Kafka couldn’t do better:

Posted on December 2, 2013 by KG

‘An Italian woman is fighting for custody of her 15-month-old daughter, who she alleges British social services removed from her womb after over a month of involuntary commitment at a psychiatric hospital.
According to a report by the Telegraph, the woman, who remains unnamed to the public as her case unfolds, traveled while pregnant to Essex in 2012 for an airline’s training course. Once there, an escalated episode of travel anxiety turned into an unending bureaucratic nightmare and violation of her reproductive rights.
When the woman could not find passports for her daughters who were still in Italy with her mother, she called the police. They arrived while she was on the phone with her mother, with whom they asked to speak. Her mother told them she suffered from bi-polar disorder and probably did not take her medication. The police said they were going to take her to the hospital to check on the baby but reportedly took her instead to a psychiatric hospital.
According to her lawyers, she told the hospital staff she wanted to return to her hotel, but they restrained and committed her. In August 2012—more than a month into her forced stay—doctors delivered her baby, and she says the procedure was performed against her will…’
It’s time to lynch a few of these bureaucrat bastards.
UPDATE
‘Explain why you snatched baby girl 
at birth, top family judge orders 
social workers 
who insisted mother have caesarean’

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Kafka couldn’t do better:

  1. Oswald bastable says:
    December 2, 2013 at 16:47

    And yet hordes of sub-human females, with a proven track record of inability to care for a pet rock, are permitted custody of their spawn AND are paid by the taxpayer to continue failing…

  2. KG says:
    December 2, 2013 at 17:26

    Yep. Our “enlightened modern societies” are a mystery, Oswald.

  3. mawm says:
    December 2, 2013 at 18:06

    I hope that no doctor these days would be stupid enough to do a caesarean section on a woman against her will without a court order. If the woman had some medical reason to, or her child had a condition necessitating surgical delivery and she repeatedly, against advice about her or her child’s safety, refused a section I can understand that her doctors would seek a court order.

    Don’t underestimate the level of stupidity some people can descend to, not ever……nor that of the social services or the courts. :roll:

  4. KG says:
    December 2, 2013 at 18:17

    But a court order obtained by the Gestapo social workers is a somewhat different thing, Mawm.
    That council’s employees have a history of very dodgy forced adoptions in order to meet “targets”. (this is the council, remember, that took babies under some very flimsy pretexts in order to adopt them out to homosexual “couples”).
    The courts have consistently supported these bastards, and I’d hope that a doctor’s ethical sense would cause him to refuse to carry out the procedure in such a case, court-ordered or not.

    • Ronbo says:
      December 2, 2013 at 23:23

      ….and people wonder why I pray for a world wide series of revolutions that highlights Leftist politicians and bureaucrats as “Target Number One” to be terminated with extreme prejudice :?: :evil:

      In the words of John Wesley Harden, “Some people just naturally need killing :!: “

  5. Flashman says:
    December 3, 2013 at 03:10

    The legislation under which this criminal assault took place was introduced by blair’s labour party in 2007.
    1. The judicial ruling is conducted in secret with no public access.
    2. There is no right of appeal.
    3. The “client” is not independently represented.
    4. Local body council (water, sewage and pavements) bureaucrats advocate against the “client”.
    5. It’s a faceless apparatchik’s OMG! skull-popping, white-flashing-spots-in-the-eyes masturbatory wet dream.

    Komrades, it’s hard to tell the difference between pommieland and red china these days.

  7. Mathew says:
    December 3, 2013 at 07:01

    I’m surprised they didn’t want to abort the baby.

    As for her reproductive rights, that only applies when she wants to abort her unborn. That’s apparently more empowering or something.

  8. KG says:
    December 3, 2013 at 07:42

    It reminds of nothing so much as Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon”.