretty much everything in the story is justifiable. If she was a danger to herself she is a danger to the child, thus removing the child is arguable necessary to protect it, and then keeping custody until she was well.
What I find bizarre is that the British Government is essentially keeping an infant Italian national in custody against the wishes of its mother who supposedly is now well? Arguably she isn't but even then wouldn't it be more proper for the child to enter the custody of the Italian government? Why is it still in British social services? Is that the law in the UK? EDIT: Is there any word on the father in this? If he were British it would make much more sense to me.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Sedating a women and removing her child is justifiable?
I call gak on that
21720
Post by: LordofHats
In extreme cases of mental illness? I could buy it. What I don't buy though is why the child hasn't been returned if she is well.
Of course I do find it something of an oddity that a society that allows abortion goes out of its way to remove a child from the womb due to a supposed danger from its mother. No comment on morals or ethics of aborition, I just find it an odd happenstance.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 SilverMK2 wrote: djones520 wrote:At any rate... if she wasn't a British citizen, then what grounds did they have to do this in the first place? If this had happened to an American citizen, I hope our State Department would be raising no end of hell over this.
You go somewhere, you liveby their rules. However silly they may be, or how badly applied. Given the very limited amount of information that there is about this case it is hard to know how much was going on in the background both with social services and with the woman's mental health.
If it turns out that the social services and so on acted against the law then I very much hope that those responsible get the book thrown at them. If it looks like everything was done properly, well... it is a horrible situation still but they acted within the law and following all the appropriate guidance...
If they were within the limits of the law, it does not make their actions good or correct. Laws which legitimately allow/justify this type of action need to be changed. As a society, accepting 'well it was legal' and not questioning if it was good and moral seems mighty sheeplike to me. There have been plenty of laws which were wrong/immoral. Believing all current laws are correct and being applied/enforced correctly seems mighty silly.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
 LordofHats wrote:
What I find bizarre is that the British Government is essentially keeping an infant Italian national in custody against the wishes of its mother who supposedly is now well? Arguably she isn't but even then wouldn't it be more proper for the child to enter the custody of the Italian government? Why is it still in British social services? Is that the law in the UK? EDIT: Is there any word on the father in this? If he were British it would make much more sense to me.
Its a bit of an odd one but as she was born in Britain she is a British citizen and the UK government has a duty of care to the baby. The reason that the judge gave for not returning the baby to the mother is that he could not guarantee that she would continue to take her medication and as such was a real danger to the child. Now that could be argued to be harsh but on the other hand if she was sufficiently ill the last time that she failed to take her medication to be sectioned then its probably fair.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Usually people bash me when I bring up the 'do this because someone might do something bad in the future' excuse
121
Post by: Relapse
I reference my cousin who worked 30 years helping troubled youth and families in Maine. He has told me of cases where the parents of children say everything is fine and the kids should stay with them, when he has seen far different.
This could be one of those cases, perhaps.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I hesitate to rush to judgement on this without facts, but I'll do it anyway! My "gut" feeling is that the rules as they are were probably followed in this case but that it may still not sit right with many people as more information becomes available.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
I've heard numerous horror stories about social services. If your kids are taken away, you're gagged from talking about it. You can discuss it with your lawyer but if you discuss it publicly you are threatened with having them permanently removed. So there's a walk of silence enforced around their cases. If you have your child removed for an extended period, even if you are totally exonerated there's a chance they still won't return them because it would confuse the child or some such, it's almost a certainty if they've adopted them with someone else. Seeing as this child was effectively taken away pre birth and it's been nearly 4 months, they'll try to keep it.
Social services deal with some really bad stuff and it's not a job I would touch. Working in a school, I'm aware of the backgrounds of some children, and it's bad, and they need people to go in and help them. But social services have some dubious policies and when they feth up, they really feth up badly. It's very dependent on the types of people working as social workers, the culture of your local area and the pressures they are under. I'm glad they sort out problem families but I'd be as terrified as feth if they came after me on false pretences.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yeah, I was going into social services, but now I realize its just something I dont have the guts for.
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
IANASW but I think that in the case regarding this child a perfect storm of rules and regulations were applied and adhered too cascading into the seeming clusterfeth we have now.
I expect that a hearing will take place where questions will begat questions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: hotsauceman1 wrote:Yeah, I was going into social services, but now I realize its just something I dont have the guts for.
Go for it but I think Social Services is for the very strong willed.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Social Services are in a bit of a state here in the UK it seems, although I don't envy them at all the job they have to do and the kind of people they seem to have to deal with a lot of the time.
Something that kind of ties into this story, a personal story which I hope will add a bit to this discussion. I have a member of my family that is mentally disabled. Very ill at birth, his brain was starved of oxygen which severely and permanently damaged his cognitive ability. After narrowly surviving the doctors estimated that he had the mental age of an 8-year old, although he has always worked and is able to look after himself more or less without care. Some years ago he had a 'relationship' with another mentally disabled woman (she had similar issues, I believe a mental age of about 7) and they got married.
