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

[existentialist]

You're so angry you can no longer separate fact from fiction.

TBF, there's not a lot of fact in their posts

 

[CharlotteF1]

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.

I agree that the child's interest should come first too. A parent who wants to raise their child is not asserting a personal "interest".

 

[editor]

I agree that the child's interest should come first too. A parent who wants to raise their child is not asserting a personal "interest".

You're not even capable of comprehending what's just been said to you.

 

[Silas Loom]

TBF, there's not a lot of fact in their posts

The reference to eminent domain suggests to me that although their focus is UK child protection, they’ve been radicalised by US-centric online libertarian nonsense as well. It’s called compulsory purchase here, and it’s bugger all to do with social services.

 

[CharlotteF1]

You're so angry you can no longer separate fact from fiction.

You probably still don't realise the extent and gravity of what's happening. I have not said anything fictional.

The capture of a baby from a mother is without question an act of violence against a woman. That is true regardless of who does it or what they say their reasons are.

I believe it was the judge James Munby (you would have to check this), former president of the Family Division, who said that ordering a forced adoption was in effect the heaviest sentence a judge may impose, given that the death penalty has been abolished. It is the destruction of a bond between parents and a child.

Many never recover. It is often worse than being raped.

Maybe ask someone - would she prefer

• A) to be raped once and to keep her children, or
• B) not to be raped and to lose her children forever.

How do you think almost all mothers in the world would answer that question?

 

[CharlotteF1]

You're not even capable of comprehending what's just been said to you.

Dig the use of "capable", "comprehend", and the passive voice.
What do you think I have not understood? Tell me in 1-2 sentences without any insults:
"CharlotteF1 has failed to understand that..."

 

[editor]

You probably still don't realise the extent and gravity of what's happening. I have not said anything fictional.

The capture of a baby from a mother is without question an act of violence against a woman. That is true regardless of who does it or what they say their reasons are.

I believe it was the judge James Munby (you would have to check this), former president of the Family Division, who said that ordering a forced adoption was in effect the heaviest sentence a judge may impose, given that the death penalty has been abolished. It is the destruction of a bond between parents and a child.

Many never recover. It is often worse than being raped.

Maybe ask someone - would she prefer

• A) to be raped once and to keep her children, or
• B) not to be raped and to lose her children forever.

How do you think almost all mothers in the world would answer that question?

This is called a false equivalency.

A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

 

[CharlotteF1]

CharlotteF1, you should consider seeking
help before you get yourself and others into serious trouble.

We have a community of mutual aid. Don't worry about us.

 

[CharlotteF1]

This is called a false equivalency.

Rubbish. "Would you prefer to eat an apple or an orange?" is a perfectly reasonable question and involves no false equivalence.

 

[editor]

Dig the use of "capable", "comprehend", and the passive voice.
What do you think I have not understood? Tell me in 1-2 sentences without any insults:
"CharlotteF1 has failed to understand that..."

By saying "A parent who wants to raise their child is not asserting a personal "interest"" you failed spectacularly to understand what the poster was actually saying. This seems to be a central theme of your time here, wildly overreacting to something that hasn't been said or that hasn't actually happened.

Take a step back and ask yourself why you're getting absolutely zero support on here from men, women and parents. Is it because they're all rabid supporters of the (sigh) Nazi SS social services or is it because of your endless hyperbolic misrepresentations?

 

[A380]

Whilst I’m not sure this thread is helping this poster in their current iteration it’s probably not making it much worse for them as, given the length of their posts it’s likely they are cut n pasting them elsewhere. As they haven’t started crayoning on other threads yet could they be left on here please. I appreciate their posts may trigger some others, but those others could ignore this thread. It seems likely there are a small number of people* who share the OP’s view.it could be useful ( and interesting) to see what their reactions to the verdict are is. ( Although I think I can guess…)

(Or does this make me an Uber patronising white bloke doing the equivalent of slowing down to look at an RTC on the other carriageway?)

* ETA ‘community of mutual aid’

 

[ginger_syn]

Rubbish. "Would you prefer to eat an apple or an orange?" is a perfectly reasonable question and involves no false equivalence.

Theres not a face palm emoji big enough for this comment.

 

[shakespearegirl]

I agree that the child's interest should come first too. A parent who wants to raise their child is not asserting a personal "interest".

What do you mean by this? Genuinely can’t understand your point

 

[kebabking]

Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I've read this with a mixture of bewilderment and annoyance.

I honestly feel that the OP is unwell. The views expressed, if honestly held, are genuinely delusional.

 

[Silas Loom]

I've read this with a mixture of bewilderment and annoyance.

I honestly feel that the OP is unwell. The views expressed, if honestly held, are genuinely delusional.

People who spend a lot of time in an echo chamber aren’t very good at proselytising, that’s all. They don’t acquire a sense for which arguments will be helpful.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.

Don't feed the troll.

