Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Protest outside Old Bailey in support of Constance Marten & Mark Gordon

CharlotteF1 said:
About time!

This couple who have been persecuted by the SS for so long, resulting in the death of their baby, and who are continuing to be be persecuted, have had almost no support. Several internet forums have banned expressions of support and closed the accounts of the rare individuals who have voiced it.

Free Constance Marten and Mark Gordon!
End their persecution by the state!
Leave them be!

supportnotseparation.blog

We support Constance Marten.Hands off our children! Children need their mothers.

We’re outside the Old Bailey on Friday 15 March as mothers supporting Constance Marten because many of us have experienced the brutality of the family courts which steal our children. Over 82,000 …
supportnotseparation.blog supportnotseparation.blog

Click to expand...

Hello Seventy-seven, Was77 and +78.

Why is this horrible case so important to you and why must urban bear testament to your hot takes on it?
 
GarveyLives said:
The original thread on what is now an ongoing criminal trial - begun on 18 January 2023. This appears to be the fourth (?) thread on it - does anyone know why there is a need for multiple threads on the same ongoing criminal case?



Could you clarify either what you understand by this phrase or what it is that you intend others to understand by this phrase?

Anyone who has been following this ongoing criminal trial (or anyone who is capable of searching the internet for reports on it) will already be aware that the case for the prosecution closed at the end of February (2024) and that far from collapsing, it having been determined that the defendants have a case to answer, the trial had been hearing the evidence called on behalf of the defendants during the two weeks prior to what you have claimed on 14 March 2024.

At this stage, the prosecution case cannot collapse - it has already ended.

This ongoing trial can, however, "collapse" if for example (just one example), you and / or others, commit a statutory contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which criminalises the publication of material which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the relevant proceedings would be seriously impeded or prejudiced, by the publication on an internet messageboard of material deemed to fall into that category regarding an ongoing criminal trial.

Is this actually what you are hoping to achieve, or alternatively, can you clarify what you intend others to understand from your commentary on the ongoing proceedings?
Click to expand...
The judge can stop the trial at any time and instruct the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

The CPS most certainly can say "oh f*** it" even once the defence have started presenting their case.

In this particular trial, there has been argument over whether the prosecution should be allowed to call a certain witness in attempted rebuttal of what they supposedly heard for the first time when the second defendant was in the witness box. Perhaps if they can't call him they will say "oh f*** it". Who knows?

They may also say "oh f*** it" if the defence is allowed to call certain witnesses, given what they have heard since the defence opened their case that wasn't disclosed to them beforehand.

As you surely well know, not stopping a trial at half-time doesn't mean a judge can't stop it later.

FYI, allegations that the CPS have abused process have been made at various times since the first charges were laid, including after the defence opened their case at trial. The evidence for the CPS having abused process is accumulating.

The evidence for SS officers having conspired to pervert the course of justice is also accumulating.

You seem interested in my motives. Let me answer you. I would prefer

*******************************

1) for these two fine people and excellent loving parents who are currently on trial to be vindicated and freed at the earliest possible time;

2) for the ball to be started rolling towards the complete end of

/ the atrocious regime of secret hearings at "family courts"
/ forced adoptions
/ women being told by the SS who they shouldn't be in a relationship with if they want their children to avoid capture
/ women being declared unfit to breed ("unsuited to parenting" in SS speak)
/ babies been captured shortly after birth

3) for there to be an official inquiry, an apology, and the payment of compensation to the many tens of thousands of people who have been affected by the said regime (noting that an apology has already been issued for many of the forced adoptions that took place between 1949 and 1976) - with the apology to be given at prime ministerial level, and making clear that such adoptions (which have been imposed under both Conservative, Labour, and Coalition governments) have been a terrible national disgrace, just as forced adoptions are now so considered in, for example, Australia;

4) for social workers who are found to have lied in order to facilitate forced adoptions to be given long jail sentences - hopefully for a minimum of 20 years - and if this is to be taken seriously, thousands of SS officers will be jailed;