The woman had a lot of pets, however after complaints from neighbours the RSPCA (animal protection agency) entered their house to find numerous dead rabbits and gerbils. Despite loving the animals dearly, she had forgotten to feed and water them and various small furry corpses were found scattered around. Despite this, and the RSPCA getting a special order saying they were not allowed to keep pets, she then became pregnant, carried the child to term and gave birth. They were then allowed to keep the baby. I'll let that sink in for a moment..
Eventually, after a big effort from both sides of the family, the baby was put up for adoption. And of course at this point it was an extremely painful process for the mother - despite being quite severely disabled, of course every mother feels the loss of their child. Fortunately the baby went to a good family, and was able to have a normal childhood with capable parents.
The point I'm trying to make here is that, for the most part, there is a strong argument to be made for separating mental and physical age and the ability of an individual to be responsible for their actions. I'm not defending what the Social Services did in this story; obviously there should have been a full enquiry and investigation about whether such a thing should take place, and when it has to happen, it is done in the most conscientious way possible. But, one has to look at the potential alternative; of a mentally ill mother harming the baby. In the case related to my family, the mother neglecting to feed the baby, of shaking it too hard when it won't stop crying.. it doesn't take much imagination to see that the potential fall-out is much worse. And there have actually been several prominent stories in the UK press recently of the Social Services failing to protect vulnerable children from incapable parents.
I suppose the point is, where do the rights of the individual end, and the rights of the state to protect its citizens (including those who cannot protect themselves) begin. It's a very fine line no doubt..
4402
Post by: CptJake
The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?
Honestly, the concept of a state having 'rights' at all, let alone 'rights' which trump individual rights disgusts me. The state should have limited and clearly defined responsibilities and very clearly defined and very limited power to make good on their responsibilities.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
There are every grounds for sedating someone for mental illness reasons, just ask anyone who works in a hospitals emergency dept.
5 weeks for a panic attack is bs, it's 5 weeks for going off meds and the required observation time (particularly if they think the person may have to care for a baby).
I don't know if mental health in the UK is the same as here, but in Aus mental health is pretty much a revolving door system. Have incident--> go under observation-----> be released i n 2 days.
I just discovered that phosphine gas tablets at my work. I didn't really have to mention that but i wanted to contribute to the Godwin 
7942
Post by: nkelsch
The scary part is not just that they did this, but they did it to a non-citizen from another country. I feel like if someone has such an issue, there would be attempts to contact the home country and there would be some effort to 'ship the person home' opposed to doing stuff for 5 weeks.
I feel like after a week or so, someone had to be missing her and that embassies would have been involved.
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
I..... Feth me, that is wrong.
In this country the SS has way to much power. They have a role, but they refuse to stick with it.
You should never piss off a member of the SS. Once they are on to you their worse than a pack of light mechs on your six.
Frankly i find this disgusting. Just another thing that is wrong with this country 
121
Post by: Relapse
hotsauceman1 wrote:Yeah, I was going into social services, but now I realize its just something I dont have the guts for.
Yep, it cost my cousin his health because of all the things he saw happening with kids over the years. The only reason he stayed with it was because he felt the kids needed someone who would stand up for them.
46630
Post by: wowsmash
Not surprising really. similar problems in SS in other countries. To much power and not enough responsibility. You put somebody in charge that's an over reacting nut and this is what you get.
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
Please allow me to clarify....
Your statement indicates that as long as the social services is acting within the law, that their actions are therefore deemed acceptable/ok/kosher because they are "lawful".
I will grant you that. Yes. Their action may very well be within the scope of the law.
However, as I pointed out, so were the actions of the Nazis against the Jews because the German government, at that time, passed a number of laws that were anti-Semitic.
The comparison that I am making, therefore, is that although an action may be "lawful"...it does *not* equate to being morally or ethically right.
I'm fine with the holding her 5 weeks. We once had a patient on our floor for almost 4 months because there was no program or facility that wanted to accept him. Sometimes it *can* take a significant amount of time for a person to adjust to their medication. I get that.
I am *not* fine with forcing a c-section on her.
I am *not* fine with the government apparently not finding next of kin (husband? grandparents? aunts/uncles?) first to place the child with.
I am *not* fine with the government currently refusing to give custody back to the mother on the chance that she *might* go off her meds again.
People who are on mental health medications always have a chance at having something happen and become "non-compliant" with their medication.
-- medical illness (I've seen medical docs stop psych meds while pt is in the hospital--stupid docs!!)
-- finances (can't afford to buy them and they run out)
-- purposeful non-compliance
-- drug interaction makes medication ineffective
Just to name a few reasons!
To punish someone for the possibility of something that might happen but only if a certain set of circumstances happen.....that very much scares me....and it should scare you, too!
14887
Post by: NeedleOfInquiry
SilverMK2 wrote: TheMeanDM wrote:And these guys....
Were completely within German law (at the time) when they herded their prisoners into these gas chambers....[/color]
Yay! Godwin!
