Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The video judges tried to block: Father secretly records harrowing moment six-hour-old baby is
http://www.dailymail.co.uk ^ | september 5, 2013 | Steve Doughty

Posted on 09/06/2013 3:29:55 PM PDT by lowbridge

This is the moment social services took a baby away from its parents when it was just six hours old.

The infant at the centre of the Munby judgment, known only as J, was removed from its parents after his birth in April.

The father secretly filmed the seizure on a webcam attached to the family computer.

It has long been available on the internet but an edited version can only now be published and viewed legitimately.

The views of the father and mother of the four children taken into care by Staffordshire social workers can also now be published following yesterday's landmark judgment by President of the Family Division Sir James Munby.

In June the baby's father was given a suspended six-week prison sentence by a family court judge for his refusal to co-operate in getting the video removed from internet sites.

The parents said social workers removed their baby because they decided their mother was incapable of bringing them up because of her learning disability.

The video shows the father holding the newborn infant at their home when social workers and police come to take it away.

In the video, the mother is clearly distraught and holds onto her baby and rocks it as her husband remonstrates with officers and council staff.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: greatbritain; sourcetitlenoturl; uk; unitedkingdom
Full title: The video judges tried to block: Father secretly records harrowing moment six-hour-old baby is taken away by social services
1 posted on 09/06/2013 3:29:56 PM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

sorry, do not feel for this lady

social services always takes newborns away from a mother who has had her other childen removed for abuse or neglect

you don’t get to experiment on new children after you screwed it up with the original children

now, can we hear the rest of the story


2 posted on 09/06/2013 3:33:54 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Are they retarded?


3 posted on 09/06/2013 3:35:29 PM PDT by Dallas59 (Obama: The first "White Black" President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

And indirectly this is just another reason why the ‘elites’ and government bureaucrats love gun control. It makes their ‘job’ so much easier when the people they terrorize can’t fight back.

And yes, this is England and the people involved are ‘subjects’ and not truly free people.


4 posted on 09/06/2013 3:38:18 PM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
social services always takes newborns away from a mother who has had her other childen removed for abuse or neglect

Too good to actually read the article?

5 posted on 09/06/2013 3:41:17 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (When your policy is to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on enthusiastic support from Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

“A test case in Essex in 2005 involved the parents of a four-year-old girl and a 14-month-old boy removed from their home even though they were clean, well-dressed, well fed, much loved, and had never been harmed.
The case attracted attention because Essex social workers used court injunctions to prevent the parents from discussing their children or anyone from reporting the case.
A High Court judge backed the council and said it was unrealistic for the parents to expect to bring up their children.”
So they want to take their kids away for no reason and then throw them in prison if they talk about it? I bet if they converted to Islam they wouldn’t mess with them.


6 posted on 09/06/2013 3:46:09 PM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

It says specifically that she has never been found abusive, but she’s learning disabled.


7 posted on 09/06/2013 3:51:12 PM PDT by Shimmer1 (Every time a liberal gets pissed off an angel gets their wings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Apparently.


8 posted on 09/06/2013 3:52:30 PM PDT by thoolou ("Technology is driven by those who understand it the least" - Unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1

Well grrr, if the only reason is that the mother is dull in IQ. It sounds like the bigotry of boffins. (I’m sure they’d use a cruder word than boffin there.) A mother can be dull and deal with that fact and still do quite a lot to help her kids. Learning disabled, that covers quite a lot of possible territory. If her math and spelling are bad what does that have to do with the case?


9 posted on 09/06/2013 3:58:28 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (The Lion of Judah will roar again if you give him a big hug and a cheer and mean it. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
In June the baby's father was given a suspended six-week prison sentence by a family court judge for his refusal to co-operate in getting the video removed from internet sites.

Fascists covering up their fascism with more fascism

10 posted on 09/06/2013 4:02:29 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

children probably placed with muslim NAMBLA members, think they are safer there?


11 posted on 09/06/2013 4:03:17 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge; yldstrk

A learning disability? Is that code-speak for something else or is she simply dyslexic or something?

As to yldstrk’s point about prior takings, that could simply be a feedback loop where the first taking was problematic and all else stems from that.


12 posted on 09/06/2013 4:04:01 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Henceforth, the Office of the President shall be known as IMPOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

A kid 6 hours old has got some value.
The bidding will get started at roughly $20,000 USD.
Any bets on the final price paid?


13 posted on 09/06/2013 4:05:40 PM PDT by gfbtbb (Ladies and Gentlemen, we are on our own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

oops


14 posted on 09/06/2013 4:16:56 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gfbtbb
Price depends upon the sex...
15 posted on 09/06/2013 4:19:22 PM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Wow, I’d have gladly gone to prison but I’d have earned the trip while protecting my child.


16 posted on 09/06/2013 4:22:42 PM PDT by BCR #226 (02/07 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Even if a bit dull, she’s probably sharper than most of their Social Services people and their Parliament.


17 posted on 09/06/2013 4:56:47 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (Progressives are never accountable for "unintended consequences" .... just for causing most)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

“Great” Britain


18 posted on 09/06/2013 7:26:28 PM PDT by Shimmer1 (Every time a liberal gets pissed off an angel gets their wings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

We don’t have NAMBLA here, the clue’s in the name, son.


19 posted on 09/07/2013 4:44:50 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Wrong, the British have been citizens since 1948.


20 posted on 09/07/2013 4:45:16 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1

And if I made a sneering comment about America’s greatness, I’d be a Eurotrash/pompous Limey anti-American.


21 posted on 09/07/2013 4:46:07 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala

So true.


22 posted on 09/07/2013 5:53:17 AM PDT by gfbtbb (Ladies and Gentlemen, we are on our own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

well....Yeah!

lol!


23 posted on 09/07/2013 6:09:38 AM PDT by Shimmer1 (Every time a liberal gets pissed off an angel gets their wings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; lowbridge; yldstrk

// ‘My wife has a learning disability and for a period I was depressed, although that was quickly over after the GP helped. But the social worker tried to section me. The court was told that there was a risk the children would come to harm in the future.

‘They were never harmed. They were taken away as a preventative or precautionary measure.’ // (snip from midway through the article)


Key concept: “...and for a period I was depressed, although that was quickly over after the GP helped.”

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS when what should be personal medical matters are entangled in government oversight.

THIS IS WHAT obamacare will bring here. And it won’t be just children they try to take.


24 posted on 09/07/2013 9:56:43 AM PDT by cyn (Benghazi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cyn

100% right


25 posted on 09/07/2013 10:39:42 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson