It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baby taken into care over fears it could be radicalised

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:03 AM
link   
This article was taken from Daily Mail www.dailymail.co.uk...

"A baby is among more than 20 children who have been made the subject of court orders amid fears they could be radicalised by Islamists.

Judges have issued care or wardship proceedings involving at least 11 families amid concerns their children could be taken or lured out of the country to join Islamic State.

The youngest – a one-year-old – was part of a family of nine Britons from Rochdale who were caught trying to sneak into Syria from Turkey in April...."


Whilst I understand that children need to be protected from being radicalised I really don't know how well this sits with me. That child is going to grow up without its natural family and surely that is storing up repercussions for the future when the child is older. If the child isn't radicalised now then I would say there is a greater chance they will be radicalised when they are older because they will be so resentful towards the British establishment for taking them away from their mother and father.

By the same token I don't know why we keep stopping these families and individuals from leaving. If they feel that their calling is in Syria with the so called caliphate then surely a better way is to just let them go but remove any right for them to return. Do our government think that just because they have stopped them going they are going to miraculously have a change of heart when they are forced to stay in a Country they no longer want to belong to.

I also worry about the people who are now in our prisons for suspected terrorism plots etc. They will have a long time in prison to plot even more atrocities in their minds and to help to radicalise other prisoners, or even become more radicalised from other prisoners. The minute these individuals are let out then they will always be a danger in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting I know the answers to this problem but I just have a feeling this is storing up even more problems for the future. What do other people think?




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

Hi,



Whilst I understand that children need to be protected from being radicalised I really don't know how well this sits with me. That child is going to grow up without its natural family and surely that is storing up repercussions for the future when the child is older.


Just because a court has made a child a ward of court doesn't necessarily mean that the child won't live with its family. It could be that they are moved with an aunt, or grandparent but that parental responsibilty for the welfare of the child rests with the court.

In Scotland we have the Children in Scotland Act whereby the central tenet is that the welfare of the child is paramount. I presume that there is an equivalent in England. It's a fairly simple premise whereby if a child is deemed as being at risk of coming to harm, then the local authority has a duty of care to protect that child. The complicated part comes when a decision has to be made as to what level the risk is, if it is going to be more detrimental to the child to be removed from the home, if the parents are willing to cooperate etc.

The Daily Mail likes to sensationalise everything, and so it's worth talking about the fact that to get a child protection case to this level, a massive amount of preparation, investigation, multi-agency meetings and report writing will have already happened. It isn't a fast process, unless it a dire emergency. It is not usually a decision that is taken lightly, either.



By the same token I don't know why we keep stopping these families and individuals from leaving. If they feel that their calling is in Syria with the so called caliphate then surely a better way is to just let them go but remove any right for them to return.


Children are considered vulnerable in that they have no choice as to their parents' decision, hence the need for the Act. If the parents' decision is deemed to be unsafe for the child ie taking them to a warzone, then the LA has a duty of care to respond. Parents can choose to fight if they want to, but it is irresponsible and selfish to drag a child through that and I think they should be prevented from taking their children there.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: beansidheI understand what you are saying with regard to the fact it doesn't actually mean that child will be up for adoption. I worked in Family Law for quite a few years so I do no its a long process and isn't taken likely. There will be lots of chances for the parents to prove they are not going to be putting their child in danger in the future. But, moving away from the children, looking at the adults also, don't you think by preventing them leaving the Country to join the so called caliphate this is just going to make them more radicalised purely out of resentment to the British establishment. I know I would be extremely angry and resentful if I was stopped from going to any part of the world as that is taking your freedom away to a certain extent (something Britain is supposed to be known for, for its freedoms of speech and choice).



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

I don't know of any cases where adults travelling without children have been stopped from leaving? They can go if they want, but then there will be repercussions if they try to return, if it can be proven that they meant to engage in acts of terrorism against the UK.

I don't think it would cause resentment. I mean, if they are going over to fight specifically against the UK, then I would think that they already feel resentment perhaps due to the racism they experience every day from some of their so-called fellow countrymen? We can't prevent people from feeling things, and we can't possibly second guess everyone so that no one is ever offended. But we can work to insure the safety of children living in this country, or your country, and I guess that's where my priorities always lie.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:00 AM
link   
The State has a responsibility for children. It bothers me not that some deluded idiot wants to move to Syria, but dragging children and babies with them does bother me. It bothers me because children and babies are not able to make informed choices. The authorities can intervene - as shown - to protect children.

Quite rightly so too.

I am happy to encourage any adult to leave the country, so long as they don't come back! Leave the kids out of it.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Yes. I found this an 'odd' story.

Surely every ideology different to the ideology required by a 'government' is potentially 'radical'?

Surely, people who are 'criminal' in some aspect of their life could also have their children kidnapped by the state. Is a child its' parents or does it belong to the government?