Oh, wait, we are talking about compltely different things - one being the actual topic - a woman who may have been mentally unable to take part in her own care and that of her baby having medical decisions taken for her with the baby subsequently being placed for adoption due to on going concerns about her ability to care for herself and her child. The other being the systematic elimination of entire races and ethnic groups...
It is the same mindset....and the same type of government...
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Palindrome wrote:Its a bit of an odd one but as she was born in Britain she is a British citizen and the UK government has a duty of care to the baby. The reason that the judge gave for not returning the baby to the mother is that he could not guarantee that she would continue to take her medication and as such was a real danger to the child. Now that could be argued to be harsh but on the other hand if she was sufficiently ill the last time that she failed to take her medication to be sectioned then its probably fair.
I wasn't aware that the UK granted citizenship on the basis of simply being born in the UK anymore. Frankly the US might want to consider amending the Constitution and stop granting citizenship on that basis, which should help stop birth tourism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law#British_citizenship_by_birth_in_the_United_Kingdom
Under the law in effect from 1 January 1983, a child born in the UK to a parent who is a British citizen or 'settled' in the UK is automatically a British citizen by birth.
Only one parent needs to meet this requirement, either the father or the mother.
"Settled" status in this context usually means the parent is resident in the United Kingdom and has the right of abode, holds Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), or is the citizen of an EU/EEA country and has permanent residence, or otherwise unrestricted by immigration laws to remain in the UK.[4] Irish citizens in the UK are also deemed settled for this purpose.
Special rules exist for cases where a parent of a child is a citizen of a European Union or European Economic Area member state, or Switzerland. The law in this respect was changed on 2 October 2000 and again on 30 April 2006. See below for details.
For children born before 1 July 2006, if only the father meets this requirement, the parents must be married. Marriage subsequent to the birth is normally enough to confer British citizenship from that point.
Where the father is not married to the mother, the Home Office usually registers the child as British provided an application is made and the child would have been British otherwise. The child must be under 18 on the date of application.
Where a parent subsequently acquires British citizenship or "settled" status, the child can be registered as British provided he or she is still aged under 18.
If the child lives in the UK until age 10 there is a lifetime entitlement to register as a British citizen. The immigration status of the child and his/her parents is irrelevant.
Special provisions may apply for the child to acquire British citizenship if a parent is a British Overseas citizen or British subject, or if the child is stateless.
Even if a child born in the UK on or after 1 January 1983 does not acquire British citizenship, he/she does not require any visa (leave to enter or remain) to live in the UK.[5] However, he/she is subject to immigration control and needs to obtain leave to enter if he/she leaves the UK and seeks re-admission, or leave to remain where permission is sought for the child to be allowed to stay in the UK.[6]
Before 1983, birth in the UK was sufficient in itself to confer British nationality irrespective of the status of parents, with an exception only for children of diplomats and enemy aliens. This exception did not apply to most visiting forces, so, in general, children born in the UK before 1983 to visiting military personnel (e.g. US forces stationed in the UK) are British citizens by birth.
5394
Post by: reds8n
To clarify a couple of points raised earlier :
The child father is, AFAIK, an American citizen , who is separated from the mother and has been sometime.
His sister in the USA has, apparently, offered to take the child in -- exactly when this offer was made ..?
The woman has 2 other children, both of whom have been removed from her care and are being looked after by her mother back in Italy.
She has had lapses with regards to her medication before -- hence why she no longer has custody of her other children one assumes.
Does seem odd in the extreme though that the authorities haven't or aren't making more of an effort to get the child in question placed with a family member. I thought that was standard/best practise in adoption cases but situation might be different here or that might not even be the case ?
40344
Post by: master of ordinance
Yeah Red, but remember our goverments motto-"Think of the children!"
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Does this mean anyone who has ever seen boobs online will have their children taken away from them? 
221
Post by: Frazzled
 CptJake wrote:The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?
Honestly, the concept of a state having 'rights' at all, let alone 'rights' which trump individual rights disgusts me. The state should have limited and clearly defined responsibilities and very clearly defined and very limited power to make good on their responsibilities.
The State has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens. This is time honored law and tradition back to Da Queen (not to be confused with Queen who were epic). It has no duty to do so, but it has a compelling interest in it. Thats why the state can step in to protect children and others as needed.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
 master of ordinance wrote:I..... Feth me, that is wrong.
In this country the SS has way to much power. They have a role, but they refuse to stick with it.
You should never piss off a member of the SS. Once they are on to you their worse than a pack of light mechs on your six.
Frankly i find this disgusting. Just another thing that is wrong with this country
Yeah! Social services, health and safety, PC culture, immigrants, and them straight-banana-loving Brussels crypto-klepto-crats are ruinin' this here glorious nashun! Rabble rabble rabble! 
