Author Topic: Boy hides from social workers in the jungle  (Read 7943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paranoid Puppet Master

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Boy hides from social workers in the jungle
« on: October 16, 2010, 11:40:58 pm »


Boy hides from social workers in the jungle


Britain's zealous social workers have rarely gone to such lengths to seize a child from loving parents, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:00PM BST 16 Oct 2010


Of all the stories I have covered about zealous social workers seizing children from loving parents without cause, none is more bizarre than the one that looked as though it would be concluded in the High Court last Friday.

After London social workers had spent thousands of pounds vainly trying to track down, in the Ugandan jungle, a four-year-old boy who had evaded their clutches, the council indicated that it wished to close the case. But in a last minute twist, the judge gave the social workers three more months to find the child – so the story hasn’t yet got a happy ending.

The boy’s mother is a Ugandan Catholic who has lived in Britain for more than 20 years, has degrees in IT and finance from two London universities, and has held down good jobs. Six years ago, however, she was temporarily homeless with a young daughter. She appealed for help to the social workers of the borough where she then lived. She was told she could put her little girl in foster care, but could be given no help herself. When she refused to hand over her child, a care order was made on the grounds of the mother’s “neglect”.

The mother was arrested at work, in front of her shocked colleagues, by six policemen, one armed with a pistol, and held in custody so her daughter could be seized. With court approval, the social workers then gave the girl to her father, despite the fact that he had a criminal record and was HIV positive.

Three years later, with a new partner, the mother had a son. Since she was on a register, the social workers where she now lived wanted to seize the child, but she left hospital a day before the papers arrived and they lost the trail. For three years the little boy lived happily with his parents, until last year the social workers of a third council caught up with her and began asking questions. Fearful that he would be seized, she took her son to Uganda to live with her family. Only six months later did the council serve papers with the court.

In March this year, she returned to England with her mother, who is infirm and suffers from dementia. When she arrived at immigration, with her mother in a wheelchair, she was arrested by four policemen. As she was taken off into custody, she asked the police to contact social workers to arrange help for her mother, who was in need of constant care and spoke no English. Having confiscated her passport, the police refused to assist and held her in the cells for 36 hours, leaving her mother helpless. A shocked Ugandan stranger intervened and took care of her until her daughter was released. But the police held onto their passports, meaning the mother could neither reclaim their luggage nor get work.

The council hired an agency staffed by ex-social workers to track down her son in Uganda. For six months – trying to enlist the help of the Ugandan authorities – the agency got nowhere, to the point where last week the council seemed ready to admit defeat and ask for the case to be discharged – at which point I would have been free to report it in full, naming all those involved.

Due to an unexpected intervention, however, the judge ruled on Friday that he would not discharge the case until social workers have had three more months to find the child (who lives happily in a remote village, only distressed at being apart from his parents). Meanwhile the mother cannot have her passport, and therefore cannot reclaim the luggage from Heathrow or get a job. (She earns a little money running a market stall but otherwise depends on her partner.) I doubt the child will be found, but I must postpone the happy ending until January.

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: Boy hides from social workers in the jungle
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2010, 01:29:13 am »
somebody forgot to tell that kid about the inescapable full spectrum awareness satellite tracking control grid. ;)
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Boy hides from social workers in the jungle
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2010, 07:29:55 am »
Why Communism Loves Children
By David Yeagley FrontPageMagazine.com | May 6, 2005
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17965

Communism needs children. Only children will obey the tyranny of adult delusions without question. Only the young are naïve enough to hate all authority and to destroy all achievement. For youth, Communism is not a delusion but an exciting, heroic cause.

Cambodia’s Pol Pot knew this. He overtook his country on April 17, 1975, with a huge gang of young teenagers called the Khmer Rouge. Through these obedient subjects, Pol Pot murdered nearly 2 million people of his own nation, one-third of the population. In less than four years, Pol Pot created a society of pure Communism—ghastly, murderous tyranny.
 
Jean-Louis Margolin, in “Cambodia: A Country of Disconcerting Crimes,” in The Black Book of Communism (ed. Mark Kramer. Harvard: 1999), says that Pol Pot tried to establish Communism “in one fell swoop, without the long transitional period” that characterized the Marxist method.” Though his party was called the Party of Democratic Kampuchea, it was a horde of raw hellions. “Money was abolished in a week, total collectivization was achieved in less than two years; social distinctions were suppressed by the elimination of entire classes of property owners, intellectuals, and businessmen, and the ancient antagonism between urban and rural areas was solved by emptying the cities in a single week” (p.577).
 