Not saying that any outlandish ideologies are 'good' but surely this is the thin end of the wedge when children can be removed for their parent's potential 'thought crime'?

Remember Argentina and the 'stolen children'? Is this the road we are to walk?

A Northamptonshire council is to introduce a £100 fine for anyone not carrying a poo bag when out with their dog?

Imagine the potential scenarios. The dog has done lots of poos and all the bags have been used up? You don't want to empty your pockets. Your dog never goes to the toilet when it is out of its own garden (we had a dog like that). Someone with no authority to fine you (only a court can fine you in the UK) demands you empty your pockets, give them your name, force you to pay a fine? This all without the dog even doing a poo!

Thought crime can be applied to nearly every aspect of life. Is that what we really want?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens
I don't think it is possible to prove a 'negative'. Can a parent prove they will never do something? More to the point, can anyone?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   
If that family is so bad, why are they still allowed to be here? They don't want the child to be radicalised but the family seems already radical, and they are adults. I don't get it, are they not a danger to others also?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
How do we know the child will become radicalised. Maybe when it grows up and realises it was taken from their natural parents will have a radicalising effect



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

I wonder if people would be less confused about the justice inherent in this action, if the child's parents were taking the child to a drug den regularly, or exposing them to the dangers of drunkenness and impaired reason. In my view those things would be far LESS of a reason to take a child into care, than would attempting to take a child to a warzone.

There is only one direction that women and children should be heading, where warzones are concerned, and that is away from them. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to their opinion, but only under the express understanding that the opinion in question is flawed to the point of extreme stupidity.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Elliot

I think you'll find that there a limitations as to what the UK State can do and it's all part of legal process. The UK is not Argentina (of old). The protection of children is enshrined in law and interpretation of radicalism is also set through things like hate crime and inciting hatred etc.

When it fails you get Baby P, Rotherham and other well publicised events. When it succeeds you get children protected by the stupidity, abuse and foolishness of adults. We don't often hear about the success.

Edit To add

originally posted by: Elliot
A Northamptonshire council is to introduce a £100 fine for anyone not carrying a poo bag when out with their dog?

That's crap and you know it. However, if an owner dies not clear up after their dog, then they should be fined.

edit on 9/10/2015 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hecate666
If that family is so bad, why are they still allowed to be here? They don't want the child to be radicalised but the family seems already radical, and they are adults. I don't get it, are they not a danger to others also?


Maybe they were born here?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: beansidheThey were born here. This is the family from Oldham/Rochdale. One of them is son to the local councillor in that area. That is why I am saying I don't know why we are stopping all these people from going, fair enough the children, although I still feel this is just storing up problems for the future.

Likewise some of the people in our prisons who have been charged with plotting terrorism weren't born here. Why do we imprison them we should just send them back to the Country where they came from, they obviously don't want to belong to a democracy and hate everything about it if they want to carry out atrocities. We would save ourselves a fortune.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

Instead of taking the child, the government should deport the entire family. If their beliefs are a threat to the country, the government shouldn't be wasting their time and effort on trying to intercede on behalf of the child.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

I don't think we are stopping them, just those travelling with children. As far as deportation laws for those born outwith the UK, I have absolutely no idea why they would be imprisoned and not deported. I don't know how immediate a deportation order can be or how it is enforced so maybe prison is a quicker measure to keep them out of society until the order is approved? Just a guess, like I say I don't know much about that area of law.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
What a stupid excuse, "Might get radicalized". Stealing a one year old from its family isn't radical enough?

Other stupid reasons

"Too white." Really? I bet its more to do with money. There are fees for adoption… selling babies is easer than selling adults.

Adoptiion costs



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

There was no "might" about it - the children were with their parents who tried to make their way to IS controlled Syria.

The State has an obligation to protect children if their parents cannot or will not. Taking them to an active warzone is reason enough to make them Wards of Court, much less any radicalisation fears which I think is actually an angle being played up by the Daily Mail, who are merely speculating as they are not actually allowed to report (or even get details of) family court proceedings which are private.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason


There was no "might" about it - the children were with their parents who tried to make their way to IS controlled Syria.

As I understand it they were stopped crossing the Turkish Syrian border, not from "joining IS". Obviously, a one year old doesn't know from religion.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

Did you seriously just make a case that they have a right to engage in a war on the west, and to impede their journey is to impede on their freedoms? Are you serious? If it were up to me we would throw a rope around a tree, hang them up high and let them swing until the sun goes down. Empeding a terrorists and or extremists freedom to wage war on the west, that's right folks you herd it on ATS.

Also good, they need to take the children away, growing up in a radicalized and insane western hating home certainly puts them and us at risk. Wow some of the view points I will never understand that come from the pretentious high society's of the west. I love you guys but wake up!



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
I don't think this would hold up if challenged in a higher court in the U.S.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join