http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5130406.ece
I will now state my position on Baby P who once lived in the now London Borough of Haringey, whose mother allowed him to be tortured to death by her partner and lodger. I rejoice at the fact that a life that was about to blossom into another feral youth has been extinguished by her and the lowlife who lived with her.
Where is the "tragedy" the media are hysterically claiming has taken place?
I would even argue that parents should have the absolute right of life or death over their children. It is no skin off my nose that some parents should kill their own children. It would reduce the competition for resources where our own children are concerned, would it not?
Parents who would do such terrible things to their own children have what I would term "bad blood". Why therefore help them perpetuate their bad blood and bad genes at taxpayers' expense? Let them dispose of the toxic fruit of their own loins in their own nasty way.
If only all mothers of the next generation of violent and murderous criminals would do the same!
THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
7 comments:
Nice sentiments, eh?
Vicious cruelty to a child like this is a hideous crime - no matter what you believe the child might have turned into.
Perhaps you think it would only have become 'feral' only because it was a boy and that Victoria Climbie was in no such danger?
As for your notion of 'bad blood', if the child was battered to death by the lodger there's no reason why the child should have inherited any of the murderer's 'bad blood', as you put it - unless the lodger also happened to be the father.
A very convenient excuse to permit child battering - that the child would necessarily be as wicked as the parent who does the battering, meaning that any such battering wouldn't count and we therefore needn't worry about it.
On the other hand, I am not arguing for the constant intervention of social services in cases like these - as such nanny-statism as we already have doesn't appear to work very well in any case.
Those responsible, though, should certainly be held accountable by the law.
If the law will not punish those who carry out such wicked crimes on young children, then I fail to see what use it is.
Are you saying that a child from that sort of depraved background has any chance at all of becoming a useful citizen? Are you really?
As for Victoria Climbie, perhaps the moral is that African mothers should not be send their children here to live with their sisters to get free schooling and live off the British. That was the only reason she was here, don't you know.
It is indeed horrible to know that such things can still happen even AFTER Victoria Climbie, but that's bureaucracy, social services and the ineradicable depravity of human nature for you.
I am not saying that any child should be battered. All I am saying that if a parent doesn't care if his or her child is battered or is himself or herself a child batterer, there is really not much you or I or social services can do about it, unless you want social services to come tobe allowed to turn over the houses of anyone who comes to their notice, as if they were a terrorist suspect.
When social services got it into their heads that a group of parents in the Orkneys were satanists, they took away their children, put them up for adoption and are now saying "Oh dear. We did make a mistake then, but we can't be expected to put it right now because it is too late."
The ones who batter their children to death deserve to have their children die. That will have to suffice.
What is more horrible than depraved parents battering their own children and/or killing them is to be NOT guilty of satanic abuse, have your children taken off you and adopted, and then told that it is too late to do anything about it after you have been proven innocent..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/4/newsid_2521000/2521067.stm
I know which evil I would rather choose and it ain't for more over-zealous social workers.
Why did anybody think EVEN FOR ONE SECOND that such incidents would never happen again???
If a child can be removed from that sort of depraved background then it has every chance of becoming a useful citizen.
But this cannot happen if social services do not have the power to intervene.
Social services in this case should have behaved more like those social workers in the Orkney Islands did.
If I were a social worker – one of sufficient seniority - I would temporarily confiscate any child I had doubts about at all.
And I would only let it return home after detailed forensic examination - in addition to fairly searching investigation of its underclass parents.
The mother is this case is utter scum – and so is her boyfriend.
As for the role of the natural father I can’t begin to imagine what it was.
Apparently he is still around somewhere – why didn’t he intervene?
All the adults in the case are faulty, to some degree or other.
Only the child is salvageable – only the child deserved any respect at all in this case.
Personally I do not necessarily think that all parents have a right to keep their own children – this right needs to be earned by decent care and upbringing.
If a child is treated badly then it has a right to be removed and placed in better foster home.
I have no real problem with the Orkney case. Better safe than sorry. Anyway their kids were returned to them in the end.
All the kids involved will have stories to dine out on for the rest of their lives. So there wasn’t much harm done.
And what if they had been Satanists?
Social services should not be cowed by the likes of the Daily Mail into feeling they cannot withdraw children from dodgy parents when it seems appropriate.
Finally, the ones who batter their children will not care if their children die – not really.
Only the child was punished – by being left with the human vermin who were its natural parents (or one of them at least) - instead of being granted a possible alternative & allowed the chance of a happy & useful life.
It is no skin off any of our noses that Baby P is no longer around to grow into a feral youth. That is the unvarnished and rather ugly truth.
But it might be if social services can just take our children off us at the merest hint of a suspicion of something as trivial as smoking. (You may already be aware that smokers in Redbridge Council are barred from being foster parents.)
