Skip to main content

Twenty Police sent to arrest baby

This video is a video of a mother and baby being taken away somewhere in Somerset. No-one involved seems to understand what the law is. The police officers refer to a "police protection order". What they are actually doing is using Section 46 of the Children Act where the police have powers to take children into police protection.

For the purposes of this Act, a child with respect to whom a constable has exercised his powers under this section is referred to as having been taken into police protection. At times this power is abused by the local authority childrens services. They tell the police a child is at risk and the police go and arrest the child. The danger for the mother is that she only has a roughly 20% chance of getting her baby back. (whether she goes to the hospital with the baby or not).

Most likely what should have happened is that the local authority should have applied for an emergency protection order. That is a better system because because it gives the mother the chance to argue against the action rather than it just happening.

Potentially a judicial review of this decision would succeed. Sadly the people lobbying for the mother are people who have a strange legal belief known as "Freeman of the Land". I have never seen anything good come of FMOTLing. They mean well, but they ignore the fact that the "glorious revolution" was in fact a popular revolution in 1688 that established a new constitutional settlement. Only things derived from that constitutional settlement have force.

In any event we have this strange event in Somerset probably about a week ago where a mother is taken to hospital with the threat that her baby will go without her if she doesn't go. It may be injuncted off the net, but also it may not.

The rumours around the net is that the argument is that mother supports things being natural including no vaccination etc. Personally I support vaccination for my children, but I don't think this sort of argument necessarily warrants a baby being arrested within 24 hours of birth. At the same time, however, no-one present appears to fully understand the law in this area. Most importantly, however, the avoiding of an EPO process prevents the mother arguing her own view and merely takes the view of the state.


Nick Brown said…
It's difficult. Not vaccinating your kids often goes along with any number of potentially harmful beliefs (and of course, immunisation (or failure to) doesn't only protect (or endanger) the immunised individual, because of herd effects. But this doors seen heavy-handed.
John Hemming said…
The challenge, however, is a traditional Audi Alteram Partem challenge. (Then known as fair trial, now known as Article 6).
It is so horrible,that 13 police-officers threaten a woman(who gave birth to a baby a few hours ago) to go immediately to hospital for vaxinations. As I could hear , this mother isn`t alone,-there are well experienced and professional trained midwifes in the house to care for mother and baby. SO DEAR POLICE-OFFICERS ,-YOU BETTER GO AND HUNT REAL CRIMINALS. Don`t waste the time with intimidating a young mother....! OR DID YOU GET THE TASK TO TAKE HER BABY AWAWAY ...???

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…