If social services do their job, they're accused of being fascists. If they can't do their job because of chronic underfunding, they're derided as incompetent. The reality is that they provide an incredibly valuable service to society, and no amount of "down the pub heard it from a mate of a mate" anecdotes or sensationalist guff in the hostile and circulation-hungry gutter press will change that. I'll wait until we have the full story, because each and every one of the individual actions taken isn't just legal but entirely justifiable, and I suspect that once the full context becomes clear this nonsense about "sectioned for having a panic attack" and so forth will fall apart.
If you have mental health problems, the reason to avoid the UK isn't social services, it's the monstrous Westminster political consensus that solves fuel poverty by redefining the term to exclude the poor, that declares people "fit for work" on the same day they lie in a hospital bed drowning in their own fluids, and which has developed a social security system specifically designed to discriminate against "invisible" disabilities like mental health disorders and at the same time have dramatically cut funding for mental health services, mental health charities, and fed the poisonous narrative that the mentally ill are either the stereotypical raving loons, or else they're just feeling a bit mopey and should get over themselves.
4402
Post by: CptJake
 Frazzled wrote: CptJake wrote:The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?
Honestly, the concept of a state having 'rights' at all, let alone 'rights' which trump individual rights disgusts me. The state should have limited and clearly defined responsibilities and very clearly defined and very limited power to make good on their responsibilities.
The State has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens. This is time honored law and tradition back to Da Queen (not to be confused with Queen who were epic). It has no duty to do so, but it has a compelling interest in it. Thats why the state can step in to protect children and others as needed.
Interest or responsibility is much different than a 'right'. The state should only be allowed to step in when clearly defined conditions are met, and only step in in clearly defined ways. Somehow I suspect a forced C-section and the further actions in this particular case were not what was intended by the laws which allow the state to step in.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
CptJake wrote:Interest or responsibility is much different than a 'right'. The state should only be allowed to step in when clearly defined conditions are met, and only step in in clearly defined ways. Somehow I suspect a forced C-section and the further actions in this particular case were not what was intended by the laws which allow the state to step in.
C-sections are medically recomended for a number of medical condictions or situations, regardless of what the state may or may not want.
4402
Post by: CptJake
SilverMK2 wrote: CptJake wrote:Interest or responsibility is much different than a 'right'. The state should only be allowed to step in when clearly defined conditions are met, and only step in in clearly defined ways. Somehow I suspect a forced C-section and the further actions in this particular case were not what was intended by the laws which allow the state to step in.
C-sections are medically recomended for a number of medical condictions or situations, regardless of what the state may or may not want.
And that applies to this particular situation and my comments on it in what way?
221
Post by: Frazzled
CptJake wrote: Frazzled wrote: CptJake wrote:The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?
Honestly, the concept of a state having 'rights' at all, let alone 'rights' which trump individual rights disgusts me. The state should have limited and clearly defined responsibilities and very clearly defined and very limited power to make good on their responsibilities.
The State has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens. This is time honored law and tradition back to Da Queen (not to be confused with Queen who were epic). It has no duty to do so, but it has a compelling interest in it. Thats why the state can step in to protect children and others as needed.
Interest or responsibility is much different than a 'right'. The state should only be allowed to step in when clearly defined conditions are met, and only step in in clearly defined ways. Somehow I suspect a forced C-section and the further actions in this particular case were not what was intended by the laws which allow the state to step in.
No. The State should indeed have the interest to protect its citizenry from others. What you're describing is what occurs in the use of that interest.
A C-section would have occurred because labor was a problem. Taking the baby and thus starteing the Third Punic War would have been under the State's authority to protect its citizens and those within its environs. As Reddy noted, there appears to be a lot more to this story then originally told.
As to the State Interest. Its existed since a Frenchie crossed a river, shot a Dane in the eye with an arrow, and so Yo Bro Limeytown's mine Bro!
I want a state that has an interest in protecting its owners. Its a nice contrast to the USSR.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
CptJake wrote: SilverMK2 wrote: CptJake wrote:Interest or responsibility is much different than a 'right'. The state should only be allowed to step in when clearly defined conditions are met, and only step in in clearly defined ways. Somehow I suspect a forced C-section and the further actions in this particular case were not what was intended by the laws which allow the state to step in.
C-sections are medically recomended for a number of medical condictions or situations, regardless of what the state may or may not want.
And that applies to this particular situation and my comments on it in what way?
If your mental state is such that you or your child would be endangered by giving birth naturally then a C-section might be indicated.
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
Social Services can be give the power to take away a baby at birth if the parent is deemed not suitable. Usually this is if they have mental problems or drug related. I don't have an issue with this, unlike our cousins across the pond I believe that the state does have responsibility to perform these actions, if a child's well being is at risk. This does not make us a Fascist or Communist state, nor should it make us complacent about what the government does in our name.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 reds8n wrote: To clarify a couple of points raised earlier :
The child father is, AFAIK, an American citizen , who is separated from the mother and has been sometime.
His sister in the USA has, apparently, offered to take the child in -- exactly when this offer was made ..?
The woman has 2 other children, both of whom have been removed from her care and are being looked after by her mother back in Italy.