5) for lawyers who have lied and who have cheated their clients in order to facilitate forced adoptions also to be given long jail sentences - also a minimum of 20 years;

6) for medics, health visitors, schoolteachers, experts, and any others who have lied in order to facilitate forced adoptions also to be given long jail sentences - also a minimum of 20 years;

7) for social services to be defunded;

8) for those who have fled abroad in order to avoid the persecution of themselves and the capture of their children by the SS to be paid compensation;

9) for those who have assisted the flight of such victims of persecution for no personal gain to be considered for prestigious humanitarian awards;

10) for the official consideration of women as unfit to breed to be deemed a very serious crime in every single case in which it has occurred, and, given the large number of cases of its occurrence in Britain, for it to be considered overall, on the scale that it has operated in the said country, to have been a crime against humanity, in accordance with the meaning of that term in international humanitarian law.

*******************************

Regarding the possibility of contempt of court in relation to this particular trial at the Old Bailey, the jurors have been told that they shouldn't search the internet or read the newspapers about the case, and that in the event that any articles or posts do hit their consciousness they should stop reading them right away. All jurors are told the same nowadays. Did you not know that?

So don't worry about anything being typed here that undermines the working of his glorious majesty's most excellent justice system.

The trial has been adjourned until Monday 25 March. Protests outside the Old Bailey will continue on that date. All who support these two innocent defendants are welcome to attend.

For further information, please browse to https://supportnotseparation.blog

The address of the court is Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, London, EC4M 7EH. ("Old Bailey" is the streetname.)

  • FREE CONSTANCE MARTEN AND MARK GORDON
  • END FORCED ADOPTIONS
  • STOP DESIGNATING WOMEN AS UNFIT TO BREED
  • DEFUND THE SS
 
Last edited:
SpookyFrank said:
I don't think it's harmless at all. I don't want to come here and be reminded of the fact that there are people who believe that rapists should be allowed to raise children. Every day I work with broken, fucked up kids who have been treated like shit by the people who were supposed to cherish and protect them. Because despite the many people who work tirelessly to safeguard kids, who follow every procedure and ethical standard, who work themselves half to death because they know the vital importance of what they do; the sheer scale of child abuse is insurmountable.

And then you've got some know-nothing weirdo who thinks they're entitled to call social services and child protection workers kidnappers? A trope that puts both them and their work at risk? There should be no platform for that shit. It's not funny.
Click to expand...
Should calling the SS kidnappers be considered an act of the criminal defamation of the state in your opinion?

The way you use the words "entitled" and "vital importance"! Unfortunately we still live in an epoch in which SS officers consider themselves entitled to lie, to kidnap children, and to designate women as unfit to breed. Some of us are working to bring this dark period to an end. Yes we consider ourselves entitled to do so, and to call for the defunding of the SS (Nazi scum, not overworked selfless heroes), and to call for kidnappers and "unfit to breed" labellers to be handed long jail sentences.

Rapists should be allowed to raise children once they have paid their debt to society by serving hefty jail sentences. In this case, Mark Gordon was convicted of a rape (of an adult woman) that he committed when he was 14, for which he was handed a 40 year sentence, of which he served 20 years, being released ~14 years ago.

And women who want to bear children by rapists who have paid their debt to society and who are rehabilitated, and then to raise those children as a couple, should be allowed to do so as a fundamental human right.

We are not talking here about men who have committed or ever been suspected of committing sex crimes, or any other kind of crimes, against children.

Haven't you heard that view before? Or do you think because it's opposed to the SS view it deserves contempt, undermines public safety, shouldn't be allowed to be expressed, is tantamount to condoning rape and child abuse, and is a wicked example of the "entitled" showing of disrespect to hardworking SS heroes who really know what it's like at the coalface etc. and who have every right to demand that people either "engage" with them or lose their children?