It does not matter if the murdering/battering parents do not care about their children. At the end of the day, the interests of respectable law-abiding parents are not threatened if some parents kill or batter their own children. In fact, parents who do this sort of thing are very likely to have children who will grow into damaged, under-achieving and criminal adults.
You say:
"I have no real problem with the Orkney case. Better safe than sorry. Anyway their kids were returned to them in the end."
Your indifference to having any child of yours taken off you when you have done no wrong and not minding too much when a social worker tell you: "better safe than sorry" would indicate that you are not a parent.
The choice is clearly between:
(1) the life of a potential feral youth and
(b) leaving parents more vulnerable to a greater likelihood of having their children removed by social services even when they have done no wrong,
There is only one right answer as far as I am concerned.
I now see why in the old days an aspiring politician would have no hope of a successful career if he did not have a wife and family, and quite rightly too. No family man, given that choice, who loved his children, would have said what you did with such bland conviction.
I would suffer people who do horrible things that don't affect me to go unpunished rather than call for laws that would increase the likelihood of injustice to innocent parties, just because I want to be seen to be "doing something".
If the Social Services budget could be cut by 90%, and their kidnapping powers reduced accordingly, this would encourage the politically correct jobsworth in that quasi profession to actually concentrate on the welfare of kids really in danger - and not on parents who might believe a smack could help improve their child's behaviour. Yes - I have been "investigated" - twice now - by these pretenders. The truth and short shrift is what they got - but it was more than what their "jobsworth" not to investigate. In fact the last time they didn't even have the courtesy to inform me the investigation was over - just nothing was their response - so maybe it isn't??
If Social Services really did concentrate on kids from a "depraved background" that wouldn't be so bad. But their empire building has grown around persecuted ordinary decent people. Although when the race card is playing they really do go soft on "ethnic" parents who might be endangering their own kids. Why do you think Social Services (or First Response as they now like to call themselves!) have come in for so much criticism. They are destroying ordinary families.
I wouldn't argue for any state intervention at all in these cases - except that if the despised social worker doesn't intervene, who else will these days?
It should not affect matters that the child in question would have grown into a feral youth, since if he could have been removed from that environment - and placed in a better one - this would have been far less likely to happen.
His destiny therefore should not be used to assess the value of his life in the present.
Besides it is a case of such shocking cruelty.
I don't feel at all that it is 'no skin off any of our noses.'
Redbridge Council not wishing smokers to become foster parents is not quite the same as saying that any child could just be removed from its smoking parents.
Perhaps even in Redbridge they might understand that if it amounted to a clear choice on the one hand between a baby having its teeth deliberately punched into its stomach and its fingers torn off or - on the other - a bit of exposure to nicotine, the latter choice would be preferable.
The problem appears to be today that all parents feel a potential threat from official busybodies. I am not sure how this state of affairs came to be.
However it ought to be a matter of plain common sense that social workers and their ilk should monitor - and perhaps intervene in - households where there already appear to be some fairly serious problems. The vast majority of parents should simply be left alone.
If the majority of parents were to feel - as they ought to - that social services existed for the most part to protect a smallish number of vulnerable children from appalling cruelty, we would never have reached a situation in which a parent can say - in effect - that it is better that a child born in the underclass be tortured to death than any innocent parent should have to risk being investigated by social services.
In a society which had any common sense at all the 'choice' that you present would never arise.
By the way, the prime minister of just over two centuries ago (who saw us through the Napoleonic wars) was unmarried and without kids; as was (a rather less happy example) the prime minister of 36 years ago, who took Britain into the Common Market.
“if the despised social worker doesn't intervene, who else will these days?”
I think it is very important that we do not do something just for the sake of doing something – a common knee-jerk reaction that has resulted in too many unnecessary laws that has choked British life with red tape and expense. It is hampering Britain’s ability to compete with the rest of the world, while encouraging vexatious litigants and ambulance-chasing lawyers.
The awful truth is that there is NOTHING you can do if you are born to a mother who does not care if you live or die. It is indeed shocking that there are mothers who feel such callous indifference, but there it is. To legislate would penalize innocent parents such as those who were accused of satanic abuse of their children in the 80s and had their children removed from them WHEN THEY HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, ON THE STRENGTH OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMOUR.
We must ask ourselves which is the more horrifying: to let mothers directly or indirect cause the death of their own child, or increase the likelihood of children being removed from parents on the strength of an unsubstantiated rumour when they have done nothing wrong.
Imagine a situation if the state had the power to take away your children if it did not like your political views or did not approve of your membership of a particular political party, and they already know where you live …
We are not that far off it, you know.
Giving Social Services more money and hiring even more and better-paid social workers will not prevent similar deaths and never will.
My Minimalist Libertarian instincts tell me: “If there is nothing we can do, then there is nothing we ought to do.”
Let us not wring our hands and impose yet more unnecessary and futile legislation that makes life worse for more people while wasting more of our taxes.
We have already had too much of that for far too long!
Post a Comment