She has had lapses with regards to her medication before -- hence why she no longer has custody of her other children one assumes.
Does seem odd in the extreme though that the authorities haven't or aren't making more of an effort to get the child in question placed with a family member. I thought that was standard/best practise in adoption cases but situation might be different here or that might not even be the case ?
Well that makes more sense then. Someone with chronic off the meds behavior probably lost the leeway to take care of their kids already, especially since she's lost two. But now I more want to know why the child hasn't been sent to live in the care of its siblings (presumably they're safe where they are now).
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
The truth slowly comes out.
Shame the child isn't already with family but it appears as if there are other issues. It should be said that the adoptive parents will love and support this child.
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
The Telegraph report also suggested that social services had not consulted with either the child’s extended family or Italian social services. In fact, the judgement makes clear that both a social worker and the baby’s guardian visited Italy, and documents from Italian social services played a major role in the judge’s decision. The mother’s two other children are currently being cared for by their grandmother, and both the family and the Italian courts had for some time restricted the mother’s contact with them due to her illness, which caused “considerable conflict” with her parents
This is very reassuring to see, and also sheds more light on the severity of her illness when *not* on meds and how very inconsistent she was in taking them through the years.
I must say, after reading the snips of the judgment, I believe that the judge was truly torn as to what to do and was trying to make the best of a horribly bad situation.
Not being from the UK, I have also learned to not take things written by this newspaper "Telegraph" and its journalists as being....entirely factual and overly sensational.
18410
Post by: filbert
You would be well served not to take *anything* you read or see in the mass media as being entirely factual or without agenda. There isn't a single media organ, certainly here in the UK at any rate, that doesn't have its own particular agenda, politics or axe to grind.
32752
Post by: Tigurius
Typical sensationalising of the situation by the Telegraph.
Though I agree the authorities can sometimes make overreaching decisions based on poor judgement. My experience is that our Social Services (or at least the ones in Manchester and Greater Manchester) only take a child from a parent when justified.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
CptJake wrote:The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?
You are sounding a lot like an anarchist.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
TheMeanDM wrote:The Telegraph report also suggested that social services had not consulted with either the child’s extended family or Italian social services. In fact, the judgement makes clear that both a social worker and the baby’s guardian visited Italy, and documents from Italian social services played a major role in the judge’s decision. The mother’s two other children are currently being cared for by their grandmother, and both the family and the Italian courts had for some time restricted the mother’s contact with them due to her illness, which caused “considerable conflict” with her parents
This is very reassuring to see, and also sheds more light on the severity of her illness when *not* on meds and how very inconsistent she was in taking them through the years.
I must say, after reading the snips of the judgment, I believe that the judge was truly torn as to what to do and was trying to make the best of a horribly bad situation.
Not being from the UK, I have also learned to not take things written by this newspaper "Telegraph" and its journalists as being....entirely factual and overly sensational.
You've basically summed up what I've been thinking. Although, as for the part I've highlighted, I'd say your country is probably slightly worse in regards to media partisanship!
75483
Post by: Imposter101
 NeedleOfInquiry wrote: SilverMK2 wrote: TheMeanDM wrote:And these guys.... Were completely within German law (at the time) when they herded their prisoners into these gas chambers....[/color]
Yay! Godwin! Oh, wait, we are talking about compltely different things - one being the actual topic - a woman who may have been mentally unable to take part in her own care and that of her baby having medical decisions taken for her with the baby subsequently being placed for adoption due to on going concerns about her ability to care for herself and her child. The other being the systematic elimination of entire races and ethnic groups...
It is the same mindset....and the same type of government...
Britain is now a fascist national socialist state apparently. Oh wait I have to go, I've got my party rally at 8!
53595
Post by: Palindrome
What a surprise, the Telegraph 'story' was nothing more than sensationalist bollocks
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yes. Put her in foster care. That is a stable enviroment
37231
Post by: d-usa
It can be. It is definitely a better shot at a stable environment than living with a non-compliant bi-polar mother. But you already have your mind made up about social services. All I know is that next time I see you crying about "Dakka just hates teachers, how dare you all judge them and paint them with the same brush" I'll just link you back to your judgmental holier than though attitude about a profession in this thread. To be young again and have all the answers...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
No, I have seen what social services can do some good. Like my cousins taken from their druggie aunt and given to my mother till they can go to thir dads. Also did you see mt post "I was going into social service, but I dont have the guts for it" i think that shows a bit of respect. Why did they not send them to the grandmother? Like the other kids? Why did they put them in foster care? A really bad system that devalues kids?
4402
Post by: CptJake
Palindrome wrote: CptJake wrote:The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'?
You are sounding a lot like an anarchist.
When you clip out the rest of my post to make it seem like that, perhaps I do. Of course, that is disingenuous on your part.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
CptJake wrote:
When you clip out the rest of my post to make it seem like that, perhaps I do. Of course, that is disingenuous on your part.
The entire post wouldn't have made you sound any less anarchistic. Anarchists afterall hold the state to be harmful and undesirable, just like you do apparently.