A more general point is that anyone who is actually from a poor area or who has properly lived in one ("properly" meaning having actually got to know people rather than being up themselves all the time) knows that the social workers who one sometimes sees visiting know absolutely sweet FA about what life is really like there, but nonetheless they think they know it so well - complete with babies in washing machines, women who are right scrubbers and who have lots of men in rather than changing their babies' nappies, etc. - far better than their neighbours and peers do in the streets where they themselves live, which might as well be a million miles away. (And the fact that occasionally an SS officer might have been brought up in such an area before they got their degree in sociology or whatever and started being a state official without a personality, always complaining that when they go back for an hour or so they don't carry radios as the police do, does not undermine what I just said.)
 
Last edited:
krtek a houby said:
Hello Seventy-seven, Was77 and +78.

Why is this horrible case so important to you and why must urban bear testament to your hot takes on it?
Click to expand...
The best way for you to understand why I think this case raises such important issues may be for you to consider

  • times in other countries when there have been policies of widespread forced adoption and unfit to breed designation, and also
  • times when officials in certain parts of the state (or church, or state party) have acted practically as a law unto themselves as they have carried out appalling crimes including crimes against humanity
- and those two sets overlap.

If you don't want to consider Germany, look at the United States, Australia, or Ireland.
 
Last edited:
CharlotteF1 said:
The best way for you to understand why I think this case raises such important issues may be for you to consider

  • times in other countries when there have been policies of widespread forced adoption and unfit to breed designation, and also
  • times when officials in certain parts of the state have acted practically as a law unto themselves as they have carried out appalling crimes including crimes against humanity
- and those two sets overlap.

If you don't want to consider Germany, look at the United States, Australia, or Ireland.
Click to expand...
That's not what happened with those two, though.

Comparing the case to Nazism is plain wrong.
 
krtek a houby said:
That's not what happened with those two, though.

Comparing the case to Nazism is plain wrong.
Click to expand...
It is exactly what happened. They were subjected to forced adoption of 4 children, she was declared unfit to breed, and lying officials acted with impunity considering themselves to be so entitled because of their posts and haven't been brought to book yet.

Have you ever heard of a single case of an SS officer being done for lying in order to "justify" a forced adoption. Let me tell you - they lie all the time. They're evil. And these sickos really believe in themselves. They might as well wear armbands. It's the same mentality.

Consider when Magdalene laundries and Mother and Baby Homes were big in Ireland, and child sexual abuse by priests too, and the use of forced adoption was big in say Norway or Sweden or Australia. When these were happening on a large scale, of course nobody got done for them. The perpetrators acted with impunity. Mustn't criticise a nun. Mustn't criticise a priest. Mustn't criticise the SS.

And thousands of other people in Britain have been similarly treated. Many women have committed suicide. Some have fled with their babies from Britain to other countries, including to Ireland, France, and North Cyprus. This is no joke or trifling matter. I would respectfully entreat you to inform yourself about this.

I did say if you don't want to consider Germany then consider the United States, Australia, or Ireland. Not that those are the only countries. You could look at Sweden or Norway or wherever. Britain stands out like a huge sore thumb where forced adoptions in general are concerned, and also where capture at birth is concerned.

Let me ask you a question: do you think the capture of babies from their mothers at birth is any less a crime than the forced sterilisation of women to stop them getting pregnant? (The latter is now recognised as a crime under international humanitarian law.)
 
Last edited:
CharlotteF1 said:
It is exactly what happened. They were subjected to forced adoption of 4 children, she was declared unfit to breed, and lying officials acted with impunity considering themselves to be so entitled because of their posts and haven't been brought to book yet.

And thousands of other people in Britain have been similarly treated. Many women have committed suicide. Some have fled with their babies from Britain to other countries, including to Ireland, France, and North Cyprus. This is no joke or trifling matter. I would respectfully entreat you to inform yourself about this.

I did say if you don't want to consider Germany then consider the United States, Australia, or Ireland. Not that those are the only countries. You could look at Sweden or Norway or wherever. Britain stands out like a huge sore thumb where forced adoptions in general are concerned, and also where capture at birth is concerned.
Click to expand...
Forced adoptions are not eugenics, though, are they? The women are not being sterilised or murdered, nor are their children.
 
