Permitting a frenzy of manufacturing risk is unreasonable, unnecessary, not to mention disproportional and dysfunctional because wag the dog leads to the emperor’s new clothes which is another insult to the taxpayer in increasingly straitened times.
The disproportional weirdness of forcible family separation in UK public family law has hinged on the growth of essentially JUNK science also known anachronistically as ‘expert psychiatric reports’ over at least the past decade which in fact are anything but and fail to withstand any objective scrutiny especially in the cold light of day in the real world and community where the families concerned live and ultimately, die.
The dodgy practice of inferring hype from a parallel universe in order to infect care proceedings to simply prevent the return of removed children back home should be abolished forthwith by statute because it is fundamentally incompatible with any reading of the less-interventionist principle underpinning the Children Act itself.
The GP is and should remain the first port of call for any and all health issues for families including mental health who can properly advise on apt holistic treatment instead of a deliberately fragmentary approach deployed by self-serving practitioners in order to perpetuate a child protection racket.
This has created the appearance as well as existence of collusion which serves to corrupt justice under normal rules of admissibility of evidence. It corrupts the course of justice as well. Prolonging the misery of traumatised children and their parents under false pretences is WRONG. This sacred cow has got so fat it’s now practically begging to be slaughtered.
An age-old philosophical question, and one that every generation finds for itself – I myself remember playground arguments when I was about seven – “If God made everything, then who made God? And who made the person who made God?” [But then I also remember being taken to the Deputy Head’s Office for a fist-fight about whether the Beatles were better than Elvis]
I shall pass that question over to Brian Cox, who can answer it more ably than I can and also with a boyish charm that I would lack. (I think my favourite scientific answer is from Alan Guth “The universe is simply one of those things that happen from time to time”
But for our legal purposes, the ‘something instead of nothing’ debate is focussing on adoption, and the soundbite formulation that it appears that the Court of Appeal may be deeply regretting that a Court can’t…
View original post 2,540 more words