Rotherham is the Tip of the Iceberg


Christopher Brooker is one of the few people in the public forum who stands up for the rights of families against what is becoming an ever greater threat to human dignity and the right to a family life. The awful reality is that social services, backed up by family courts across the United Kingdom have, for years, even decades, been removing children unjustly from families to be put up for what has been described as 'forced adoption.  The policy has been explicitly eugenic and is directed at poor families who are left powerless and with no voice to speak out.

A minority of extreme cases of child abuse and terrible neglect of children in the media have been used as an excuse for this trend in social engineering in a racket that spans decades. Victims, as well as mothers and fathers and grandparents, in this racket, include children who are severed from their roots and placed often into a care system that dehumanizes them and in cases abuses them.

The Conservative/Liberal Coalition Government has made no commitment to reverse this criminal infringement of the right to family life, but instead are planning to expand the role of the State in family life and the role of social workers in society, which result in more family break-up and destruction of mostly poor families.

The recent case of a family in Rotherham who had fostered children only to have them removed by Rotherham City Council for the brazen crime of voting UKIP not only gives us ample reason to vote UKIP, but also sheds light on the insidious and often brutal incursion into family life that runs through the heart of social services' and its 'child protection' agenda. The interests of children are served first in their family and parents are the primary educators of their children.

The interests of children, unless a child's life or health is in grave danger, are not served by the State's invasion of the family home, far less by a child being treated then as a commodity or his or her placement into a care system that dehumanizes and institutionalizes them regularly. The immediate bonds of father, son, mother, daughter should not be broken lightly because the State is no fit parent for any child.

If children must be adopted or fostered out to other parents, the real motive for any adoption and foster agency should be seeking the best foster or adoptive parents, preferably a foster father and a mother who are able to provide a child with love, shelter, understanding and care. Voting patterns, surely, should play no role in deciding who can or who cannot foster or adopt children.

Comments

Chris Hall said…
As a foster carer I can only say that the decision of Rotherham Social Services does not surprise me on little bit. The rights of the child come way down on the list, well below the rights of the accountants, the rights of the politically trendy and correct, and the rights of the blazingly incompetent.