PTK said:
Forced adoptions are not eugenics, though, are they? The women are not being sterilised or murdered, nor are their children.
Click to expand...
I would call the designation of women as unfit to breed an act of eugenics, but let's not get bogged down in semantics.
We can agree that murder is one thing, forced sterilisation is another, and the capture of children at birth is a third thing.

How would you answer the question I ended that post with, namely "Do you think the capture of babies from their mothers at birth is any less a crime than the forced sterilisation of women to stop them getting pregnant?"?

I should add that some of us are paying attention to what SS types are saying about this case online, and about the capture of babies at birth generally, and their attitude is expressed as follows:

"Well we can't stop them from having sex, or from having babies, so what do you expect us to do?"
"She's using her fertility as a weapon".
"She thinks she's entitled to have babies whenever she wants".
"I bet they don't bother with contraception".
"That's her thing - pushing out babies in order to fight the system".
"I hope she stays in prison until she's past the menopause".
"She's putting her relationship with him first".
"I bet she saves all her tenderness for him".
Then they make jokes about her choice of footwear
...or the claw clip she uses to hold her hair up...
...or the way she has whispered quietly to her fellow defendant in court
...or the way she has blown him a kiss when they are both leaving the courtroom
...or unpleasant racist jokes about what they call "Irish twins".

The attitude is basically "We know THAT type of woman, and we won't let THAT type of woman get away with it".
They're not seeing her as a human being who wants to raise the children she's had with the partner she loves.

It almost beggars belief, that people who are saying such appalling things seem to think that their targets, their victims, are the ones who are going around thinking they're so entitled.

And they use words and phrases such as "narcissist" and "flat affect" - with all the forensic glee that craniometric terminology was once used by their counterparts in Germany - not realising that their own belief that Constance Marten tried to hide from them, and hide her pregnancy and her baby from them, only because she was trying to make some kind of wicked point "against the system" (which of course in their view a proper person would never do) is a blatant case of the institutional narcissism of tinpot humiliator special police thought.

Is there an SS officer in the country who'd think it was an outrage if a judge ordered Marten to be sterilised? Which, as I've said before, would be against international humanitarian law, and won't happen even if she gets convicted, not officially anyway - but would any SS officer mind if it did? SS officers don't know right from wrong. They don't think that way at all.

Another example of how they think... Constance Marten has revealed that two of her other children when they were in foster care were physically assaulted and spat at. And these SS types online are going

"Well she hasn't got any proof, because spitting doesn't leave any marks".

This is how they view their victims, both parent victims and child victims - as worthless sources where any kind of fact is concerned, obviously especially when it's a fact that puts the SS in a bad light.

They are also going

"Why should SS officers have to come to court in a case like this? Their records should be accepted as fact. Or do you want to bring the family court judge to the witness box too, to explain himself and be cross-examined?"

They want to disclaim responsibility for capturing children, even though it's their lies on the basis of which a child is captured, saying the decision is made by a judge who's completely separate from them. Then afterwards they want to put themselves on the same level as the judge, as someone whose authority must not ever be impugned. They are evil, evil.
 
Last edited:
Capturing babies from their mothers at birth, so that they can be forcibly adopted, is a crime of violence against both babies and women.
In that sense, it is akin to both child abuse and rape.
But in its severity, it is far worse than rape. It is more on a level with murder.
 
CharlotteF1 said:
Capturing babies from their mothers at birth, so that they can be forcibly adopted, is a crime of violence against both babies and women.
In that sense, it is akin to both child abuse and rape.
But in its severity, it is far worse than rape. It is more on a level with murder.
Click to expand...

Wow.

That's a hell of a reach and even more offensive than your last word salad. You've managed to diminish the trauma of rape victims. What a brave person you are.
 
