Skip to main content

The State is not your Friend (thought police)

This story in the Sunday Express relates to the proposals by a local authority to remove a baby at birth. (note that there are a number of errors in the Sunday Express Article see below)

Removing a baby at birth is a really draconian thing to do. It has to be based upon a real and urgent threat to the baby. Removing the baby is often harmful to the baby. Hence it has to be a very serious threat.

In the linked case the local authorities concerns are as I said in the House of Commons on Wednesday:
Hansard has the full debate. My relevant section is:
Ms Toni McLeod, who lives with her family in Durham, is thinking of going to Ireland because she is pregnant. It is a difficult situation. She was a supporter of the English Defence League. I hate the EDL. Three of my children are mixed-race, and I protest against the EDL. Toni McLeod says that she is not racially prejudiced, but that children were taken from her partly because of her membership of the EDL. It was “felt that conversations and opinions may be expressed in the children’s presence.” That is a “thought police” approach to care. The system intervened because of what Toni McLeod might say in front of her children. She says that she has many friends who are Muslims and Sikhs, and that she disowns the EDL nowadays, but whether that is true or not, we should ask whether it is appropriate for the state to remove a child because children may be radicalised by a parent. Is that an appropriate use of the phrase “risk of significant harm”? That brings us back to the statutory guidance, which makes no effort whatsoever to give any indication of what is meant by the phrase.

So her husband is fighting for a country which won't allow his wife to keep her baby (and would probably give it to another family) because of what she might say to the child.

I oppose the EDL myself. Mrs McLeod says she now does not support the EDL. My view is that the EDL are generally out for a fight rather than expressing a political position. However, I do not think association with the EDL is good cause to remove a new born child from a mother. She has no real choice but to emigrate because the care system is so orientated towards adoption.


Statement from Toni MacLeod in respect of the Sunday Express Article: My name is Toni Macleod. I would like to put the record straight following the misleading article in the Sunday Express which repeated allegations made by Childrens Services in Durham that they should know not to be true.

I did respond violently to being arrested at the EDL demonstration and when a police officer punched me in the face the imprint of my teeth did appear on his knuckles. This was a response, not something I started. I am not a racist and I now regret going to the EDL demonstration. I do, however, strongly support the British Troops and will continue to back our boys. I have character references from Muslim and Sikh friends. I am not involved with North West Infidels.

I have never owned a Pit Bull. An ex-partner of mine attacked me in 2010 and my German Shepherd responded by biting him. The judge recognized that the dog was defending me and, therefore, the dog was not destroyed.

I do not have a mental health problem. I am not and have never been a drug addict. I have not drunk alcohol in 2012. I did get drunk on one day in 2011 when I was told that my children were not returning to me.

Comments

How can anybody claim the removal after birth can be "in the child's interest"???

There's a precedent in Strasbourg: http://bit.ly/MiQzaB

And the right to breastfeed has a UK precedent: http://bit.ly/LYDO1v

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…