Author: mexico86

Mother ‘not clever enough to raise child’ has baby snatched by social workers after running away to Ireland to give birth
A couple who fled to Ireland after social workers threatened to remove their baby at birth have had the newborn snatched after all.
Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, and Mark McDougall, 25, went on the run after British social services said she was not clever enough to raise a child.
But just four days after Ben was born, Irish social workers marched into the maternity ward and forced them to hand him over.
They were told they were acting at the behest of their British counterparts.
The couple, from Fife, Scotland, have been on the run for three months.
In September, their wedding was halted just 48 hours before the service when social workers claimed Miss Robertson was not bright enough to understand the marriage declaration.
Then in November they were told that her ‘disability’ meant their baby would be taken away at birth.
With Miss Robertson 29 weeks pregnant, they fled their house in the middle of the night and travelled to Ireland.
Ben was born healthy and weighing 7lb 3oz last Friday.
Last night Miss Robertson said: ‘When the Irish social workers said I had to give the baby to them, I felt sick.
‘I didn’t want to hand him over and I started crying because I couldn’t believe what they were saying. I thought I had misunderstood.
‘I had just been breastfeeding him.
Just before they took him away, I told Ben I loved him and gave him a kiss.’
Mr McDougall added: ‘Kerry let out a dreadful cry when she realised what was happening – it was terrible. She is just in pieces.
‘We believed that the Irish had more traditional values than social workers in the UK. We found a two-bedroom cottage in a beautiful village in Waterford overlooking the sea.

A cat which became famous for catching the same bus every day for four years has been run over and killed – while crossing the road to catch its daily lift.
Crafty Casper died in a hit and run accident as he tried to board the No3 service.
He hopped on the bus around 10am every morning and sat on the back seat throughout its entire 11 mile route.
The freeloading Feline would travel around his home city of Plymouth, Devon, for up to an hour before arriving back at the same stop.
But after an estimated 20,000 miles on the bus Casper was killed crossing the road to catch his daily ride.

Devastated owner Susan Finden, 65, said whoever ran over her cat failed to stop and help him.
She said: ‘Many people knew Casper, who loved everyone.
‘He enjoyed the bus journeys. Sadly a motorist hit him and did not stop.

‘Casper died from his injuries. He will be greatly missed – he was a much loved pet who had so much character.
‘Thank you to all those who befriended him.’
During his regular trips the 12-year-old cat passed an historic dockyard and naval base, a city centre, several suburbs and a red light district.
He took his daily rides for so long that all First Bus drivers were told to look out for him to ensure he got off at the right stop.
Grandmother-of-three Susan added: ‘I called him Casper because he had a habit of vanishing like a ghost.
‘But then some of the drivers told me he had been catching the bus.
‘I couldn’t believe it at first, but it explained a lot. He loved people and we have a bus stop right outside our house so that must be how he got started.’

Care worker Susan got Casper from a rescue centre in 2002 and drivers say he started riding the bus in 2005.
She has now put up a sign at the bus stop breaking the bad news to other commuters who regularly shared a ride with her pet.
Mrs Finden said that despite his regular bus rides Casper had ‘no road sense whatsoever’.
She said: ‘Casper was quite quick for his age but I was trying to stop him from riding the bus so much.
‘He had no road sense whatsoever but he loved people.
‘He’d queue up in line good as gold – it’d be ‘person, person, person, cat, person, person’.’
A spokesman for First Bus added: ‘He’d just curl up at the back of the bus. He never caused any trouble.’
Susan believes Casper may have begun life at a haulage yard as he was so fond of large vehicles.

A businessman is suing British Airways over a policy that bans male passengers from sitting next to children they don’t know – even if the child’s parents are on the same flight.
Mirko Fischer has accused the airline of branding all men as potential sex offenders and says innocent travellers are being publicly humiliated.
In line with the policy, BA cabin crew patrol the aisles before take-off checking that youngsters travelling on their own or in a different row from their parents are not next to a male stranger.
If they find a man next to a child or teenager they will ask him to move to a different seat. The aircraft will not take off unless the passenger obeys.
Mr Fischer, a 33-year-old hedge fund manager, became aware of the policy while he was flying from Gatwick with his wife Stephanie, 30.
His wife, who was six months pregnant, had booked a window seat which she thought would be more spacious. Mr Fischer was in the middle seat between her and a 12-year-old boy.
Shortly after all passengers had sat down, having stowed their bags in the overhead lockers, a male steward asked Mr Fischer to change his seat.
Mr Fischer refused, explaining that his wife was pregnant, at which point the steward raised his voice, causing several passengers to turn round in alarm. He warned that the aircraft could not take off unless Mr Fischer obeyed.
Mr Fischer eventually moved seats but felt so humiliated by his treatment that he is taking the airline to court on the grounds of sex discrimination-He is paying all his own legal
If he wins at the hearing next month at Slough County Court, BA will have to change its policy.
He has promised to donate any compensation to the NSPCC.
Mr Fischer, who lives in Luxembourg with his wife and their daughter Sophia, said: ‘This policy is branding all men as perverts for no reason. The policy and the treatment of male passengers is absolutely outrageous.
‘A plane is a public place – cabin crew regularly walk down the aisles and passengers are sat so close to each other. The risk of any abuse is virtually zero.
‘Furthermore statistically children are far more likely to be abused by a member of their family. Does that mean that BA are going to ban children sitting next to their own parents?’
‘I was made to feel like a criminal in front of other passengers. It was totally humiliating. Neither myself or my wife dared to speak to the boy in case the cabin crew forced us from our seats. The poor child must have thought we were extremely rude and unfriendly.’
Claude Knights, of the children’s charity Kidscape said: ‘The airline should have procedures in place to avoid this sort of situation.
‘If the airline is that concerned they should sit unaccompanied children with cabin crew who have no doubt been thoroughly vetted.’
A BA spokesman said: ‘As this is case is subject to court proceedings, it would be inappropriate for us to comment at this time.’