I honestly don't know if they are a troll but I'm definitely of the view that there's no benefit in tolerating conspiraloons.

 

[editor]

There's some good background information about the case here:

She said they had moved to Wales to get away from her family.

It emerged that the couple had been living in a tent in a wooded area and had only bought some clothes and nappies in preparation for the arrival of their first child.
Ms Marten accompanied a social worker to the tent, which was described as a "festival" style tent not suitable for cold weather. It was bowed under rainwater and smelled stale. There were a number of black bin bags containing clothing.

The social worker later said: "I explained to her it was winter and the crowded space was wholly inappropriate for living."

The social worker also said Ms Marten told them she and Mr Gordon had an alternative lifestyle and asked them not to judge her.
The baby born in Wales in winter 2017, referred to in court as FF, was initially made the subject of an interim care order and Ms Marten lived with the baby in temporary mother and baby accommodation.

Once they had been separated from their children they continued to have "contact sessions" at which their interaction with the children was described as "excellent".
But their attendance at the contact sessions was inconsistent. The children were distressed by this. One child became quiet, withdrawn and inconsolable, saying on one occasion: "Mummy and daddy cancelled again."
After assessing the evidence a Family Court judge ordered that the four children should be adopted and care placement orders were made for all four children.

Constance Marten and Mark Gordon trial: Four children taken into care

A jury hears Constance Marten claimed she had not been to school - but was in fact from a wealthy family.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[likesfish]

tbf some people may love their child ,want the best for them, and believe they are best placed to know what is best for them. Unfortunately there may well be evidence that they have all the ability to look after a child as I have of landing a jumbo jet safely.

Doesnt make them evil it's just a fact like I can't speak Norwegian knew a woman who'd had 3 children taken away at birth and her forth was going the same way MH issues and poly substsance misuse given her history of being abused the drug use was understandable as was the rest of her issues but she was never going to be able to raise a child she'd be better off being sterilized but that opens a really dark door.

 

[existentialist]

I agree that the child's interest should come first too. A parent who wants to raise their child is not asserting a personal "interest".

But a parent who is failing their child is prioritising their interests over the child's. Particularly when they go to strenuous lengths to stop others stepping in to fill in the gaps.

And someone who goes around, as you do, characterising the agencies who are trying to act in the child's best interest in the light of the parents' failure to do so as some kind of Nazis, is equally culpable.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Pickman's model]

Rubbish. "Would you prefer to eat an apple or an orange?" is a perfectly reasonable question and involves no false equivalence.

Yes. I would like some fruit salad.

 

[xenon]

I agree that the child's interest should come first too. A parent who wants to raise their child is not asserting a personal "interest".

What about the dead baby in a carrier bag? That Charles best interest? Oh and the other three that have been taken into care.

 

[ID47]

What about the dead baby in a carrier bag? That Charles best interest? Oh and the other three that have been taken into care.

Dead baby in a carrier bag filled with rubbish and discarded drinks cans. That alone is enough for me. Either mad or bad or or both.

 

[klang]

couldn't really blame the courts for not paying too much attention to the protesters outside.

 

[Looby]

We have a thread to talk about the case, we don’t need another. Especially one with the OP calling social workers the SS and referring to nazi Germany and capturing children. Can we not just bin this and the OP please?

 

[Thora]

You probably still don't realise the extent and gravity of what's happening. I have not said anything fictional.

The capture of a baby from a mother is without question an act of violence against a woman. That is true regardless of who does it or what they say their reasons are.

I believe it was the judge James Munby (you would have to check this), former president of the Family Division, who said that ordering a forced adoption was in effect the heaviest sentence a judge may impose, given that the death penalty has been abolished. It is the destruction of a bond between parents and a child.

Many never recover. It is often worse than being raped.

Maybe ask someone - would she prefer

• A) to be raped once and to keep her children, or
• B) not to be raped and to lose her children forever.

How do you think almost all mothers in the world would answer that question?

Most mothers would choose to dump their boyfriend and rent a flat if it meant keeping their children though?
Rather than keep the man, live in a tent and let the child die.

 

[PTK]

Most mothers would choose to dump their boyfriend and rent a flat if it meant keeping their children though?
Rather than keep the man, live in a tent and let the child die.

That is a good point.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Maybe ask someone - would she prefer

• A) to be raped once and to keep her children, or
• B) not to be raped and to lose her children forever.

OK that's enough now, surely to fucking god.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Maybe ask someone - would she prefer

• A) to be raped once and to keep her children, or
• B) not to be raped and to lose her children forever.

Your dinner parties must be intense.

 

[CharlotteF1]

Most mothers would choose to dump their boyfriend and rent a flat if it meant keeping their children though?
Rather than keep the man, live in a tent and let the child die.

Yes.
Those weren't the options here though. The death was an accident and could have happened in a hotel room or flat or anywhere.
I hope you're not seeing things from the POV of state thugs who threaten a woman "Stop seeing your man or we'll capture your children".