Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MR MISTER]

Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues

Shut up, you fanny 

Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2

You little tinker. Altering reframed to refrained
I wasn't gonna say owt, honest.

[chrisgixer]

Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues

Shut up, you fanny 

Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2

You little tinker. Altering reframed to refrained
I wasn't gonna say owt, honest.

I wouldn't bother if you where'nt on.

[MR MISTER]

Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues

Shut up, you fanny 

Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2

You little tinker. Altering reframed to refrained
I wasn't gonna say owt, honest.

I wouldn't bother if you where'nt on.

Educating Gixer. There's a movie there.

[Vamps]

Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues

Shut up, you fanny 

Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2

You little tinker. Altering reframed to refrained
I wasn't gonna say owt, honest.

I wouldn't bother if you where'nt on.

Educating Gixer. There's a movie there.

A bloody long one!..............

[MR MISTER]

Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues

Shut up, you fanny 

Ffs, that's what happens when trying to be polite. I refrained from posting that in post#2

You little tinker. Altering reframed to refrained
I wasn't gonna say owt, honest.

I wouldn't bother if you where'nt on.

Educating Gixer. There's a movie there.

A bloody long one!..............

He got his apostrophe in the wrong place 

[albitz]

The other two kids live with her mum, which probably isn't that unusual in Italy.
The family courts in this country are notoriously secretive, even when they dont need to be. Some MP,s have been fighting to change this for quite some time, with little success so far.  Hopefully, episodes like this will help their cause to some extent.      The fact is that British "services" forced this woman to have a cesarian section against her will - would like to see an interview with the NHS doctors who carried that operation out - and then removed the child from her and have kept it ever since. And to add insult to injury are now apparently close to placing it with a couple in this country for adoption. Surely, it should at least be taken to Italy for the Italian authorities to deal with ?    If that's not outrageous (even more so as she is an Italian citizen who was here on a training course) I will never understand what is.
Thanks for posting it Nick. It cant all be about fun & laughter all the time,but hopefully most of it.

[Nickbat]

Whilst a serious matter .. I think "outrageous" is somewhat an "outrageous" headline ..

1. The matter occurred way back in 2012 .. so why suddenly go ballistic over it ?? ... headline making to sell papers IMHO

2. Knowing the way the Family Division works this will have taken some considerable Court time, with many legal and moral arguments at the time .. that the paper has no knowledge of (and apparently no interest in)

3. It has already been established that the Italian Courts were involved and agreed with the UK Courts

4. It appears that there are already 2 more children that the Italian courts have removed from this woman as she is incapable of looking after them

But NEVER, EVER let the truth get in the way of the outrage bus a good selling headline, because .. only sales count.. the truth is out there but it doesn't matter

Ah, yes, of course, John Hemming MP and Brendan Fleming (the woman's lawyers) are only interested in newspaper sales.

I forgot that. 

[Nickbat]

Ah, I see some humour has returned in another topic. Let's hope that continues

I've always wondered about the spelling of "patronising". Should it actually be "patronizing"?

As with many words with a choice between "-ise" and "-ize", the "-ise" form is the most common in print in England: so "patronising" is quite acceptable. The Oxford English Dictionary, however, prefers the "-ize" form on etymological grounds (origin in Greek "-izein"), so "patronizing" is also fine. Indeed, some Oxford-educated people will tell you that it's the more educated version.

 

[Sir Tigger KC]

As I said yesterday, it's more like a story from China than Essex....   

While it seems to me that there may be a bit more to this than meets the eye, if Social Services have the power to sedate and carry out forced cesarean sections for no particular medical reason, then I'm on that outrage bus!  In fact I'll drive the damn thing!! 

So if you're 'sectioned' under the Mental Health Act do none of the provisions of New Liebores much vaunted Human Rights Act or The European Convention on Human Rights apply??    As on the face of it they didn't offer this poor woman much protection.....   

[Vamps]

Not defending anything but original action was taken via Mental Health Act by NHS via Court of Protection on the Mother, nothing to do with social services, they picked up the case with the new born. I can not comment further as I do not know the facts of the case........

[05omegav6]

What I really don't understand is how this is allowed, yet forcing the MMR jab following two court orders is not

When the world gets this messed up, the robots don't seem like such a bad idea...

[D]

I think there is a lot more to this story than the paper has chosen to publish. The view presented is a sensationalised version, with a view to evoking the response the the OP has. To enforce a C-section will require multiple health care professionals, social services, psychiatrists and legal bods to come together and make such a decision. It is certainly not something someone does on a whim.

Having seen events in the NHS, which are then sensationalised by the media and a very one sided view presented to the public, purely to sell their paper; I have very little trust in these reports.

Give us all the facts, then make an decision. What the OP is demonstrating is a mob/lynch mentality. Which is exactly what these newspapers prey on.

[chrisgixer]

Give us all the facts, then make an decision. What the OP is demonstrating is a mob/lynch mentality. Which is exactly what these newspapers prey on.

...and, it seems, everyone else is supposed to follow. Has to be said, there does appear to be a lot of baying for blood in that corner of the country. Maybe there's something the water over there ?

[albitz]

Some more facts of the case here,including the judges statement. Having read it, I still find it outrageous. The baby should at least be sent to Italy for the authorities there to deal with. Its non of our business imo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/03/italy-woman-forced-baby_n_4377577.html?ncid=webmail1

Basically, the women is fine as long as she doesn't forget to take her meds. The judge has decided that she might forget to take her meds at some point in the future,so the baby has to stay in the UK and be adopted here.

[Nickbat]

I think there is a lot more to this story than the paper has chosen to publish. The view presented is a sensationalised version, with a view to evoking the response the the OP has. To enforce a C-section will require multiple health care professionals, social services, psychiatrists and legal bods to come together and make such a decision. It is certainly not something someone does on a whim.

Having seen events in the NHS, which are then sensationalised by the media and a very one sided view presented to the public, purely to sell their paper; I have very little trust in these reports.

Give us all the facts, then make an decision. What the OP is demonstrating is a mob/lynch mentality. Which is exactly what these newspapers prey on.

As the original poster (OP), I find your post somewhat offensive. Actually, it's downright rude. 

I have not in any way, shape, or form, demonstrated a "mob/lynch mentality".

Anyway, it would seem that this case has caused consternation in the higher circles:

"In an unusual intervention, Sir James Munby, the High Court's President of the Family Division has now said that any further applications in the case must pass through the High Court."

Perhaps he also has, in your view, a mob/lynch mentality.

Still, let's ban all newspapers/blogs and let the NHS, Social Services and Family Courts and all other government agencies and NGOs carry on unhindered. After all, they never make mistakes and never slip below 100% honesty.


P.S. Why do the words "Stafford" and "Savile" keep entering my head?