11029
Post by: Ketara
My parents are foster carers in the British system. They're currently looking after a six year old girl who wets the bed at night and has two different anxiety disorders, because her father didn't want her and her mother was a violent alcoholic.
In the past, they've weaned several babies off of heroin due to the mother taking it whilst pregnant, cared for a developmentally delayed five year old who had the brain of a one year old, and done a number of emergency placements for children who were having the everlasting crap kicked out of them by their parents. One three year old girl they had used to steal food from the kitchen and hoard it in her room, because she was used to having to do that to survive.
No, foster care is not always the most stable system. But when you see what some of these kids are running from, you realise that 'stability' is something they've never had to begin with, and not knowing where they're going to end up tomorrow is not necessarily worse than being beaten, starved, and neglected.
Think before you post.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Maybe it is what i hear from america, but I can infer that britain also shuffles them around? To me that is a bad system, expecially later in life, when a teenager shouldnt be changing schools that often. And around here when you are 18 you are out of the foster system, no hope, no help and no one to take you in.
27391
Post by: purplefood
To some degree the foster system is not and cannot be the best life for a child. However, when faced with the alternative I believe that many children live mostly stable lives only because they were put into foster care. Emphasis on live.
I have several friends who were in foster care. It's not perfect but the alternative is far worse.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yes, but why put the kid in foster car when there was a sister asking for her?
11029
Post by: Ketara
hotsauceman1 wrote:Maybe it is what i hear from america, but I can infer that britain also shuffles them around? To me that is a bad system, expecially later in life, when a teenager shouldnt be changing schools that often. And around here when you are 18 you are out of the foster system, no hope, no help and no one to take you in.
Depends on what you mean by 'shuffled around'. Sometimes the foster carers need a week or two off after looking after a particularly challenging child for eight months. So naturally, the child is placed with another foster carer for that period of time. Sometimes a foster carer has enough and quits, in which case, the child has to be moved. Sometimes the child will be in a perfectly good placement for two years, but it becomes obvious the chances of adoption are nil. The foster carers do not want to commit to another ten years of caring, so the child is moved to someone who is.
They don't do move kids around for the fun of it. It's just simply not realistic to tell every foster carer that upon taking the job they have to be prepared to care for the child 24/7 for the next 18 years.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Palindrome wrote: CptJake wrote: When you clip out the rest of my post to make it seem like that, perhaps I do. Of course, that is disingenuous on your part.
The entire post wouldn't have made you sound any less anarchistic. Anarchists afterall hold the state to be harmful and undesirable, just like you do apparently.
You say this to the guy who has spent his entire adult life defending his country, and is married to another soldier doing the same, and has a son getting commissioned this spring who will spend at least a chunk of his adult life doing the same.  Probably not someone who advocates anarchy nor hates their country or finds it undesirable. Conservative with strong libertarian leanings? Yep. Anarchist? Only when you take a portion of my post out of context. The entire post : CptJake wrote:The state has a 'right' to protect its citizens? Did they grant this 'right' to themselves and therefore can take any actions the state and its bureaucratic minions deem necessary to exercise their 'right'? Honestly, the concept of a state having 'rights' at all, let alone 'rights' which trump individual rights disgusts me. The state should have limited and clearly defined responsibilities and very clearly defined and very limited power to make good on their responsibilities.
Pretty unambiguous. States should not have rights (and do not). My country has a constitution in which the people have given certain responsibilities to the State, and the power to make good on those responsibilities. The same document goes pretty far to ensure individual rights are recognized, rights the State cannot infringe upon.
42470
Post by: SickSix
I am not sure, that if this happened to any female in my family that I wouldn't go clinically insane and then not be responsible for my actions during said blackout.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
 Ketara wrote:
My parents are foster carers in the British system. They're currently looking after a six year old girl who wets the bed at night and has two different anxiety disorders, because her father didn't want her and her mother was a violent alcoholic.
In the past, they've weaned several babies off of heroin due to the mother taking it whilst pregnant, cared for a developmentally delayed five year old who had the brain of a one year old, and done a number of emergency placements for children who were having the everlasting crap kicked out of them by their parents. One three year old girl they had used to steal food from the kitchen and hoard it in her room, because she was used to having to do that to survive.
No, foster care is not always the most stable system. But when you see what some of these kids are running from, you realise that 'stability' is something they've never had to begin with, and not knowing where they're going to end up tomorrow is not necessarily worse than being beaten, starved, and neglected.
Think before you post.
This, people who whinge about social services in general need to be mindful of this. Best serious post I have read on dakka, have an exalt.
76206
Post by: Rotary
I wonder if they considered giving care to the father? I can't imagine the amount of stress and heart break a parent would feel in this situation. Time to pay that family up Uk, you've done wrong.
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
Ketara wrote:
My parents are foster carers in the British system. They're currently looking after a six year old girl who wets the bed at night and has two different anxiety disorders, because her father didn't want her and her mother was a violent alcoholic.
