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.

 

A Disturbing Look at The U.K.s "Nanny State"

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
It seems that in the U.K. the term "nanny state" means exactly that. Increasingly the government is stepping in to raise children. In a frighteningly Orwellian system of control and placement of children, parents are often treated as the enemy. I was shocked when I began to look into the U.K.s preoccupation with children and the lengths to which they have gone to assert absolute control over the next generation. I think you will be too.

A few days ago I happened upon this thread which covers the story of Zak. A finicky toddler who refused to eat the healthy food he was served. The parents took him to a doctor and were told to feed him cake and junk food so he would at least eat something. After questioning the doctor and rejecting the advice as being counter productive Zak was hospitalized for a 2 week observation, and then placed in foster care, where he was fed cake and junk food. Zak's parents were told that if they did not consent to the foster care their parental rights would be permanently removed. Four months and 3 court battles later, Zak has returned home.

At first I thought this was simply a mistake of the kind that sometimes happens when the government assumes to much responsibility. I couldn't have been more wrong.

Here we have Social Services stepping in to remove a five year old boy and his four year old sister, who were being raised by his 59 and 46 year old grandparents. The reason? They are too old. Instead they will be adopted by two gay men.



The five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister were being looked after by their grandparents because their mother, a recovering drug addict, was not considered capable.

But social workers stepped in after allegedly deciding that the couple, who are aged 59 and 46, were "too old" to look after the children. They were allegedly stripped of their carer's rights and informed they would be barred from seeing the children altogether unless they agreed to the same-sex adoption
~snip~
The children have been in foster care for two years while their grandparents battled the social services department in court. However, the cost of legal bills forced them to drop the case and relinquish their rights.

The grandparents reluctantly agreed to adoption, provided the children were found a "loving mother and father". They were told last Thursday that two homosexual men had been chosen as the adoptive parents.
Telegra ph.uk

A case of a woman being served papers in the labor ward, informing her that her new baby would be seized due to the woman being obese. The government argument? fear the newborn and the woman's other children were at risk of becoming obese themselves.


Social workers have moved to take into care a baby born to an obese mother.

The mother — who cannot be named in order to protect the identity of the children — gave birth by Caesarean section last week in a Dundee hospital but was told within 24 hours that she would not be allowed to keep the baby.

She has already had the youngest of her six children, aged 3 and 4, removed from her care because social workers feared that they were at risk of becoming obese. The 40-year-old mother weighed 23 stone before falling pregnant.
Times Online.uk

Twin newborns removed from first time parents over a joke.



A mother had her twin babies taken from her by social workers after she joked that their caesarean birth had ruined her body.
~snip~
And when the desperate woman lost her temper at social workers who had taken her babies, officials said she had 'anger problems' and could pose a threat to her twins.
Dailymail

Another woman became one of a growing number of fugitives when she fled after Social Services tried to remove her son because her abusive ex-husband lived too close, in a separate town 20 miles away.
(Angela Wilemans story)

There are many, many more horror stories easily found in a google search, but due to space limitations I think you see the point.

There's more,

Parents are no longer allowed to supervise their own children in playgrounds, instead they are forced to watch from behind a perimeter fence. The reason? They could be pedophiles. The children will instead be supervised by "play rangers" who have been approved by the government. Dailymail

A group of pensioners who belong to the "over 50 coffee morning" club are no longer allowed to hold their weekly meeting in their traditional spot at the library. The reason? Children from a library nursery could have hot coffee spilled on them. Dailym ail

In new guidance the Department of Health will be collecting data by visiting homes to conduct a "home risk assessment" on families with children under 15 to gauge the risk of unintentional home injury. Times Online

1300 babies less than a month old are now being taken from their parents, compared to 500 in 1997. Social workers report that they "are rushing cases through to hit the governments adoption targets", and many more shocking revelations, and similar stories of women who have had their babies forcibly taken, in this expose' in the Guardian Guardian

I'm sure we all agree that government serves a purpose. That there are situations where government intervention is necessary and productive, but at what point does government overstep it's bounds?

When does a government stop being a government and become an oppressive big brother. Dictating the family dynamic. First by destroying a family, then creating "frankenstein families" of bureaucratic design.

