SIGN UP

Looks Like Ss Have Been At It Again

Avatar Image
youngmafbog | 13:20 Thu 14th Jun 2018 | News
29 Answers
There are plenty of cases where they need to be involved but they just dont seem to tackle those so why do they keep doing suchg daft things? Surely even if the SW cme up with the idea a superior should have read it and stopped it?

From the Judge:

"The social worker had been asked to 'identify her best example' of the mother failing to meet the boys emotional needs - to which she replied citing that she had not given him ice cream. "
"He added: 'A further criticism in this vein was that the mother had failed to arrange for (his) hair to be cut in the way that he liked. Again, this is obviously inconsequential.'"

And what was the family court judge thinking?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5840243/Judge-blasts-social-worker-said-boy-not-returned-mother.html

Answers

1 to 20 of 29rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
what
Not sure what’s puzzling you jim, any parent who is not “on message” with the right on brigade must have their children taken away. They are not bothered about the really bad stuff that time and time again results in children getting harmed or worse, we must be PC, we must have the “correct” beliefs and life style.
I'll have you know, ttt, that Jim honed his debating skills at Cambridge Yuni.
Bet the social worker is Common Purpose.
Bonkers.
what have you got against Common Purpose?
What is Common Purpose in this context?
Thank you for that. I had never come across the term before except in the context of criminal law. Sounds a load of cobblers to me.
"What have you got against Common Purpose"?

Reading about it from the link, I should think there is no need to ask.
Social Services cannot act as though they are above the law and just separate children from their parents and their home on the basis that their first world rights are not being met.

I don't think a hefty fine is unwarranted here, given the unnecessary anguish and suffering caused to the family and the child.
Social workers don't separate children from their parents - that's for the courts to decide.
Social Services instigated it all, HC.
Social Services cases are very confidential and I'm sure the Mail are not allowed to publish some of it (and are happily witholding some of it too to suit their agenda).

And it was a Judge who separated the child from the mother anyway, so why isn't he being blasted ?.
Question Author
"And it was a Judge who separated the child from the mother anyway, so why isn't he being blasted ?."

Read the last line of my OP.
No ice cream or favoured haircut eh.

I remember being abused in this exact same heinous way. The emotional scars from not getting a 99 (didn't even ask for a flake) are still with me to this day.
I had no toys as a kid, they had to tie a bone around my neck just to get the dog to play with me.


Jeezus Aitch.....
There will always be two sides to the issue.
Question Author
Presumably you lived in t' cardboard box in middle o t' road too?
My mother told me that if I ever came home with a crew cut she would have me taken away and put into care.
Question Author
"There will always be two sides to the issue. "

Yes the right and the wrong.

Presumably you are in favour of the SS worker damning this parent for not giving an ice cream and said demanded haircut?

Senior judge though does not agree with you.

1 to 20 of 29rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Looks Like Ss Have Been At It Again

Answer Question >>