CharlotteF1 said:
I would call the designation of women as unfit to breed an act of eugenics, but let's not get bogged down in semantics.
We can agree that murder is one thing, forced sterilisation is another, and the capture of children at birth is a third thing.

How would you answer the question I ended that post with, namely "Do you think the capture of babies from their mothers at birth is any less a crime than the forced sterilisation of women to stop them getting pregnant?"?

I should add that some of us are paying attention to what SS types are saying about this case online, and about the capture of babies at birth generally, and their attitude is expressed as follows:

"Well we can't stop them from having sex, or from having babies, so what do you expect us to do?"
"She's using her fertility as a weapon".
"She thinks she's entitled to have babies whenever she wants".
"I bet they don't bother with contraception".
"That's her thing - pushing out babies in order to fight the system".
"I hope she stays in prison until she's past the menopause".
"She's putting her relationship with him first".
"I bet she saves all her tenderness for him".
Then they make jokes about her choice of footwear
...or the claw clip she uses to hold her hair up...
...or the way she has whispered quietly to her fellow defendant in court
...or the way she has blown him a kiss when they are both leaving the courtroom
...or unpleasant racist jokes about what they call "Irish twins".

The attitude is basically "We know THAT type of woman, and we won't let THAT type of woman get away with it".
They're not seeing her as a human being who wants to raise the children she's had with the partner she loves.

It almost beggars belief, that people who are saying such appalling things seem to think that their targets, their victims, are the ones who are going around thinking they're so entitled.

And they use words and phrases such as "narcissist" and "flat affect" - with all the forensic glee that craniometric terminology was once used by their counterparts in Germany - not realising that their own belief that Constance Marten tried to hide from them, and hide her pregnancy and her baby from them, only because she was trying to make some kind of wicked point "against the system" (which of course in their view a proper person would never do) is a blatant case of the institutional narcissism of tinpot humiliator special police thought.

Is there an SS officer in the country who'd think it was an outrage if a judge ordered Marten to be sterilised? Which, as I've said before, would be against international humanitarian law, and won't happen even if she gets convicted, not officially anyway - but would any SS officer mind if it did? SS officers don't know right from wrong. They don't think that way at all.
Click to expand...

There's no SS sterilising people in your country. It's pure fantasy.
 
CharlotteF1 said:
Capturing babies from their mothers at birth, so that they can be forcibly adopted, is a crime of violence against both babies and women.
In that sense, it is akin to both child abuse and rape.
But in its severity, it is far worse than rape. It is more on a level with murder.
Click to expand...

But you're OK with known rapists and child molestors raising children?
 
CharlotteF1 said:
Capturing babies from their mothers at birth, so that they can be forcibly adopted, is a crime of violence against both babies and women.
In that sense, it is akin to both child abuse and rape.
But in its severity, it is far worse than rape. It is more on a level with murder.
Click to expand...
I'm also adopted. What I've learnt as I got older despite my denials is that it is incredibly complex. It can destroy lives and families yes, and my birth Mum was put into a really difficult position 30+ years ago where she probably stood very little chance of getting me back. These days she would likely get more time and support, however she was unfortunately not capable of looking after me at the time and was in an abusive relationship which very likely affected me as an adult. I'm still understanding this and can't access therapy due to cost barriers - something that it would be good to campaign about to be honest.

My half siblings have very mixed views on their relationship with her and they also grew up separately. Despite all of the above I can see that with the information that was available that it was correct for me to be adopted. I've learnt that I don't need to be "greatful" now as that narrative is unhelpful for me and many adoptees. I do though love my family (who adopted me) and do feel like theirs even though at times I've been acutely aware of the differences. Fortunately for me I do think that it probably was better for my life - it's been hectic as it is without growing up in that environment.

I also work with children's services a lot now and grew up with them involved through my family who also fostered, and I agree a lot of the time decisions are made that appear to be arbitrary.. There should be more funding in place to keep families together where appropriate and to end poverty which is one of the leading causes of adoption. There should be more of a voice for adoptees and their birth families, and I have heard some truly awful experiences of people who were adopted and also abused.