How far is too far, and what do you suppose is the real goal?



[edit on 12/3/2009 by AlienChaser]




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
And what is your goal?

It seems to me from this thread and others to which you have previously and recently posted that you have an ulterior motive and are trolling.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
You should see my life in london. Since 1992 i have not had a personal moment in my life, in privacy. Mind control monitored, since then, i could not go and do anything, without people knowing, and trying to destroy it.

Uk is a menace to peoples lifes.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
You should see my life in london. Since 1992 i have not had a personal moment in my life, in privacy. Mind control monitored, since then, i could not go and do anything, without people knowing, and trying to destroy it.

Uk is a menace to peoples lifes.


I think you need some professional help ..... mind control? my arse!



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Hardly a nanny state. They was an incident involving social services in which a toddler was killed by his father. It was the inaction of the social workers that caused this.
Now it seems to me the social workers are now overreacting in response to what I wrote above and being paranoid in case they get another baby killer case..



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 


how is complaining and using real examples of a current events trolling?

nice read OP, i didn't realize the government over there was so intrusive.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Nonsense.. every country does this in some shape or form and the UK happens to be the second most densely populated & probably the most socially developed and technologically integrated country on the planet.. Of course there are going to be systems in place like this.. doesn't mean that this happens to everyone or even 99.999% of them.

From what I can gather by the way you are writing what you are writing, you are trying to imply that the UK is completely screwed and has succumbed to some form of Orwellian system in an Authoritarian totalitarian regime that has only one goal - to control everything... and all this is based on examples that are irrelevant in relation to the issue as a whole.

Have you ever been there? Doesn't sound like it.. because anyone who has wouldn't write something like this in such a blind manner.

If we in Europe were to base our opinions of all of the US on horror stories we have heard of various bad situations in a way similar to what you are doing, we would consider the US to be the most evil, messed up and retarded place on the planet.. thankfully we are not stupid enough to draw conclusions that easily.

And neither should you..

***Edit to add***

Reading back over this, it sounds a little harsh to the OP so add in a smiley face wherever you think im being a prick in order to make it seem a bit friendlier


There's just too much generalizing in the OP.

[edit on 3/12/09 by Dermo]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


I couldnt agree more Dermo.

You said it so well.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
why do you say he is trolling? he is only reporting the facts, these stories are all being reprted by the main u.k tabloids, and i have read them myself at time of publication.

The question as to whether the government is stepping beyond its role into a role far more sinister is a valid one.

Im glad that this issue has been brought to light as i find the practice of tearing children away from their parents and dishing them out to satisfy adoption quotas imposed by new labotur , grotesque.

I grow weary reading these stories with alarming frequency, yet i am heartened by others sitting up and noticing the alarming antics of the socialist/communist/liberal/progressive arse*oles running this island.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotan
And what is your goal?

It seems to me from this thread and others to which you have previously and recently posted that you have an ulterior motive and are trolling.

I must say that I've been called many things but this is the first time I've been called a troll, LOL. If you have an issue with any of my posts, here or elsewhere, feel free to u2u me or take it up with staff. I stand by my comments.

My goal was to create a discussion on the over reach of Social Services in the U.K. and the increasing meddling of the government in personal lives, and families. As well as when and if people think the government has crossed the line.

 


Originally posted by Dermo

From what I can gather by the way you are writing what you are writing, you are trying to imply that the UK is completely screwed and has succumbed to some form of Orwellian system in an Authoritarian totalitarian regime that has only one goal - to control everything... and all this is based on examples that are irrelevant in relation to the issue as a whole.

When I began to look at all of the instances of children being forcibly taken from their mothers, and laws such as not being able to play with your own children on a playground. Yes I will admit that words like Orwellian, and Authoritarian entered my thoughts. Quite frankly I am very surprised to see so many who would not only agree with the examples that I cited, and the hundreds more I provided links for, but stand up for them. Perhaps you have simply grown used to it.

I do not understand your statement that my examples are irrelevant to the issue as a whole.