In the past, they've weaned several babies off of heroin due to the mother taking it whilst pregnant, cared for a developmentally delayed five year old who had the brain of a one year old, and done a number of emergency placements for children who were having the everlasting crap kicked out of them by their parents. One three year old girl they had used to steal food from the kitchen and hoard it in her room, because she was used to having to do that to survive.
No, foster care is not always the most stable system. But when you see what some of these kids are running from, you realise that 'stability' is something they've never had to begin with, and not knowing where they're going to end up tomorrow is not necessarily worse than being beaten, starved, and neglected.
Think before you post.
Respect to your parents Ketara. That's a great thing they are doing.
5394
Post by: reds8n
hotsauceman1 wrote:Maybe it is what i hear from america, but I can infer that britain also shuffles them around? .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25201336
Children in care in England will be able to stay with their foster families until their 21st birthday, rather than having to leave at 18, ministers say.
The Department for Education is imposing a legal duty on councils to provide financial support for those who want to stay longer with foster carers.
The government has pledged £40m over the next three years to fund the plan.
A care charity said the measure was the most significant reform for children in care in a generation.
It will be introduced during the third reading of the Children and Families Bill next year.
Independence
Children and Families Minister Edward Timpson, whose own family fostered nearly 90 children, said: "I know from the many foster children I grew up with how crucial it is for them to be given sufficient time to prepare for life after care.
"A growing number of local authorities already offer young people the choice to stay, but with little financial support it can be challenging for their foster families.
"Now all councils will have to follow their example, and we are giving them £40m towards the cost.
"This will allow the 10,000 young people leaving stable and secure homes to make the transition from care to independence when they are ready, rather than when their council tells them to."
'Extremely anxious'
Speaking to Radio 5 live about the run-up to her 18th birthday Rhiannon Wickham said: "Not knowing what was happening was very stressful and I was crying quite a lot to [my foster parents] in the evenings about what was going to happen.
"But now I know that they're here for me and it's brilliant."
The Who Cares Trust, which campaigns for and supports children in care and young people leaving care, said the move was "absolutely fantastic news for thousands of young people in foster care" and represented "the most significant reform to the support children in care are given in a generation".
Chief executive Natasha Finlayson said: "Time and again we hear from young people who are extremely anxious about having to leave their carers when they turn 18 and effectively no longer having somewhere they can call home, especially when the average age for young people who aren't in care to finally leave home is 24 to 27.
"It is excellent news that the government has agreed that young people leaving foster care should not be left to fend for themselves at 18.
"We mustn't forget though that the 9% of young people in care who live in children's homes - many of whom leave when they are 16 or 17 - need and deserve the same level of support and we hope that the government will start to look towards ways of achieving this."
Case study: Rhiannon Whickham
Rhiannon was fostered by David and Lisa when she was 16. She is now studying for her A-levels. But as her 18th birthday approached, she was unsure how much longer she would be able to stay.
"The run-up to my 18th birthday wasn't very nice.
"Not knowing what was happening was very stressful and I was crying quite a lot to Dave and Lisa in the evenings about what was going to happen.
"But now I know that they're here for me and it's brilliant."
After discussions with the council, she will now be able to live with the family until she has finished university.
"For me it's important because you know you've got somewhere to stay, somewhere to go back to. You've got the family support that's always there for you."
Her foster parent David says the change will give young people a "better opportunity for the future".
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
So now that we've been told that it was the Doctors that asked for the cesarean on medical grounds, as the woman was not fit to consent to the procedure, are we still calling Britain a fascist/orwellian state?
I think certain posters just see the word "social", instantly loose their gak and assume the worst.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Yes we are. Accept your position in the police state bootlicker.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Ketara wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Maybe it is what i hear from america, but I can infer that britain also shuffles them around? To me that is a bad system, expecially later in life, when a teenager shouldnt be changing schools that often. And around here when you are 18 you are out of the foster system, no hope, no help and no one to take you in.
Depends on what you mean by 'shuffled around'. Sometimes the foster carers need a week or two off after looking after a particularly challenging child for eight months. So naturally, the child is placed with another foster carer for that period of time. Sometimes a foster carer has enough and quits, in which case, the child has to be moved. Sometimes the child will be in a perfectly good placement for two years, but it becomes obvious the chances of adoption are nil. The foster carers do not want to commit to another ten years of caring, so the child is moved to someone who is.
They don't do move kids around for the fun of it. It's just simply not realistic to tell every foster carer that upon taking the job they have to be prepared to care for the child 24/7 for the next 18 years.
Hmm, that is a different perspective. I guess the UK is different. Around here(Atleast in my neck of the woods) it is often bad. Money incentives given to foster parents that dont go to the kids. Kicked out and left on their own at 18. Many of the areas homeless are foster kids. Hell every christmas we have commericials here about donating clothes to foster kids.
But still, as other psoters said, Good on your parents
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Well reasoned and to the point.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
I do try to be concise. For the record I do consider this a massive over reach and the keeping of the child by the U.K. authorities questionable at best.
