Sunday, 20 December 2009


Yes, I am pissed. Yes, I have been to the smoky-drinky place tonight.

Does anyone recall the grandfather, one of we smoky drinkers, whose grandson (with the muscular dystrophy and the brain heamorrage at birth) who was concerned that Socialist Services took too much interest?

Well, Socialist Services have now taken the child. Just before Christmas. Even though there is no sign of child abuse at all.

I am incandescent with rage. It's best I say no more tonight.


SaltedSlug said...

Fuck. Did the SS get a court order or did the police come round?

subrosa said...

The MP and MSP must be told immediately plus councillors and they must be told to do something NOW. This is just appalling.

Anonymous said...

What exactly did they use as their excuse to abduct the child, for those of us not familiar with this case from previous postings?

MTG said...

Inebriate editing spawns an obligatory assumption that you are in possession of all the facts and that persons from whom you invite comment have drunk nearly as much.

Anonymous said...

Righteous Cunt, aren't you MTG?

Eckersalld said...

Seen both sides of abuse allegations, both false and true, and whilst I hope it's a false allegation, just be prepared in case it isn't.

I've been surprised by shits acting like angels, and angels acting like shits.

Leg-iron said...

MTG - fair comment, considering the limited information in the post. So, more detail.

I've known the grandfather and father in this case for around 17 years. Neither would ever consider harming a child.

The mother I haven't known for so long. She's not very bright but she's even-tempered and not violent. She would need support caring for a child with muscular dystrophy and who had an oxygen-deprivation incident at birth.

The SS claim he is not developing at a normal rate and they blame the parents. They do not blame the brain damage incurred due to oxygen deprivation or the MD. This is after two years.

Initially they were supportive, until a) the father found a job and b) the grandfather ejected the same social worker from his house after she complained about him smoking in it (I hear a few 'Ah-ha's out there, I think). He wasn't smoking while she was there, it was the fact that he had smoked in his own home that she objected to.

The father also smokes, the mother does not. Neither father nor grandfather smoke when the child is in the room. They are well aware that he is more delicate than the average child.

There was a meeting about the case at the council. I wasn't at it. The father, grandfather and great-grandfather (who is still hale and hearty and not someone you'd pick a fight with) were there.

Great-grandfather was used by the SS as an example of parental neglect. He was the one taking the child to doctor's appointments, not the father. Therefore the father must be neglecting the child.

The father doesn't have a car. He can't afford one.

Neither does the grandfather. He gave up driving when his eyesight deteriorated to the point where he didn't feel safe.

No evidence or suggestion of physical harm has been presented at any point.

The only unknown quantity, for me, is the mother. She's not the hottest coal in the fire but there's no malice in her.

From what I've been hearing of the social worker, she has enough malice for everyone.

Leg-iron said...

Subrosa - I don't think the family will have considered trying their MPs. They have been concentrating on arguing with the council.

I'll pass that on to them.

subrosa said...

LI, they need to tell as many of their political representatives as they can. Although they possibly won't 'interfere' they should be asked to contact the council immediately to show they are aware of the situation.

Leg-iron said...

You mean, put the shits up them with a 'We're watching you' letter? Worth a try, especially with an election coming up.

banned said...

Dick Puddelcte and others have been suggesting that the SS might use home-smoking as an excuse to kidnap children; given Grandfathers prior disagreement with SS woman could this be the first sign ?

JuliaM said...

Two things stand out from your further description that indicates exactly why the SS decided to act in this case: "She's not very bright..." and "She would need support..."

To the SS, the first says 'Perfect victim!' and the second says 'Drain on resources'.

Anonymous said...

Hi there,

Someone who may be able to help your friend and his family is John Hemming, MP. He has been involved in a lot of cases like these and will be a good source of advice and support.

Good luck to them,

TheMolesMother (LJ)

Rob said...

At the risk of sounding flippant, if they want the SS off their backs they should develop a heroin habit, pronto. They won't hear from the SS ever again.

Saying that, they need as much publicity as possible, and ignore the threats they'll get from the SS as a result. These threats will be hollow anyway; they already have the child. If they go through "proper channels" they'll never see the child again.

Leg-iron said...

Thanks, everyone. I'll pass all the info along.

With any luck, they'll be able to face down the SS. It's never easy though.

opinions powered by