Friday, February 20, 2015
GETTYAnn Widdecombe says it is cruelty to children to take them away from parents without good reason
A judge has cleared the parents of neglect, saying they were excellent parents and pointing out the inconsistencies in the neighbour’s own evidence.
First, why should it take two years for the matter to be decided by a court?
Second, why, given that there was no evidence whatever of any parental wrongdoing other than the boy having been left alone while they went to Spain, not for a holiday but to sort out some urgent affairs, did social services not only remove the child but insist that he could see mum only seven times in 11 months and always under supervised contact.
Is that not in itself cruelty to a child?
The parents thought the neighbour was looking after the child but instead the boy told his teachers he had spent two nights alone and did not know who was supposed to be looking after him.
It should instead be changed to allow social services to be prosecuted for cruelty to children when they take a child away without compelling cause
That suggests muddle and too hurried a departure but if they thought he was in the charge of a responsible adult it does not suggest wilful neglect.
If he had never been left alone before, if there were no other grounds for believing them negligent parents and if there was any possibility that it was the neighbour not they who showed negligence then why on earth did not social services reach the same conclusion as the judge and react more proportionately?
MPs are asking for the law to be changed to clarify when a child can be left alone.
It should instead be changed to allow social services to be prosecuted for cruelty to children when they take a child away without compelling cause and to specify a maximum length of time before the case is heard before a court.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK PRITCHARD MP is the latest in a long line of innocent men falsely accused of rape.
Indeed the sheer speed with which the police threw out the allegation shows how strong the evidence was against the complaint.
So why do the police always proceed to an arrest as soon as a woman makes an allegation?
Why not ask a few questions first?
Then if there is real evidence, for example of texts or CCTV, that the allegation is a tissue of lies no arrest would be necessary.
The woman in this case should be prosecuted.
That way we will know her name and should she try it on with any other unfortunate male in the future, her record will be taken into account.
Similarly we should know who accused the former president of the Oxford Union and certainly those who have brought misery to innocent celebrities who have suffered huge consequences to reputation and earnings.
Those who believe that the man should be named in order to encourage other women to come forward ignore the obvious - it works the other way too.
If the woman is named men might come forward to say she had made false allegations against them.
So let it be either anonymity for both or for neither and meanwhile let the police and CPS be as fierce with false accusers as they are with the innocent victims of their spite or greed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHATEVER happened to the concept of individual sizing?
I remember the days when a woman would ask for a specific hat or glove size but now it is a case of one size fits all.
One might argue that the market is no longer big enough in hats and gloves to differentiate individual sizes but that can hardly apply to socks.
Recently I asked a friend who shops a lot in Marks & Spencer to look out for some black knee socks in a size three.
I thought it would be easy.
Then my friend rang up to ask whether I wanted size 12 to three or size three to eight?
Neither, I groaned.
I want a three.
So I went on the net where I found endless adverts for packs of socks similarly assembled in a range of sizes rather than single ones.
I have no doubt that I shall track down what I want but it now requires effort when once it would have been straightforward.
And they call it progress.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRATULATIONS to Chrissie Rucker who created The White Company after finding it difficult to obtain quality goods in plain white.
Latest sales are estimated at £144million.
We all have difficulty finding specific products occasionally, as indeed I say on the right, but most of us simply put up with it.
The Chrissie Ruckers of this world take action.
That is why they are multimillionaires and we are not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READERS may remember that last November I wrote about the case of Bryan Barkley, the Red Cross volunteer who was sacked by the charity after appearing outside Wakefield Cathedral with a placard opposing the redefinition of marriage.
The Red Cross, in a letter to those who protested, claimed that "his views on same-sex marriage were not the reason his volunteering opportunity was withdrawn".
So why then did the Red Cross say, when dismissing Mr Barkley, "the purpose of the meeting was to consider the compatibility of your publicly held position on the issue of same-sex marriage (following on from your protest in Wakefield City Centre that generated mainstream and social media profile) with the fundamental principles of the International Red Cross..."?
In a letter to one reader, which I have only just seen, the Red Cross claims that it approached me to "correct inaccuracies" in my column but that I declined.
Tosh.
A spokeswoman did indeed ring up to state that the dismissal had nothing to do with Mr Barkley's views but offered not an ounce of evidence on the grounds of "employee confidentiality".
Indeed at several points in the conversation I said: "But you have just as good as admitted it was about gay marriage."
I was not asked to write a retraction.
I assume that, like all good PR departments, they recorded the conversation so let them produce a legally verified verbatim transcript to show any proof of "inaccuracies" or any request to "correct" them.
No? I thought not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I THOUGHT the police were too overwhelmed with work to waste time on trivial cases?
Apparently not.
Suzanne Gilmore found a kitten under a bush which she thought a stray, took it home and cared for it for a month before finding its upkeep too much and selling it.
The new owner found out it had been advertised as lost and it was reunited with the original owner.
Incredibly Ms Gilmore was taken to court for stealing the animal.
Well now, that's an incentive to take pity on a stray cat isn't it?
The magistrates gave her a conditional discharge and said it was to her credit that she had cared for the cat.
Perhaps instead she should have dumped it at the nearest animal shelter.
A lot of humans are adopted by strays.
I hope they won't be put off by this story of officiousness and misunderstanding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kara Scott
2nd World Rank
Final Table WSOP
World Series Of Poker
0 comments:
Post a Comment