How could my birth Mum go to my adopted family who had a house and jobs and show that she could look after me? It must have been so hard.

I'm not even sure where I've gone with this post to be honest, but your black and white interpretation of adoption does not resonate with me and I don't think it helps adoptees or birth families. I don't know the details of this case inside out, but it's strange one to hang your hat on.

Who are the groups involved in organising around this?
 
Last edited:
CharlotteF1 said:
Capturing babies from their mothers at birth, so that they can be forcibly adopted, is a crime of violence against both babies and women.
In that sense, it is akin to both child abuse and rape.
But in its severity, it is far worse than rape. It is more on a level with murder.
Click to expand...
Bullshit.

Ultimately, if it comes down to the wellbeing of the child versus the hurt feelings of the mother, the child's interests must be paramount. As we see in this case, the mother was clearly not able to look after the welfare of her child, which rather vindicates the decisions to remove her previous children from her care.

If SHE cared about the welfare of her child, she would have looked after it better, and if she couldn't do that, she would have sought help FOR THE CHILD. She did not do this. She didn't care about the welfare of her child - to the extent that the child ended up dead - and you clearly don't, either. This is all about nothing more than using this case to pursue whatever weird agenda it is that you are peddling.
 
shakespearegirl said:
As a child who was removed from the care of a neglectfull parent (albeit by extended family rather than SS) I absolutely agree that a child’s interest comes first.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this too just to be clear. I got kind of caught up in my own thoughts so might not have made this clear enough.

I just realised the op wasn't actually adopted either reading back through there posts.

This probably isn't the best thread to discuss complexity around adoption and the care system to be fair.
 
BristolEcho said:
Totally agree with this too just to be clear. I got kind of caught up in my own thoughts so might not have made this clear enough.

I just realised the op wasn't actually adopted either reading back through there posts.

This probably isn't the best thread to discuss complexity around adoption and the care system to be fair.
Click to expand...
i get the feeling that the op shouldn't be reading all these very personal replies here.
 
When the SS have decided to capture a child, usually they don't tell the parents because they're scared the parents might run, but at every meeting they will be taking notes and gathering lies in order to "justify" their case. And once an SS officer has written down a lie, it becomes the "truth" as far as other SS officers are concerned.

The same holds for "contact meetings", which are sometimes allowed after they have captured a child for "fostering" but haven't yet got to the stage of "adoption". For example

  • if a mother tells her child she loves them, this is recorded as putting the child at risk of emotional harm (consider here the notion of "eminent domain")
  • if a mother asks her child how she has been being treated in foster "care", this is recorded as the same
  • any attitude critical of the system is recorded as dangerous, a refusal to "engage with services", etc.
  • if the child is so pleased to see their parents again, and thinks they are going home with their parents (some of these children are very young), and then freaks out when the time comes for them to part with their parents again, the freaking out is always recorded as the parents' fault.

This is the kind of oppression that tens of thousands of people live under in Britain.

Also

* in some poor areas, as many as one in four children are recorded as being "at risk" from their parents

You have to put this together with traditional right-wing prejudice in Britain against "single mothers", and especially "single mothers on council estates", and soon you will realise that the right wing has a damned big problem with proletarian fertility. It is institutionally eugenicist. This is not always racist, but often it is. You can compare and contrast it with policies in other countries against Travellers, the offspring of foreign soldiers, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Maggot
Peaceful protester recalled to jail due to lack of suitable tags
Replies
4
Views
164
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
ska invita
  • Poll
Do you support the UK increase in the military budget?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
211
Views
7K
weltweit
weltweit
likesfish
Mark Duggans Son pleads guilty to gun crime
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
Spymaster
Spymaster
nogojones
Mark Drakeford standing down
Replies
28
Views
1K
weltweit
weltweit
Dog_Voodoo
Tory Mark Menzies, who are these bad people?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Wilf
Wilf
Back
Top Bottom