The issue was simply to discuss where the limits of a government to intrude should be.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
It is extremely over the top. But with the whole 'baby p' case I suppose its understandable to a point.
Although I cant tell you the amount of stories Ive read about parents being falsely accused of abusing their children, and then the case gets dragged out over such a great length of time that the child/children end up having to be adopted.

I think this story takes the biscuit (pun intended) - www.thesun.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


However, there is the precedent system. For some of these occurrences, they are decisions of government or the agents of government. While at their jobs, these people are hive-mind creatures, like ants. All actions are based on the general precedent set up by the actions of others. Like kindergardeners who will only raise their hand in class if someone else has done it first. Now all of these people are just fine human beings while they're conscious, I'm sure, but jobs in the modern world are meant to be done unconsciously, particularly in government offices.
This being the case, since the kinds of activities mentioned/linked in the OP have occurred once, they can and must be followed up by more and more re-occurrences until they overtake they system. Particularly when sound bites from the people committing these activities provide convenient, although shallow, justification for their crimes.
Ostensibly though, legal systems in "free countries" allow for the interruption of legal processes by actions of "the people". Which is why the OP is so valuable to us a people. Because until someone puts it all together and gets concerned, it's a lot harder and less likely for interruptions to this kind of madness to occur. So thanks, Alien Chaser.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


You are either, very nieve, or you are the one who is blind.

Or, maybe you are a social worker. Which wouldn't surprise me. You sound like an opinionated idiot.

Wake Up!



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienChaser
When I began to look at all of the instances of children being forcibly taken from their mothers, and laws such as not being able to play with your own children on a playground. Yes I will admit that words like Orwellian, and Authoritarian entered my thoughts. Quite frankly I am very surprised to see so many who would not only agree with the examples that I cited, and the hundreds more I provided links for, but stand up for them.


Prove to me that this has NEVER EVER happened in the US and Ill take it all back


Fact is, you cant because it probably happens pretty regularly as Social services & the judicial systems everywhere make rash and unfair decisions at times.. people are flawed after all. If the Court wouldn't allow the return of the Children after proof of good parenting.. then it would be a different story.

So if it has happened in the US.. then is the US also a Nanny state??


Perhaps you have simply grown used to it.


I am from Ireland.. not the UK. But I am regularly floating around in England as well as the US and the differences are only in the accents and outlook. TBH, there are many laws and systems that I don't agree with in every country I have been in but I don't judge them as a result of those systems.



I do not understand your statement that my examples are irrelevant to the issue as a whole.


A couple of examples of Children being remanded into protective custody for stupid reasons is not relevant to the argument that the UK is becoming an Orwellian state... thats what I meant.. and its not.



Its just that this thread smells of misinformed assumptious generalizations that only serve to create more cross atlantic ignorance on this site. So as a person with a close but outside perspective of the UK system, I am giving my opinion and trying to rectify it before more people actually start to believe that people in the UK have no rights and live under a dictatorship while the US is the most perfect, free system in the world.




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by maya27
You are either, very nieve, or you are the one who is blind.

Or, maybe you are a social worker. Which wouldn't surprise me. You sound like an opinionated idiot.

Wake Up!


Oooooh.. someone doesn't agree with a realistic perspective..

You sound like a million other idiots that I have come across online that believe everything they hear and lump everything into the same classification of a giant conspiracy because their little minds can't handle the fact that civilization evolves and this is a part of it...

Oh yea, and also the fact that Children get abused regularly.. obviously you have no problem with this though seeing as the system is always wrong to protect the kids first..

And you have problems with social workers or something?

Take that up with an actual social worker.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by IceOwl
 


Look, in most cases, I would completely agree with you on this but when it comes to Children, better safe than sorry.

So when a doctor obviously reported a situation to a social worker where parents refused to take his advice and were going to continue on a path where their child was going to become more ill as a result of not eating.. then said child ended up in hospital for two weeks..

Do you not think it was fair enough that a social worker checked on that child? And if they viewed the parents as a possible danger to that child, then should they not protect it and evaluate the situation?? Which is what happened.

There are a million and one things I disagree with with the UK system but I don't sit on my high horse and attempt to paint a picture of an entire country as a disastrous Authoritarian system when the system in my country is almost exactly the same in every way.. And that is where my main argument is with the op...



