Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


i think it is great that the judge used 'plain language' (Thomas Bingham's lecture on the Rule of Law discussed this rather basic right). It's a bit like the Nazis gently explaining to the Jews before they were to be gassed, 'you know this is the best for all of us, I hope you understand.' If you don't understand, you're free to ask your assigned gestapo line manager.' I think what would have been better is for the family, including the parent with a learning difficulty to get help from social services, to keep the child. Therefore there is an alternative and adoption is not the only way. 'The 'emperor is not wearing any clothes' comes to mind (ie cognitive dissonnance, ie you're telling a different truth to the one i already know). If the parent didn't have the disabilities, generally speaking, would the court have taken the baby from them (disabled parents), probably as it would just be a different excuse aside from the the oscar winning acting performance by best judge (Hart cited here). If the parents disabilties were so complex that looking after the child was not possible this would be fair. In reality this is just not the case; the state at local level (judges, social workers, family experts, ie psychologists) are just enjoying the 'perks' of the 'jobs for the boys.' The reality is that baby was getting adopted and the court is just the forum for the formalities. 'Shame! Shame Shame!'

Your details