For centuries Great Britain has served as a safe haven for refugees from political persecution. The reason Britain has been so attractive is its long tradition of political tolerance. This is history Britain ought to be proud of, even if it has been abused by people such as Karl Marx.

What made Britain unique was that the British public was tolerant of larger issues such as politics and religion while remaining decidedly intolerant of petty issues. The curtain-twitching disapproval of "alternative lifestyles" remained strong in Britain until the 60s generation rebelled against such moral sternness. While Britain in the 50s was a repressive society in many ways that many could not accept, just because Britain has a proud tradition of tolerance, it does not mean that intolerance does not have its own advantages.

To see what a society looks like when tolerance goes wild, observers only have to look at southern Europe or much of the third world. China shows what a socially tolerant society looks like. While China is not tolerant of political differences, the people are generally tolerant of behaviours that would not be acceptable in Britain. In China, smoking, talking loudly, using mobile phones in theatres or restaurants is perfectly normal behaviour. This is extended to a nearly complete indifference to public spaces and to other people that comes as a surprise to any newly arrived visitor to the People’s Republic. Driving in China is usually a shock even to those used to third world traffic as other drivers simply ignore anything not a direct danger to themselves.

As an example of the problems of excessive tolerance just compare the status of larger social issues such as crypto-science. While anyone in Britain who makes dubious claims for medical treatments can expect both the wrath of the authorities and public disapproval, in most of the rest of the world tolerance is extended to those claiming they can cure cancer or HIV with herbs.

In fact in China belief in the benefits of Chinese herbal medicines is extremely common, despite a noticeably lack of evidence to support such views. This extends up and down the social scale with the most educated Chinese often also being the most credulous towards such claims. Qian Xuesen, the American-educated founder of China’s rocket programme, for instance, was also a strong supporter of various Qigong groups, including Falun Gong before it was banned.

This tolerant attitude may well have played a part in China’s lack of an industrial revolution. For while British tolerance has not allowed the persecution of heretics in recent times, that has not been extended to their ideas. British scientists have inherited the Christian tradition of intolerance and that has driven technological progress.

This intolerant attitude is frequently displayed by writers such as Richard Dawkins, who shares the similar zeal for error as the Inquisition, while being unable to use their methods. In a more tolerant society people would wonder why he bothered. Albert Einstein may have wasted half his life trying to disprove quantum theory but science would never progress if errors were not exposed. Without the zeal to hunt out error, there is no need for people to hold a coherent and consistent world view. Without criticism from others there is no need to examine deeply held views to see if they are valid. It may well have been the tolerance of traditional China that meant the scientific revolution never took place and hence China did not industrialise.

As the British have become more tolerant of petty transgressions it is no surprise that such behaviours have increased. Litter is much more common than it was 50 years ago, as is antisocial behaviour in general. However, this increasing tolerance extends from the housing estates to the Houses of Parliament. Behaviour that would have led to resignation half a century ago is now viewed with benign tolerance. Civil servants are not dismissed no matter how badly they manage public projects; politicians no longer resign no matter how badly they have behaved.

None of this is inevitable. Litter is not unavoidable and should not be tolerated. The waste of billions of pounds in badly designed IT projects is not a fact of nature but a blot on society we choose to accept rather than challenge. We can find our inner Inquisitor and we should express disapproval of behaviour that we do not need to tolerate. Britain can be the tidy, clean and safe place it was 50 years ago if only we, as a society, have the will to embrace intolerance for antisocial behaviour.

So this holiday everyone should express a little mild disapproval when someone cuts you off on the road, or towards a youth who puts his feet on the railway seats or towards a tourist talking loudly in an art gallery. Should that intolerance be extended to people who try to sell you miracle cures or homeopathy or crack brained schemes to save the world, the frontiers of science may well be extended as well. Who knows, but if that intolerance is applied to politicians who take advantage of the system or who are just incompetent, British democracy may well benefit as well.