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


I never said that things like this have never happened in America. It is the shear volume of the instances in the U.K. that surprised me, and the fact that it is not the rare occasion of a rash and unfair desicion coming as the result of failed human thinking.

It was the idea that this is the standard operating procedure that bothers me more is that it is more about meeting government quotas rather than an honest concern for the child.

Quite true that if children in America were removed from their obese mothers for fear that the child also grow up to be obese, we would have a serious problem, and I would write a threaad about it.

What I found while reading the numerous stories of distraught mothers who have had their children removed for such trivial reasons, is that their stories were all very similar and that those patterns arose from U.K. government policy.

I get the impression that your offence stems from the feeling that I intended to create a "we're better than you" mindset. This is not so, in any way. America has it's own police state issues, but this particular thread is not about them. It just so happens that a search revealed a mind boggling amount of nearly identical stories from women and families in the U.K.

Katie Hilperns investigative report on the issue highlights the increasing prevelance of this type of government intrusion.

You mentioned earlier that the U.K. is "probably the most socially developed and technologically integrated country on the planet". Which is precisely why attention should be called to such government involvement in freedom, or lack of choice of the people to have a private family life.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


If you think social workers and the system they operate in actually protects, or does anything to help children generally you are indeed nieve!

Your statement tells me that you are not very aware of the workings of the healthcare or social work child protection sector.

It's about quotas, Money and control.

Troll.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienChaser
 


S&F, a thread on this very topic is overdue.


I had come across many horror stories concerning wrong disgnoses and accusations from Paediatric Consultants, when the parents were eventually found to be innocent and tried to have their children returned to them they were refused. The childrens birth certificates had been changed and they had completed adoption proceedures.

It will get to the stage where parents will think twice about taking their child to the doctor. Also, in the light of the baby P, and the baby Lee case, Hospital Consultants will feel increasingly pressured to highlight possible signs of abuse in many innocent cases, and a knee jerk reaction from social workers. This will create a legal paperwork mountain and a nightmare for many innocent families.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Dermo
 


So when a doctor obviously reported a situation to a social worker where parents refused to take his advice and were going to continue on a path where their child was going to become more ill as a result of not eating.. then said child ended up in hospital for two weeks..

Do you not think it was fair enough that a social worker checked on that child? And if they viewed the parents as a possible danger to that child, then should they not protect it and evaluate the situation?? Which is what happened.

This story in my first example was the topic of another thread, and when looking in to it, I started to notice that this is not an isolated case at all, but just another in a very long line of similar stories. The way you describe it is misleading.

The parents took the child who weighed within the normal range to the doctor for assistance in getting him to eat healthy food. When they were told to simply feed him junk food and cake, they refused on the grounds that the solution failed to address the problem. Were they just supposed to let the child eat cake at every meal? In fact when he became fat from it they would face removal because of his weight. It was at this point that he was forcibly hospitalized for a 2 week "observation" from there he was placed in foster care. The foster parents admitted in court that the child refused to eat healthy food and as a result they had fed him the junk food he wanted. Reinforcing his bad eating habits. Which his parents say are not solved to this day.

This one story was not the point of the thread, it was to call attention to the multitude of similar stories, and show the the government mindset towards the issue.



There are a million and one things I disagree with with the UK system but I don't sit on my high horse and attempt to paint a picture of an entire country as a disastrous Authoritarian system when the system in my country is almost exactly the same in every way.. And that is where my main argument is with the op...

I don't understand why you continue to portray me as sitting high on the perfect throne of America, pointing fingers at other countries. I was simply calling attention to what I consider an invasive government policy. This is routinely done on ATS and is no different than a thread on China or Russia. I was unaware of any rule that I must live in a country before I can post an opinion of the governments policies.

You say that "when it comes to children, better safe than sorry." I agree, but at what cost? When does government involvement cease to be about protecting a childs welfare and start being about micro-managing family life?

Those were the points I was trying to make, using recent events which just so happen to stem from the U.K. To discuss where the consensus lay on government boundries. I had no desire to start trading barbs over whose country has it worse.

and I would still like to discuss government involvement in family life, as was the original point.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join