16387
Post by: Manchu
CptJake wrote:My country has a constitution in which the people have given certain responsibilities to the State, and the power to make good on those responsibilities. The same document goes pretty far to ensure individual rights are recognized, rights the State cannot infringe upon.
As Frazz pointed out, that's not quite correct. The state may infringe upon constitutional rights when it has, among other things, a so-called compelling interest in doing so. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution is pretty ambiguous about the origin and nature of rights.  Medium of Death wrote:I think certain posters just see the word "social", instantly loose their gak and assume the worst.
Totally agree. Catching a glimpse at the complexity of human misery contrasted to the rationalized modern state seems to produce an existential crisis-in-miniature, where our experience of free choice seems especially thin and illusory. The kneejerk reaction is to cry fascism.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Manchu wrote: CptJake wrote:My country has a constitution in which the people have given certain responsibilities to the State, and the power to make good on those responsibilities. The same document goes pretty far to ensure individual rights are recognized, rights the State cannot infringe upon.
As Frazz pointed out, that's not quite correct. The state may infringe upon constitutional rights when it has, among other things, a so-called compelling interest in doing so. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution is pretty ambiguous about the origin and nature of rights.
I'm unsure what the origin and nature of rights has to do with my argument. I surely did not bring them up, if it is an attempt at deflection on your part you could have done better. In cases where the people, through their elected representatives, have passed laws allocating the power to the State to limit individual rights, that power still comes from the people. Over time we have changed laws to expand or contract the power we allow the State to hold. The courts are supposed to ensure the State does not overstep and the State must be able to prove that 'compelling interest' in the courts.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
CptJake wrote: Conservative with strong libertarian leanings? Yep. Anarchist? Only when you take a portion of my post out of context.
Its almost as though I said:
Rather than actually calling you an anarchist, but by all means overreact and when you use the facepalm emote make sure that it can't backfire on you. I find it interesting that the ideologies of the deep right and the deep left bleed into each other.
Medium of Death wrote:
I think certain posters just see the word "social", instantly loose their gak and assume the worst.
I think the best example by far is comparing the Social Services to the Schutz Staffel, very well done.
221
Post by: Frazzled
All this talk of anarchy makes me want to bust out the old metal albums. ANARCHY!!!!
16387
Post by: Manchu
CptJake wrote:I'm unsure what the origin and nature of rights has to do with my argument.
That's a pity as it's the central issue. By what right do "the people" establish a government, as opposed to (for example) the divine right of a king? Are men endowed by their Creator with natural rights, as Jefferson found self-evident, or are what we call rights actually privileges afforded to the weak by the strong? In other words, are rights posited by man (including this ambiguous mob, "the people") or bound up inherently in man's nature?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Medium of Death wrote:So now that we've been told that it was the Doctors that asked for the cesarean on medical grounds, as the woman was not fit to consent to the procedure, are we still calling Britain a fascist/orwellian state?
I think certain posters just see the word "social", instantly loose their gak and assume the worst.
It's not "Britain", it's Airstrip One.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Don't interrupt the Two Minutes Hate!
75483
Post by: Imposter101
Bloody Goldstein....
Anyways, the utter stupidity in calling Britain a police state is beyond comparison.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
 Imposter101 wrote:
Bloody Goldstein....
Anyways, the utter stupidity in calling Britain a police state is beyond comparison.
Off to the tower with you! 
75483
Post by: Imposter101
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
Oh look, turns out not only is the whole story "questionable" if we're being polite(total utter paranoid bollocks if we're not), the two people involved in spreading this nonsense about have form and an existing anti-Social Services agenda. That "something of a panic attack" turns out to be "extremely intrusive paranoid delusions", and it turns out that she asked to go back to Italy, rather than being hurled unceremoniously into the Channel by the Border Force as the original "article" implied. It also turns out that the c-section was actually requested by the NHS, not by Social Services, because the woman had a pre-existing issue that meant she risked a uterine rupture if the child was born naturally - both her previous children had also been delivered by c-section. The request was granted by the judge because the child was due imminently anyway, and she was at the time suffering "psychotic episodes and delusional beliefs" so was not considered capable of consenting herself.
But I'm sure it would have been much better if she'd just been left to her own devices, since obviously mental health and child services professionals trying to preserve the lives of mother and child and ensure the child's safety is just a case of "dem dur ebil gubbamin'" intruding into people's lives
37231
Post by: d-usa
Government, the cause of and solution to all of our problems.
60720
Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured
A bunch of extra info on the case
http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/
As suspect it's not anything like as clear cut as the intial reports suggested, and the first reporters also seem to have personal axes to grind with the system
28305
Post by: Talizvar
Ah, so mis-information with the author and either too lazy to check facts or the more likely misleading information.
The new title may need to be: "Artistic license with news reporting."
I stand corrected: A "slap down" needs to be administered with bad reporting; fired, loss of tenure and brisk whipping...
We now can resume our regularly scheduled program...
|
|