The enforcers of this disaster were “programmed” youth. Pol Pot separated children from parents and indoctrinated them with fanatical denial of natural affection and respect for familial relationships. He understood the latent resentment of youth toward parents and adults, and youth’s penchant for destruction. Destruction is naturally exciting. Pol Pot knew that there was a “killing field” in the heart of the young, and he tapped into that virgin resource. This is clear in Roland Joffé’s 1984 documentary, The Killing Fields.
 
Children surrendered their natural family bonds to the unnatural vision of the Anka, the party, the Big Brother. Children became part of a national gang, and they reveled in the thrills of vandalism. Youth were given orders to not only be disrespectful to parents and adults, but to betray them, to be physically cruel to them, and even to murder them. Children under this satanic delusion could not be dissuaded or relieved.
 
Yet even in accounts like Children of Cambodia’s Killing Fields (Yale: 1999) and Jean-Louis Margolin’s essay, there is always stark neglect to account for Pol Pot’s use of children. Children of Cambodia’s Killing Fields emphasizes the horror stories of children who survived the victimization; there are no studies of how the children of the Khmer Rouge were recruited and indoctrinated. Margolin’s artful 70-page essay only mentions the destruction of family relations in passing, and not as the foundation of Khmer Rouge Communism.
 
The Communist spirit of resentment and violence was deeply absorbed by these kidnapped children. There was nothing to prevent the tide of megalomania. No religion in this essentially rural country could serve as a shield against the depravity of human nature to which Communism appealed. Buddhism was impotent, and the “Khmer smile” of Apsara, indigenous goddess of Cambodia, was an indifferent mockery.
 
But Communism is the god of discontent, and needs no blessing. All it needs is a heart willing to hate, willing to call envy “justice.” Equality then means the violent destruction of all social and cultural distinctions. Freedom means absolute dictatorship over the people.
 
Sounds like a police state, yet similar underlying conditions are developing in American youth, under our own nose. How? Because of prescribed permissiveness in American public schools: police are required to enforce the most basic, necessary child control. Kindergarteners are being arrested, handcuffed, and taken out of their schools, because only the police exercise physical authority in schools: teachers have abdicated discipline. Other adults merely frustrate the child with meaningless words.
 
Through this new Communism, the child is in this sense “equal” to the adult, and thus controls the day. The child answers only to the police. Children are indoctrinated to expect police intervention for safety and discipline. Control doesn’t come from the adults in schools, or the adults at home, but rather from the police, or Big Brother.
   
“Policed” conditions already exist in other countries of the world. And the need for a world police state, a global government, has been advocated for decades. But no one thinks about the role indoctrinated children play in the development of such a world.
 
Learn from America: Leftist school legislation says teachers must not control the child. Let the child rule.
 
This generation of children may become the next street thugs whose rebellion paves the way for a more authoritarian state. And no child will be left behind.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Boy hides from social workers in the jungle
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2010, 07:34:04 am »
http://www.matthewnewton.us/node/138

Khmer Rouge

...In the camps, families were separated—mothers from their children, husbands from their wives. The disabled were left to die; the elderly left to starve. Communication with family members was prohibited and considered an offense worthy of execution.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Boy hides from social workers in the jungle
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2010, 07:35:22 am »
Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Beginning_Sideshow.html
by William Shawcross
Simon and Schuster, 1979

The radio constantly declared that Kampucheans reflected the revolutionary spirit, the spirit of Angka, ''a spirit of combative struggle, economy, inventiveness and a very high level of renunciation." "Renunciation," said the refugees, had three components: "renunciation of personal attitudes," "renunciation of material goods," and "renunciation of personal behavior." The individual must find complete joy in working for the Angka, must forswear personal property, family relationships and such attitudes as pride, contempt, envy. As during the war, special attention was paid to the development of children. They were often brought up communally; if they still lived with their parents, they were taught to have no regard for the concept of family and to treat their relations simply as anyone else in the group. Parents, on the other hand, were taught to honor their "comrade children," whose spirits are uncorrupted by the past. Children were often used as spies within villages; the radio has said that many of them "have held aloft their spirit of vigilance and creativity [and] . . . have become engaged in patrolling their villages and communes with the highest revolutionary spirit."
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately